Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gardens &amp; Goblins" data-source="post: 7351848" data-attributes="member: 6846794">..words man. It's all wordsSure we could. I get the feeling he'd die a little inside and wonder why folks were so keen to stick to the letter of the rule rather than work with common sense.<a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings" target="_blank">https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings</a>Reading his blurb here we can perhaps gain some insight into his thinking - thinking which for me at least, is hardly alien or strange.So perhaps if folks broke it down into their own RAW/RAI/RAF points of view, we might have a better understanding where folks are coming from.Personally:RAW -  Dragon breath isn't called an attack. Invisibility calls out attacks and spells as the things that break it. Also, I'm the DM, and part of that role includes mediating between rules and players, recognizing that the rules don't account for every possible situation and understanding that mediating the rules sometimes means setting limits (to paraphrase the DMG). I recognize that the rules are not perfect and require the DM to play their part as 'Master of Rules' and are specifically called out to play this role in order to support the functioning of the game system.RAI - Trying to hurt someone/something while Invisible breaks the spell. That, to my mind, seems like the intent. It also follows that this is why Greater Invisibility is ...greater, because with it you can hurt someone/something while invisible. Dragons typically use their breath weapons to hurt someone/something and is something hostile & potentially hurty, which in keeping with my understanding of the intent of the rules, should the break Invisibility spell. RAF - Are invisible dragons breathing blasting bolts of lightning at characters fun? Sure. For a given value of fun, as determined by each table. In other words, its subjective and up for the table to decide in their own way.So, with regards to my table -- they might think the idea of an Invisible (and heck, let's throw Sanctuary in there while we're at it) Dragon blasting them with its breath weapon is fun (..maybe..) we also agree that it would break Invisibility because while its not specifically called out as an attack, the intent of Invisibility seems to be to prevent folks from trying to directly hurt other folks - be it though spells or whatever. And as the DM and someone who recognizes that rules were not written as a legal text and as such do require some judgement calls and limit setting, I'm comfortable with counting the dragon's breath as something that breaks Invisibility*.*.. and the act of making such a call as a DM, to my mind, is both RAW, RAI and RAF, with regards to the role of the DM in the game system.</blockquote>

Verification