D&D 5E Opinions on a couple of situations, please!

[Cyan Wisp]

Hi, community.

A couple of situations came up which caused us to scratch our heads. What would your table do?

1. PC invisible (via dust of disappearance). Moves hex spell to a new target. Lose invisibility?

2. Bonus action spell already cast. Activate magic item to cast fog cloud (magical bard instrument). Violates bonus action spell/only one action cantrips rule?


Thanks for your time!

 

[werecorpse]

1. I'd say yes because you curse them which I would classify as an attack - but I think ruling to allow you to keep invisibility is potentially writhing the letter of the law as well.
2. You can activate the item - the only thing you can't do is cast a non cantrip spell.

 

[jaelis]

#1 - Invisibility ends if you attack or cast a spell; you aren't doing either here.
#2 - If an item lets you cast a spell, you are still casting a spell.

 

[Maxperson]

Rulings over rules.

With regard to 1, technically you aren't casting a spell when you move the hex, but the intent behind invisibility is that taking a hostile action ends it. That's the way it has been since 1e. Hex is one of those odd situations that falls outside of the rules as written, creating a situation that was not intended. I'd rule that the invisibility ends, since that's the way invisibility has always been intended to be used.

 

[Oofta]

Hi, community.

A couple of situations came up which caused us to scratch our heads. What would your table do?

1. PC invisible (via dust of disappearance). Moves hex spell to a new target. Lose invisibility?

2. Bonus action spell already cast. Activate magic item to cast fog cloud (magical bard instrument). Violates bonus action spell/only one action cantrips rule?


Thanks for your time!

Hex is a tough one. On one hand they are not casting a new spell. So the question is does it count as an attack. Unlike some previous editions, there isn't much of an attempt to use precise game-specific terminology so I would go with the standard english definition of "attack".

A hex willfully does harm to the targeted creature because it diminishes their capability to use certain abilities. Therefore it is an attack. It's a pretty gray area though.

For the second, probably no. You can use an item that has magical effect (such as an eversmoking bottle) but you can't cast a spell, even if you're using an item to do it.

 

[jaelis]

Rulings over rules.

With regard to 1, technically you aren't casting a spell when you move the hex, but the intent behind invisibility is that taking a hostile action ends it. That's the way it has been since 1e. Hex is one of those odd situations that falls outside of the rules as written, creating a situation that was not intended. I'd rule that the invisibility ends, since that's the way invisibility has always been intended to be used.

Yep, if you want to play that invisibility ends with a hostile action, I would certainly say transferring hex qualifies. And casting cure woulds would not. Definitely something you want to square away with your DM before working up a lot of invisibility tactics.

Unlike some previous editions, there isn't much of an attempt to use precise game-specific terminology so I would go with the standard english definition of "attack".

idk, I would argue they define it pretty clearly:

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

(To that you have to add the obvious point that if something explicitly defines itself as an attack, then it is an attack, like initiating a grapple.)

 

[Satyrn]

Hi, community.

A couple of situations came up which caused us to scratch our heads. What would your table do?

1. PC invisible (via dust of disappearance). Moves hex spell to a new target. Lose invisibility?

2. Bonus action spell already cast. Activate magic item to cast fog cloud (magical bard instrument). Violates bonus action spell/only one action cantrips rule?


Thanks for your time!

What [MENTION=60210]jaelis[/MENTION] just said about squaring it away the invisibility stuff with your DM is critical if you're a player. It's the sort of ruling that could readily go either way in any given DM's adjudicaton.

I really don't know which way I'd rule - no, yes I just decided that I wouldn't deem it hostile enough to be an attack mostly because I like the imagery of the invisible warlock cackling gleefully as he taunts his next foe by hexing him!

 

[Oofta]

RE: Attack

idk, I would argue they define it pretty clearly:
Originally Posted by PHB
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-a-couple-of-situations-please!#ixzz4bW3DjuHV

(To that you have to add the obvious point that if something explicitly defines itself as an attack, then it is an attack, like initiating a grapple.)

Just because you are making an attack if you make an attack roll, it does not follow that all attacks require an attack roll.

I would consider a fireball an attack, yet it does not require an attack roll.

 

[jaelis]

I would consider a fireball an attack, yet it does not require an attack roll.

That's cool, although JC disagrees

would a fireball triger wrath of the storm?
Wrath of Storm is triggered when you're hit by an attack. Fireball doesn't include an attack.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hex and invisible are both concentration so it dies not cone up a lot.