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

[cooperjer]

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

This is true; however, I believe potions do not require the user to maintain concentration on the effects. Therefore a potion of invisibility could allow the situation.

Hex is an interesting spell. The first sentence states "You place a curse on a creature ..." This tells me two things: 1) The spell is a curse, 2) casting the spell is placing a curse. The spell description also states, "... before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a turn of yours to curse a new creature." The critical question that I would pick Crawford's brain about is, "Is placing a curse as a bonus action the same as placing a curse while casting a spell?" I would think his response would be along the lines of, "It would state the need to cast the spell in the text if it were intended." So, my ruling would be that an invisible caster can us their bonus action to curse another creature without casting a spell. Since invisibility states it ends with an attack or casting a spell, then invisibility would remain.

Regarding the use of an action to cast a spell from a bard instrument, I would agree with jaelis. If the magic item allows the caster to cast a spell, then the caster is casting the spell. The magic item is not casting the spell. Thus, the bonus spell cast should be limited to a cantrip. A magic item user can still activate an item for an effect as an action and still cast a spell as a bonus action.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

Regarding the use of an action to cast a spell from a bard instrument, I would agree with jaelis. If the magic item allows the caster to cast a spell, then the caster is casting the spell. The magic item is not casting the spell. Thus, the bonus spell cast should be limited to a cantrip. A magic item user can still activate an item for an effect as an action and still cast a spell as a bonus action.

Thanks for the replies! For the record, we went with 1. Invisibility ends (reason: we thought it was in the spirit of the invisibility spell that a hostile act ends the effect), and 2. Can't cast the fog cloud (reason: a spell is a spell and fog cloud is not a cantrip, thus it would violate the Bonus spell/only Action cantrip rule)

As regards the quote above: The rule is not that the Bonus action spell has to be a cantrip, rather that if a Bonus action spell is cast, the only other spell you can cast is a cantrip with an Action casting time, so I'd have to kindly disagree with your analysis, if I read it correctly.

 

[Arial Black]

Spells do what they say they do. Invisibility says:-

"The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell."

It does not say:-

"The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell, or does anything else that the DM decides is a hostile act."

'Casts a spell' means that you actually cast a spell. If you use a magic item that allows you to 'cast a spell' then the fact that you got the ability to cast that spell from a magic item rather than through a class ability doesn't change the fact that you cast a spell. However, if the magic item just causes a spell effect without saying that you cast a spell then you didn't cast a spell so invisibility stays and it doesn't need to be a cantrip.

'Attack' in 5E specifically requires an Attack Roll, unless the effect specifically says it's an attack (like shove/grapple). The 'all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles' does not apply here, because the wording in question is there to define what an attack is: to be an attack it must have an attack roll! Specific still beats general though, so grapple/shove are still attacks because they specifically say they are.

Moving an already cast hex is definitely not 'casting a spell', because the spell has already been cast.

'Cursing' someone would only be an 'attack' in 5E if:-

* it involved an Attack Roll

OR

* the curse description defined the act of cursing as an 'attack'

Moving an already cast hex meets neither of these criteria, therefore invisibility stays.

What happened is the DM, innocently I grant you, made up a new way to lose invisibility while the PC was using it. It could easily have led to the death of that PC when the player had every reason to believe that the PC would stay invisible.

It's not that DMs aren't allowed to change anything they want; "Rocks fall, everybody dies" is within their power. But DMs have the responsibility to be fair, and changing the rules mid-action in a life-or-death situation fails that test.

Make no mistake, anyone can read the rules involved here and reach the correct conclusion. We can read how invisibility is lost, avoid doing those things, and have complete confidence that invisibility will stay. There is no special DM ruling needed to allow it. What happened was a bogus made-up DM ruling to break it!

Player: My invisible PC sneaks up to the BBEG and whispers that his fly is undone.
DM: Since that may distract the BBEG I'm making a completely fair ruling that this counts as an Attack so you lose your invisibility and the BBEG and all his minions can now see you and attack you and you take 3302 points of Fairness damage.

 

[Kabouter Games]

It's also worth noting that a quick glance through the magic items list shows that, almost universally, activating a magic item's properties for anything, costs an action, bonus action, or reaction, though some items omit those requirements. It seems reasonable to rule that if you have to use an action to use a function of a ring of djinni summoning, as stated in the descriptive text, you'd also have to use an action to use a function of a ring of elemental command, even though that's not specified in the item's description.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

 

[werecorpse]

I think the difference of opinion here is on what is meant by saying the spell ends if the target "attacks".

You equate it to making an attack roll or some effect that specifically says it's an attack like shove or grapple, others use a broader definition.
For example could an invisible person undertake a harmful action that the DM rules will automatically succeed like say set fire to someone tied to a stake & remain invisible?
Can a dragonborn use their breath weapon and remain invisible?
Could they cast heat metal, then drink a potion of invisibility then use a bonus action to burn someone while remaining invisible?

None of these involve an attack roll or specifically use the word attack but they cause harm and I would think they qualify as the target "attacking".

IMO moving a hex is a more line ball "attack" than these, though it does impose an immediate negative effect (disadvantage on checks) and so while I would rule it as an attack as I view the hex/curse as a significant effect I think either way is a justifiable ruling.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

This is the 5E definition of the word: 'attack'. It has been supported by numerous tweets as Sage Advice from JC.

The purpose of that verbiage is so that we can tell if something is as attack or is not! It doesn't suffer from the 'it didn't say anything about how to tell if something is not an attack'. It creates a venn diagram of a single circle, within which are 'attacks' which are defined by an attack roll, and everything outside the circle is 'not an attack' defined by not having an attack roll.

Specific beats general as always. But it's not consistent with the rules to just decide that they didn't mean what they wrote re: attack/cast a spell when it comes to losing invisibility. If they had meant a broader definition of 'attack' then they would need to say so; otherwise the accepted 5E definition remains unchallenged.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

I agree, Arial Black, that , technically, Hex is not an "attack", nor are you "casting a spell" by shifting an existing Hex. It would seem that this is a loophole for invisibility.

By that definition, PCs with ongoing effects (that have already been cast) can be turned invisible, then continue to: Call Lightning down upon foes, Flaming Sphere them, Moonbeam groups of unfortunates.

None are "attacks", as such, and the spell has already been cast. Go the invisible druids!

 

[jaelis]

By that definition, PCs with ongoing effects (that have already been cast) can be turned invisible, then continue to: Call Lightning down upon foes, Flaming Sphere them, Moonbeam groups of unfortunates.

Bearing in mind again that this requires using an item that gets around the concentration requirement.

Though a druid in particular can also turn into a small, inoffensive creature and try to escape notice that way.

 

[werecorpse]

Not just invisible Druids
- dragonborn & Dragons (& other things that force a save) can breathe and remain invisible
- one can activate various magic items that cause harm but don't say cast a spell or make an attack roll (like the lighting bolt from a staff of thunder & lightning) & remain invisible.

 

[Senshi-shi]

If it caused harm or is a hindrance to the focus, like thorn whip does damage, but (and here's the techy part.) Create water makes water. It all depends on how they are used. The vine whip can be attached to a high branch and be considered a rope, thusly not an attack. Create water can appear right in a charging opponent face or fall from a height, these either can blind or harm an opponent inadvertently thusly these are considered attacks. It's all DM's rule.
I say a hex transfer is an attack, and using a magic items spell cast counts as casting a spell yourself cause in the end you used the item.