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

[Satyrn]

To me, if you're going to rule this way it just makes a lot more sense to take things case by case.

Well, I did mean to get across that that's exactly how I read the rule I was talking about: If this thing being done, in this case at this moment, seems like an attack, it is; if there's actually some doubt about it, then let's go with the "does it involve an attack roll" condition.

But I also think ruling requires looking at all the conditions in play. I mean should the barbarian's rage end if the magic he used was a devastating blast of fire that incinerates a pair of goblins in his face? I mean just because burning hands doesn't require an attack roll, that shouldn't be the sort of action that ought to calm his rage.

And just looked up Mirror Image. This is a good example of what I mean by looking at all the conditions. So while I'm happy to say breathing fire is an attack, I don't need to immediately jump to your conclusion that mirror image is popped by an AoE. I mean sure Mirror Image describes what happens when being attacked, but its entire description heavily implies being the sole target of an attack, and I can readily say from that it's not affected, that it's clearly not meant to be popped by an area attack. But I'm ruling on how the spell works, not on what an attack is.

 

[Arial Black]

Well, I did mean to get across that that's exactly how I read the rule I was talking about: If this thing being done, in this case at this moment, seems like an attack, it is; if there's actually some doubt about it, then let's go with the "does it involve an attack roll" condition.

But I also think ruling requires looking at all the conditions in play. I mean should the barbarian's rage end if the magic he used was a devastating blast of fire that incinerates a pair of goblins in his face? I mean just because burning hands doesn't require an attack roll, that shouldn't be the sort of action that ought to calm his rage.

And just looked up Mirror Image. This is a good example of what I mean by looking at all the conditions. So while I'm happy to say breathing fire is an attack, I don't need to immediately jump to your conclusion that mirror image is popped by an AoE. I mean sure Mirror Image describes what happens when being attacked, but its entire description heavily implies being the sole target of an attack, and I can readily say from that it's not affected, that it's clearly not meant to be popped by an area attack. But I'm ruling on how the spell works, not on what an attack is.

What you are doing is creating a domino effect in the rules, without forethought (because you made the decision on the fly) and which changes the game in such a way that instead of us all being able to read the rules and know how stuff works and make our plans accordingly, to a situation where we cannot be confident about how stuff works (when we should know) and that you make up on the spur of the moment every time something comes up. We cannot make reasonable decisions if there is no cause & effect.

Leave it alone! Play by the 5E rules. There is no need to change them. As written, an invisible dragon stays invisible after breathing fire; that's the way it is. Nothing has gone wrong. There is nothing to fix.

Especially if the 'fix' breaks so many other things in the process.

 

[CydKnight]

1. This one is a little tricky and I probably would not mind either ruling for or against this one. My thought is that since there is no damage possibility until an actual attack takes place, there may be cause to allow invisibility to remain. Eventually an attack will be made otherwise why move the hex? So it seems you will be losing that invisibility soon anyway if not in the same turn once an attack is made to enable damage from the hex.
2. I feel that if a spell slot is not being expended to cast a spell, then there is no reason why you cannot use the bard magical instrument even if you already cast a spell as a bonus action.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Let me just add my voice to those who are saying that an attack requires an attack roll, unless a specific effect calls itself out as an attack even though it doesn't.

An "attack" in 5e is jargon. It has a specific meaning. It is not natural language. The game designers have said as much. This has been discussed on these forums before with the same conclusions acknowledged by the vast majority of people, who take the word of the people who wrote the rules as to their intention.

There are plenty of things in 5e that are unclear, but this isn't one of them.

That being said, anyone is free to rule differently. I don't always go with designer intent or rules as written myself. But arguing what the rules mean is a waste of time, since the question has been settled.