Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7056087" data-attributes="member: 6799649">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 RollOR* 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.</blockquote>

Verification