Dungeons and Dragons

11470 readers

50 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Be a Decent Human Being
Credit OC content (self or otherwise)
Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

Posts must have something to do with Dungeons and Dragons
No Piracy, this includes links to torrent sites, hosted content, streaming content, etc. Please see this post for details
Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
No NSFW content
Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world

owenfromcanada@lemmy.world

What counts as an attack for the purposes of the invisibility spell? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 14 hours ago by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/dnd@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm trying to figure out a ruling for something one of my players wants to do. They're invisible, but they took a couple of seemingly non-attack actions that my gut says should break inviz.

Specifically, they dumped out a flask of oil, and then used a tinderbox to light it on fire. Using a tinderbox isn't an attack, nor is emptying a flask, although they are actions , and the result of lighting something on fire both seems like an attack and something that would dispell inviz.

I know that as DM I can rule it however I want, but I'm fairly inexperienced and I don't wanna go nerfing one of my players tools just because it feels yucky to me personally without understanding the implications.

Is this an attack or is there another justification for breaking inviz that is there some RAW clause I didn't see? Or should this be allowed?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I'm going by 2014 rules, but what constitutes an attack is actually pretty strict. Basically, there must be an attack roll of some kind, or the rules for that action must specifically describe it as an attack, for it to actually be an attack.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71245/what-counts-as-an-attack

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

Interesting!

Outside of combat, when a character is diligently working towards a thing that they're able to do, I wouldn't typically expect them to roll for it beyond adding flavor of how long it takes them.
In that light I could see using the tinderbox as an attack but the player doesn't usually need to roll it. But that's a stretch, I admit.

I'm gonna have to think on this a bit more. I'm shocked that burning hands or acid splash isn't considered an attack.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that helps because it doesn't answer the question of indirect damage. Does a trap going off which requires a roll count as an attack?

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

Only if the roll made is an attack roll. As OP says, pouring out a flask doesn't require an attack, nor does lighting something with a tinderbox. In fact neither of these should require any roll at all.