Dungeons and Dragons

11470 readers

51 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 15 hours ago by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/dnd@lemmy.world

14 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

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I would allow it. The damage is terrible compared to actual attacks, the enemies can figure it out, and it's slow.

Let them have the win until it's underpowered in a few levels. It's fun to figure out a cool combo, and you can just make the game harder.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It wasn't actually attacking an enemy, it was setting their weapon rack on fire so that they couldn't get to their ranged weapons.

Very clever, I like it!

But this familiar is becoming OP through rules lawyering. I don't wanna rain on my player's parade, but I'm not an experienced DM and it's becoming difficult to make encounters that can't just be circumvented by this damn familiar lol.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Add some environmental hazards and AoE attacks. Make the fires spread out of control and become a threat of their own. Tempt them with explosive barrels in dangerous places. Familiars die easily, but are cheap to resummon.

Keep attacking them frequently between rests. Make them reconsider that 1 hour familiar ritual and invisibility spell slot.

If even a single witness escapes, he's telling everyone what happened. Most spell casters can immediately put out the fire with Prestidigitation, Control Flames, or Druidcraft.

When they destroy items with fire, describe expensive things melting into worthless things.