Dungeons and Dragons

11470 readers

57 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 17 hours ago by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/dnd@lemmy.world

19 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 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The invisible user poured the oil and lit the fire that caused damage to the enemy. So if the invisible user setup a crossbow with a string on the trigger is it an attack? The action was to pull a string. If you attach a lever to a sword and pull the lever can you run around hitting people with a sword and stay invisible?

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The difference between those scenarios you've invented and the scenario in the post is that pouring out oil and lighting a fire with a tinderbox already have existing rules, there's no need to try to interpret the mechanics of the situation.