this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
33 points (97.1% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11476 readers
59 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)

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world
owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
33
What counts as an attack for the purposes of the invisibility spell? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/dnd@lemmy.world
30 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
[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I can tip the scales but I don't think I'm comfortable yet with changing how the encounters work.

This is actually part of why I'm suggesting to think tactics instead of numbers. Wizards of the Coast have already done a lot of math to figure out good numbers for us in those modules, and a lot of the time they're not wrong. It's much easier in my opinion to make an encounter challenging by saying "this enemy doesn't have a real health bar. You either have to figure out the puzzle or they just hit you once a turn and then fuck off when everyone else dies"

For example, if we're in a cave and my very clever party runs into a group of goblins, I'm gonna throw a sneaky fella behind 3/4th cover on some ramparts with a slingshot. Oh, and the path to get up to the goblin is in the next room. He's not a real threat, but boy is he annoying. There's probably conveniently a rope that leads up there, a meathead can go climb it or someone clever could set the ramparts on fire. If they just ignore him, he's gonna go take those stairs behind him and annoy them for the next encounter too