this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11488 readers
49 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
37
What counts as an attack for the purposes of the invisibility spell? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 days ago by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/dnd@lemmy.world
38 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
[โ€“] CuriousRefugee@lemmy.ml 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I would probably not rule this as an attack. Lighting a creature on fire? Sure. But lighting oil, which happens to catch a creature on fire? Nah. IMO, aggressive actions aren't attacks unless they make contact with or directly (not indirectly) affect an enemy. At least, that's how I'd rule.

That being said, keep in mind that invisible creatures aren't undetectable , just unseen. Someone dumps out a flask of oil? As soon as that oil leaves the flask (so it's not being worn or carried), it's visible, and leaving a trail for any enemy to follow. Attacks against targets you can't see are made with disadvantage, but can still be made. A bunch of goblins swinging axes at the air are eventually gonna hit something. Are you having invisible characters make stealth checks? They'd get advantage, but if they make noise (e.g., strike a tinderbox), every enemy in the area should get a chance to roll a Perception check against Stealth, not just use passive Perception.

All that being said, if your players come up with a cool idea, roll with it. I actually really like the idea of an invisible PC lighting a fire on their enemies. But (most) enemies aren't dumb, and they're not going to sit around doing nothing if a clumsy, noisy invisible thing dumps out oil all around them and then lights it on fire. Plus, sometimes a half-executed idea is more fun than a perfectly-executed one (oh shit, remember when we lit the thieves den on fire but then had to run away because they were so furious and nearly killed Gary?!?)

Don't be afraid to change or define the rules as necessary. It's your game. If every single time they infiltrate, they're turning invisible and setting fire, then say, "it's going to be an attack from now on, and you'll lose invisibility." FORCE them to be creative. Lastly, let the players know that they can always ask. A PC casting invisibility would know if an action is going to cancel it. So they can check with you in the moment, you make a ruling, and then they can decide what to do. If later you decide you were wrong, tell them that next time it'll be different.

Hope that helps!

[โ€“] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

I don't wanna rain on my players parade for having a clever idea, but this to me seems like getting away on a technicality - like that scene in the Simpsons when Bart and Lisa are kicking and punching the air with their eyes closed and if the other just happens to get in their way then it's the other's fault lol.

Through some clever rules lawyering, this little flying familiar is becoming dangerously OP lol. In another encounter it basically two-shotted a fire giant.

I might consider lighting the oil with tinder as an attack against an object (oil) for the purposes of this spell.