Dungeons and Dragons

11476 readers

45 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 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

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

But throwing flaming oil is an attack? This is throwing flaming oil but broken down into separate actions.

It seems like separating actions from attack is still a judgement call.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

They're not throwing flaming oil though. They didn't even pour oil onto an enemy and light them on fire. They poured oil onto a weapon rack then lit that on fire. The enemies can simply not interact with the fire if they don't want to. A DM can rule that a series of events together might constitute an attack because it resulted in something similar to an attack (because a DM can rule anything they want), but compounding actions and classifying them based on their result is not covered within RAW.