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?
5e RAW, they remain invisible. However, using the tinderbox will make noise so enemies will likely notice that.
In the 2024 rules, dealing damage (even if not by attacking) causes invisibility to end.
NOTE: both versions of the rules (see the oil item description) state that in this scenario, an enemy only takes damage if it enters or ends its turn in the oiled space. Starting their turn in the burning oil does not cause damage, so just moving out of the space will prevent the damage. The lighting of the oil also does not cause immediate damage
What about item damage?
Items have hit points, you can damage them… I’m assuming that counts?Although idk if I’m ready to switch to the new rules mid-campaign
The 2024 spell ends immediately if you deal any damage. So, also item damage.
An attack is when you make an attack roll. So RAW this is absolutely allowed. You wouldn’t get much damage out of an oil flask anyway.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Strictly speaking, this is an item interaction, not an attack action. Clearly they’re using it as an attack, and framing it as an item interaction to avoid losing invisibility.
I don’t know the rules of invisibility off the top of my head, but I might do something like require a stealth check to maintain the benefits, or a perception or dex check from the other guy to notice it/avoid it hitting him. I don’t think I’d actually end the entire spell, that has always seemed excessive to me.
I’m going by 2014 rules, but what constitutes an attack is actually pretty strict. Basically, there must be an attack roll of some kind, or the rules for that action must specifically describe it as an attack, for it to actually be an attack.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71245/what-counts-as-an-attack
Interesting!
Outside of combat, when a character is diligently working towards a thing that they’re able to do, I wouldn’t typically expect them to roll for it beyond adding flavor of how long it takes them.
In that light I could see using the tinderbox as an attack but the player doesn’t usually need to roll it. But that’s a stretch, I admit.I’m gonna have to think on this a bit more. I’m shocked that burning hands or acid splash isn’t considered an attack.
I’m not sure that helps because it doesn’t answer the question of indirect damage. Does a trap going off which requires a roll count as an attack?
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.
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?
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.
Similarly inexperienced opinion here, but I’d also allow it. Agree with the others that pouring the oil would be potentially visible, but definitely after the fire is lit the smoke would make the players visible when they move. Kind of like how the smoke allows you to see the tripwire lasers.
Rule of cool first and creative thinking is what makes ttrpgs great. However, you’re the DM and the tone of the game is ultimately up to you.
Sounds like your players are thinking outside the box, which in my experience is nothing but a recipe for fun (and likely headaches for your carefully laid plans). Good luck.
Unfortunately they’re thinking so far outside the box that I’m having difficulty balancing encounters 😭
One player can two shot a fire giant from a safe distance, yet a decent sized pack of giant rats would probably fuck up the whole party.
Difficulty balancing encounters
They’re being creative because they want to be powerful. They want that “wow that’s clever and highly effective, you’re so smart here’s a one-shot” moment. So, let them. Balance be damned. Let them wipe out entire encounters if they’re clever enough. Or, throw in a fluffer enemy or two that can either get “one-shot” at any moment or be a nuisance for the entire encounter
Edit: If you like friendly competition (and you should probably check with your group too) you can turn combat encounters into puzzles where you’re basically trying to stump each other on how to handle a situation. Try to think tactics instead of numbers
I don’t want my encounters to be lethal, I don’t like killing off PCs… But I do want the encounters to be a challenge.
I like your idea, but idk if I’m experienced enough to pull it off. Also I’m running a premade campaign right now so a lot of the encounters are pre-defined, at least in nature; I can tip the scales but I don’t think I’m comfortable yet with changing how the encounters work.
DM is all powerful. Your job is to manage the fun for everyone, including yourself.
Just remember, people can run away, it’s an option players and DMs often forget
I think the encounters are challenging in a way that required them to create unique solutions. Ultimately, are they having fun? And are you having fun?
Yeah one of the most memorable story moments in the campaign I’m in right now came from our party hitting some incredibly lucky rolls and basically one shotting a sentinel enemy that was supposed to make us turn back from the dungeon we were in and gone back later when we were stronger. We then found the boss encounter of that dungeon way underleveled, and had to do some serious strategizing and outside the box thinking to come out on top. It was super fun for us as players, and we felt super proud of ourselves when the DM told us what we had done after the session. It was also super fun for the DM since he had to kind of throw together the rest of the encounter on the fly.
Personally I would allow pouring out oil to not break invis, but depending on the type of enemy, they might get perception checks to see if they can correlate oil pouring to mean someone must be pouring it for the players location. Although if they would throw the oil at something it would be like making a throwing attack with an improvised weapon.
Using the tinderbox I’d rule as attacking the oil in order to cause fire.
I feel like those moves equate to item interaction for pouring the oil right where they are, but deliberately lighting something on fire with a tool requires both more focus, intent and deliberate action.
An attack makes an attack roll.
So magic missiles wouldn’t break invisibility? Fireball or any other spell that has a save roll and not an attack role?
You are correct that the actions you listed are not attacks, but the Invisibility spell says …
The spell ends early immediately after the target makes an attack roll, deals damage, or casts a spell.
This whole sentence is a way to check your ability to avoid interactions with the world by being invisible while still interacting with it.
Some interactions bend this rule. Not many break it with a fair DM. The closest I have come was an Arcane Trickster character who can cast Mage Hand (which had Invisibility due to a class ability) then potion of Invisibility. I could use the Mage Hand for the duration of the spell … but then I couldn’t recast it without dropping Invisibility.
