I usually DM, but I am currently in a campaign as a player.
In that campaign, I recently had a double-ruling regarding the second-level spell Invisibility that I was totally unexpecting. So, I am wondering how other DMs view these rulings.
The first ruling was, in short, that "any action" (action, bonus action, reaction) broke the second-level spell. I was told that if I wanted to take an action wile invisible, I needed to use the fourth-level spell Greater Invisibility. I'm pretty sure this is a mistaken ruling, because the (second-level) spell clearly states that "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell," and the action in question was clearly not either casting a spell nor an attack. It also did not break concentration. (I intended to use the Ranger - Monster Slayer - Slayer’s Prey ability as a bonus action.) The specifics of the intended action were irrelevant; the ruling was that taking any action ended the invisibility. Surprisingly (to me), another DM spoke in support of this ruling. So, I am wondering if this is a common view of the (second-level) spell.
The second ruling was regarding the advantage granted to an attack while having the invisible condition. (Specifically, after the first ruling, I chose to forgo using Slayer's Prey and simply attack. I expected to be able to attack with advantage, since I was invisible when the attack was declared.) In the second ruling, the DM said that, since making an attack clearly ends the second-level Invisibility spell. As such, if I attack, I am no longer invisible, and the advantage from attacking while invisible no longer applies. This seems to be a difference of opinion of how the dominos fall. My interpretation (and how I would rule as a DM) is that the attack, declared while invisible, should have advantage. But, for this ruling, I can see the DM's point (although I am not convinced). I have done a quick search of Sage Advice and could find no ruling supporting either view.
Obviously, it's not my table and I will agree with the DM's rulings. I am just surprised that DM opinions to something that I believed so clear could vary to this degree. The view sure seems different on the other side of the DM's screen.
Taking actions/bonus actions/reactions while invisible will not break invisibility unless those actions are some form of attack, casting a spell, or otherwise cause you to lose your concentration. Slayer's Prey is none of those, so you would remain invisible. Further, invisibility is pretty useless if using an action to open a door or window breaks it, this is why only some form of attack or spell will break it.
When you make the attack, the first attack of the round would have advantage, UNLESS the target had some way of knowing precisely where you were before the attack (Blindsight, Tremorsense, Truesight or similar).
As for the dominoes, this is how it plays out: Assuming the enemy cannot see you/does not know your position, the attack is made with advantage, and the invisibility is broken, so you would be visible for any subsequent attacks that round and those would not have advantage (unless of course you had advantage from some other source).
Yeah, I would have read the DM the spell description and say the "break" is specified to be attacks and spells, not "any action." While you can't retcon what happened, I'd bring this to table so you can understand whether this table follows the spell or has a house rule where invisibility only works if you're standing still doing nothing or moving without having to interact with objects. The utility of the spell is significantly hampered by a DM who seems either mistaken or doesn't want to account for the spells available to their game's characters when planning encounters.
Sounds like you have an interpretation of the rules that is consistent with most players.
I suspect that what you are observing is not a mere rules interpretation but an adversarial DM/table. The other DM that spoke in support of the ruling should have opened the book if he was going to do anything. It seems to me like nobody was actually reading it in the moment.
As for the second ruling, advantage and disadvantage are arbitrary. It would be common to offer advantage to an attack against an unaware opponent but there may have been a disadvantage assigned to the attack for any number of reasons as well. Thereby nullifying that original advantage. Again... that table may just not want you to have too much of a break.
Most Arcane Trickster Rogues would be stymied by these 2 rulings. It is a go to spell in that it allows the rogue to be very roguey (picking a pocket while invisible, stealing from the room etc) both of which are "actions" that don't break invisibility.
Then being able to use the being invisible to trigger sneak attack using the advantage gained from being invisible to allow sneak attack damage.
I would suggest either the DM is purposely nerfing what is a perfectly balanced level 2 spell, or is min understanding the rules of the spell.
I agree. Reading what you wanted to do I would have allowed both of your activities to work. It’s only advantage on one attack roll and you lose the invisibility.
Based on RAW, your DM was using house rules in both cases. He should have stated that up front, especially when one of the characters took the invisibility spell, that he would not be running it according to the rules and then explained how it would be run so that you could fairly decide if it was worth taking the spell.
As far as the rules go, if the DM was trying to run it as written, then they were wrong in both cases.
Invisibility is only lost if you make an attack or cast a spell (or lose concentration) and the first attack is made with advantage assuming the target can't see you and you can see the target. The attack is already on its way when the invisibility drops.
I usually DM, but I am currently in a campaign as a player.
In that campaign, I recently had a double-ruling regarding the second-level spell Invisibility that I was totally unexpecting. So, I am wondering how other DMs view these rulings.
The first ruling was, in short, that "any action" (action, bonus action, reaction) broke the second-level spell. I was told that if I wanted to take an action wile invisible, I needed to use the fourth-level spell Greater Invisibility. I'm pretty sure this is a mistaken ruling, because the (second-level) spell clearly states that "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell," and the action in question was clearly not either casting a spell nor an attack. It also did not break concentration. (I intended to use the Ranger - Monster Slayer - Slayer’s Prey ability as a bonus action.) The specifics of the intended action were irrelevant; the ruling was that taking any action ended the invisibility. Surprisingly (to me), another DM spoke in support of this ruling. So, I am wondering if this is a common view of the (second-level) spell.
The second ruling was regarding the advantage granted to an attack while having the invisible condition. (Specifically, after the first ruling, I chose to forgo using Slayer's Prey and simply attack. I expected to be able to attack with advantage, since I was invisible when the attack was declared.) In the second ruling, the DM said that, since making an attack clearly ends the second-level Invisibility spell. As such, if I attack, I am no longer invisible, and the advantage from attacking while invisible no longer applies. This seems to be a difference of opinion of how the dominos fall. My interpretation (and how I would rule as a DM) is that the attack, declared while invisible, should have advantage. But, for this ruling, I can see the DM's point (although I am not convinced). I have done a quick search of Sage Advice and could find no ruling supporting either view.
Obviously, it's not my table and I will agree with the DM's rulings. I am just surprised that DM opinions to something that I believed so clear could vary to this degree. The view sure seems different on the other side of the DM's screen.
In most (all?) cases, “actions” refers to action, bonus action and reaction. But Slayers Prey is not an attack, so you wouldn’t lose Invis.
And you’d get advantage on the first attack, then become visible.
At least that’s how I rule it. But I also allow anyone to pinpoint the location of invisible creatures, unless they are also hiding.
All of those rulings are wrong according to RAW.
Taking actions/bonus actions/reactions while invisible will not break invisibility unless those actions are some form of attack, casting a spell, or otherwise cause you to lose your concentration.
Slayer's Prey is none of those, so you would remain invisible.
Further, invisibility is pretty useless if using an action to open a door or window breaks it, this is why only some form of attack or spell will break it.
When you make the attack, the first attack of the round would have advantage, UNLESS the target had some way of knowing precisely where you were before the attack (Blindsight, Tremorsense, Truesight or similar).
As for the dominoes, this is how it plays out:
Assuming the enemy cannot see you/does not know your position, the attack is made with advantage, and the invisibility is broken, so you would be visible for any subsequent attacks that round and those would not have advantage (unless of course you had advantage from some other source).
Yeah, I would have read the DM the spell description and say the "break" is specified to be attacks and spells, not "any action." While you can't retcon what happened, I'd bring this to table so you can understand whether this table follows the spell or has a house rule where invisibility only works if you're standing still doing nothing or moving without having to interact with objects. The utility of the spell is significantly hampered by a DM who seems either mistaken or doesn't want to account for the spells available to their game's characters when planning encounters.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
OP,
Sounds like you have an interpretation of the rules that is consistent with most players.
I suspect that what you are observing is not a mere rules interpretation but an adversarial DM/table. The other DM that spoke in support of the ruling should have opened the book if he was going to do anything. It seems to me like nobody was actually reading it in the moment.
As for the second ruling, advantage and disadvantage are arbitrary. It would be common to offer advantage to an attack against an unaware opponent but there may have been a disadvantage assigned to the attack for any number of reasons as well. Thereby nullifying that original advantage. Again... that table may just not want you to have too much of a break.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Most Arcane Trickster Rogues would be stymied by these 2 rulings. It is a go to spell in that it allows the rogue to be very roguey (picking a pocket while invisible, stealing from the room etc) both of which are "actions" that don't break invisibility.
Then being able to use the being invisible to trigger sneak attack using the advantage gained from being invisible to allow sneak attack damage.
I would suggest either the DM is purposely nerfing what is a perfectly balanced level 2 spell, or is min understanding the rules of the spell.
I agree. Reading what you wanted to do I would have allowed both of your activities to work. It’s only advantage on one attack roll and you lose the invisibility.
Professional computer geek
Based on RAW, your DM was using house rules in both cases. He should have stated that up front, especially when one of the characters took the invisibility spell, that he would not be running it according to the rules and then explained how it would be run so that you could fairly decide if it was worth taking the spell.
As far as the rules go, if the DM was trying to run it as written, then they were wrong in both cases.
Invisibility is only lost if you make an attack or cast a spell (or lose concentration) and the first attack is made with advantage assuming the target can't see you and you can see the target. The attack is already on its way when the invisibility drops.