You "pop" in and then back out since your concentration ends immediately when you start casting another concentration spell
If you are invisible due to something that requires your own concentration (like your own invisibility) then yes, that would be the case. However if you are invisible due to some effect that doesn't require your own concentration then I'd say the opposite.
The invisibility will end even if you do not cast a concentration spell immideatly, as spell clearly states that casting a spell breaks the invisibility.
So if you're invisible, and you cast fire bolt, do you have advantage on the attack roll as an unseen attacker? Because it sounds like some people are saying you become visible as soon as you begin casting the next spell, which means you would be visible when the fire bolt went off. That doesn't sound right to me.
Why would i give advantage, casting negates invisibility(so you are seen)
Shortly, no the instant you cast firebolt you become visible. If you are getting advantage it won't be from being unseen
Invisibility is also ended by attacking. In fact, the same sentence from the spell's description lists both actions as ends to invisibility. If someone makes a weapon attack while invisible, do you also say they become visible first and then resolve the attack without the benefit of invisibility? We both agree that casting a spell or attacking ends invisibility (because the spell says so), but we don't seem to agree on whether it ends after the casting or the attack has occurred. I will say that, in practice, I believe your interpretation to be an uncommon one.
Compare this with concentration, where the SAC entry specifies that concentration ends immediately when you begin casting a new concentration spell, which presumably occurs before you finish casting the new spell, so that tells me there's a gap, even if it's instantaneous.
The invisibility will end even if you do not cast a concentration spell immideatly, as spell clearly states that casting a spell breaks the invisibility.
So if you're invisible, and you cast fire bolt, do you have advantage on the attack roll as an unseen attacker? Because it sounds like some people are saying you become visible as soon as you begin casting the next spell, which means you would be visible when the fire bolt went off. That doesn't sound right to me.
Why would i give advantage, casting negates invisibility(so you are seen)
Shortly, no the instant you cast firebolt you become visible. If you are getting advantage it won't be from being unseen
Invisibility is also ended by attacking. In fact, the same sentence from the spell's description lists both actions as ends to invisibility. If someone makes a weapon attack while invisible, do you also say they become visible first and then resolve the attack without the benefit of invisibility? We both agree that casting a spell or attacking ends invisibility (because the spell says so), but we don't seem to agree on whether it ends after the casting or the attack has occurred. I will say that, in practice, I believe your interpretation to be an uncommon one.
Compare this with concentration, where the SAC entry specifies that concentration ends immediately when you begin casting a new concentration spell, which presumably occurs before you finish casting the new spell, so that tells me there's a gap, even if it's instantaneous.
I think what's interesting about attack vs. cast a spell, is when do you lose the advantage from being invisible?
If step 1 is enough to count as "attacking" then you've lost advantage before you get to make any attack rolls, but it's going to be down to each DM what constitutes "attacking" as it's such a vague word in D&D 5e (means at least three different things when you include the action, attack rolls and the many things result in trigger attack rolls). We can also look at casting fire bolt the same way:
In both cases if you've met the condition at step 1 then you've lost invisibility before any actual attack roll is made. Now I doubt you'll find a lot of DM's who'll actually play it out this way, but at the same time invisibility is a 2nd-level spell whose primary benefit is being unseen for an hour no matter where you are within in a creature's line of sight. On that basis it's already quite a strong spell even without a free advantage on the first attack, so I can see why some DM's might rule differently.
I think the more important question is, why are you attacking the target from the front? Invisibility makes it easier to get out of a target's line of sight so that when the spell ends you are still unseen, at least for that opening attack. This is the unambiguous way to get advantage on that first strike.
As luck would have it, there is specific guidance on the process of Making an Attack:
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
The advantage is applied before you resolve the attack, which is when you would lose invisibility from the spell attack or the weapon attack.
As luck would have it, there is specific guidance on the process of Making an Attack
Except you're not actually rolling until step 3 in this sequence, so if starting that sequence ends invisibility, you don't have advantage by step 3. Before you even start the sequence you also have to take the Attack action, so if that counts for ending invisibility then it has also ended before you actually roll anything. The only way you keep advantage is if "your target attacks" means "makes an attack roll" but that's not what it says.
This is why 5th edition's use of the word "attack" is a dumpster fire because the word attack literally means three different things within the game (the attack action, a spell/weapon attack, or an actual attack roll) and it also means a few extra special things (for example, a Grapple is an attack, despite having no attack roll). So when a spell says invisibility ends "when your target attacks", which of the three is it referring to? Undefined. Hooray for shoddy rules writing! They could have so easily said "makes a weapon attack" (since spells are already covered), or "makes an attack roll, or rolls for a special attack such as a Grapple or Shove" or any number of other ways to make it unambiguous.
Again, I doubt it's intended to be read as the Attack action as a valid trigger, or the start of the "making an attack" sequence, but literally nothing in the rules tells us that. On the other hand, since you're invisible it's trivial to ensure that you remain unseen when you make your attack (just don't be where the target can see you) so it's not a big penalty to rule it as no advantage.
Think, there is an indian attacking from behind while crying out loud... If he didn't he would probably sneak attack, and down you without realizing. Yet he did, some staple from old movies, people attacking from behind while using a battle cry....
Making an attack from invisibility(normal version), in my game i'd rule you'll lose the advantage if you yell while attacking.
Same goes for spell with verbal components, the instance incantation starts spell is not fully formed, i'd rule out any character who can hear be aware of it as a free reaction which simply is logical. Thus negate advantage(but as i said before, it is not so for spells without verbal components and subtle spells unless you are casting from line of sight, evoking a spell is usually a noisy and flashy)
Now let's see from another point, we have a bow, we put on an arrow to our bow, we are still invisible, we are simply aiming, we released the arrow, now it's an attack an we are visible. Spell? The moment we start casting we become visible, why? neon runes on air, loud or whisper like incantations fill the surrounding, it's magic.. (so it's like being visible when you touched the arrow on your quiver, you haven't draw the arrow, you haven't aimed it's clearly different when compared to being invisible until the moment you shoot, but with magic, the moment you start casting the invisibility is gone, as you evoke a spells you are calling forth a certain formula, sometimes even location and description of your target is included(think of metamagic option where you keep friendlies outi or spells where you choose targets, either way for me spells like catapult are only exception which you might still have an advantge while attacking from invisibility as they have no verbal components, or perhaps an area of silence between the target and you is present, dunno DMs decide these things on the run thanks to lack of specific descriptions, and it's correct to leave to them, as long as they seem to have common sense and somewhat working logic.
If you are invisible due to something that requires your own concentration (like your own invisibility) then yes, that would be the case. However if you are invisible due to some effect that doesn't require your own concentration then I'd say the opposite.
Invisibility is also ended by attacking. In fact, the same sentence from the spell's description lists both actions as ends to invisibility. If someone makes a weapon attack while invisible, do you also say they become visible first and then resolve the attack without the benefit of invisibility? We both agree that casting a spell or attacking ends invisibility (because the spell says so), but we don't seem to agree on whether it ends after the casting or the attack has occurred. I will say that, in practice, I believe your interpretation to be an uncommon one.
Compare this with concentration, where the SAC entry specifies that concentration ends immediately when you begin casting a new concentration spell, which presumably occurs before you finish casting the new spell, so that tells me there's a gap, even if it's instantaneous.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think what's interesting about attack vs. cast a spell, is when do you lose the advantage from being invisible?
We can break down attacking as:
If step 1 is enough to count as "attacking" then you've lost advantage before you get to make any attack rolls, but it's going to be down to each DM what constitutes "attacking" as it's such a vague word in D&D 5e (means at least three different things when you include the action, attack rolls and the many things result in trigger attack rolls). We can also look at casting fire bolt the same way:
In both cases if you've met the condition at step 1 then you've lost invisibility before any actual attack roll is made. Now I doubt you'll find a lot of DM's who'll actually play it out this way, but at the same time invisibility is a 2nd-level spell whose primary benefit is being unseen for an hour no matter where you are within in a creature's line of sight. On that basis it's already quite a strong spell even without a free advantage on the first attack, so I can see why some DM's might rule differently.
I think the more important question is, why are you attacking the target from the front? Invisibility makes it easier to get out of a target's line of sight so that when the spell ends you are still unseen, at least for that opening attack. This is the unambiguous way to get advantage on that first strike.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
As luck would have it, there is specific guidance on the process of Making an Attack:
The advantage is applied before you resolve the attack, which is when you would lose invisibility from the spell attack or the weapon attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Except you're not actually rolling until step 3 in this sequence, so if starting that sequence ends invisibility, you don't have advantage by step 3. Before you even start the sequence you also have to take the Attack action, so if that counts for ending invisibility then it has also ended before you actually roll anything. The only way you keep advantage is if "your target attacks" means "makes an attack roll" but that's not what it says.
This is why 5th edition's use of the word "attack" is a dumpster fire because the word attack literally means three different things within the game (the attack action, a spell/weapon attack, or an actual attack roll) and it also means a few extra special things (for example, a Grapple is an attack, despite having no attack roll). So when a spell says invisibility ends "when your target attacks", which of the three is it referring to? Undefined. Hooray for shoddy rules writing! They could have so easily said "makes a weapon attack" (since spells are already covered), or "makes an attack roll, or rolls for a special attack such as a Grapple or Shove" or any number of other ways to make it unambiguous.
Again, I doubt it's intended to be read as the Attack action as a valid trigger, or the start of the "making an attack" sequence, but literally nothing in the rules tells us that. On the other hand, since you're invisible it's trivial to ensure that you remain unseen when you make your attack (just don't be where the target can see you) so it's not a big penalty to rule it as no advantage.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Think, there is an indian attacking from behind while crying out loud... If he didn't he would probably sneak attack, and down you without realizing. Yet he did, some staple from old movies, people attacking from behind while using a battle cry....
Making an attack from invisibility(normal version), in my game i'd rule you'll lose the advantage if you yell while attacking.
Same goes for spell with verbal components, the instance incantation starts spell is not fully formed, i'd rule out any character who can hear be aware of it as a free reaction which simply is logical. Thus negate advantage(but as i said before, it is not so for spells without verbal components and subtle spells unless you are casting from line of sight, evoking a spell is usually a noisy and flashy)
Now let's see from another point, we have a bow, we put on an arrow to our bow, we are still invisible, we are simply aiming, we released the arrow, now it's an attack an we are visible. Spell? The moment we start casting we become visible, why? neon runes on air, loud or whisper like incantations fill the surrounding, it's magic.. (so it's like being visible when you touched the arrow on your quiver, you haven't draw the arrow, you haven't aimed it's clearly different when compared to being invisible until the moment you shoot, but with magic, the moment you start casting the invisibility is gone, as you evoke a spells you are calling forth a certain formula, sometimes even location and description of your target is included(think of metamagic option where you keep friendlies outi or spells where you choose targets, either way for me spells like catapult are only exception which you might still have an advantge while attacking from invisibility as they have no verbal components, or perhaps an area of silence between the target and you is present, dunno DMs decide these things on the run thanks to lack of specific descriptions, and it's correct to leave to them, as long as they seem to have common sense and somewhat working logic.
Jeremy's tweets are not RAW, but he does raise a good point that invisibility does not predict what you're about to do.
"Not all those who wander are lost"