I think the problem here is perspective, as Kotath previously touched on. When interpreting by RAW in this situation, you are double diping on what is specifically stated and by what is not due to possible omission. For a RAI interpretation, I do the same but, I assume anything done that could  cause harm that uses an action or would confer a bonus, breaks invisibility. Why? Because all casting is specifically stated as breaking invisibility, regardless of the spells effect. I apply this by inference, due to possible omission, to any action taken that could cause harm. Again, why? Because I feel this fits the RAI as presented by the whole body of text that accompanies the Invisibility spell.

It is also worth pointing out that Jeremy Crawford's answers for SAC are not(just) RAW. At the end of the introduction, he says so himself. He includes RAW, RAI and RAF as his means of answering said questions. If the answer is simply explained with RAW, he will do so. If it requires abjudication(opinion), he will use RAI. RAF is more providing creative examples that don't destroy the rules or their intent, or at least, not too badly.  Maybe you should step away from purely RAW interpretation as Jeremy has suggested us to do.

I don't believe the example you link is in the SAC included as a resource on this site. If you decide it is valid even though it is not RAW according to your own views on RAW, you would be just as guilty of interpreting rules your own way because you don't agree with a ruling that others deem official.

Well we’ve gone over the RAW of a lot of specific actions and if they would end the spell, in a rules forum.

We’ve talked about what the possible Intentions of the spell may have been, and included some guidance via Sage Advice tweets. RAI is usually talked about when the wording is unclear, which isn’t really the case with this spell. The acts  of casting a spell and making an attack are quite clearly defined within the game rules.

So, the next step is to talk about RAF(rules as fun). I’ve already stated a few times that everyone is definitely free to play any way they want. I’d also like to state that this is probably the most important rule. The main  reason to hammer out game feature interactions should probably ultimately lead to the entire table being on the same page. Now a lot of people(that is to say 2 or 3 people on this forum) seem to have changed from what was written to their own style of play. I’m not saying that’s wrong. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with playing that way. I personally play in 2-3 variations because of the DMs that I play with, and that not being ncludimg how I personally DM when it’s my turn.

The issue I have sometimes is when an individual doesn’t seem to try to clearly identify where on the RAW/RAI/RAF they are attempting to give their advice from.

I’d also like to take a moment to apologize about letting myself get so off topic. The thread was originally about invisibility with regard to casting a spell through a familiar.

how about looking up a dragons stat block, going to the actions list, and trying to figure out how the word “attack” is mysteriously missing from every entry.

i don’t need to explain anything, go stare at the book you bought till you understand it. PHB pg 6, 192-196, 173-179, and maybe 205 as well to be safe.

Thanks for coming out so aggressively lol. I wish nothing but good fortune upon you.

Quote from Keraki >>

If a wizard is under the invisibilty spell, does using his familiar to channel a spell break his invisibility?

 Yes. It does because the wizard is still casting the spell.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

An invisible wizard could be behind total cover and use his action to perceive through his familiar who is out of sight. Then the wizard could use his bonus action to cast Misty Step to a location within range that his familiar can see even if he cannot. Since the wizard cast a spell, it would end his invisibility.

It's probably not what you were thinking of, but this is an example of a wizard using his familiar to channel a spell to a location out of his sight while he is behind total cover.

Indeed, I was about to say something similar. While it is true that it uses an action to see through the eyes of your familiar, that still leaves open a number of spells that use bonus actions or reactions.

Hex is a good example that also has great utility, especially in social situations. Picture this, a court trial is taking place and the security is extremely tight, but you wish to influence the verdict.  Simply sneak an inconspicuous familiar inside.  The spider being the most inconspicuous. 

Then once the spider can see the prosecutor, hex his charisma.   So long as you are within 90 feet, this should be fine.

If the DM is doing it right, he should make the NPC carry out some persuasion ability checks with disadvantage while the prosecutor tries to persuade the judge/jury.

your tweet it definitely valid to this conversation and you have proven me correct.

in plain English: the rules define what an attack is. Anything with an attack roll.

the rules define what an attack is. I’ve posted it several times. I’ll do it again so you and others can continue to ignore it, which is ok. Have fun, do what you and your group think is fun.

PHB pg 194

“If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.”

I hear we like Jeremy Crawford tweets in here.

Quote from TexasDevin >>

I hear we like Jeremy Crawford tweets in here.

 That's already been posted and is not representative of one of the best responses by Jeremy Crawford. 

OK, let's look at the evidence.

The case for dragon's breath breaking invisibility.

• There is a distinction to be made between an attack as a general term and making an attack.
• Attack, as referenced in the invisibility spell is more of a concept than a specific action, referring to any activity with hostile intent.
• In idiomatic English, any activity with hostile intent can be referred to as an attack and 5e defaults to idiomatic English.
• It just feels like it fits the intent of what should break the spell.

The case against dragon's breath breaking invisibility.

• This tweet.
• Attacks in 5e don't require saving throws* and saving throws are not associated with attacks in 5e.
• 5e narrows the idiomatic English definition of an attack to specify it as something that involves making an attack roll.
• Even in general terms, any attack (hostile activity) has to fall into a particular category. What kind of an attack would you categorize it as?
• Nowhere in the description of invisibility does it expand upon the concept of an attack (hostile activity) the way the charmed condition does for example.

My conclusion. It comes down to whether we are more concerned with how RAW treats the specifics of what breaks the spell or whether we are more concerned with what fits our interpretation of the intention behind the feature's design. For my part, I feel RAW is unambiguous and, when asked, JC clarified that it is also RAI.

* - some attacks have secondary effects that require saving throws, but they are separate from the attack itself.

Just because we are discussing a game doesn't mean we should dispense with the normal interpretations of a simple statement. If the police stop you and say: "Don't move"! Does that mean dont walk? No. It means don't make ANY movements that could be perceived as threatening. Why is this comparison relevant? Because many rules pop in and out of narrative description and game mechanics description. The line in question: "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell", seems clearly narrative to me but, that is still MY opinion. It is probably also the interpretation that most people would accept. I feel some people live and breathe just to find examples like this one, to argue and play Devil's Advocate against "the norm".  

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

I feel some people live and breathe just to find examples like this one, to argue and play Devil's Advocate against "the norm".  

 I think we both agree on that. I do enjoy deconstructing rules to see which alternate interpretations stand up to scrutiny. In fairness, I try to keep my rules nitpickery to this subforum.

Delete

Quote from Lyxen >>

Quote from danzai >>

Hex is a good example that also has great utility, especially in social situations. Picture this, a court trial is taking place and the security is extremely tight, but you wish to influence the verdict.  Simply sneak an inconspicuous familiar inside.  The spider being the most inconspicuous. 

Then once the spider can see the prosecutor, hex his charisma.   So long as you are within 90 feet, this should be fine.

If the DM is doing it right, he should make the NPC carry out some persuasion ability checks with disadvantage while the prosecutor tries to persuade the judge/jury.

 

Unfortunately, while this is an interesting case, it does not work, because Find Familiar says: "Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell."

Hex has a range of 90 feet ...

The Misty Step scenario works because the familiar is not delivering the spell, it is only providing an area that you can see. But you have to remember in that case that the range is still measured from the wizard, not from the familiar, and 30 ft is not that long. Still, it might allow the wizard to go through a wall if he could manage to smuggle his familiar to the other side.

 

He’s not using the familiar to cast the Hex.

 Hex only requires you to see what you are hexing. As long as you are in range, then the hex takes hold directly between the caster and the target.

 The familiar only exists to get around the requirement to see the target. Which you can do as an action by seeing through the eyes of familiar.

 Hex is not a spell like firebolt that needs to have a unobstructed  direct path for the physical bolt to meet the target. It is simply a curse that manifests around the target

Every spell needs an unobstructed direct path to its target unless the spell text specifically says it doesn’t. The general rule, applicable universally unless overridden, is that “To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.” Hex includes no language that removes this requirement.

I am enough of a power gamer and strategist player to know that small differences in the rules can make a HUGE difference.

So, if a character (PC or NPC) relies heavily on a particular rule, spell description, photocopies of all relevant material should be easily available. As a player, I try to make sure my DM has all that material i use and approves of it, and that the other players understand what to expect from me.

Under 4e rules, for example, I worked out that a 20th level psion, by stretching the rules to the limit, could dish out 900 hp per round in area spell attacks, while taking almost no damage. Without magic items, that character would have run out of psi points in about seven rounds. (It could explain a lot about why I don't see psion among the class options. While I am personally disappointed, I do understand it.)

Therefore, I need to be VERY careful that everyone in my groups understands what to expect from me, including my more important rules interpretations. I would prefer to take them on in arena combat very early for that reason, doing subdual damage of course.