One of my players is using a Dragonborn Rogue, and I was wondering if their breath weapon breaks Invisibility.
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
It's not an Attack or a Spell, and I already ruled that it doesn't apply to Sneak Attack, and that it doesn't cause Disadvantage while hidden or invisible
One of my players is using a Dragonborn Rogue, and I was wondering if their breath weapon breaks Invisibility.
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
It's not an Attack (1) or a Spell, and I already ruled that it doesn't apply to Sneak Attack (2), and that it doesn't cause Disadvantage (3) while hidden or invisible
Yes, it is. You're probably conflating "an attack" with "an attack roll". They're not the same thing.
You're talking about their breath weapon not being eligible for Sneak Attack, right? Right. A Dragonborn's breath weapon is neither a Finesse weapon, nor a ranged weapon.
We're still talking about just the player using their breath weapon, right? The breath weapon does not involve an attack roll at all; it's a saving throw that the targets make. The Invisible condition does not impact saving throws positively or negatively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I have always operated under the understanding that if there is no attack roll, there is no attack.
By that logic, any dragon that has a save-oriented breath weapon is somehow not actually attacking the creatures it chooses to be using that breath weapon on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I have always operated under the understanding that if there is no attack roll, there is no attack.
5e suffers from a horrendously bloated lexicon involving the common word "attack". It's ridiculous, and I absolutely get where you're coming from. The phrase used to "clarify" in the PHB is "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack", but that is not the same as "if you're not making an attack roll, you're not making an attack". There is not a mutual exclusion.
I have always operated under the understanding that if there is no attack roll, there is no attack.
By that logic, any dragon that has a save-oriented breath weapon is somehow not actually attacking the creatures it chooses to be using that breath weapon on.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I have always operated under the understanding that if there is no attack roll, there is no attack.
By that logic, any dragon that has a save-oriented breath weapon is somehow not actually attacking the creatures it chooses to be using that breath weapon on.
This is correct. You can use dragon breath while invisible. Also, familiars can use it. It's a real problem for me as I feel like it was not intended to be allowed, but yet here we are.
I have always operated under the understanding that if there is no attack roll, there is no attack.
By that logic, any dragon that has a save-oriented breath weapon is somehow not actually attacking the creatures it chooses to be using that breath weapon on.
This is correct. You can use dragon breath while invisible. Also, familiars can use it. It's a real problem for me as I feel like it was not intended to be allowed, but yet here we are.
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying:
More
Jeremy Crawford Retweeted The Inexperienced DM
An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving. DnD
Are you suggesting that the rules do not consider an Adult Black Dragon's Acid Breath an attack? Because an attack involves an attack roll or something that the rules call an attack...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Pretty sure an attack always uses an attack roll. There are probably a lot of interactions that start to get weird if forcing a save counts as attacking.
My opinion is the intention is that a dragonborn’s and dragon’s breath weapons break invisibility. The same with the target of the Dragon’s Breath spell, breathing using that is also intended to break invisibility in my opinion. I know that that’s how I’d rule in my game.
One of my players is using a Dragonborn Rogue, and I was wondering if their breath weapon breaks Invisibility.
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature's attack rolls have advantage.
It's not an Attack (1) or a Spell, and I already ruled that it doesn't apply to Sneak Attack (2), and that it doesn't cause Disadvantage (3) while hidden or invisible
Yes, it is. You're probably conflating "an attack" with "an attack roll". They're not the same thing.
You're talking about their breath weapon not being eligible for Sneak Attack, right? Right. A Dragonborn's breath weapon is neither a Finesse weapon, nor a ranged weapon.
We're still talking about just the player using their breath weapon, right? The breath weapon does not involve an attack roll at all; it's a saving throw that the targets make. The Invisible condition does not impact saving throws positively or negatively.
I was looking into the rules best I could, and all I could find was that the breath weapon is considered an action (PHB 34).
Yeah, I did find the ruling on that. First time behind the screen and ruled that it wasn't attack based on the description of sneak attack.
Yeah still talking about the breath weapon. They like using it a lot and have been pretty good at testing the limitations of its use.
The RAI intent may well be that "the spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell or does anything else overtly aggressive or damaging." Maybe if you're operating with that RAI assumption, then a dragon's breath weapon should break invisibility. But just be honest with yourself that you're doing it based on an unwritten rule, and not because a save-based spell is somehow an attack.
The rules aren't bashful about what an attack is, or ambiguous: it's spelled right out in Chapter 9 - Making an Attack. An attack (1) targets a creature, object, or location (check); (2) is structured such that one can have modifiers and/or (dis)advantage on the attack (ehhh not really unless you really stretch the meaning of that sentence...); and (3) involves making an attack roll (hardnope). If attack meant "harmful effect that targets a creature, object, or location", there would have been ample room to lay that out, but the rules drew a much narrower picture. I'm not aware of any area where the word "attack" is treated ambiguously the way that "target" can often be, absent someone tossing a citation and quote down into the thread? This really seems to be an open and shut "attacks are attack rolls against creatures, objects, or locations."
Taking a step back, there are several creatures besides dragons that impose ability saves that are considered "Actions" but are not "Attacks" based on their descriptions. On one hand, I can say it breaks invisibility and be done with it. On the other hand, I'd be free to use it against them. Would make Faerie Fire a frequent addition to combat...
Also I appreciate everyone's response to this topic
Based on everyone's input here and what I was able to glean online, I'm going to opt that it doesn't break it. I like the idea of using my players tactics against them, albeit in small doses.
Yeah, I'd think RAW, breath abilities does not cause invisibility to end...
It's not the Attack action. It doesn't involve an attack roll. So it's not an attack. It's not the Cast a Spell action, since you're not casting a spell.
It's one of the things you can do that harm enemies without being either attacks or spells. There's not too many of them, but they're not that rare either - a decent number of monsters have damaging abilities that are neither attacks nor spells, and some player races/classes do too, like breath weapons or auras or something.
I'd certainly rule that a dragonborn or dragon using their breath weapon gives away their position, so if they wanted to hide they'd have to take the hide action afterwards. But the Invisible condition wouldn't end.
Also, note that attacks and spells "breaking invisibility" is a property of that one particular spell, not of the general invisible condition.
I would rule that damaging another creature breaks the invisibility.
@ftl by your logic, a spellcaster could become invisible, go into the middle of a battle, spam thunderwaves, which originates from the caster, and would still benefit from the invisible condition, despite the enemies seeing where it originates every time.
EDIT: @DxJxC I see your point. I didn't look at the fine print.
I would rule that damaging another creature breaks the invisibility.
@ftl by your logic, a spellcaster could become invisible, go into the middle of a battle, spam thunderwaves, which originates from the caster, and would still benefit from the invisible condition, despite the enemies seeing where it originates every time.
EDIT: This is just my speculation, but i feel like a big part of the problem is that because a breath attack is a unique kind of action that is neither an attack nor a spell, but with the ability to cause damage, it circumvents the normal structures of the restriction of invisibility. That is to say that when the rules for invisibility (and familiars) were written, i suspect nobody considered dragon breath--or if they did, they wrote it off as, "eh, dragons are special powerful bad guys." When you start looking at things like dragonborn and in particular the dragon's breath spell (which came out in the Xanathar expansion), you start running into the limitations of the triggers that end the invisible condition. I do believe that, thematically, blasting someone with a breath attack should end the invisible condition. I wouldn't mind seeing some errata released to indicate this. But maybe WOC is leaning into the loophole instead. Who knows? Nonetheless, since this is the rules forum where we enjoy arguing the finer points of loopholes, technicalities, and rules as written, it is allowed.
One of my players is using a Dragonborn Rogue, and I was wondering if their breath weapon breaks Invisibility.
It's not an Attack or a Spell, and I already ruled that it doesn't apply to Sneak Attack, and that it doesn't cause Disadvantage while hidden or invisible
Using the breath weapon is part of an attack action. It will break invisibility.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I have always operated under the understanding that if there is no attack roll, there is no attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
By that logic, any dragon that has a save-oriented breath weapon is somehow not actually attacking the creatures it chooses to be using that breath weapon on.
5e suffers from a horrendously bloated lexicon involving the common word "attack". It's ridiculous, and I absolutely get where you're coming from. The phrase used to "clarify" in the PHB is "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack", but that is not the same as "if you're not making an attack roll, you're not making an attack". There is not a mutual exclusion.
Exactly. Invisible dragons destroy everything. Rocks fall; everyone dies.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is correct. You can use dragon breath while invisible. Also, familiars can use it. It's a real problem for me as I feel like it was not intended to be allowed, but yet here we are.
I thought this was common knowledge.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying:
Are you suggesting that the rules do not consider an Adult Black Dragon's Acid Breath an attack? Because an attack involves an attack roll or something that the rules call an attack...
As I said, that was my understanding. I have been wrong before.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Pretty sure an attack always uses an attack roll. There are probably a lot of interactions that start to get weird if forcing a save counts as attacking.
My opinion is the intention is that a dragonborn’s and dragon’s breath weapons break invisibility. The same with the target of the Dragon’s Breath spell, breathing using that is also intended to break invisibility in my opinion. I know that that’s how I’d rule in my game.
Professional computer geek
The RAI intent may well be that "the spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell or does anything else overtly aggressive or damaging." Maybe if you're operating with that RAI assumption, then a dragon's breath weapon should break invisibility. But just be honest with yourself that you're doing it based on an unwritten rule, and not because a save-based spell is somehow an attack.
The rules aren't bashful about what an attack is, or ambiguous: it's spelled right out in Chapter 9 - Making an Attack. An attack (1) targets a creature, object, or location (check); (2) is structured such that one can have modifiers and/or (dis)advantage on the attack (ehhh not really unless you really stretch the meaning of that sentence...); and (3) involves making an attack roll (hard nope). If attack meant "harmful effect that targets a creature, object, or location", there would have been ample room to lay that out, but the rules drew a much narrower picture. I'm not aware of any area where the word "attack" is treated ambiguously the way that "target" can often be, absent someone tossing a citation and quote down into the thread? This really seems to be an open and shut "attacks are attack rolls against creatures, objects, or locations."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Taking a step back, there are several creatures besides dragons that impose ability saves that are considered "Actions" but are not "Attacks" based on their descriptions. On one hand, I can say it breaks invisibility and be done with it. On the other hand, I'd be free to use it against them. Would make Faerie Fire a frequent addition to combat...
Also I appreciate everyone's response to this topic
Based on everyone's input here and what I was able to glean online, I'm going to opt that it doesn't break it. I like the idea of using my players tactics against them, albeit in small doses.
You’re the DM. You can just home brew the dragon so that it can cast Improved Invisibility once per day.
Professional computer geek
Yeah, I'd think RAW, breath abilities does not cause invisibility to end...
It's not the Attack action. It doesn't involve an attack roll. So it's not an attack. It's not the Cast a Spell action, since you're not casting a spell.
It's one of the things you can do that harm enemies without being either attacks or spells. There's not too many of them, but they're not that rare either - a decent number of monsters have damaging abilities that are neither attacks nor spells, and some player races/classes do too, like breath weapons or auras or something.
I'd certainly rule that a dragonborn or dragon using their breath weapon gives away their position, so if they wanted to hide they'd have to take the hide action afterwards. But the Invisible condition wouldn't end.
Also, note that attacks and spells "breaking invisibility" is a property of that one particular spell, not of the general invisible condition.
I would rule that damaging another creature breaks the invisibility.
@ftl by your logic, a spellcaster could become invisible, go into the middle of a battle, spam thunderwaves, which originates from the caster, and would still benefit from the invisible condition, despite the enemies seeing where it originates every time.
EDIT: @DxJxC I see your point. I didn't look at the fine print.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
No you can't. Thunderwave is a spell which ends invisibility.
Nothing good will come of this.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Dragons are serious business, yo.
EDIT: This is just my speculation, but i feel like a big part of the problem is that because a breath attack is a unique kind of action that is neither an attack nor a spell, but with the ability to cause damage, it circumvents the normal structures of the restriction of invisibility. That is to say that when the rules for invisibility (and familiars) were written, i suspect nobody considered dragon breath--or if they did, they wrote it off as, "eh, dragons are special powerful bad guys." When you start looking at things like dragonborn and in particular the dragon's breath spell (which came out in the Xanathar expansion), you start running into the limitations of the triggers that end the invisible condition. I do believe that, thematically, blasting someone with a breath attack should end the invisible condition. I wouldn't mind seeing some errata released to indicate this. But maybe WOC is leaning into the loophole instead. Who knows? Nonetheless, since this is the rules forum where we enjoy arguing the finer points of loopholes, technicalities, and rules as written, it is allowed.
"Not all those who wander are lost"