I do like the concept that it gives away your location, which does sound pretty obvious in hindsight. I got a response from Twitter and they brought up the Fade Away feat from Xanathar's Guide
Prerequisite: Gnome
Your people are clever, with a knack for illusion magic. You have learned a magical trick for fading away when you suffer harm. You gain the following benefits:
Increase your Dexterity or Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Immediately after you take damage, you can use a reaction to magically become invisible until the end of your next turn or until you attack, deal damage, or force someone to make a saving throw. Once you use this ability, you can’t do so again until you finish a short or long rest.
So I'm thinking it may be an issue with the Invisibility spell itself, as the feat includes the words "saving throw" within it's description. Maybe we'll get something in a future errata, or maybe not. I'll see how my campaign goes and adjust accordingly
We could have a whole other conversation about whether everyone knows the exact location of an invisible but unhidden character (it's complicated), but the relevant fact here is that even if an invisible creature's location is given away, they still get most of the benefits of being invisible simply by virtue of the condition.
But maybe WOC is leaning into the loophole instead.
I'd say they're leaning into laziness.
Sanctuary, Invisibility, and Fade Away all use different terminology. Sanctuary & Fade Away make sense; they allow use of spells/abilities that are beneficial to friendly targets without breaking. Invisibility is supposed to be more restrictive.
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.
The D&D team very heavily leans on the fact that its rules are interpreted by human beings and are expected to be fudged around to suit what's needed.
Unlike, say, Magic the Gathering, which is competitive and therefore needs to have strict rules and codified language in order to function the same way every time.
In the case of Invisibility, its not worded comprehensively so RAW it works in a silly way.
It's up to each DM to decide whether they want this type of shenanigan to work or not work. Personally I wouldn't want to be a player in the game where the DM decides "sure, breathing fire doesn't count as attack..." because that DM is absolutely going to have an invisible dragon at some point. Then again, that could be fun.
The breath weapon uses an attack action. It breaks invisibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
The breath weapon uses an attack action. It breaks invisibility.
Pretty sure it isn't the attack action since attack action is described as:
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
Which a breath weapon is not.
This conversation has become: Invisibility ends when you make an attack. An attack is an attack when you make an attack. Breath weapons don't make attacks.
If you breathe fire on someone, you're not hugging them. You're not tickling them. You're not massaging their muscles.
You're attacking them. You're doing damage. You're actively trying to make that person dead.
Right, it doesn't require an attack roll. I get it. Granted. Point made. But you're arguing semantics. Think beyond the words for a second. If you hurl a bucket of acid into someone's face, the cops will show up and throw you in jail for a very long time. Because you attacked that person. Now, sure, you're free to take your case to court and stand before the judge and jury and try to explain that you didn't actually ""attack"" that person, because they could have been dextrous enough to avoid the acid, so really it's their own fault for getting hurt. But I'm pretty sure that's not gonna work.
When the wording of the Invisibility spell was written way back in the early 1970s, the dragonborn player character race had not yet been invented. So Mr. Gygax should be forgiven for not having the foresight to include the dragonborn's breath weapon as one of the conditional actions that would break Invisibility.
But if you're okay with letting invisible dragons burn down the world at your table, that's cool. It's your table. The beautiful thing about D&D is that the rules are merely a framework of guidelines, and not actual Laws that are carved in stone. If ever a vague or unclear situation arises, the DM is free to use whatever common sense reasoning he or she deems appropriate to resolve the issue. Personally, I would rule that a dragonborn's breath weapon breaks invisibility. Sorry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
If you breathe fire on someone, you're not hugging them. You're not tickling them. You're not massaging their muscles.
You're attacking them. You're doing damage. You're actively trying to make that person dead.
Right, it doesn't require an attack roll. I get it. Granted. Point made. But you're arguing semantics. Think beyond the words for a second. If you hurl a bucket of acid into someone's face, the cops will show up and throw you in jail for a very long time. Because you attacked that person. Now, sure, you're free to take your case to court and stand before the judge and jury and try to explain that you didn't actually ""attack"" that person, because they could have been dextrous enough to avoid the acid, so really it's their own fault for getting hurt. But I'm pretty sure that's not gonna work.
When the wording of the Invisibility spell was written way back in the early 1970s, the dragonborn player character race had not yet been invented. So Mr. Gygax should be forgiven for not having the foresight to include the dragonborn's breath weapon as one of the conditional actions that would break Invisibility.
But if you're okay with letting invisible dragons burn down the world at your table, that's cool. It's your table. The beautiful thing about D&D is that the rules are merely a framework of guidelines, and not actual Laws that are carved in stone. If ever a vague or unclear situation arises, the DM is free to use whatever common sense reasoning he or she deems appropriate to resolve the issue. Personally, I would rule that a dragonborn's breath weapon breaks invisibility. Sorry.
Now you are arguing semantics. It most certainly is an aggressive action and in the general (and legal) meaning of the word is an attack. But that is irrelevant, the rules define what "an attack" is in the game, and forcing a save does not meet that definition.
And if your main concern is about invisible dragons, need I remind you that while invisibility ends if you attack, greater invisibility does not. So invisible dragons are just as much a possibility whether non-attacks are attacks or not.
My solution is "attack" =/= "take the attack action", and any damage dealing breaks the invisibility. I haven't had any players using invisibility yet but its how I run my NPCs.
I know, it's been over a year already, but my players and I recently got into a big argument about this, and this is what I told them. Say Todd the Wizard casts Invisibility on himself. He blows out a lit candle. Does his invisibility then end? Blowing out a candle, IMO, is A LOT like using a breath weapon (especially for dragon-type beings, it's part of their bodies!) Is damage done to the flame? Oh yes, effectively killing it. But did Todd the Wizard attack the flame? Or did he just breath? One of my players brought up the fact that DnDBeyond lists Breath Weapon in the Attack Actions section of their character sheets, but they also list some spells there, and those take the Cast a Spell Action. Anyway, that's my 5 cents.
I know, it's been over a year already, but my players and I recently got into a big argument about this, and this is what I told them. Say Todd the Wizard casts Invisibility on himself. He blows out a lit candle. Does his invisibility then end? Blowing out a candle, IMO, is A LOT like using a breath weapon (especially for dragon-type beings, it's part of their bodies!) Is damage done to the flame? Oh yes, effectively killing it. But did Todd the Wizard attack the flame? Or did he just breath? One of my players brought up the fact that DnDBeyond lists Breath Weapon in the Attack Actions section of their character sheets, but they also list some spells there, and those take the Cast a Spell Action. Anyway, that's my 5 cents.
Regular breathing is not an attack or spell. It doesn't even use an action.
Also, breath weapons are still not attacks (though the new ones can replace attacks).
Invisibility RAW doesnt break unless you attack something, which gives you the advantage for the one hit, or cast a spell. Dragons breath from a dragon or dragon born is an exception, as it is an ability that is neither a spell, nor an attack. A similar interaction takes place if you make a wild magic barb invisible. They still get to do effects that don't involve direct attacking of a target, and they already cant cast spells.
Now that I think of it, I think you could also interact with objects while invisible, which includes magic items... necklace of fireballs here I come!
I will say, however, that the reworked dragonborn might make this a bit harder to argue, since they now can substitute an attack with a breath weapon. I would still argue that invisibility holds up until they actually attack a target.
Invisibility only specifies "a target that attacks" which is less specific than say "makes an attack", so for the updated Dragonborn the breath weapon arguably counts since the breath weapon now occurs as part of the Attack action, rather than being an action in its own right. The action is literally named "Attack" so it's not really possible to argue that it doesn't count as "a target that attacks" when the target uses it.
For the older Dragonborn the breath weapon is an action in its own right, and is not an attack in game terms; this is true for more than just the Dragonborn, for example an Astral Arms Monk's area damage effect wouldn't end invisibility either.
The intention on this is a bit weird, as Wizards of the Coast have had literally years to errata it to say "attacks or deals damage" or similar, but they haven't, unlike for sanctuary which was clarified to work without attack rolls.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sounds good to me. Then important battles become more of an Irl contested Knowlege check. For every DM that gets overzealous with invisible dragons, there's a party that snipes from Tiny hut or Rope Trick.
I've seen variations of this argument stretching back to 2nd Edition, and at no point did someone deciding that effects that didn't target a single creature/used a saving throw instead of an attack roll/debilitated targets without dealing HP damage didn't break the effects of Invisibility make the game more fun instead of less fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We always assumed anything leaving an invisible character be it dirt, dart, dagger, arrow or spell effect with an originating point of the caster as having a good chance of giving away the location of the caster.
A passive perception check unless the opponents are actively watching for it then its a full perception check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do like the concept that it gives away your location, which does sound pretty obvious in hindsight. I got a response from Twitter and they brought up the Fade Away feat from Xanathar's Guide
So I'm thinking it may be an issue with the Invisibility spell itself, as the feat includes the words "saving throw" within it's description. Maybe we'll get something in a future errata, or maybe not. I'll see how my campaign goes and adjust accordingly
We could have a whole other conversation about whether everyone knows the exact location of an invisible but unhidden character (it's complicated), but the relevant fact here is that even if an invisible creature's location is given away, they still get most of the benefits of being invisible simply by virtue of the condition.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd say they're leaning into laziness.
Sanctuary, Invisibility, and Fade Away all use different terminology. Sanctuary & Fade Away make sense; they allow use of spells/abilities that are beneficial to friendly targets without breaking. Invisibility is supposed to be more restrictive.
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.
The D&D team very heavily leans on the fact that its rules are interpreted by human beings and are expected to be fudged around to suit what's needed.
Unlike, say, Magic the Gathering, which is competitive and therefore needs to have strict rules and codified language in order to function the same way every time.
In the case of Invisibility, its not worded comprehensively so RAW it works in a silly way.
It's up to each DM to decide whether they want this type of shenanigan to work or not work. Personally I wouldn't want to be a player in the game where the DM decides "sure, breathing fire doesn't count as attack..." because that DM is absolutely going to have an invisible dragon at some point. Then again, that could be fun.
My DM's Guild Content - Mostly quick rules and guides.
The breath weapon uses an attack action. It breaks invisibility.
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
Pretty sure it isn't the attack action since attack action is described as:
Which a breath weapon is not.
This conversation has become: Invisibility ends when you make an attack. An attack is an attack when you make an attack. Breath weapons don't make attacks.
If you breathe fire on someone, you're not hugging them. You're not tickling them. You're not massaging their muscles.
You're attacking them. You're doing damage. You're actively trying to make that person dead.
Right, it doesn't require an attack roll. I get it. Granted. Point made. But you're arguing semantics. Think beyond the words for a second. If you hurl a bucket of acid into someone's face, the cops will show up and throw you in jail for a very long time. Because you attacked that person. Now, sure, you're free to take your case to court and stand before the judge and jury and try to explain that you didn't actually ""attack"" that person, because they could have been dextrous enough to avoid the acid, so really it's their own fault for getting hurt. But I'm pretty sure that's not gonna work.
When the wording of the Invisibility spell was written way back in the early 1970s, the dragonborn player character race had not yet been invented. So Mr. Gygax should be forgiven for not having the foresight to include the dragonborn's breath weapon as one of the conditional actions that would break Invisibility.
But if you're okay with letting invisible dragons burn down the world at your table, that's cool. It's your table. The beautiful thing about D&D is that the rules are merely a framework of guidelines, and not actual Laws that are carved in stone. If ever a vague or unclear situation arises, the DM is free to use whatever common sense reasoning he or she deems appropriate to resolve the issue. Personally, I would rule that a dragonborn's breath weapon breaks invisibility. Sorry.
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
Now you are arguing semantics. It most certainly is an aggressive action and in the general (and legal) meaning of the word is an attack. But that is irrelevant, the rules define what "an attack" is in the game, and forcing a save does not meet that definition.
And if your main concern is about invisible dragons, need I remind you that while invisibility ends if you attack, greater invisibility does not. So invisible dragons are just as much a possibility whether non-attacks are attacks or not.
My solution is "attack" =/= "take the attack action", and any damage dealing breaks the invisibility. I haven't had any players using invisibility yet but its how I run my NPCs.
I know, it's been over a year already, but my players and I recently got into a big argument about this, and this is what I told them.
Say Todd the Wizard casts Invisibility on himself. He blows out a lit candle. Does his invisibility then end?
Blowing out a candle, IMO, is A LOT like using a breath weapon (especially for dragon-type beings, it's part of their bodies!)
Is damage done to the flame? Oh yes, effectively killing it. But did Todd the Wizard attack the flame? Or did he just breath?
One of my players brought up the fact that DnDBeyond lists Breath Weapon in the Attack Actions section of their character sheets, but they also list some spells there, and those take the Cast a Spell Action.
Anyway, that's my 5 cents.
PHB RAW: No, it does not break invisibility.
PHB RAI: Yes, it breaks invisibility. (At least, that's what I'd rule as a DM)
Draconic Options UA RAW & RAI: Yes it breaks invisibility. (Breath Weapons are attacks in the updated Dragonborn races)
Regular breathing is not an attack or spell. It doesn't even use an action.
Also, breath weapons are still not attacks (though the new ones can replace attacks).
Invisibility RAW doesnt break unless you attack something, which gives you the advantage for the one hit, or cast a spell. Dragons breath from a dragon or dragon born is an exception, as it is an ability that is neither a spell, nor an attack. A similar interaction takes place if you make a wild magic barb invisible. They still get to do effects that don't involve direct attacking of a target, and they already cant cast spells.
Now that I think of it, I think you could also interact with objects while invisible, which includes magic items... necklace of fireballs here I come!
I will say, however, that the reworked dragonborn might make this a bit harder to argue, since they now can substitute an attack with a breath weapon. I would still argue that invisibility holds up until they actually attack a target.
Invisibility only specifies "a target that attacks" which is less specific than say "makes an attack", so for the updated Dragonborn the breath weapon arguably counts since the breath weapon now occurs as part of the Attack action, rather than being an action in its own right. The action is literally named "Attack" so it's not really possible to argue that it doesn't count as "a target that attacks" when the target uses it.
For the older Dragonborn the breath weapon is an action in its own right, and is not an attack in game terms; this is true for more than just the Dragonborn, for example an Astral Arms Monk's area damage effect wouldn't end invisibility either.
The intention on this is a bit weird, as Wizards of the Coast have had literally years to errata it to say "attacks or deals damage" or similar, but they haven't, unlike for sanctuary which was clarified to work without attack rolls.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Our basic fall back rule is.
Don't make a rule you wouldn't want used against you.
NPC's and intelligent monsters can and will use every idea you have. If they didn't come up with it first they will eventually copy the PC's.
Sounds good to me. Then important battles become more of an Irl contested Knowlege check. For every DM that gets overzealous with invisible dragons, there's a party that snipes from Tiny hut or Rope Trick.
I've seen variations of this argument stretching back to 2nd Edition, and at no point did someone deciding that effects that didn't target a single creature/used a saving throw instead of an attack roll/debilitated targets without dealing HP damage didn't break the effects of Invisibility make the game more fun instead of less fun.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We always assumed anything leaving an invisible character be it dirt, dart, dagger, arrow or spell effect with an originating point of the caster as having a good chance of giving away the location of the caster.
A passive perception check unless the opponents are actively watching for it then its a full perception check.