I have been looking into Xanathar's stats. He basically is a normal beholder wearing a ring of mind shielding, ring of resistance (force) and a ring of invisibility.
What I am wondering mainly is the combination of xanathar's eyestalk effects and the ring of invisibility.
The ring of invisibility says: While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible as an action. Anything you are wearing or carrying is invisible with you. You remain invisible until the ring is removed, until you attack or cast a spell, or until you use a bonus action to become visible again.
None of the beholder's eyestalk effects are technically "attacks" because it forces a saving throw and don't make an attack roll. Similar to the fact that you can cast dragon's breath on a familiar and, even tho it isnt allowed to make an attack, it can use the dragons breath to force someone to make a saving throw. (confirmed by Jeremy Crawford)
They are also not considered "spells" because these are innate abilities.
So am I wrong for assuming that, if a party fights xanathar, they could face him while he is invisible and just shooting his eyebeams everywhere?
That's correct. I'm not a huge fan of that setup because it relies on two loopholes in the 5e rules: I'm pretty sure the Invisibility exploit was purely accidental, and the only reason eye rays aren't an attack is because the devs got rid of touch attacks so the only way to make an "attack" that ignores armor was to use a saving throw.
Still, it's clearly allowed by RAW and more importantly no self-respecting beholder would ever fight without first stacking the deck in their favor. They're paranoid to a fault and spend most of their time thinking up contingency plans for even the most unlikely of circumstances.
While it will make him tougher, a party of the level facing him should be able to handle it. The “not attack” attacks are still beams that will be visible and give them a target square. AoE spells will still work fine against him, and then just throwing a dispel magic at him will do for the invisibility. If he wants to turn it back on, he’s spent his action not attacking. If anything, I’d say it would be an opening attack, turning invisible before they came in the room (assuming he knew they were coming) and/or an escape plan. Turn invisible and fly away.
While it will make him tougher, a party of the level facing him should be able to handle it. The “not attack” attacks are still beams that will be visible and give them a target square.
Figuring out its location is the least of their problems. Attack rolls will be made with disadvantage and most non-attack, non-area spells require sight.
AoE spells will still work fine against him, and then just throwing a dispel magic at him will do for the invisibility.
Now that I look at the ring, that's not going to work. The ring isn't casting the Invisibility spell.
I agree figuring out the location doesn’t fix everything, I meant that more as step 1. And a beholder is smart enough to attack and then move, but at least it’s narrowed down
You are right that the ring doesn’t cast the spell (good catch), but dispel still ends a magical effect, which I’d say it is.
I would rule that making a saving throw IS an attack.
Saying confirmed by Jeremy Crawford is not evidence. His tweets are NOT considered cannon. Yeah, in general the mastermind is a good source, but not enough. Quote him, showing where and exactly WHAT he said.
Part of the reason is that 9 times out of 10, people think he said something different than what he actually said. You may be misinterpreting his rule, so you need to actually QUOTE him. You would not believe how many people think that you can not cast two leveled spells in the same round simply because they mis-read what Jeremy Crawford said about bonus actions.
In particular, read the ring of invisibilty AGAIN:
You remain invisible until the ring is removed, until you attack or cast a spell, or until you use a bonus action to become visible again.
Note it does not say 'take an attack action', or even 'make an attack'.
Instead, the ring says until you attack. It is using the word attack as a VERB, not a noun. I am certain that Jeremy Crawford confirmed that the effects are not 'an attack'. That means they do not qualify as the noun attack, but they still qualify as an action attacking on someone (verb)
You are right that the ring doesn’t cast the spell (good catch), but dispel still ends a magical effect, which I’d say it is.
Dispel Magic can target magical effects, but it only ends spells.
Mog_Dracov, the rules are quite clear on what's an attack and a saving throw ain't it:
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.
There's no room for debate on this one, RAW it works.
I still think it was a completely unintended consequence of narrowing the meaning of "attack" in 5e without revising the wording of legacy spells and items. They covered their bases in future books, like the Fade Away feat published in Xanathar's Guide. But if it bothers you, just fix the spell and the ring directly instead of playing word games to twist the definition of "attack" into something that contradicts the rules. "Until you attack" and "until you make an attack" are obviously the same thing and the ring isn't the only place where the rules use "attack" as a verb. Case in point:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.
When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll.
I am not claiming that a save counts as making 'an attack' (noun). I never said that.
I am claiming that the rules for the ring of invisibility do not mention 'an attack', they mention the verb form of the word, 'you attack', as in 'you attacked me online yesterday' and 'you are attacking my honor'. This is a different thing. I may still be wrong, but you uhm, attacked me for doing something I did not do.
What if the ring said "whenever you do damage" - would you admit that a saving throw counts as doing damage? Of course. The question is, does the ring's rule reference of attacking refer to anything that does damage, or does it refer to ONLY the attack action or 'an attack', both of which are defined (as in the attack action allows you to do 1 or more attacks, depending on if you have 'extra attack' abilities from character levels.) in the PHB.
In D&D, there is what's commonly know as the 'Big Three' of dice rolls:
Ability Check
Attack Roll
Saving Throw
An ability, spell or action that causes a saving throw is just that, a saving throw, not an attack. If we look at both the spell Invisibility and the item Ring of Invisibility you can see they actually account for that
Invisibility: "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell"
Ring of Invisibility: "until you attack or cast a spell"
Spells that do damage without being spell attacks would still end the effect. However, actions that don't have attack rolls and aren't spells would not, the language is precise here otherwise anything could be considered an 'attack'. The invisible creature could say something mocking and you could argue it's an attack against your honour.
Basically, if it's not a spell, and you're not making an attack roll, it doesn't end the effect.
Also, invisible is a condition, that's what the ring links to, nothing to do with the spell. The ring has no spell of any level on it, therefore dispel magic would not work on it.
A party that's taking on a legendary beholder should probably have something that can deal with invisibility, though it's interesting that 5e makes dealing with invisibility harder (dust of appearance, glitterdust, and invisibility purge no longer exist, Faerie Fire has a save).
If it can target an effect, it seems implied that it can dispel that effect. Otherwise, what’s the point of being able to target an effect?
Like SagaTympana hinted at, you need to be able to target the effect to get rid of it. That text lets you directly target a single effect on a creature or object, or target a free-standing effect like Web.
I am claiming that the rules for the ring of invisibility do not mention 'an attack', they mention the verb form of the word, 'you attack', as in 'you attacked me online yesterday' and 'you are attacking my honor'. This is a different thing. I may still be wrong, but you uhm, attacked me for doing something I did not do.
You didn't say that, but I'm pointing out that the verb form is clearly used interchangeably with "making an attack" throughout the rules, so a ruling on the verb will effectively change the definition of an attack too. Since "attacking you" means making an attack against you, if you say forcing you to make a DEX save counts as attacking you, you're saying DEX saves count as attacks.
Here's other places where attack is used as a verb: Find Familiar; Mage Hand; the charmed condition; the Finesse, Reach, Range and Two-Handed weapon properties; the Weapons section from PH chapter 5:
A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
...and the Melee Attack section from PH chapter 9:
Melee Attacks
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach.
A party that's taking on a legendary beholder should probably have something that can deal with invisibility, though it's interesting that 5e makes dealing with invisibility harder (dust of appearance, glitterdust, and invisibility purge no longer exist, Faerie Fire has a save).
I get it. Thank you all for correcting me. So, he just gets to be invisible his entire life if he wants, basically? I guess like pantagruel says, there’s faerie fire, if it works. And someone with true sight (or an item that grants it) could see him. Anti-magic field, but that’s 8th level, and would create other problems. It’s flying, so you can’t throw down some flour or something and look for footprints.
So we’re likely back to AoE spells and attacks with disadvantage.
No Mordenkainen’s disjunction in this edition (that had been my next thought) either, though that would probably also be too high a level even if it existed.
So, he just gets to be invisible his entire life if he wants, basically?
Yup.
I guess like pantagruel says, there’s faerie fire, if it works. And someone with true sight (or an item that grants it) could see him. Anti-magic field, but that’s 8th level, and would create other problems. It’s flying, so you can’t throw down some flour or something and look for footprints.
I'd agree that the beholder gets to stay invisible, in part because they are big bads, and monsters can bend the rules, but wouldn't dream of letting a player use Channel Divinity to turn undead while just plain invisible and remain invisible.
(Note only undead that could see the cleric would be affected, but still.)
Hey people,
I have been looking into Xanathar's stats. He basically is a normal beholder wearing a ring of mind shielding, ring of resistance (force) and a ring of invisibility.
What I am wondering mainly is the combination of xanathar's eyestalk effects and the ring of invisibility.
The ring of invisibility says:
While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible as an action. Anything you are wearing or carrying is invisible with you. You remain invisible until the ring is removed, until you attack or cast a spell, or until you use a bonus action to become visible again.
None of the beholder's eyestalk effects are technically "attacks" because it forces a saving throw and don't make an attack roll. Similar to the fact that you can cast dragon's breath on a familiar and, even tho it isnt allowed to make an attack, it can use the dragons breath to force someone to make a saving throw. (confirmed by Jeremy Crawford)
They are also not considered "spells" because these are innate abilities.
So am I wrong for assuming that, if a party fights xanathar, they could face him while he is invisible and just shooting his eyebeams everywhere?
- Thanks
That's correct. I'm not a huge fan of that setup because it relies on two loopholes in the 5e rules: I'm pretty sure the Invisibility exploit was purely accidental, and the only reason eye rays aren't an attack is because the devs got rid of touch attacks so the only way to make an "attack" that ignores armor was to use a saving throw.
Still, it's clearly allowed by RAW and more importantly no self-respecting beholder would ever fight without first stacking the deck in their favor. They're paranoid to a fault and spend most of their time thinking up contingency plans for even the most unlikely of circumstances.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Whoa, a bit spoilery! Mind hiding that info behind a spoiler tag?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
While it will make him tougher, a party of the level facing him should be able to handle it. The “not attack” attacks are still beams that will be visible and give them a target square. AoE spells will still work fine against him, and then just throwing a dispel magic at him will do for the invisibility. If he wants to turn it back on, he’s spent his action not attacking. If anything, I’d say it would be an opening attack, turning invisible before they came in the room (assuming he knew they were coming) and/or an escape plan. Turn invisible and fly away.
Figuring out its location is the least of their problems. Attack rolls will be made with disadvantage and most non-attack, non-area spells require sight.
Now that I look at the ring, that's not going to work. The ring isn't casting the Invisibility spell.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I agree figuring out the location doesn’t fix everything, I meant that more as step 1. And a beholder is smart enough to attack and then move, but at least it’s narrowed down
You are right that the ring doesn’t cast the spell (good catch), but dispel still ends a magical effect, which I’d say it is.
I would rule that making a saving throw IS an attack.
Saying confirmed by Jeremy Crawford is not evidence. His tweets are NOT considered cannon. Yeah, in general the mastermind is a good source, but not enough. Quote him, showing where and exactly WHAT he said.
Part of the reason is that 9 times out of 10, people think he said something different than what he actually said. You may be misinterpreting his rule, so you need to actually QUOTE him. You would not believe how many people think that you can not cast two leveled spells in the same round simply because they mis-read what Jeremy Crawford said about bonus actions.
In particular, read the ring of invisibilty AGAIN:
Note it does not say 'take an attack action', or even 'make an attack'.
Instead, the ring says until you attack. It is using the word attack as a VERB, not a noun. I am certain that Jeremy Crawford confirmed that the effects are not 'an attack'. That means they do not qualify as the noun attack, but they still qualify as an action attacking on someone (verb)
You have misinterpreted Crawford's ruling.
Dispel Magic can target magical effects, but it only ends spells.
Mog_Dracov, the rules are quite clear on what's an attack and a saving throw ain't it:
There's no room for debate on this one, RAW it works.
I still think it was a completely unintended consequence of narrowing the meaning of "attack" in 5e without revising the wording of legacy spells and items. They covered their bases in future books, like the Fade Away feat published in Xanathar's Guide. But if it bothers you, just fix the spell and the ring directly instead of playing word games to twist the definition of "attack" into something that contradicts the rules. "Until you attack" and "until you make an attack" are obviously the same thing and the ring isn't the only place where the rules use "attack" as a verb. Case in point:
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If it can target an effect, it seems implied that it can dispel that effect. Otherwise, what’s the point of being able to target an effect?
To end a spell that's currently active on the effect, exactly the same as the point of being able to target a creature or object.
I am not claiming that a save counts as making 'an attack' (noun). I never said that.
I am claiming that the rules for the ring of invisibility do not mention 'an attack', they mention the verb form of the word, 'you attack', as in 'you attacked me online yesterday' and 'you are attacking my honor'. This is a different thing. I may still be wrong, but you uhm, attacked me for doing something I did not do.
What if the ring said "whenever you do damage" - would you admit that a saving throw counts as doing damage? Of course. The question is, does the ring's rule reference of attacking refer to anything that does damage, or does it refer to ONLY the attack action or 'an attack', both of which are defined (as in the attack action allows you to do 1 or more attacks, depending on if you have 'extra attack' abilities from character levels.) in the PHB.
In D&D, there is what's commonly know as the 'Big Three' of dice rolls:
An ability, spell or action that causes a saving throw is just that, a saving throw, not an attack. If we look at both the spell Invisibility and the item Ring of Invisibility you can see they actually account for that
Invisibility: "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell"
Ring of Invisibility: "until you attack or cast a spell"
Spells that do damage without being spell attacks would still end the effect. However, actions that don't have attack rolls and aren't spells would not, the language is precise here otherwise anything could be considered an 'attack'. The invisible creature could say something mocking and you could argue it's an attack against your honour.
Basically, if it's not a spell, and you're not making an attack roll, it doesn't end the effect.
Also, invisible is a condition, that's what the ring links to, nothing to do with the spell. The ring has no spell of any level on it, therefore dispel magic would not work on it.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
A party that's taking on a legendary beholder should probably have something that can deal with invisibility, though it's interesting that 5e makes dealing with invisibility harder (dust of appearance, glitterdust, and invisibility purge no longer exist, Faerie Fire has a save).
Like SagaTympana hinted at, you need to be able to target the effect to get rid of it. That text lets you directly target a single effect on a creature or object, or target a free-standing effect like Web.
You didn't say that, but I'm pointing out that the verb form is clearly used interchangeably with "making an attack" throughout the rules, so a ruling on the verb will effectively change the definition of an attack too. Since "attacking you" means making an attack against you, if you say forcing you to make a DEX save counts as attacking you, you're saying DEX saves count as attacks.
Here's other places where attack is used as a verb: Find Familiar; Mage Hand; the charmed condition; the Finesse, Reach, Range and Two-Handed weapon properties; the Weapons section from PH chapter 5:
...and the Melee Attack section from PH chapter 9:
There's always See Invisibility, and the classic bag of flour.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I get it. Thank you all for correcting me.
So, he just gets to be invisible his entire life if he wants, basically?
I guess like pantagruel says, there’s faerie fire, if it works. And someone with true sight (or an item that grants it) could see him. Anti-magic field, but that’s 8th level, and would create other problems. It’s flying, so you can’t throw down some flour or something and look for footprints.
So we’re likely back to AoE spells and attacks with disadvantage.
No Mordenkainen’s disjunction in this edition (that had been my next thought) either, though that would probably also be too high a level even if it existed.
Yup.
If you're trying to list all the options, Sickening Radiance is a big one. Mind Spike kinda duplicates See Invisibility but only if you can see the target to cast the spell in the first place and they fail the save. There's also True Seeing, the Lantern of Revealing and Gem of Seeing.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'd agree that the beholder gets to stay invisible, in part because they are big bads, and monsters can bend the rules, but wouldn't dream of letting a player use Channel Divinity to turn undead while just plain invisible and remain invisible.
(Note only undead that could see the cleric would be affected, but still.)