So if a Barbarian with Feral Instinct rolled higher in the initiative order then the creature that is Invisible, that creature is still Invisible? My understanding in 5e is that the attack occurs when initiative is rolled, which means the Invisibility should be gone and the Barbarian doesn't have disadvantage.
Rolling for Initiative marks the start of combat. It's not an actual in-character event, it's an out-of-character event to create the turn order for the upcoming fight. An attack doesn't happen until someone... attacks.
Got it. So the Barbarian could Rage and attack at disadvantage, but the invisible creature gets one attack at advantage (if it makes its CON save from being hit) and then becomes visible.
So if a Barbarian with Feral Instinct rolled higher in the initiative order then the creature that is Invisible, that creature is still Invisible? My understanding in 5e is that the attack occurs when initiative is rolled, which means the Invisibility should be gone and the Barbarian doesn't have disadvantage.
Rolling for Initiative marks the start of combat. It's not an actual in-character event, it's an out-of-character event to create the turn order for the upcoming fight. An attack doesn't happen until someone... attacks.
Got it. So the Barbarian could Rage and attack at disadvantage, but the invisible creature gets one attack at advantage (if it makes its CON save from being hit) and then becomes visible.
Basically, yes. You just take everything in the order defined by the Initiative rolls, and it works itself out.
Invisibility is not ended by offensive actions that do not use attack rolls and also are not casting spells
I know this is generally the case (an attack is any time you roll an attack). However, what about Shove & Grapple? Neither do damage, neither roll for attack/to hit, however both are described as "a special melee attack" and both are done using the Attack action.
I must admit, as awesome as it would be for an invisible character to be able to walk up to an enemy and grapple them without losing invisibility, then just hold them there unable to move for the other characters to hit, I think I'd rule that this doesn't work.
Invisibility is not ended by offensive actions that do not use attack rolls and also are not casting spells
I know this is generally the case (an attack is any time you roll an attack). However, what about Shove & Grapple? Neither do damage, neither roll for attack/to hit, however both are described as "a special melee attack" and both are done using the Attack action.
I must admit, as awesome as it would be for an invisible character to be able to walk up to an enemy and grapple them without losing invisibility, then just hold them there unable to move for the other characters to hit, I think I'd rule that this doesn't work.
Invisibility “ends for a target that attacks,” not for one that “makes an attack roll.” Shoving and grappling are explicitly attacks and so unambiguously end invisibility.
I like the logic behind that, and considering it's a 2nd level slot and is only good for 1 attack, it's hardly game-breaking. Compare to True Strike
Jeremy's being a bit glib about how this works. His statement wouldn't hold true if the invisible caster casts another concentration spell (say, Vampiric Touch). A concentration spell ends as soon as a caster *begins* casting another concentration spell, so in my example the caster would become visible before finishing the Vampiric Touch spell, and therefore by RAW wouldn't have advantage on the attack.
The whole when you use the attack action it ends thing could be visualised as that orc suddenly appearing behind you and charging but you jump out of the way in time
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Hm. I realize that Invisibility is not ended by offensive actions that do not use attack rolls and also are not casting spells. For example, using a Necklace of Fireballs. This is probably not intended.
NOT true.
Quote, from the spell:
The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
The spell makes no mention at all of an attack roll. Anything that involves an attack counts. That includes throwing beads from a Necklace of fireball, using attack actions such as Grapple that does not have a to hit, using actions granted by a spell such as Dragon Breath, Sunbeam, Crown of Stars, etc. etc.
There is no requirement at all about 'attack rolls'.
Hm. I realize that Invisibility is not ended by offensive actions that do not use attack rolls and also are not casting spells. For example, using a Necklace of Fireballs. This is probably not intended.
NOT true.
Quote, from the spell:
The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
The spell makes no mention at all of an attack roll. Anything that involves an attack counts.
Mmm, correct, but you're leading yourself to an incorrect conclusion.
That includes throwing beads from a Necklace of fireball, using attack actions such as Grapple that does not have a to hit, using actions granted by a spell such as Dragon Breath, Sunbeam, Crown of Stars, etc. etc.
There is no requirement at all about 'attack rolls'.
Throwing beads from a necklace of fireballs is not making an attack. A grapple is defined as a special melee attack, so that's an attack, but dragon's breath is not an attack. Sunbeam is not an attack.
So yeah, it's true that invisibility doesn't mention attack rolls. The reason for this is that it doesn't need to. The rules define "attack" as "making an attack roll." Unless there's some specific override (e.g. grappling), if it doesn't involve an attack roll, it definitionally isn't an attack.
The spell makes no mention at all of an attack roll. Anything that involves an attack counts. That includes throwing beads from a Necklace of fireball, using attack actions such as Grapple that does not have a to hit, using actions granted by a spell such as Dragon Breath, Sunbeam, Crown of Stars, etc. etc.
There is no requirement at all about 'attack rolls'.
All of the things you mention are 'offensive actions that are not attacks'. If they meant to cover offensive actions they should have said that (for example, add conditions such as 'damage any creature' or 'force any creature to make a save'). Not that things like the invisiblebeholder aren't entertaining once, but not really how the game is supposed to work.
Got it. So the Barbarian could Rage and attack at disadvantage, but the invisible creature gets one attack at advantage (if it makes its CON save from being hit) and then becomes visible.
If you want sugar coating, go buy a dessert....
Basically, yes. You just take everything in the order defined by the Initiative rolls, and it works itself out.
I know this is generally the case (an attack is any time you roll an attack). However, what about Shove & Grapple? Neither do damage, neither roll for attack/to hit, however both are described as "a special melee attack" and both are done using the Attack action.
I must admit, as awesome as it would be for an invisible character to be able to walk up to an enemy and grapple them without losing invisibility, then just hold them there unable to move for the other characters to hit, I think I'd rule that this doesn't work.
Invisibility “ends for a target that attacks,” not for one that “makes an attack roll.” Shoving and grappling are explicitly attacks and so unambiguously end invisibility.
That's what I figured, thanks :)
Jeremy's being a bit glib about how this works. His statement wouldn't hold true if the invisible caster casts another concentration spell (say, Vampiric Touch). A concentration spell ends as soon as a caster *begins* casting another concentration spell, so in my example the caster would become visible before finishing the Vampiric Touch spell, and therefore by RAW wouldn't have advantage on the attack.
In that case you are no longer under the Invisibility spell when you begin casting Vampiric Touch, and therefore not invisible anymore when attacking.
I'd say in such case Vampiric Touch could even be counterspelled by being seen casting a spell.
The whole when you use the attack action it ends thing could be visualised as that orc suddenly appearing behind you and charging but you jump out of the way in time
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
NOT true.
Quote, from the spell:
The spell makes no mention at all of an attack roll. Anything that involves an attack counts. That includes throwing beads from a Necklace of fireball, using attack actions such as Grapple that does not have a to hit, using actions granted by a spell such as Dragon Breath, Sunbeam, Crown of Stars, etc. etc.
There is no requirement at all about 'attack rolls'.
Mmm, correct, but you're leading yourself to an incorrect conclusion.
Throwing beads from a necklace of fireballs is not making an attack. A grapple is defined as a special melee attack, so that's an attack, but dragon's breath is not an attack. Sunbeam is not an attack.
So yeah, it's true that invisibility doesn't mention attack rolls. The reason for this is that it doesn't need to. The rules define "attack" as "making an attack roll." Unless there's some specific override (e.g. grappling), if it doesn't involve an attack roll, it definitionally isn't an attack.
All of the things you mention are 'offensive actions that are not attacks'. If they meant to cover offensive actions they should have said that (for example, add conditions such as 'damage any creature' or 'force any creature to make a save'). Not that things like the invisible beholder aren't entertaining once, but not really how the game is supposed to work.