I’m trying to figure out a ruling for something one of my players wants to do. They’re invisible, but they took a couple of seemingly non-attack actions that my gut says should break inviz.

Specifically, they dumped out a flask of oil, and then used a tinderbox to light it on fire. Using a tinderbox isn’t an attack, nor is emptying a flask, although they are actions , and the result of lighting something on fire both seems like an attack and something that would dispell inviz.

I know that as DM I can rule it however I want, but I’m fairly inexperienced and I don’t wanna go nerfing one of my players tools just because it feels yucky to me personally without understanding the implications.

Is this an attack or is there another justification for breaking inviz that is there some RAW clause I didn’t see? Or should this be allowed?

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Interesting!

      Outside of combat, when a character is diligently working towards a thing that they’re able to do, I wouldn’t typically expect them to roll for it beyond adding flavor of how long it takes them.
      In that light I could see using the tinderbox as an attack but the player doesn’t usually need to roll it. But that’s a stretch, I admit.

      I’m gonna have to think on this a bit more. I’m shocked that burning hands or acid splash isn’t considered an attack.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m not sure that helps because it doesn’t answer the question of indirect damage. Does a trap going off which requires a roll count as an attack?

      • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Only if the roll made is an attack roll. As OP says, pouring out a flask doesn’t require an attack, nor does lighting something with a tinderbox. In fact neither of these should require any roll at all.