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?
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.
The invisible user poured the oil and lit the fire that caused damage to the enemy. So if the invisible user setup a crossbow with a string on the trigger is it an attack? The action was to pull a string. If you attach a lever to a sword and pull the lever can you run around hitting people with a sword and stay invisible?
The difference between those scenarios you’ve invented and the scenario in the post is that pouring out oil and lighting a fire with a tinderbox already have existing rules, there’s no need to try to interpret the mechanics of the situation.