![]() Spells that do damage without being spell attacks would still end the effect. Ring of Invisibility: "until you attack or cast a spell" Invisibility: "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell" If we look at both the spell Invisibility and the item Ring of Invisibility you can see they actually account for that In D&D, there is what's commonly know as the 'Big Three' of dice rolls:Īn ability, spell or action that causes a saving throw is just that, a saving throw, not an attack. Case in point: Unseen Attackers and Targets "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. 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. They covered their bases in future books, like the Fade Away feat published in Xanathar's Guide. 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. ![]() There's no room for debate on this one, RAW it works. 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. Mog_Dracov, the rules are quite clear on what's an attack and a saving throw ain't it: 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.ĭispel Magic can target magical effects, but it only ends spells. You have misinterpreted Crawford's ruling. That means they do not qualify as the noun attack, but they still qualify as an action attacking on someone (verb) I am certain that Jeremy Crawford confirmed that the effects are not 'an attack'. It is using the word attack as a VERB, not a noun. Note it does not say 'take an attack action', or even 'make an attack'. 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. In particular, read the ring of invisibilty AGAIN: 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. You may be misinterpreting his rule, so you need to actually QUOTE him. Part of the reason is that 9 times out of 10, people think he said something different than what he actually said. ![]() Quote him, showing where and exactly WHAT he said. Yeah, in general the mastermind is a good source, but not enough. Saying confirmed by Jeremy Crawford is not evidence. I would rule that making a saving throw IS an attack. 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? They are also not considered "spells" because these are innate abilities. 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. None of the beholder's eyestalk effects are technically "attacks" because it forces a saving throw and don't make an attack roll. 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. Anything you are wearing or carrying is invisible with you. ![]() While wearing this ring, you can turn invisible as an action. What I am wondering mainly is the combination of xanathar's eyestalk effects and the ring of invisibility. He basically is a normal beholder wearing a ring of mind shielding, ring of resistance (force) and a ring of invisibility. I have been looking into Xanathar's stats. ![]() Monstrous Compendium Vol 3: Minecraft Creatures ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |