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?
It wasn’t actually attacking an enemy, it was setting their weapon rack on fire so that they couldn’t get to their ranged weapons.
Very clever, I like it!
But this familiar is becoming OP through rules lawyering. I don’t wanna rain on my player’s parade, but I’m not an experienced DM and it’s becoming difficult to make encounters that can’t just be circumvented by this damn familiar lol.
Add some environmental hazards and AoE attacks. Make the fires spread out of control and become a threat of their own. Tempt them with explosive barrels in dangerous places. Familiars die easily, but are cheap to resummon.
Keep attacking them frequently between rests. Make them reconsider that 1 hour familiar ritual and invisibility spell slot.
If even a single witness escapes, he’s telling everyone what happened. Most spell casters can immediately put out the fire with Prestidigitation, Control Flames, or Druidcraft.
When they destroy items with fire, describe expensive things melting into worthless things.