Does a Beholder eye ray break its Invisibility?

[SpikeFightwicky]

Howdy folks,

Question about invisibility: RAW states that invisibility ends when the invisible target attacks or casts a spell. A beholder eye ray isn't listed as a spell-like ability and isn't a ranged attack. Does it cancel invisibility?

[OzDragon]

Howdy folks,

Question about invisibility: RAW states that invisibility ends when the invisible target attacks or casts a spell. A beholder eye ray isn't listed as a spell-like ability and isn't a ranged attack. Does it cancel invisibility?


I would say that it is an attack action. Attack actions cancel invisibility unless of course that it is greater invisibility.

[Chronos]

It's not an attack action, because it doesn't involve an attack roll.

RAW, I don't think it would break invisibility, but I would houserule that it does, because while the eye rays aren't actually spells, they're very similar to them.

[Dalebert]

Agree with Chronos. RAW, the answer is no, but I would expect many DMs to overrule that. When they wrote the spell, I don't think they accounted for uses of it on every NPC creature imaginable.

[Zuras]

RAW using eye rays does not count as attacks or spells, since they aren’t spells and require saves, not to-hit rolls.

This has been confirmed in official WotC products where Beholders have access to invisibility.

In those products, the authors acknowledge that the tactic is cheesy as hell, but the beholder in question is not actually part of the adventure objectives, the PCs are told it is incredibly dangerous, and if they want to fight it, play it as evil as possible.

[OzDragon]

Misread Ignore!

[OzDragon]

RAW using eye rays does not count as attacks or spells, since they aren’t spells and require saves, not to-hit rolls.

This has been confirmed in official WotC products where Beholders have access to invisibility.

In those products, the authors acknowledge that the tactic is cheesy as hell, but the beholder in question is not actually part of the adventure objectives, the PCs are told it is incredibly dangerous, and if they want to fight it, play it as evil as possible.

You are saying here that they require a character to make a save or something detrimental will happen to them. That would be an attack action at my table. In this instance the Beholder would lose invisibility.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You are saying here that they require a character to make a save or something detrimental will happen to them. That would be an attack action at my table. In this instance the Beholder would lose invisibility.

And you're free to rule otherwise, but by the rules an attack must involve an attack roll to be considered as such. This is how we've come to accept the strange conclusion that while Magic Missile is an offensive spell being cast that damages the target, it does not count as making an attack against them.

RAW is a strange beast and you're encouraged openly by the developers to use your own judgements where the written rules don't work for your table.

[Millstone85]

I would advise against talking about "attack actions".

There are several actions, bonus actions, and reactions, that involve making an attack, but only one of these actions is called Attack.

And yeah, an attack involves an attack roll.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would advise against talking about "attack actions".

There are several actions, bonus actions, and reactions, that involve making an attack, but only one of these actions is called Attack.

And yeah, an attack involves an attack roll.

Yeah, that's up there with hiding and alignment as ways to start a forum fire.

[OzDragon]

I would advise against talking about "attack actions".

There are several actions, bonus actions, and reactions, that involve making an attack, but only one of these actions is called Attack.

And yeah, an attack involves an attack roll.

Ok then lets put it this way.

Anything that someone does that affects a PC in a negative way via magic or physical means is an attack. One which would break invisibility.

Again this is at our table.I'm not saying you are doing it wrong.

[MaxWilson]

RAW using eye rays does not count as attacks or spells, since they aren’t spells and require saves, not to-hit rolls.

This has been confirmed in official WotC products where Beholders have access to invisibility.

In those products, the authors acknowledge that the tactic is cheesy as ----, but the beholder in question is not actually part of the adventure objectives, the PCs are told it is incredibly dangerous, and if they want to fight it, play it as evil as possible.

These authors deserve to have cheesy served right back at them: PCs vanish into Darkness, are therefore immune to the beholder's eye rays, and kill it with impunity.

RAW-obsession is stupidity, and you shouldn't write it into the adventure.

[mAc Chaos]

Ok then lets put it this way.

Anything that someone does that affects a PC in a negative way via magic or physical means is an attack. One which would break invisibility.

Again this is at our table.I'm not saying you are doing it wrong.

Let's pretend a PC sets up some complicated trap that attacks a monster. The PC is invisible. The monster comes into the room.

The PC pushes the button to activate the trap and the trap squishes the monster. Did the PC lose invisibility?

[Zuras]

These authors deserve to have cheesy served right back at them: PCs vanish into Darkness, are therefore immune to the beholder's eye rays, and kill it with impunity.

RAW-obsession is stupidity, and you shouldn't write it into the adventure.


Changing how something works just because you think it’s unbalanced isn’t a great solution.

There is no logical reason why a Cloak of Invisibility functions as a permanent Greater Invisibility while a Ring of Invisibility only provides permanent regular Invisibility, but that’s the way the game works. Maybe the game designers like Harry Potter better than Lord of the Rings. Do you change how those two magic items work in your campaign? Is allowing them to work differently RAW obsession?

If the designers intended Invisibility not to have that loophole, they could have updated it at the same time they updated Sanctuary.

If it offends your sense of justice, don’t allow it. Given that the two most obvious abusers of non-attack, non-spell hostile actions are Beholders and Spellcasting Dragons, it doesn’t seem like a major issue. It is literally the difference between a 2nd and 4th level spell on a CR 13+ creature.

[Dalebert]

You are saying here that they require a character to make a save or something detrimental will happen to them. That would be an attack action at my table. In this instance the Beholder would lose invisibility.

Yes, "at your table". Several of us who said that it's not an attack by RAW have agreed that many DMs would houserule that it becomes visible. No one is saying it's a wrong or bad ruling. When someone asks a question about the RAW, we give them an answer by the RAW.

But it's important to make a distinction between what's an attack or not. "Doing something bad" to someone is not necessarily an attack and the mechanical distinction is there for good reason. Mirror Image doesn't protect you from save-based spells or effects, for instance; only attacks. It's not intended to be that powerful.

[Chronos]

It's not just making a 2nd level spell act like a 4th level spell. If you can do combat stuff without breaking it, Invisibility is much better than Improved Invisibility, because of the longer duration.

[Zuras]

It's not just making a 2nd level spell act like a 4th level spell. If you can do combat stuff without breaking it, Invisibility is much better than Improved Invisibility, because of the longer duration.

Sure, for PCs. Monsters are different. I haven’t ever had a creature using Greater Invisibility have it end due to expired duration, as opposed to dispel/lost concentration.

[MaxWilson]

Changing how something works just because you think it’s unbalanced isn’t a great solution.

Changing how something works because you think it's stupid and illogical, however, is.


There is no logical reason why a Cloak of Invisibility functions as a permanent Greater Invisibility while a Ring of Invisibility only provides permanent regular Invisibility, but that’s the way the game works. Maybe the game designers like Harry Potter better than Lord of the Rings. Do you change how those two magic items work in your campaign? Is allowing them to work differently RAW obsession?

If the designers intended Invisibility not to have that loophole, they could have updated it at the same time they updated Sanctuary.

If it offends your sense of justice, don’t allow it. Given that the two most obvious abusers of non-attack, non-spell hostile actions are Beholders and Spellcasting Dragons, it doesn’t seem like a major issue. It is literally the difference between a 2nd and 4th level spell on a CR 13+ creature.

Sure. Like I said, authors who are obsessed with RAW deserve to have RAW served right back at them. The invisible beholder will die ignominiously against the heavily-obscured PCs.


It's not just making a 2nd level spell act like a 4th level spell. If you can do combat stuff without breaking it, Invisibility is much better than Improved Invisibility, because of the longer duration.

It's great (by RAW) for Enchanters, especially high-AC Cleric/Enchanters, for just exactly that reason. You can even still do Instinctive Charm.

Remember that RAW is a qualifier, not a compliment. It means "don't necessarily expect this to work in a real game."

[OzDragon]

Yes, "at your table". Several of us who said that it's not an attack by RAW have agreed that many DMs would houserule that it becomes visible. No one is saying it's a wrong or bad ruling. When someone asks a question about the RAW, we give them an answer by the RAW.

But it's important to make a distinction between what's an attack or not. "Doing something bad" to someone is not necessarily an attack and the mechanical distinction is there for good reason. Mirror Image doesn't protect you from save-based spells or effects, for instance; only attacks. It's not intended to be that powerful.

Normal invisibility is not supposed to be that powerful either. There is improved invisibility for a reason.

[Kyutaru]

Let's go to actual dev answers instead of HIWPI.

When a monk uses Empty Body, does the invisibility remain in effect after the monk attacks? Yes. The invisibility of the monk’s Empty Body isn’t ended by the monk attacking.

Does using a bonus action break invisibility from a warlock’s One with Shadows invocation? Taking a bonus action breaks the invisibility of a warlock’s One with Shadows. A bonus action is an action.

If I’m invisible and I become visible when I shoot an arrow at a target, does hiding again require an action? Without a special ability, hiding in combat requires the Hide action.

Take from that what you will. Seems to be that as long as the conditions aren't stated or met that you don't break invisibility. Specific wording matters.

[Millstone85]

Remember that RAW is a qualifier, not a compliment. It means "don't necessarily expect this to work in a real game."That would make it a critique, and imply that house rules and DM fiat should be expected to work any better.

[Chronos]

You might not see the duration run out for a monster, but duration will still make a difference on when they're likely to cast it. Buffs are most effective when cast before combat starts. It's a lot easier for an NPC to say "I'm likely to meet enemies at some point in the next hour" than to say "I'm likely to meet enemies at some point in the next minute".

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Guys, there are attacks with no attack rolls, look at grapple/shove.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Guys, there are attacks with no attack rolls, look at grapple/shove.

Yes, but those (in the fashion of D&D) are specific exceptions. If they didn't say they were attacks, they wouldn't be. So you cannot use those to reason to anything else.

Exception based games require an explicit statement of exception to basic rules. And the basic rules require an attack roll for an attack. Changing that globally breaks...lots of stuff. Many many features and spells only react/trigger on attacks. Now they trigger on anything that might be considered a hostile action. That's a huge change.

[SpikeFightwicky]

So by RAW, the following do not break invisibility, right?


Blowing a horn to call reinforcements
Blowing a horn of blasting to smite your foes
Blowing a horn of blasting harmlessly into the air to call reinforcements


Those are all an "Action", not an "Attack (action)" (an attack action being, by RAW, a melee or ranged attack).
What about wands? A Wand of Binding lets you cast certain spells on command, or gain advantage on a roll. I assume you'd only pop out of invisibility if you use the Spells action and not the Assisted Escape action?

Also if it's house ruled that ability that triggers a save count as an attack, then yeah, that would cover stuff like beholder eye rays.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Yes, but those (in the fashion of D&D) are specific exceptions. If they didn't say they were attacks, they wouldn't be. So you cannot use those to reason to anything else.

Exception based games require an explicit statement of exception to basic rules. And the basic rules require an attack roll for an attack. Changing that globally breaks...lots of stuff. Many many features and spells only react/trigger on attacks. Now they trigger on anything that might be considered a hostile action. That's a huge change.
So you get my point, good :)

So by RAW, the following do not break invisibility, right?


Blowing a horn to call reinforcements
Blowing a horn of blasting to smite your foes
Blowing a horn of blasting harmlessly into the air to call reinforcements


Those are all an "Action", not an "Attack (action)" (an attack action being, by RAW, a melee or ranged attack).
What about wands? A Wand of Binding lets you cast certain spells on command, or gain advantage on a roll. I assume you'd only pop out of invisibility if you use the Spells action and not the Assisted Escape action?

Also if it's house ruled that ability that triggers a save count as an attack, then yeah, that would cover stuff like beholder eye rays.

Basically, yes.

[mAc Chaos]

I think it's fine. I mean, why should the invisibility wear off if you attack anyway? It's just how the spell works. So if some things break it and some don't, who cares.