New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    So the invisibility spell says it ends if the target "attacks or casts a spell".

    Commanders strike for battlemaster lets you take the attack action, and give up an attack so have someone else use their reaction and attack.

    So, if you can cast invisibility on yourself, have one attack(no extra) and also have that maneuver, would using the commanders strike while invisible end your invisibility? Or not.

    I'd argue by RAW that you took the attack action, but didn't make an attack, that your invisibility would persist.
    Last edited by Arelai; 2017-10-03 at 01:50 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    Quote Originally Posted by Arelai View Post
    So the invisibility spell says it ends if the target "attacks or casts a spell".

    Commanders strike for battlemaster lets you take the attack action, and give up an attack so have someone else use their reaction and attack.

    So, if you can cast invisibility on yourself, have one attack(no extra) and also have that maneuver, would using the commanders strike while invisible end your invisibility? Or not.

    I'd argue by RAW that you took the attack action, but didn't make an attack, that your invisibility would persist.
    That maneuver is worded that way because Fighters get Extra Attack (and more beyond that), and this maneuver replaces but a single one of those.
    In the case that the Fighter were 4th level or lower, lacking Extra Attack, this would not be considered an attack because no attack was rolled with a d20.
    If you quote me and ask me questions,
    and I continue to not respond,
    it's probably because I have
    you on my Ignore list.
    Congratulations.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Houston
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    Extra attack says you 'can' make an additional attack. Not that you are forced to or have to. If you're interrogating somebody and punch them, a lvl20 fighter doesn't have to take 4 swings at them.

    You're taking the attack action, but not making an attack (rolling a d20) so it should be fine.

    However, keep in mind that commander's strike stipulates, "When you do so, choose a friendly creature
    who can see or hear you." Don't try this under a Silence.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    Oh man, this has a chance to be the perfect thread:

    The invisible Battlemaster Fighter uses Commander's Strike.

    1. Does his use of the Attack action count as an attack and break Invisibility?
    2. Is his position revealed to his enemies? What if he previously used the hide action? What if he subsequently uses the hide action, without moving?
    3. What if he directed his companion to kill an innocent in order to save 10? Does that make him Evil?

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    I agree with the others. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. There's no attack roll for commander's strike, so it stands to reason that it is not an attack.

    That said, I could see this turning into an argument at the table, so it may not be worth it.
    Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-10-03 at 02:08 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Banned
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    Quote Originally Posted by smcmike View Post
    Oh man, this has a chance to be the perfect thread:

    The invisible Battlemaster Fighter uses Commander's Strike.

    1. Does his use of the Attack action count as an attack and break Invisibility?
    I'd say no. He specifically has to attack something. Commanders strike on its own doesnt do that even though it uses the attack action. Conversely a reaction attack (an attack made without using the attack action) however would break invisibilty.

    2. Is his position revealed to his enemies? What if he previously used the hide action? What if he subsequently uses the hide action, without moving?
    Absolutely; yes and yes. Commanders strike requires him to direct the attacks of an ally. He's literally commanding an ally to strike a creature while invisible. He's no longer hidden (but remains invisible)

    3. What if he directed his companion to kill an innocent in order to save 10? Does that make him Evil?
    Only if done while polymorphed into the simulacrum of a T-Rex capable of casting wish by conjured pixies.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: Attack action Vs. attacking? RAW/RAI interpretation

    Quote Originally Posted by smcmike View Post
    Oh man, this has a chance to be the perfect thread:

    The invisible Battlemaster Fighter uses Commander's Strike.

    1. Does his use of the Attack action count as an attack and break Invisibility?
    2. Is his position revealed to his enemies? What if he previously used the hide action? What if he subsequently uses the hide action, without moving?
    3. What if he directed his companion to kill an innocent in order to save 10? Does that make him Evil?
    4. If he did hide, would it be opposed by his enemy's perception roll, or their passive perception?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •