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.
But throwing flaming oil is an attack? This is throwing flaming oil but broken down into separate actions.
It seems like separating actions from attack is still a judgement call.
They’re not throwing flaming oil though. They didn’t even pour oil onto an enemy and light them on fire. They poured oil onto a weapon rack then lit that on fire. The enemies can simply not interact with the fire if they don’t want to. A DM can rule that a series of events together might constitute an attack because it resulted in something similar to an attack (because a DM can rule anything they want), but compounding actions and classifying them based on their result is not covered within RAW.