I would probably not rule this as an attack. Lighting a creature on fire? Sure. But lighting oil, which happens to catch a creature on fire? Nah. IMO, aggressive actions aren’t attacks unless they make contact with or directly (not indirectly) affect an enemy. At least, that’s how I’d rule.

That being said, keep in mind that invisible creatures aren’t undetectable , just unseen. Someone dumps out a flask of oil? As soon as that oil leaves the flask (so it’s not being worn or carried), it’s visible, and leaving a trail for any enemy to follow. Attacks against targets you can’t see are made with disadvantage, but can still be made. A bunch of goblins swinging axes at the air are eventually gonna hit something. Are you having invisible characters make stealth checks? They’d get advantage, but if they make noise (e.g., strike a tinderbox), every enemy in the area should get a chance to roll a Perception check against Stealth, not just use passive Perception.

All that being said, if your players come up with a cool idea, roll with it. I actually really like the idea of an invisible PC lighting a fire on their enemies. But (most) enemies aren’t dumb, and they’re not going to sit around doing nothing if a clumsy, noisy invisible thing dumps out oil all around them and then lights it on fire. Plus, sometimes a half-executed idea is more fun than a perfectly-executed one (oh shit, remember when we lit the thieves den on fire but then had to run away because they were so furious and nearly killed Gary?!?)

Don’t be afraid to change or define the rules as necessary. It’s your game. If every single time they infiltrate, they’re turning invisible and setting fire, then say, “it’s going to be an attack from now on, and you’ll lose invisibility.” FORCE them to be creative. Lastly, let the players know that they can always ask. A PC casting invisibility would know if an action is going to cancel it. So they can check with you in the moment, you make a ruling, and then they can decide what to do. If later you decide you were wrong, tell them that next time it’ll be different.

Hope that helps!

Multiattack claws now, tiger power!

But then they might be kidnapped by a bulging, beastly man in a blue leisure suit!

I think that’s also the problem today, albeit of a different sort. I had a friend who was very seriously into the “punch Nazis” meme on the internet a few years ago. But he would often talk to us about it and finding someone to punch. He sometimes said shit like “I could just go to the Republican national convention and start punching people.”

If it floats your boat, punch Nazis. But don’t punch everybody you disagree with because “not supporting universal healthcare” is not being a Nazi.

It’s just an homage to Trump, who is famous for not paying bills!

Because people are rarely single issue voters. There are a few here and there, but given the dominance of the US’s two-party system, you often have to make a choice. If I imagine 2 candidates: one who is strongly pro-choice but overtly anti-gay, and another who is strongly pro-life but also pro-LGBTQ issues, that would actually be a pretty tough decision for me.

As much as I want to hate Trump supporters, I can still sympathize with them. A lot are lifelong Republicans who are choosing between someone who will probably try to enact 90% of their personal beliefs but is an authoritarian crazy person, and someone who seems sane but disagrees with them on 90% of issues and will do everything to stymie the things they believe to be right. It’s not a simple choice.

I’m ignoring third-parties here as a caveat, so apologies if that’s the crux of your question. But my opinion is that you should push for and vote for a new system while accepting that the rules are what they are now, and you have to strategize with the current situation.

Do not pay a lot of attention to single polls. Poll aggregators (even with flaws like RealClearPolitics) are so much better, and a predictive model (Nate Silver or the new 538) is even better. Great pollsters don’t herd and are not afraid of publishing outliers.

If we see the overall aggregate start to tend more toward Harris, that’s significant and this poll was an early sign. If it doesn’t, then this poll was just an outlier.

To be fair, they’re not always spoilers. Sometimes they’re irrelevant! Probably spoilers this time, though.

Yeah, swing states are where it’s at. From Nate Silver’s forecast, the states most likely to tip the election (as of today, Oct 9).

We could avoid this entirely, but the idiot Congress LIKES it. I don’t think any other country has a debt ceiling like the US. Why? Well, because when another country’s government (legislature, dictator, voodoo shaman) authorizes spending on something, they also authorize paying for it.

But in the US, Congress says (to the executive branch) you can only collect 50 bajillion in taxes, no more, no less. Also, you have to spend 55 bajillion on these programs, no more, no less. Then the president says, “uh, okay, but I’ll need to borrow 5 bajillion to do that because of math.” In reply, Congress stamps its collective foot like a toddler and says “NO NO NO YOU HAVE TO ASK US FIRST! Why are you drowning this poor country in debt you spendthrift!”

Anyone else hate that the Gadsden flag has been appropriated by ultra-libertarian jingoists? It’s an awesome-looking flag with a cool history and symbolism, but I feel like I couldn’t fly it without looking like a twat.