PeriodicallyPedantic

She is so proud of me, she tells everyone

I cum in the shower, instead.

Imagine living in a universe where, without even trying, you can run so fast that if you trip, you will die and splatter your body over a couple hundred meters of ground. And if you trip into someone, it'll kill them and possibly an entire pile of people.

Like, in motor racing, the cars get wrecked but the drivers are fine. In the movie Cars, they all die. The race spectators are watching a blood sport.

What is a bread roll if not all crust?
What is toasting, if not making the whole piece of bread more crust-like?

When toilets try to save money by reducing the amount of water they use per flush, but you end up having to flush like 3 times 🤬

What would you put in your second aid kit?

Be me.
I've started sitting down to pee because it's cleaner.
Stand up after I've finished peeing.
Pull up pants.
Turn around to flush.
There is poop in the toilet.
I forgot that this time I had sat down to poop.

In old plays and stories, such as Romeo and Juliet, poisons are depicted as being fairly fast acting.

Would they really have had access to such poison, or was it simply creative license? What would a realistic depiction of a poison of that era be?

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?