An interesting combo came up in gameplay: An invisible party member chose to defend another party member using their non-spell, non-attack reaction (arrow catching shield.)
This led to two questions:
In the description for the invisibility spell (PH pg. 254), it says:
The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.
So this led to the question – does this reaction end invisibility?
In the description for the arrow-catching shield, it says
In addition, whenever an attacker makes a ranged attack against a target within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to become the target of the attack instead.
In fact, there’s a long list of non-spell, non-attack reactions you can take (Bardic Inspiration, Misdirection, etc.) that can affect an attack.
Question 1: Does this sort of reaction cause the invisibility spell to end?
The consensus at the table was “No. It’s neither a spell nor an attack.“
But wait, there’s more!
According to the rules of the invisible condition (PHB, pg. 291):
Attack rolls against you have disadvantage.
In theory the attack should now be with disadvantage, even though it’s already been made.
This one left us all scratching our heads (and the normal attack missed anyway, so we moved on)
Question 2: Does redirecting an attack to an invisible target now cause the attack to be made with disadvantage?