What is technically considered an attack?

[Dalebert]

I know the answer but I'm making a thread for this discussion because it's become a point of contention in the RAW thread. After a certain amount of back and forth, I feel like it's time for the discussion to graduate from the RAW thread to its own thread. I encourage folks to continue the discussion here.

Thank you.

[Aett_Thorn]

I just looked through the discussion in the RAW thread, and I think that it's important to note that how people will answer this will be dependant on whether they are replying as RAW or RAI.

RAW, I agree with many in that thread that if, and only if, it either involves making an attack roll, OR the feature/spell/whatever specifically says that it is an attack. Otherwise, it is not an attack.

Now, this means that you need to somewhat distinguish between what is an attack, and what is a harmful action. Clearly, there are harmful actions that are not attacks, like a Dragon's Breath or Beholder Eye Rays. These are not specifically called out as attacks, and as such, would not break effects that rely on an attack being made.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Anything that is resolved using an attack roll (PHB 194).

A serious argument was made some time ago that since the rule in question begins "If there's ever any question", players can conspire to not question that something is or isn't an attack, so that by RAW anything can be or not be as long as the requisite amount of doublethink is applied. Is that what's going on now as well?

[Theodoxus]

What? Breath weapons and eye beams are very specifically attacks. They require the recipient(s) to make saves against a detrimental (and generally lethal) effect.

I didn't read the RAW thread because it always degrades into unsubstantiated opinion, as this will as well - but it's pretty easy to determine what an attack is.

My question is, what is the reason for asking the question? Is it "what breaks Sanctuary/Invisibility?" Is it "can I do 'x' and then 'y' before I use bonus action 'z'?" Or something else? Because the answer will be dependent on what the point is.

[Millstone85]

I went looking for tweets of Jeremy Crawford and not only did I find a neat one:

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/836410416100061184)
An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving.

... but also that someone had that very same discussion with Crawford himself:

link (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/806969678006390784)

if I cast Magic Missile at a Hexed target, does it take an extra 1d6 necrotic, or 3d6 extra? or none, because Magic Missile is not an 'attack'?Magic missile isn't an attack.


yes it is, and rules lawyers are never welcome in my games.By rule, magic missile doesn't involve an attack, but as DM, you're empowered to ignore/change rules.


"casts Magic Missile at you, they are attacking. It does damage & isn't friendly."Again, you are welcome to ignore the rules. That is the prerogative of the DM.


Again, I'm not ignoring the rules. Those aren't the rules. Those are things written in 5e books.My tweets are about the official rules of 5E. Whatever rules you're using, I hope you're having fun. ... and that's kind of funny. :smallsmile:

[jas61292]

Anything that is resolved using an attack roll (PHB 194).

A serious argument was made some time ago that since the rule in question begins "If there's ever any question", players can conspire to not question that something is or isn't an attack, so that by RAW anything can be or not be as long as the requisite amount of doublethink is applied. Is that what's going on now as well?

The real issue with "if there is ever any question" is that it is not a universal rule covering all situation. It is saying "A implies B." As anyone who knows a bit of logic can tell you, that is not the same as saying that "not A implies not B" and as such, we cannot conclude that things without attack roles are not attacks. This makes sense, as if it was a hard and fast rule, the wording about there being "any question" would not make any sense. Now its easy enough to just say that this is to cover any situation where something is explicitly named to be an attack, but lacks an attack roll, such as a grapple, but nothing for sure makes this the only possible case.

You can argue that, RAW, nothing else could possibly be considered an attack, but I would disagree with that analysis, because it is not actually stated by RAW. I think people often blur the lines between RAW and RAI by claiming that something not explicitly spelled out by the rules is not RAW, even if it is allowable within them. Or, rather, that RAW must only ever have one possible interpretation. This is not the case, especially where rules are ambiguous, and in this edition, the rules are even designed in some places such that the rules themselves, by RAW, are supposed to be at the DMs discretion.

In this specific case case, RAW does not say that things like a dragon's breath are not attacks, and as such, ruling that they are, is acceptable by the rules as written. It just so happens that it is also acceptable RAW to say they are not attacks.

[smcmike]

What? Breath weapons and eye beams are very specifically attacks. They require the recipient(s) to make saves against a detrimental (and generally lethal) effect.

I didn't read the RAW thread because it always degrades into unsubstantiated opinion, as this will as well - but it's pretty easy to determine what an attack is.

Is it? What is your definition? What rules do you draw upon to support that definition?



My question is, what is the reason for asking the question? Is it "what breaks Sanctuary/Invisibility?" Is it "can I do 'x' and then 'y' before I use bonus action 'z'?" Or something else? Because the answer will be dependent on what the point is.

This is the sort of question that could be answered by reading the RAW thread. Is your position that "attack" means something different in different contexts within the ruleset (beyond compound constructions like "spell attack" or "melee weapon attack")?

[MeeposFire]

Do note that what can be defined as a game term does not have to agree with how you might use the same term in general.

[smcmike]

The real issue with "if there is ever any question" is that it is not a universal rule covering all situation. It is saying "A implies B." As anyone who knows a bit of logic can tell you, that is not the same as saying that "not A implies not B" and as such, we cannot conclude that things without attack roles are not attacks. This makes sense, as if it was a hard and fast rule, the wording about there being "any question" would not make any sense. Now its easy enough to just say that this is to cover any situation where something is explicitly named to be an attack, but lacks an attack roll, such as a grapple, but nothing for sure makes this the only possible case.

You can argue that, RAW, nothing else could possibly be considered an attack, but I would disagree with that analysis, because it is not actually stated by RAW. I think people often blur the lines between RAW and RAI by claiming that something not explicitly spelled out by the rules is not RAW, even if it is allowable within them. Or, rather, that RAW must only ever have one possible interpretation. This is not the case, especially where rules are ambiguous, and in this edition, the rules are even designed in some places such that the rules themselves, by RAW, are supposed to be at the DMs discretion.

In this specific case case, RAW does not say that things like a dragon's breath are not attacks, and as such, ruling that they are, is acceptable by the rules as written. It just so happens that it is also acceptable RAW to say they are not attacks.

So what you are saying is that dragon's breath may or may not be an attack under RAW, but that there is no question as to whether it is an attack?

[Easy_Lee]

5e's complexity strikes again. Reaction attacks are not opportunity attacks, 5' and reach are different terms, and not everything that directly causes harm is technically an attack.

I use the dictionary definition, personally. Deliberately causing direct harm is an attack, and I use player intent to determine what is deliberate. Tipping over a barrel of oil and lighting it on fire? Not an attack. Hurling a barrel of burning oil? Attack. That's going to break invisibility.

Magic missile? That's an attack that doesn't require a roll. Since the bolts strike simultaneously, it's one attack that does multiple dice of damage, like sneak attack.

[Theodoxus]

It's easy. Would said action - whatever it might be - be considered battery in modern US law.

Magic Missile? Battery. An attack.
Dragon breath? Battery. An attack.
Hold Person? Battery. An attack.
Grappled? Battery. An attack.
Striking with a weapon? Battery. An attack.
Using Cutting Words? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Jeremy Crawford being an idiot? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Clear as crystal.

[smcmike]

It's easy. Would said action - whatever it might be - be considered battery in modern US law.

Magic Missile? Battery. An attack.
Dragon breath? Battery. An attack.
Hold Person? Battery. An attack.
Grappled? Battery. An attack.
Striking with a weapon? Battery. An attack.
Using Cutting Words? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Jeremy Crawford being an idiot? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Clear as crystal.

Oh, I see. I didn't realize from your first post you weren't talking about RAW. This system works fine for the most part, though I expect there are some corner cases where it causes weirdness. Also, Cutting Words is not necessarily assault, and Crawford's rulings are clearly not!

Is Viscious Mockery an attack?

[Aett_Thorn]

It's easy. Would said action - whatever it might be - be considered battery in modern US law.

Magic Missile? Battery. An attack.
Dragon breath? Battery. An attack.
Hold Person? Battery. An attack.
Grappled? Battery. An attack.
Striking with a weapon? Battery. An attack.
Using Cutting Words? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Jeremy Crawford being an idiot? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Clear as crystal.

Still, this is all RAI, not RAW. I would agree that any harmful action is an "attack", and should be treated as such. However, RAW, there are certain things that count as an attack, and those require an attack roll. Without any additional clarification on what else could consitute an attack, everything else is just RAI, no matter how much sense it makes.

There is a clear difference between:

"Hey, he just hit me with a fireball, he attacked me!" in all practical effect, and "Spell X lasts until I make an attack, and I've only used Fireball" by RAW.

Also keep in mind that most spells that fall under the latter category also specify "an attack or any harmful spell", so the Fireball would count. But if it doesn't specify that harmful spells also count, then by RAW, they don't.

[Millstone85]

It is like the charmed condition and what is technically considered a target.

Can't attack you or target you with harmful abilities or magical effects? Well, the only target I chose was a point in space for a fireball to spread from. Yes, right next to you. I could even have targeted your space, really.

So, after rules-as-written, rules-as-intended and rules-as-fun, do we have rules-as-plain-English? Wait, no, really bad acronym there.

[Unoriginal]

There is attack -the game term- and attack -the way the action could be described.


Magic Missile is not an attack (game term) because it doesn't use the attack mechanic, even if it is an offensive spell.

You are not going to say that using Domination is an attack, even if you are indeed causing harm to the target using a spell, right?

Same way that casting Invisibility on yourself doesn't mean you are engaging in the Hide action, casting a spell that cause harm doesn't mean you are using an attack.

[Easy_Lee]

It is like the charmed condition and what is technically considered a target.

Can't attack you or target you with harmful abilities or magical effects? Well, the only target I chose was a point in space for a fireball to spread from. Yes, right next to you. I could even have targeted your space, really.

So, after rules-as-written, rules-as-intended and rules-as-fun, do we have rules-as-plain-English? Wait, no, really bad acronym there.

I think the last one is Crawford's preference, based on his reply to one of my questions including the term "plain English."

Plain English is not plain when discussing mechanics. 5e isn't even consistent about what the term "when" means. Hint: it doesn't mean during (mage slayer), but sometimes it does (protection fighting style).

In practical terms, everything is DM fiat. I once had an AL DM tell me that I couldn't grapple with a human because the human was medium while my character was small. Is that rule anywhere in the rules? No. In fact, medium can grapple up to large. And AL is supposed to follow all punished rules. But it happened in AL, anyway.

Each DM must use his own best judgment. Consistency is key. And at the end of the day, no DM is forced to follow rules he doesn't like.

[Theodoxus]

Is Viscious Mockery an attack? It's battery, so yes.


Also keep in mind that most spells that fall under the latter category also specify "an attack or any harmful spell", so the Fireball would count. But if it doesn't specify that harmful spells also count, then by RAW, they don't.

Then it falls into the category of "we need to explicitly write 'this is an attack' on everything that could be construed as an attack. Why the editors / layout manager felt it was ok to expand the Index to include every reference of "X, see Y" instead of "X page Y" and yet couldn't be bothered to denote every instance of attacks or 'not-attacks' is beyond me.

Since RAW doesn't specify everything in a binary fashion that X is an Attack while Y is not an Attack, we only have RAI to go on. So, easiest to conclude, even if it flies in the face of Crawford and his lack of foresight - that if it's considered battery, it's considered an attack. If it's an assault with no battery, it's not an attack and thus doesn't break spells that break on an attack.

Perhaps a project would be to either go through every action and determine if it's an attack or not, or go through every spell that says it breaks on an attack and change "attack" to "battery". I know which would take a LOT less time to do...

[Easy_Lee]

Perhaps a project would be to either go through every action and determine if it's an attack or not, or go through every spell that says it breaks on an attack and change "attack" to "battery". I know which would take a LOT less time to do...

You'd also need to go through every action to determine whether it's one attack or several. Whirlwind attack, magic missile, eldritch blast, etc. And nobody would agree.

[kladams707]

The first question to ask before answering is: in what context are you asking what an attack is?

Because the answer, depending on context ranges from "actions resolved with a d20 attack roll" to "any action that can be read as hostile or otherwise putting a character in disadvantageous position"

[Theodoxus]

You'd also need to go through every action to determine whether it's one attack or several. Whirlwind attack, magic missile, eldritch blast, etc. And nobody would agree.

This is known :smallwink:

Weren't you one of the ones back in 2014 arguing that Rulings, not Rules was awesome, Easy? That 5e, unlike 3.5 and 4th particularly, wasn't written with RAW in mind, but RAI? And that was a good thing? Maybe I'm mis-remembering and you were on the opposite side of that debate... but as I've run games and played them, RnR has been a far better friend than "hold please, I'm looking up the exact wording of this particular subparagraph to make sure we have the complete understanding of the author in respects to what this ability should be" - as experienced in 3.P I played and ran for over a dozen years.

[Aett_Thorn]

In the RAW thread, much of the focus was whether or not a Dragon under the effects of a Sanctuary spell would break the spell if they used their breath weapon.

The spell specifically states: "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends." Since the breath weapon is not a spell, it comes down to whether it is an attack or not. RAI, I would definitely say that it is an attack, and Sanctuary ends. But RAW it is not an attack, since it doesn't make an attack roll.

[Theodoxus]

Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?

[smcmike]

It's battery, so yes.


Battery requires contact. This is why involving a whole second, and much larger, body of rules is probably a bad idea. If you think RAW is confusing or obtuse, boy, wait til you check out the common law.



Since RAW doesn't specify everything in a binary fashion that X is an Attack while Y is not an Attack, we only have RAI to go on.


This isn't true. RAW gives us a test. I don't know why you have discarded it.



The first question to ask before answering is: in what context are you asking what an attack is?

Because the answer, depending on context ranges from "actions resolved with a d20 attack roll" to "any action that can be read as hostile or otherwise putting a character in disadvantageous position"

The context is "any rule that refers to an attack."


You'd also need to go through every action to determine whether it's one attack or several. Whirlwind attack, magic missile, eldritch blast, etc. And nobody would agree.

Yup. Also, this adds in the concept of attacks that do not target a creature or object, so you have to deal with that.

[Easy_Lee]

This is known :smallwink:

Weren't you one of the ones back in 2014 arguing that Rulings, not Rules was awesome, Easy? That 5e, unlike 3.5 and 4th particularly, wasn't written with RAW in mind, but RAI? And that was a good thing? Maybe I'm mis-remembering and you were on the opposite side of that debate... but as I've run games and played them, RnR has been a far better friend than "hold please, I'm looking up the exact wording of this particular subparagraph to make sure we have the complete understanding of the author in respects to what this ability should be" - as experienced in 3.P I played and ran for over a dozen years.

Regardless of where I was or seemed to be in the past, at this time I know where I stand. Clear mechanics reduce headache for everyone involved. Back on the whirlwind attack thing, entire builds can be invalidated depending on whether it's one attack or several. No one wants to be the player who makes the wrong assumption about how his DM will rule.

I can't make 5e consistent. But I can, I hope, encourage DMs to be consistent.

[smcmike]

Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?

Correct. A cleric casting Sacred Flame is not making an attack.

If you would like a test to determine whether a spell includes an attack, here it is: read the spell. Does it say "make an ... attack?" If so, it includes an attack.

[FreddyNoNose]

I know the answer but I'm making a thread for this discussion because it's become a point of contention in the RAW thread. After a certain amount of back and forth, I feel like it's time for the discussion to graduate from the RAW thread to its own thread. I encourage folks to continue the discussion here.

Thank you.

Please create a complete list of everything you want to consider for this question. Context might be important.

[MaxWilson]

Anything that is resolved using an attack roll (PHB 194).

A serious argument was made some time ago that since the rule in question begins "If there's ever any question", players can conspire to not question that something is or isn't an attack, so that by RAW anything can be or not be as long as the requisite amount of doublethink is applied. Is that what's going on now as well?

This is my reading of the rules too. Grappling? No attack roll, so not an attack. You can grapple a Sanctuary'ed dragon all you like. It counts as a pacifist, non-attack action, and so does not interact with Sanctuary.

If Jeremy Crawford wants to change that, he can ask them to rewrite the PHB. Tweets from a company employee don't change the rules text--"Death of the Author" and all that jazz.

Yes, this does imply that you can use the Extra Attack feature to "attack" multiple times without actually making an attack at all, but that's a consequence of the way they wrote the grappling rules: you can convert attacks into grapples, so getting two attacks means you have two things that can be converted into grapples. Specific beats general.

[smcmike]

This is my reading of the rules too. Grappling? No attack roll, so not an attack. You can grapple a Sanctuary'ed dragon all you like. It counts as a pacifist, non-attack action, and so does not interact with Sanctuary.

If Jeremy Crawford wants to change that, he can ask them to rewrite the PHB. Tweets from a company employee don't change the rules text--"Death of the Author" and all that jazz.

Yes, this does imply that you can use the Extra Attack feature to "attack" multiple times without actually making an attack at all, but that's a consequence of the way they wrote the grappling rules: you can convert attacks into grapples, so getting two attacks means you have two things that can be converted into grapples. Specific beats general.

Grappling and shoving are both explicitly "special melee attacks," per RAW. There is therefore no question.

[MeeposFire]

Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?

IN terms of game mechanics no the cleric is not making an attack, even if I may describe it as such outside of a game context. Remember the game can define a term as having a different definition from how it is generally used.

Make note that this does have game implications a cleric using sacred flame does not get a bonus 1d6 damage on his hex target (assuming they had hex of course) and also the rogue he is targeting cannot use uncanny dodge to reduce the damage.

[smcmike]

Uncanny Dodge is a great example of why this question matters. If you subscribe the the idea that any action that does damage is an attack, this becomes an incredibly powerful ability!

[Unoriginal]

Sometime people really *want* to make something simple to be complicated.

The Sanctury spell makes very clear that there is a difference between an attack and a spell with an harmful effect.

Note that by RAW it means that Sanctuary protects from all spells with harmful effects, like Imprisonment.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The real issue with "if there is ever any question" is that it is not a universal rule covering all situation. It is saying "A implies B." As anyone who knows a bit of logic can tell you, that is not the same as saying that "not A implies not B" and as such, we cannot conclude that things without attack roles are not attacks. This makes sense, as if it was a hard and fast rule, the wording about there being "any question" would not make any sense. Now its easy enough to just say that this is to cover any situation where something is explicitly named to be an attack, but lacks an attack roll, such as a grapple, but nothing for sure makes this the only possible case.

Granted the wording is awkward either way, but since the sentence in question is obviously meant to clarify, I believe the most reasonable way to read it is to say, "to clarify what an attack is, this is what it is [and generally only this]". This makes sense from a rules writing perspective, and kinda works.

The alternative reading, "to clarify what an attack is, here's one thing that definitely is an attack, and there may be other things that qualify on a general level, but I'm sure as **** not going to tell you", does not make much sense as a piece of rules writing.

Now, whether this cannot rise to the level of RAW because of some threshold of ambiguity is a meta-rule question, but if you're asking me what the book is communicating the general rule is, I'm pretty sure what I believe.

(I'd be shocked, shocked to learn there are people on this board who think the people behind 5E are some kind of gibbering mouthers whose communications correlate with reality only by coincidence.)


Do note that what can be defined as a game term does not have to agree with how you might use the same term in general.

Yes. I'm assuming the word "technically" in the thread title means we're not concerned with the second, or what is or isn't a reasonable special adjudication.

[Unoriginal]

Now, whether this cannot rise to the level of RAW because of some threshold of ambiguity is a meta-rule question, but if you're asking me what the book is communicating the general rule is, I'm pretty sure what I believe.

I personally don't see the ambiguity.

[Theodoxus]

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'

Is that bug or feature?

[Dalebert]

There's plain English meanings of words and there are the technical rules meanings of words. If they don't have a technical meaning of a word explicitly defined somewhere in the rules, it's reasonable to just use the plain English meaning of it.

I just don't want to second guess the rules designers too much. A lot of these rules are about balance. For instance, they clearly did not intend for Hex to work with Magic Missile. They clearly did not intend for Cutting Words or the assist action to break the Invisibility spell. Some effects are intended to have a certain amount of power but not more, or they're intended to work for some things but not others. If you just decide "I don't like that definition. It doesn't make any sense!" that's fine, I guess, particularly in a homebrew game vs. say an AL game.

It's not unheard of for me to do the same thing. However, I am very reluctant and cautious in such things because I do think it sways the power dynamic in possibly unpredictable and undesirable ways. The context is important. This thread started because someone asked the question in the RAW thread. That's why the title specifies "technically" as opposed to "What do you think attacking means in plain English?"

[smcmike]

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'

Is that bug or feature?

I'm afraid this question does not provide much clarity, since invisibility ends when the cleric casts any spell.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

[Unoriginal]

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'


No.

In the first case the cleric loses Sanctuary because "if the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends", and in the second case the caster loses Invisibility because "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell".


Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

That is not the question of the thread, and balance was not the concern of anyone here. I don't see what unbalanced UA options (or options that can be considered unbalanced by some) have to do in this discussion, either.

Unless you're talking about the comment on how interpreting anything harmful as an attack would make Uncanny Dodge very powerful, but that'd be a very confusing way of addressing it.

[smcmike]

Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

If you aren't interested in the question, why don't you leave it to people who are?

[Easy_Lee]

Uncanny Dodge is a great example of why this question matters. If you subscribe the the idea that any action that does damage is an attack, this becomes an incredibly powerful ability!

This is exactly why the idea of an attack needs to be mechanically clear. I'm fine with defining attacks as anything that makes an attack roll. But people have to be willing to accept the consequences of that mechanic, and not change their minds on a case by case basis.

I'm looking at you, Crawford.

[smcmike]

This is exactly why the idea of an attack needs to be mechanically clear. I'm fine with defining attacks as anything that makes an attack roll. But people have to be willing to accept the consequences of that mechanic, and not change their minds on a case by case basis.

I'm looking at you, Crawford.

Are you referring to specific cases here?

[Unoriginal]

ATTACK
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.



MAKING AN ATTACK

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a
spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's
range: a creature, an object, ar a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether
the target has cover and whether you have advantage
ar disadvantage against the target. In addition, spel1s,
special abilities. and other effects can apply penalties as bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause
special effects in addition to ar instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.




ATTACK ROLLS
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended
target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier +your proficiency bonus.

Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a
ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9)

Really, what's not clear?

[Tanarii]

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.

[FreddyNoNose]

Are you referring to specific cases here?

I agree. Things are working fine. If the OP has as specific situation that is a problem, he should list it. On the other hand, if he is just lonely and need to talk to people let us know so we can consider this deeply intelligent thread.

[Unoriginal]

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.

A good portion of those effects are spells by selves already, and most of the damaging ones are listed under the monster's attacks, to be fair.

[smcmike]

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.

While I agree that this is a good solution, it's maybe worth noting that this problem applies to Dragonborn characters as well.

[Tanarii]

A good portion of those effects are spells by selves already, and most of the damaging ones are listed under the monster's attacks, to be fair.They're labeled 'Actions', not 'Attacks'. And only include things that require an action, non-actions, including damaging effects like Aura, are before that in an uncatgorized section. I double checked, because the very first thing I was gonna post is 'the MM tells you what's an attack and what isn't'. While that's technically true, it only includes things with attack rolls in each given actions line that it applies to. So spell like abilities, which aren't a defined thing in 5e, exist in a grey space. Check out the Dretch's Fetid Cloud, or Dretch's Scare or even Invisibility, as examples. They're not explicitly spells. Contrast with the Lich's Spellcasting ability (spells) and Paralyzingly Touch. The last is melee spell attack, so definitely an attack, but debatably not a spell despite the type of attack.


While I agree that this is a good solution, it's maybe worth noting that this problem applies to Dragonborn characters as well.Yup. Definitely something that would need to fall under the same ruling, one way or the other.

[Unoriginal]

While I agree that this is a good solution, it's maybe worth noting that this problem applies to Dragonborn characters as well.

The Dragonborn's breath is neither a spell nor an attack, per RAW.

Same can be said of the Turn (Undead or otherwise) option for Channel Divinity of the Cleric and Paladin (as well as a few others Channel options), the Draconic Presence of the Sorcerer, the Fey Presence, Dark Delirium, and Create Thrall of the Warlock, and probably others I've not seen.

Ergo, by RAW, all of this would work even if under a "no attack, no spell" effect.

If the DM decides to do otherwise, it's their prerogative.

[Drackolus]

Both seem pretty clear. If it were AL, dragonborn's breath would not break invisibility or sanctuary. "Causing damage" or "forcing a target to make a saving throw" are not mentioned in the "making an attack" section. In a home game, I would most likely say it does break, as the intent is also clear for those effects, but I would allow the player to "take back" the action and possibly the spell, as I am directly changing the function of those spells.

Really, the only things that are wrong are Sanctuary and Invisibility. They need to be more specific. Everything else that I can think of work fine.

[Unoriginal]

They're labeled 'Actions', not 'Attacks'. And only include things that require an action, non-actions, including damaging effects like Aura, are before that in an uncatgorized section. I double checked, because the very first thing I was gonna post is 'the MM tells you what's an attack and what isn't'. While that's technically true, it only includes things with attack rolls in each given actions line that it applies to. So spell like abilities, which aren't a defined thing in 5e, exist in a grey space. Check out the Dretch's Fetid Cloud, or Dretch's Scare or even Invisibility, as examples. They're not explicitly spells. Contrast with the Lich's Spellcasting ability (spells) and Paralyzingly Touch. The last is melee spell attack, so definitely an attack, but debatably not a spell despite the type of attack.

It's not a grey area.

5e does categorize magic features that are not spell-based,as "magical effects". If it's not described as a spell (Innate Spellcasting or otherwise), then it's a magical effect, and so not a spell. And only the Actions that requires an attack roll are attacks, per definition (some effects only trigger if an attack/a hit happens, so they would be blocked too).

[Unoriginal]

One shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day. It is a design flaw of 5E.

That's not specifically a 5e flaw. Any game can have the GM saying "I decided to change X because Y, so now it works like that at my table."

EDIT:

Double post due to responding to deleted post.

[Millstone85]

That's not specifically a 5e flaw. Any game can have the GM saying "I decided to change X because Y, so now it works like that at my table."But then the DM is aware they changed X, and they felt the need to inform the player in advance. Whereas with different readings of X, both the DM and the player will be surprised to not find each other on the same page even though the page is right here.

[Tanarii]

Really, the only things that are wrong are Sanctuary and Invisibility. They need to be more specific. Everything else that I can think of work fine.Thats my feeling. They should include magical abilities / effects, not just spells.


It's not a grey area.

5e does categorize magic features that are not spell-based,as "magical effects". If it's not described as a spell (Innate Spellcasting or otherwise), then it's a magical effect, and so not a spell. And only the Actions that requires an attack roll are attacks, per definition (some effects only trigger if an attack/a hit happens, so they would be blocked too).Page reference for "magical effects?"

[Unoriginal]

Page reference for "magical effects?"

There is no page with the definition of "magical effects", but the book makes clear that it includes both spells and other magic instance that are not spells.

"At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects. Vou start with two such effects: Turn Undead and an effect determined by your domain" PHB p.58

"WHAT IS A SPELL?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression." p. 201

"Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it" p. 213

"For the duration, each friendly creature in the area (including you) has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects." p. 222

"You change the way the target appears to spells and magical effects that detect creature types, such as apaladin's Divine Sense or the trigger of a symbol spell." p. 263

"The quasit has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects" (PHB) p. 309


But then the DM is aware they changed X, and they felt the need to inform the player in advance. Whereas with different readings of X, both the DM and the player will be surprised to not find each other on the same page even though the page is right here.

Arguing about the rules' interpretation is also something that can happen with any game.

[Theodoxus]

However, I am very reluctant and cautious in such things because I do think it sways the power dynamic in possibly unpredictable and undesirable ways. The context is important.


Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?


That is not the question of the thread, and balance was not the concern of anyone here. I don't see what unbalanced UA options (or options that can be considered unbalanced by some) have to do in this discussion, either.

Unless you're talking about the comment on how interpreting anything harmful as an attack would make Uncanny Dodge very powerful, but that'd be a very confusing way of addressing it.

I'm talking about Dalebert, who very specifically questioned balance (ie sways the power dynamic). Since I was replying directly under him at the time, I didn't think to reference his post. Once I posted, I was AFK and couldn't rectify. Perhaps this makes it clearer? But I get the fun of finding the guy with the dissenting opinion and ganging up. It's cool - and the general consensus seems to be what I said in the first place, so there's that.

[Unoriginal]

I'm talking about Dalebert, who very specifically questioned balance (ie sways the power dynamic). Since I was replying directly under him at the time, I didn't think to reference his post. Once I posted, I was AFK and couldn't rectify. Perhaps this makes it clearer? But I get the fun of finding the guy with the dissenting opinion and ganging up. It's cool - and the general consensus seems to be what I said in the first place, so there's that.

I do not "gang up on the guy with the dissenting opinion for fun", thank you very much.

[BurgerBeast]

The whole "if there's ever a question..." can be defeated by never asking the question argument is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

But there is still a major problem in the literal words that people relentlessly overlook. I've colour coded it here to make the analogy crystal clear.

If you are a mammal, you are an animal. This does not mean that if you are an animal, you are a mammal. Therefore some things that are not mammals can be animals.

If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack. This does not mean that if you are making an attack, you are making an attack roll. Therefore some things that do not involve attack rolls can be attacks. [edited]

So, RAW, there is room for things that do not involve attack rolls to be attacks. There is nothing in the RAW that explicitly forbids anything that does not involve an attack roll from being an attack.

Obviously, JC is telling us that they meant for this to be the rule, but it is not. There was clearly an intention for the game-term Attack to denote an instance in which an attack roll is made. However, this never occurs in the RAW.

People have misread this, or made logical errors around it, for a long, long, time.

[Tanarii]

There is no page with the definition of "magical effects", but the book makes clear that it includes both spells and other magic instance that are not spells.Yes, I'm aware that the term is used many times. The problem is it's not defined, nor are many things clear led labeled as being such, with the clear exception of spells being a part of it. I thought from your post you were aware of somewhere it was defined explicitly.

I guess my stance is that Sanctuary really should break on using harmful magical effects, or at least ones that require an action. Not sure about things like an aura. Likewise Invisibility should break on using a magical effect.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's RAW. I'm saying I think it should have been, or something along those lines.

[smcmike]

RAW, there is room for things that do not involve attack rolls to be attacks. There is nothing in the RAW that explicitly forbids anything that does not involve an attack roll from being an attack.

Agreed. Shoves or grabs, for example, are explicitly described as attacks, but do not involve attack rolls.



Obviously, JC is telling us that they meant for this to be the rule, but it is not. There was clearly an intention for the game-term Attack to denote an instance in which an attack roll is made. However, this never occurs in the RAW.

People have misread this, or made logical errors around it, for a long, long, time.

It's a two part test.

1. Does the text call it an attack?
2. Does it involve an attack roll?

Meet one of these conditions, and you've got yourself an attack.

[BurgerBeast]

test. 1. Does the text call it an attack?
2. Does it involve an attack roll?

Meet one of these conditions, and you've got yourself an attack.

This is what is intended. It is decidedly not what is written. If we are talking about RAW, this is not how it is determined. (edit: 2 fails as per my argument above)

Edit: yes thank you. If it is explicitly called an attack, it is an attack, regardless of whether it involves an attack roll. But that is a separate point.

[Drackolus]

There is sort of the trouble that, if something counts or doesn't count as an attack for invisibility or sanctuary, the same is true for hex.
Thus, if fireball breaks invisibility because it is an attack, it also adds hex's damage. Magic missile does the same, but since it's classified as an instantaneous multi-target spell, it only procs once regardless of the number of missiles (similar to why, raw, you only roll one d4 and use it for all missiles).
Grappling a target would also allow the extra d6 of damage. It is described as a special melee attack, and it does not use an attack roll, so it's kind of wonky.

[smcmike]

This is what is intended. It is decidedly not what is written. If we are talking about RAW, this is not how it is determined. (edit: 2 fails as per my argument above)

Edit: yes thank you. If it is explicitly called an attack, it is an attack, regardless of whether it involves an attack roll. But that is a separate point.


Technically, my formulation follows the RAW in not stating the negative, so I'm not sure how 2 fails - if you make an attack roll, you've got yourself an attack.

The question is what happens in the negative case. I think you are asking for overformalized language, but I suppose I see your point.

[Easy_Lee]

There is sort of the trouble that, if something counts or doesn't count as an attack for invisibility or sanctuary, the same is true for hex.
Thus, if fireball breaks invisibility because it is an attack, it also adds hex's damage. Magic missile does the same, but since it's classified as an instantaneous multi-target spell, it only procs once regardless of the number of missiles (similar to why, raw, you only roll one d4 and use it for all missiles).
Grappling a target would also allow the extra d6 of damage. It is described as a special melee attack, and it does not use an attack roll, so it's kind of wonky.

Casting a spell also breaks invisibility. As far as fireball vs sanctuary, I think fireball goes off without a problem

[bid]

The question is what happens in the negative case. I think you are asking for overformalized language, but I suppose I see your point.
The rule cannot say "anything else isn't an attack" because it contains exceptions such as shoving that do you use an attack roll.

Enumerating all non-attacks, and repeating that behavior to cover the negative space of all other definitions would be tedious. Madness lies in calling a wink an attack.

You could stretch and say harmful spells behave as if they were attacks, in the sense that they do damage. But that is not sufficient to say that RAW extends any further than its positive case.

There's no support for hex vs save spells anywhere in RAW, just as there's no support for hex vs winking.

tl;dr
Clear and unambiguous use of "attack" is required to extend beyond its "attack roll" definition.

[smcmike]

tl;dr
Clear and unambiguous use of "attack" is required to extend beyond its "attack roll" definition.

This is my conclusion as well.

[Dalebert]

I agree. Things are working fine. If the OP has as specific situation that is a problem, he should list it. On the other hand, if he is just lonely and need to talk to people let us know so we can consider this deeply intelligent thread.

Your snark is uncalled for. I kindly ask that you not make personal judgments of me based on a single post in a forum. If you feel I need to justify my motivations for posting a thread on a contentious subject then fine. I'll share.

There was an extensive argument developing in the Simple RAW thread, the key word here being "simple". It's not the place for extensive debates. I believe the thread opens with guidance to that effect. It was many posts back and forth before I even saw it. I respectfully requested that the folks debating this point make a separate thread for it so as not to clutter the Simple RAW thread. A couple more replies were posted still without anyone taking my suggestion so I made a thread and linked to it. It appears to have worked. The discussion was moved.

So if you think it's a stupid subject to be debating, tell the folks who started it.

[qube]

The whole "if there's ever a question..." can be defeated by never asking the question argument is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

But there is still a major problem in the literal words that people relentlessly overlook. I've colour coded it here to make the analogy crystal clear.

If you are a mammal, you are an animal. This does not mean that if you are an animal, you are a mammal. Therefore some things that are not mammals can be animals.

If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack. This does not mean that if you are making an attack, you are making an attack roll. Therefore some things that do not involve attack rolls can be attacks. [edited]

So, RAW, there is room for things that do not involve attack rolls to be attacks. There is nothing in the RAW that explicitly forbids anything that does not involve an attack roll from being an attack.The thing is I agree ... HOWEVER, RAW works in such a way that specific overwrites generic.
all mammals are animals
if another thing says it's an animal too, then it's an animal; else it isn't
A crocodile is only an animal because it's a reptile (and it is mentioned somewhere that reptiles are considered animals)
A table is not an animal, because nowhere it is mentioned that it is (as no where it it mentioned it, or wooden objects, or ... are animals).

... or back to D&D: in RAW, making a diplomacy check is as much an attack as a fire breath, namely not. Not because they don't follow the rule the specific rule that states attack roll means attack, but because there is no rule that states they are.

[greenstone]

Uncanny Dodge is a great example of why this question matters. If you subscribe the the idea that any action that does damage is an attack, this becomes an incredibly powerful ability!

There are lots of such questions.

Does a rogue or ranger's uncanny dodge feature halve the damage of a dragonborn's breath weapon?

Does a dragonborn's breath weapon count for maintaining barbarian rage? For a warlock's hurl through hell feature?

Does magic missile qualify for a warlock's hurl through hell feature? If it does, spending a level 1 spell slot to do an automatic 10d10 psychic damage is pretty overpowered.

Does a druid's nature's sanctuary feature protect you against a winter wolf's breath weapon?

[BurgerBeast]

Technically, my formulation follows the RAW in not stating the negative, so I'm not sure how 2 fails - if you make an attack roll, you've got yourself an attack.

The question is what happens in the negative case. I think you are asking for overformalized language, but I suppose I see your point.

I'm sorry, you've been right about this. I've been misreading your posts.

While both conditions, 1 and 2, tell us that an action is an attack, however, there is no reason to assume that other things cannot also be attacks nor do the rules ever explicitly say that an action is not an attack unless 1 or 2.

Edit: i'm not asking for overformalized language. I'm asking for the RAW to be the RAW, no more and no less. Ironically, I have been opposed on this and similar contentious points that are rooted in the same problem, and my opposition has used the "no more, no less" line against me. It's bewildering. Absence of explanation is not explanation of absence.


The thing is I agree ... HOWEVER, RAW works in such a way that specific overwrites generic.
all mammals are animals
if another thing says it's an animal too, then it's an animal; else it isn't (emphasis added)

I disagree. I'm with you up until "else it isn't." This is a mistake, and it's being made all over the place. RAW do not work in this way, and they never have.


A crocodile is only an animal because it's a reptile (and it is mentioned somewhere that reptiles are considered animals)

No, a crocodile is not only an animal because it is a reptile. A crocodile is an animal because it is an animal. It also happens to be a reptile.


A table is not an animal, because nowhere it is mentioned that it is (as no where it it mentioned it, or wooden objects, or ... are animals).

Not sure where we're going here. Tables are not animals. Agreed.


... or back to D&D: in RAW, making a diplomacy check is as much an attack as a fire breath, namely not.

You're making a mistake here. The RAW are silent on whether either of these is an attack. We're left to use our brains.


Not because they don't follow the rule the specific rule that states attack roll means attack, but because there is no rule that states they are.

It's an error to think that attacks are only those things that the rules say are attacks. D&D does not, and has never, worked this way. It's quite the opposite. Things are what they seem unless the rules say otherwise.

If there are no rules regarding skunks (for example) in D&D, then we don't assume that in D&D skunks are not creatures, or they do not exist, just because there is no RAW to say they are or do.

[Theodoxus]

If there are no rules regarding skunks (for example) in D&D, then we don't assume that in D&D skunks are not creatures, or they do not exist, just because there is no RAW to say they are or do.

Right, that runs into the problem that you can't do anything that isn't expressly enumerated. There's no RAW rule on jumping from a staircase onto a swinging chandelier and using it to avoid a yawning pit trap to hell. So the option are "Well, there's no rule, so you can't do that" or "Well, there's no rule, so I'll have to make a ruling."

Then, years down the line, there's a Swinging Chandelier feat, and suddenly, you can no longer jump over a yawning pit trap to hell if you don't have the feat...

So, we only have logic (or a particular DMs take on logic, to answer these questions...


There are lots of such questions.

Does a rogue or ranger's uncanny dodge feature halve the damage of a dragonborn's breath weapon?

Uncanny Dodge states: ...when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack...
Dragonborn breath weapon states: When you use your breath weapon, each creature in the area of the exhalation must make a saving throw. the type of which is determined by your draconic ancestry.

Verdict: Because UD requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.


Does a dragonborn's breath weapon count for maintaining barbarian rage? For a warlock's hurl through hell feature?

We know what DBW states, so wording on barbarian rage:
lt ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends ... or you [haven't] taken damage since then. (DBW does state that it's save for half.)

Verdict: DBW would maintain rage as it deals damage regardless.

Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: Because HtH requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.


Does magic missile qualify for a warlock's hurl through hell feature? If it does, spending a level 1 spell slot to do an automatic 10d10 psychic damage is pretty overpowered.

Magic Missile states: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.
Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: MM would trigger HtH. Of course, at 14th level, you're casting MM from a 5th level spell slot, not 1st, unless you're MC'd into Bard/Sorc/Wiz or grabbed MM from Magic Initiate... even then, you're at least 14th level... 10d10 is 55 points of damage on average... that's not that much, at that level. It just sounds impressive...


Does a druid's nature's sanctuary feature protect you against a winter wolf's breath weapon?

Nature's Sanctuary states: ...beast or plant creature...
Winter Wolf states: Large monstrosity...

Verdict: Winter wolves aren't beasts or plant creatures - they're monstrosities related to worgs; thus WWs would ignore NS.

I did a quick and dirty search through beasts and plants, and the vast majority of them require hit rolls to affect creatures. The gas spore Death Burst however, doesn't - but that's not really targeting, it's just exploding when it dies, so I'd rule that wouldn't trigger NS either.

Ok, myconid spores, finally something useful...

Nature's Sanctuary states: When a beast or plant creature attacks you, that creature must make a Wisdom saving throw... On a failed save, the creature must choose a different target, or the attack automatically misses.
Pacifying Spores states: The myconid ejects spores at one creature it can see within 5 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Verdict: Inconclusive. We finally have an example that brings the point home. Now, I would rule that because it's a targeted attack spray at a singular creature, that it would trigger NS and require a Wis save to continue. I honestly can't see how it could be ruled as anything else, other than the absolute strictest ruling of RAW, which in my estimation, in this specific instance, would reduce player agency and be detrimental to their fun... but that's another argument.

[Unoriginal]

You're making a mistake here. The RAW are silent on whether either of these is an attack. We're left to use our brains.

The RAW is not silent:

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

OR: if you are not sure something is an attack, and it involves an attack roll, then it is an attack. If you are not sure something is an attack, and it doesn't involves an attack roll, then it is not an attack.

Simple.



Edit: i'm not asking for overformalized language. I'm asking for the RAW to be the RAW, no more and no less. Ironically, I have been opposed on this and similar contentious points that are rooted in the same problem, and my opposition has used the "no more, no less" line against me. It's bewildering. Absence of explanation is not explanation of absence.

The RAW is the RAW, and there is an explanation. Namely, the rule about what to consider an attack if you are debating if it is an attack or not.



It's an error to think that attacks are only those things that the rules say are attacks. D&D does not, and has never, worked this way. It's quite the opposite. Things are what they seem unless the rules say otherwise..

The Champion's Survivor class feature involves the Champion regaining HPs after being damaged enough. Are you going to argue that it can be blocked by an Antimagic Field because, despite it being never mentioned to be magical, it sure *seems" magical to regain HPs like that?




If there are no rules regarding skunks (for example) in D&D, then we don't assume that in D&D skunks are not creatures, or they do not exist, just because there is no RAW to say they are or do.

That's a false equivalence. You're not going to debate if an eagle is a skunk because there is nothing saying that the eagle is not a skunk, yes?

[smcmike]

I'm sorry, you've been right about this. I've been misreading your posts.

While both conditions, 1 and 2, tell us that an action is an attack, however, there is no reason to assume that other things cannot also be attacks nor do the rules ever explicitly say that an action is not an attack unless 1 or 2.

Edit: i'm not asking for overformalized language. I'm asking for the RAW to be the RAW, no more and no less. Ironically, I have been opposed on this and similar contentious points that are rooted in the same problem, and my opposition has used the "no more, no less" line against me. It's bewildering. Absence of explanation is not explanation of absence.

When I talk about overformalization, I mean that the rules clearly sacrificed some preciseness in favor of readability in places, and that I approve of this decision.

Here is a drafting exercise - assume that the goal is to define "Attack" as "any action that uses an attack role + anything else the rules call an attack." Write that in language that is precise, concise, and readable.

Personally, I think they did a pretty decent job with the language they used.

[Unoriginal]

https://68.media.tumblr.com/e9039bc7f24b270179054a8a50991672/tumblr_otc64hLDLg1s8fftuo1_540.png



Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

[Millstone85]

If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack. This does not mean that if you are making an attack, you are making an attack roll.This doesn't, but the previous chunk of text does.

It defines "making an attack" as a three-step process that goes:
1. Pick a target.
2. DM determines cover and stuff.
3. Make an attack roll.

Then comes the bit about the converse being true as well. Making an attack roll means you are making an attack.

From blue to green and green to blue. As Unoriginal said a page ago, the RAW is very clear.

And the RAI agrees, if we consider tweets from the lead rules developer to be that.


Therefore some things that do not involve attack rolls can be attacks.They can, but for a different reason. When a more specific rule declares something to be an attack, the general rule surrenders.

[smcmike]

https://68.media.tumblr.com/e9039bc7f24b270179054a8a50991672/tumblr_otc64hLDLg1s8fftuo1_540.png



Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

I hope I'm not misconstruing BurgerBeast, but I believe his point is that the book never actually says "X is not an attack."


I don't know what Theodoxus is doing. He seems to want to use "hit" as the term of art instead of "attack," which seems like a very bad decision to me.

[Unoriginal]

I hope I'm not misconstruing BurgerBeast, but I believe his point is that the book never actually says "X is not an attack."

The book says that what determines whether X is an attack if questioned is if there is an attack roll or not. So by defintion, even if it is not literally RAW, "X is not an attack" is an option acknowledged by the book, and it is applied to what is questioned to be an attack but does not have attack roll.

Furthermore:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/324a728aef3165a99f19a8d80f3467d7/tumblr_otc6vb6WYL1s8fftuo1_540.png

Does anyone deny this?




I don't know what Theodoxus is doing. He seems to want to use "hit" as the term of art instead of "attack," which seems like a very bad decision to me.

Theodoxus is missing the point by trying to conflate "hit" and "hit with an attack", which are different.

Magic Missile hits the target, yes, but it is not an attack, so it wouldn't trigger Hurl through Hell

More on this later.

[qube]

I disagree. I'm with you up until "else it isn't." This is a mistake, and it's being made all over the place.Sorry mate, thats how general vs specific works.


There are actions (general).

Actions that have an attack roll are attacks (specific).


... maybe, one day, there will be an additional rule, for example



Actions that have an intelligence(psychic combat skill) check are attacks (specific).


But when the action doesn't fall under any specific rule, the general rule applies.
A specific rule being all limitting, doesn't mean you get free reign to decide whatever the heck you want, for the other senarios.


The RAW are silent on whether either of these is an attack. We're left to use our brains.No. We're left with the general situation.

A rule that states ogre mages can turn invisible at will, is silent on if humans can do that or not. They can't, not because "our brains" - but because it's the general rule that creatures can't do this.

Specific Rules specify things about their scope, and nothing more.

[Unoriginal]

Uncanny Dodge states: ...when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack...
Dragonborn breath weapon states: When you use your breath weapon, each creature in the area of the exhalation must make a saving throw. the type of which is determined by your draconic ancestry.

Verdict: Because UD requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.

You're right that it doesn't trigger it, but it's because "hits you with an attack...", not because of the "hit" part.



Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: Because HtH requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.


Same mistake. It's "when you hit a creature with an attack...", not "when you hit"

(Also I assume you meant HtH, not UD )



Magic Missile states: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.
Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: MM would trigger HtH.

No, because Magic Missiles may hit, but it does not hit "with an attack", which is explicitly Hurl Through Hell's trigger condition. Magic Missile is not an attack.





Nature's Sanctuary states: When a beast or plant creature attacks you, that creature must make a Wisdom saving throw... On a failed save, the creature must choose a different target, or the attack automatically misses.
Pacifying Spores states: The myconid ejects spores at one creature it can see within 5 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Verdict: Inconclusive. We finally have an example that brings the point home. Now, I would rule that because it's a targeted attack spray at a singular creature, that it would trigger NS and require a Wis save to continue. I honestly can't see how it could be ruled as anything else, other than the absolute strictest ruling of RAW, which in my estimation, in this specific instance, would reduce player agency and be detrimental to their fun... but that's another argument.


Does Pacifying Spores includes an attack roll? Answer: no. Ergo, Pacifying Spores is not an attack, and by definition it is not included in the things Nature's Sanctuary protect from.

There is nothing about it that "reduce player agency". Pacifying Spores are simply not something that NS protect against, the same way that it wouldn't protect against a non-thinking mushroom projecting spores.

[smcmike]

Ok, myconid spores, finally something useful...

Nature's Sanctuary states: When a beast or plant creature attacks you, that creature must make a Wisdom saving throw... On a failed save, the creature must choose a different target, or the attack automatically misses.
Pacifying Spores states: The myconid ejects spores at one creature it can see within 5 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Verdict: Inconclusive. We finally have an example that brings the point home. Now, I would rule that because it's a targeted attack spray at a singular creature, that it would trigger NS and require a Wis save to continue. I honestly can't see how it could be ruled as anything else, other than the absolute strictest ruling of RAW, which in my estimation, in this specific instance, would reduce player agency and be detrimental to their fun... but that's another argument.

I hope this not does not come come across as piling on, but this is a useful case you have found, and goes strongly against your conclusion.

You state that the Myconid Spores would require a Wisdom save to "continue," but the actual effect of Nature's Sanctuary (assuming no alternate target) is that the attack misses. Missing is not something that Pacifying Spores can do - it is resolved with a save, not an attack roll. This mismatch makes perfect sense if you acknowledge that PS is not an attack.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. The special melee attacks throw a wrench into things. But the test is in the book, in black and white. BurgerBeast is engaging with that test, but I haven't seen you do so.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not saying the system is perfect. The special melee attacks throw a wrench into things.

Which ones? I haven't seen any that throw a wrench into things, but I might have missed them.

[DivisibleByZero]

I haven't read through all three pages of this, so I am absolutely certain that this has already been covered, but the answer depends on the context.
In this context, we have moved from the RAW thread. The RAW states that what constitutes an "attack" either a) requires and attack roll, or b) is explicitly called an attack in its description (or overview, in the case of special melee attacks such as grappling/shoving).
Spells/features/abilities that use a saving throw are not classified as attacks, as per RAW.

Common English (or even RAI) may persuade you to disagree with that explanation, but we aren't talking about common English, we're talking about game terminology and RAW.

You are more than welcome to call a dragon's breath weapon or a magic missile spell or a sacred flame spell attacks if you want to, from a narrative standpoint. But from a mechanical standpoint none of them qualify as attacks.
Hostile actions? Absolutely.
Attacks? Not by the rules.
That whole "assault vs. battery" thing has no bearing on the rules.

[smcmike]

Which ones? I haven't seen any that throw a wrench into things, but I might have missed them.

By "special melee attacks" I mean grappling and shoving. What happens when a beast tries to shove someone who has Nature's Sanctuary? There isn't any way by RAW for a shove to miss that I can see.

[bid]

The RAW states that what constitutes an "attack" either a) requires and attack roll, or b) is explicitly called an attack in its description (or overview, in the case of special melee attacks such as grappling/shoving).
And some insist it can be c) some other cases that are not explicitely "not an attack".

There's no consistency is that approach to arguments.

[Arial Black]

https://68.media.tumblr.com/e9039bc7f24b270179054a8a50991672/tumblr_otc64hLDLg1s8fftuo1_540.png



Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

This diagram does not line up with the rules.

Specifically, it cannot have a path that says, "is there any doubt whether this counts as an attack".

That question cannot be part of the diagram, because you only use the diagram to answer that very question.

By choosing to consult the diagram to resolve a question about whether something counts as an attack or not, you have already shown that there is a doubt! Therefore, there can be no-one who is consulting the diagram who can honestly say that there is no doubt! That path cannot be taken honestly. You are consulting the diagram to resolve the question, therefore there is a question, a 'doubt'.

[Unoriginal]

By "special melee attacks" I mean grappling and shoving. What happens when a beast tries to shove someone who has Nature's Sanctuary? There isn't any way by RAW for a shove to miss that I can see.

Shoving and grappling are attacks, so if a beast tries to shove someone who has NS, as per the RAW, if the beast failed its save the shoving would miss (like any failed shoving attempt), because specifics trump generals and so the "NS makes attacks miss" is one way that shoving can miss.



This diagram does not line up with the rules.

Specifically, it cannot have a path that says, "is there any doubt whether this counts as an attack".

That question cannot be part of the diagram, because you only use the diagram to answer that very question.

By choosing to consult the diagram to resolve a question about whether something counts as an attack or not, you have already shown that there is a doubt! Therefore, there can be no-one who is consulting the diagram who can honestly say that there is no doubt! That path cannot be taken honestly. You are consulting the diagram to resolve the question, therefore there is a question, a 'doubt'.

One, this diagram does line up with the rules.

Two, this diagram is not to "consult to resolve the question", it is about what has to be considered to confirm that X is an attack (a small difference, I admit, but still noticeable), so the question matters.

But if you want a different diagram:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/43bcec1337f638b52d0242c21f7b9a45/tumblr_otckiraO771s8fftuo1_1280.png

[Rebonack]

RAW, it's only an attack if it resolves as an attack roll or mentions being an attack in the ability description.

At my table, however, anything that deals damage is considered an attack. Because otherwise you could turn an Imp familiar into an invisible attack helicopter with a Wand of Magic Missile. Closes a few abusive edge-cases AND fits better with plain language understanding? Done.

[Unoriginal]

RAW, it's only an attack if it resolves as an attack roll or mentions being an attack in the ability description.

At my table, however, anything that deals damage is considered an attack. Because otherwise you could turn an Imp familiar into an invisible attack helicopter with a Wand of Magic Missile. Closes a few abusive edge-cases AND fits better with plain language understanding? Done.

Casting a magical effect also dispel the Invisibility, though. So the Imp trick wouldn't work.

[Millstone85]

Casting a magical effect also dispel the Invisibility, though. So the Imp trick wouldn't work.Invisibility, as in the spell, has that clause. Invisibility, as in the imp action, does not.

[smcmike]

RAW, it's only an attack if it resolves as an attack roll or mentions being an attack in the ability description.

At my table, however, anything that deals damage is considered an attack. Because otherwise you could turn an Imp familiar into an invisible attack helicopter with a Wand of Magic Missile. Closes a few abusive edge-cases AND fits better with plain language understanding? Done.

Arguably, though, your houserule opens more abusive edge cases than it closes. Can a Rogue use Uncanny Dodge to reduce Fireball damage?

[Rebonack]

Covered already, but I'll reiterate.

An Imp's invisibility is broken ONLY by making an attack or losing concentration.


Invisibility: The imp magically turns Invisible until it attacks, or until its Concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell). Any Equipment the imp wears or carries is Invisible with it.

[MaxWilson]

Does anyone deny this?

Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.

This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

[smcmike]

Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.

This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

Can you grapple someone without breaking invisibility then?

[Rebonack]

Arguably, though, your houserule opens more abusive edge cases than it closes. Can a Rogue use Uncanny Dodge to reduce Fireball damage?

The biggest net-gains are the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge becoming more powerful and from Hex being able to trigger on a wider range of damage sources. Being able to use your Reaction to reduce damage from all damage sources rather than eighty percent of them isn't that huge of a deal. Nor is being able to get an extra 1d6 damage off a casting of Magic Missile or Fireball. However, an invisible imp with a wand of Magic Missile is going to give the party a pretty significant boost to their action economy, especially at lower levels.

For me at least, this is less about 'will this make a few features a bit stronger?' than it is about 'could this have a significant negative impact on the game?' The Warlock player might have fun with their stealth bomber Imp, but everyone else would likely find it annoying.

Something getting slightly stronger or a bit more flexible doesn't count as an 'abusive edge case' in my book. But the Imp? Geeze. It isn't just the fact that the Warlock is getting ~10 extra damage each turn. It's the fact that this damage is also coming from an invisible, stealthy, small flying source that is already an incredible out-of-combat resource.

In the end, it's all a preference thing. If you want to prevent Magic Missile from triggering Hex once per cast or Rogues getting to cut Disintegrate damage in half (because let's be real, they already Evasion'd that Fireball) then more power to you! The RAW definition of an Attack is weird but it certainly works. Just beware of stealth bomber imps.

[MeeposFire]

Covered already, but I'll reiterate.

An Imp's invisibility is broken ONLY by making an attack or losing concentration.

Well considering how much this edition has gone the way of being REALLY technical in its rulings we can make this work.

The ability actually says "until it attacks" not "when it makes an attack" or similar language. In this case one could argue that the word is not the game term of attack but is the more broad term of general English of "attacks" and thus could be ruled to include things that are not just what the game terms is strictly an attack.

Really technical sure but if you want another example of really technical language making a ruing look no further than the magic initiate ruling on whether you can use the spell with your spell slots (ruled to only work if it is on your class's list) or why the various different +stat to spell damage abilities work differently depending on their exact wording.

[smcmike]

The biggest net-gains are the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge becoming more powerful and from Hex being able to trigger on a wider range of damage sources. Being able to use your Reaction to reduce damage from all damage sources rather than eighty percent of them isn't that huge of a deal. Nor is being able to get an extra 1d6 damage off a casting of Magic Missile or Fireball. However, an invisible imp with a wand of Magic Missile is going to give the party a pretty significant boost to their action economy, especially at lower levels.

For me at least, this is less about 'will this make a few features a bit stronger?' than it is about 'could this have a significant negative impact on the game?' The Warlock player might have fun with their stealth bomber Imp, but everyone else would likely find it annoying.

Something getting slightly stronger or a bit more flexible doesn't count as an 'abusive edge case' in my book. But the Imp? Geeze. It isn't just the fact that the Warlock is getting ~10 extra damage each turn. It's the fact that this damage is also coming from an invisible, stealthy, small flying source that is already an incredible out-of-combat resource.

In the end, it's all a preference thing. If you want to prevent Magic Missile from triggering Hex once per cast or Rogues getting to cut Disintegrate damage in half (because let's be real, they already Evasion'd that Fireball) then more power to you! The RAW definition of an Attack is weird but it certainly works. Just beware of stealth bomber imps.

It seems like the solution is not give your players wands of magic missile.

[Rebonack]

Well considering how much this edition has gone the way of being REALLY technical in its rulings we can make this work.

The ability actually says "until it attacks" not "when it makes an attack" or similar language. In this case one could argue that the word is not the game term of attack but is the more broad term of general English of "attacks" and thus could be ruled to include things that are not just what the game terms is strictly an attack.

Really technical sure but if you want another example of really technical language making a ruing look no further than the magic initiate ruling on whether you can use the spell with your spell slots (ruled to only work if it is on your class's list) or why the various different +stat to spell damage abilities work differently depending on their exact wording.

The magic initiate ruling is still pretty mind-warping to me. I can see it, though. Sure you're learning it, but in all class features that have similar effects they also specify 'And it becomes a (Class) spell for you' while the Magic Initiate feat lacks that clause. For the +Stat effects, I think most of them have been irrata'd to include (or not include) something that it specifies whether or not it only applies once per turn. The dragon sorcerer, for example, applies bonus damage once per turn. The phoenix sorcerer lacks that clause. They caught it on the Celestial Warlock vs the Undying Light Warlock, too.

And for running with technicality, I can see that too. The Imp's invisibility action states 'Until it attacks' as opposed to 'until it uses an Attack'. Though the invisibility SPELL uses the same language, so it feels like a stretch to me. Also probably worth mentioning that this was something of a compromise. The game at the table is Princes of the Apocalypse and the party found a Wand of Magic Missile pretty early on with some pre-set loot. The Warlock player spotted the interaction (or rather lack of interaction) between the Wand and the Imp's version of invisibility and made the pitch to me. I vetoed it, but to keep 'attacks' mechanically consistent I conceded that Hex would be able to trigger off basically any damage source.

In the end, the Warlock netting an extra 1d6 Hex damage off Fireball has proven to be the MUCH lesser of two evils.

[Theodoxus]

Well, F me in the B - had I but known that simply saying "at my table" would have avoided all the negativity...

Are we now going to move away from the OP and talk about what technically an attack should be? It'd probably be a more productive conversation...

[Tanarii]

For me at least, this is less about 'will this make a few features a bit stronger?' than it is about 'could this have a significant negative impact on the game?' The Warlock player might have fun with their stealth bomber Imp, but everyone else would likely find it annoying.
Trying to prevent invisible magic missile imps by making Hex and Uncanny Dodge far more powerful, along with breaking anything else that triggers on attacks, is the exact definition of 'a significant negative impact on the game'. You're trying to put out a campfire with forest fire because you're worried it might use up all you firewood.

[coolAlias]

Trying to prevent invisible magic missile imps by making Hex and Uncanny Dodge far more powerful, along with breaking anything else that triggers on attacks, is the exact definition of 'a significant negative impact on the game'. You're trying to put out a campfire with forest fire because you're worried it might use up all you firewood.
Agreed, but at the same time, why does it have to be so all or nothing? Why not simply say they qualify as an attack in the colloquial language sense and for purposes of breaking all sorts of invisibility (and perhaps even Uncanny Dodge - wouldn't be that terribly OP), but they don't qualify as an 'attack' in the "roll d20+mod" game mechanic sense and thus do not qualify for Hex, etc.?

No one in my group would think twice if I ruled an imp familiar became visible after using a Wand of Magic Missiles, nor would they expect Hex to apply to such damage.

[Rebonack]

Trying to prevent invisible magic missile imps by making Hex and Uncanny Dodge far more powerful, along with breaking anything else that triggers on attacks, is the exact definition of 'a significant negative impact on the game'. You're trying to put out a campfire with forest fire because you're worried it might use up all you firewood.

This is feeling a tad hyperbole-y to me here. Under what situation would Hex triggering off spells like Shatter or Fireball be breaking the game? Or even count as 'far more powerful'? The Warlock boosting his average damage by 3.5 against one guy when he drops an AoE spell has yet to break anything. The strongest application I can think of off hand is blasting someone with Kiss of Mephistopheles after Hexing them, but that's still just 3.5 extra damage and requires a round of setup time.

There are very few effects (that don't require concentration) that don't use attack rolls and deal multiple or reoccurring instances of damage to augment riders like Hunter's Mark and Hex. I mean, maybe if you let it trigger off every single individual rider on a Bladelock's lifedrinking eldritch smite? That would be 7 Hex instances if they're rolling with Polearm Master. About 14 extra damage at level 12+? But I don't think you would have a leg to stand on there since it's all one damage roll, same as Magic Missile. One damage roll, one Hex instance.

On Uncanny Dodge I'm just not seeing it either. Eighty percent or more of the damage sources a party is going to be dealing with over the course of a game come from attack rolls. The Rogue being able to uncannily dodge a Beholder's deathray won't break anything. It'll just mean he gets petrify ogled next round instead. It's no more game breaking than Bear Totem Barbarians are. Just quite a bit more manageable since it's only one instance of damage mitigation a round. Or just modify the wording of Uncanny Dodge to 'when the Rogue is hit by an attack roll'.

[Tanarii]

Obviously the way I phrased it I'd hyperbole. ;)

But you're claiming its necessary to break a large number of interactions with 'attack' because you're worried about invisible imps wielding magic missile wands. Hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to such hyperbole.

[qube]

Can you grapple someone without breaking invisibility then?Nope: because of specific vs general rule.


When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee attack, a grapple.
-- grapple


a special attack (grapple)
↓
attack
↓
(any) action

STEP1 : we consider the 'special' part has no bearing on invisibility. Who knows, perhaps the 'special' part of the attack action was that it didn't break invisibility. This is not the case here. What makes it special, is that unlike typical attack actions, there's no attack roll used, damage rolled, etc ..., so we fall through to a more general level: the attacks

STEP 2: As attacks break invisibility, so grapple breaks.

/RAW.



No one in my group would think twice if I ruled an imp familiar became visible after using a Wand of Magic Missiles, nor would they expect Hex to apply to such damage.I bet nobody would think twice either if you'd ruled you are able to use sneak attack with a monks unarmed strike.

(despite not being weapons, nor having the finesse quality, the fact monks cn use dex on their attack & damage with unarmed strikes, and use their hands as weapons ... they look very simelar. yet both RAW & Sage Advice have ruled you can't combine them.)

RAW =/= Rule 0 (a.k.a. reasoning "this makes sense to me, and it seems balanced, so I'll allow/disallow it" )


That is not to say Rule 0 isn't important, but there's no use for a "Rule 0" thread. When someone asks you what the rules are, people should be honest - and not present oppinion as fact. Best case, it would look something like this

"according to RAW & sage advice, you can't sneak attack with unarmed strike, but as I personally don't see the inbalance of it , I allow it at my table".

or

"Technically magic missle doesn't break invisibility as it's not considered an attack by RAW. Personally, in my games, I rule it as an attack that always hits, (opposite to other attacks that can do more damage, but don't always hit), so I have it break invisibility"

[Rebonack]

Obviously the way I phrased it I'd hyperbole. ;)

But you're claiming its necessary to break a large number of interactions with 'attack' because you're worried about invisible imps wielding magic missile wands. Hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to such hyperbole.

Oh good, I was worried for a moment this was going to be sliding into some pretty silly territory.

I'm curious what approach you would have taken if it was your game since other perspectives are always great in situations like these. Would you have let them use the stealth bomber interaction? Would you have ruled that any hostile action counts as an attack for the purpose of Invisibility? Obviously you wouldn't let them treat spells as attacks for the purpose of Hex. If you would I doubt this conversation would have made it this far.




Agreed, but at the same time, why does it have to be so all or nothing? Why not simply say they qualify as an attack in the colloquial language sense and for purposes of breaking all sorts of invisibility (and perhaps even Uncanny Dodge - wouldn't be that terribly OP), but they don't qualify as an 'attack' in the "roll d20+mod" game mechanic sense and thus do not qualify for Hex, etc.?

No one in my group would think twice if I ruled an imp familiar became visible after using a Wand of Magic Missiles, nor would they expect Hex to apply to such damage.

The reason I would feel leery about only going part-way is because the player would likely feel like they're being picked on. 'Nope, you can't use this cool RAW interaction you found. Nope, you can't use the logical consequence of not being able to use that RAW interaction, either. Sorry.'

[Citan]

In the RAW thread, much of the focus was whether or not a Dragon under the effects of a Sanctuary spell would break the spell if they used their breath weapon.

The spell specifically states: "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends." Since the breath weapon is not a spell, it comes down to whether it is an attack or not. RAI, I would definitely say that it is an attack, and Sanctuary ends. But RAW it is not an attack, since it doesn't make an attack roll.
Aaaah, so that's why. Interesting point.
I'm always following RAW for my players so they can use nice tricks (such as casting Sanctuary while maintaining SPirit Guardians) so I would probably also allow the Dragon to attack, although that would indeed feel very weird to me.
Well... Really not sure in fact. I'd probably ask my players about these kind of interactions beforehand, because I wouldn't want them to feel "cheated" while I'm just following RAW. If it would make them feel bad, I'd prepare another tactic.


Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?
But it is casting a spell, since cantrips are still spells technically, and it affects an enemy creature, so it would break Sanctuary (that's why, unfortunately, you cannot spend your time just Commanding everyone around while under Sanctuary, although this would be very fun and classy).

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'

Is that bug or feature?
Seems several people here don't bother fully reading the description of spells. XD
Invisibility explicitely breaks also when you cast a spell. ;)
(Greater Invisibility doesn't bear this limit but it's a 4th level spell too).

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.
Totally agreed.


A good portion of those effects are spells by selves already, and most of the damaging ones are listed under the monster's attacks, to be fair.
Hmm, that is a good argument too (or at least, let's say, a very good hint to help DM adjudicate in the fairest way). ;)

[DivisibleByZero]

Well, F me in the B - had I but known that simply saying "at my table" would have avoided all the negativity...

Nice try. I call shenanigans.
The title of the thread itself, and the OP's description of how this discussion came directly from the RAW thread, and pretty much every single dissenting view after that referencing the rules, means that you knew full good and well that literally no one was asking about what happens "at your table."

[greenstone]

We know what DBW states, so wording on barbarian rage:
lt ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends ... or you [haven't] taken damage since then. (DBW does state that it's save for half.)

Verdict: DBW would maintain rage as it deals damage regardless.

My question wasn't about being hit by a breath weapon; it was about using it.

Barbarian's have to make an attack every round or their rage drops. Does using a breath weapon count for this?

[Unoriginal]

Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.

This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

What.

Since the specifics trump the general, the fact there are specifics needs to be addressed in the flow chart.


My question wasn't about being hit by a breath weapon; it was about using it.

Barbarian's have to make an attack every round or their rage drops. Does using a breath weapon count for this?

It wouldn't count.



In the case of Dragon's breath VS Sanctuary, is should be noted that Sanctuary doesn't protect against the blast of an explosion or the like, and a dragon's breath is basically "I'm covering this given area with my breath, beware anyone who's in it."

[Citan]

Both seem pretty clear. If it were AL, dragonborn's breath would not break invisibility or sanctuary. "Causing damage" or "forcing a target to make a saving throw" are not mentioned in the "making an attack" section. In a home game, I would most likely say it does break, as the intent is also clear for those effects, but I would allow the player to "take back" the action and possibly the spell, as I am directly changing the function of those spells.

Really, the only things that are wrong are Sanctuary and Invisibility. They need to be more specific. Everything else that I can think of work fine.
I think this bolded part pretty much nails it here. As far as RAI goes, it all depends on WHY is Sanctuary supposed to break in the first place when "making an attack" or "casting a spell that affects an enemy creature".
Most of us suppose that the intent of the spell is something like "Sanctuary provides a protection as long as you keep a clear, peaceful mind" or something like that. Like, it's the "agressive" intent that is the pillar of the effect.

But, although a bit far-stretched, you could also argue that Sanctuary breaks in aforementioned cases not necessarily because of an intent, but because making such actions require too intense of an physical/mental effort (because you are trying to impose an interaction on a creature, that the creatures does not want), compared to interactions you would make towards a willing creature such as buff/heal.
ALthough a bit weird, it could work to explain the apparent RAW incoherence...
- Maintaining concentration on a precast spell such as Spirit Guardians or Moonbeam does not need any "additional" effort (it's something you are used to, it's natural). Also, it's an AOE effect, you are not directing anything towards a specific creature either (same would be technically true for a Flaming Sphere or Dust Devil, even though you are directing the direction of their movement).
- Using Channel Divinity can be viewed as borrowing your god's power, aka you are just making a prayer and god is answering to it, but Cleric is not doing the "heavy lifting" himself.
- Using a natural ability such as Breath Weapon (Dragonborn), because it's an innate one (also, IIRC it's also an AOE effect, not targeting a specific creature).
- Abilities such as Tempest Cleric's reaction would be probably more difficult to legitimate like this though (you are creating a harmful effect towards a single creature after all), although it's still conceivable imo (since it's a reaction, you could argue it's instinctive, so "natural" even if in the end you still choose whether to use it or not on a per case basis).

I think Sanctuary is a good example of why people making spells should not be afraid of providing at least a paragraph of fluff. Keeping it "all open" (devoid of any fluff) is great to provide flexibility to DMs, but sometimes it's just too open for its own good. ;)

[smcmike]

Nope: because of specific vs general rule.



Thanks. I'm in your camp. I was just trying to understand MaxWilson's position.

[Arial Black]

But if you want a different diagram:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/43bcec1337f638b52d0242c21f7b9a45/tumblr_otckiraO771s8fftuo1_1280.png

Much better.

Using words, something counts as an 'attack' in game terms if:-

* it uses the 'attack roll' mechanic

* it doesn't, but specifically says that it counts as an attack (shove, grapple)

If the thing in question does not meet either criteria, then it is not an 'attack' in game terms; which is what matters when interacting with other game terms, like when sanctuary/invisibility ends early.

[MaxWilson]

Can you grapple someone without breaking invisibility then?

I assume you're asking about the spell Invisibility? [Consults Invisibility spell description] Yes, and you can Help allies with their attacks, lay caltrops, stabilize allies, light things on fire, close portcullises, drag around someone you already have grappled, use breath weapons and Bardic Inspiration, and even put people to sleep with an Eyebite that you are already maintaining. (Oddly enough, enemies do not have to be able to see you to be affected by Eyebite.) You can interact with allies and enemies in numerous ways; it just so happens that for some reason, you cannot attack nor cast spells.

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

[coolAlias]

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.
Grappling is a special melee attack that uses an ability check rather than an attack roll to resolve; it is still an attack.

[smcmike]

I assume you're asking about the spell Invisibility? [Consults Invisibility spell description] Yes, and you can Help allies with their attacks, lay caltrops, stabilize allies, light things on fire, close portcullises, drag around someone you already have grappled, use breath weapons and Bardic Inspiration, and even put people to sleep with an Eyebite that you are already maintaining. (Oddly enough, enemies do not have to be able to see you to be affected by Eyebite.) You can interact with allies and enemies in numerous ways; it just so happens that for some reason, you cannot attack nor cast spells.

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

I cannot wrap my head around denying that something that the book calls an attack (repeatedly, and not just as a title) is an attack.

[Unoriginal]

I assume you're asking about the spell Invisibility? [Consults Invisibility spell description] Yes, and you can Help allies with their attacks, lay caltrops, stabilize allies, light things on fire, close portcullises, drag around someone you already have grappled, use breath weapons and Bardic Inspiration, and even put people to sleep with an Eyebite that you are already maintaining. (Oddly enough, enemies do not have to be able to see you to be affected by Eyebite.) You can interact with allies and enemies in numerous ways; it just so happens that for some reason, you cannot attack nor cast spells.

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

PHB, p. 195, Melee Attacks section:


GRAPPLING
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Grappling is an attack.

[MaxWilson]

PHB, p. 195, Melee Attacks section:

Grappling is an attack.

From a common English standpoint, yes. Not from a rules jargon standpoint. To re-iterate:

Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.


Making an Attack
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

Choose a target: Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.

Determine modifiers: The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

Resolve the attack: You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

Grappling does not conform to this structure. You're not striking with a melee or ranged weapon or using a spell, there are no modifiers to an attack roll per step #2, and there is no attack roll per step #3 nor any possibility of a "hit". For extra measure, the rules go on to explicitly state that an attack roll is the defining feature of an attack.

Specific beats general. Grappling is a "special attack" (from a common English standpoint) which is not, from a rules jargon standpoint, an attack. This is one of the very few things which 5E's rules are clear about.

[DivisibleByZero]

From a common English standpoint, yes. Not from a rules jargon standpoint. To re-iterate:

Are you kidding me?
The PHB literally says that you "use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."
Snip that down to remove the descriptors:
use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple.
Make a melee attack, a grapple.

You don't honestly believe that this means it is *NOT* an attack, do you?
I mean, you can't! Can you?
Really?

[Millstone85]

Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test.You got that backward. The "attack test" is the general rule. Grapple being an attack is the specific rule. Specific beats general in that grapple needs not pass the test.

[coolAlias]

From a common English standpoint, yes. Not from a rules jargon standpoint. To re-iterate:

Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.



Grappling does not conform to this structure. You're not striking with a melee or ranged weapon or using a spell, there are no modifiers to an attack roll per step #2, and there is no attack roll per step #3 nor any possibility of a "hit". For extra measure, the rules go on to explicitly state that an attack roll is the defining feature of an attack.

Specific beats general. Grappling is a "special attack" (from a common English standpoint) which is not, from a rules jargon standpoint, an attack. This is one of the very few things which 5E's rules are clear about.
You've got it backwards - the general rule is that an action is an attack if it uses an attack roll to resolve; the specific is that a grapple, despite not using an attack roll to resolve, is an attack - specifically, a special melee attack.

EDIT: Ninja'd. :P

[Aett_Thorn]

This is the part where you're wrong:

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

There's no doubt or question that grapple or shoves are attacks, because they SPECIFICALLY state that they are attacks. They are special attacks, sure, because they are attacks that don't use an attack roll. But they quite clearly are attacks in the rules jargon.

[MaxWilson]

I cannot wrap my head around denying that something that the book calls an attack (repeatedly, and not just as a title) is an attack.

I can't wrap my head around denying that the rules explicitly defines what constitutes an attack. I mean, I can clearly see that you're doing it, but I can't understand how you can think that it is correct to do so. You're attributing quite a lot of weight to a phrase which is there to highlight the fact that grapples are not regular attacks--and you're using that to justify pretending that they are. You're ignoring the inconsistencies this creates within the rules (such as Shadow Jumping now having to give advantage on grapples, even though being hidden does not give advantage on grapples). I can understand why you're doing this if I ignore the big picture, but I can't understand how you can think this interpretation is sound.

[Tanarii]

You got that backward. The "attack test" is the general rule. Grapple being an attack is the specific rule. Specific beats general in that grapple needs not pass the test.
That's exactly my thought.

The general rule is: if there's a question as to if something is an attack, see if it has an attack roll.

The Specific case that trumps the general rule is: the thing in question says it's an attack.

MaxWilson is definitely falling prey to the 'reversing the specific beats general' fallacy.

[MaxWilson]

This is the part where you're wrong:

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

There's no doubt or question that grapple or shoves are attacks, because they SPECIFICALLY state that they are attacks. They are special attacks, sure, because they are attacks that don't use an attack roll. But they quite clearly are attacks in the rules jargon.

Read that whole section again. Grapples and shoves do not conform to the structure of an attack. Are they still attacks? The PHB is explicit: no, they are not. Specific beats general.

The PHB says you're wrong, but you can play by different rules if you want. It's not like the 5E PHB is a masterpiece of clear editing and orthogonal design.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Remember that specific fallacies beat general fallacies, lest you commit the "reversing general and specific fallacies" fallacy.

[Tanarii]

Remember that specific fallacies beat general fallacies, lest you commit the "reversing general and specific fallacies" fallacy.I'm more prone to the "inventing fallacies on the fly" fallacy. :smallyuk:

[MaxWilson]

That's exactly my thought.

The general rule is: if there's a question as to if something is an attack, see if it has an attack roll.

The Specific case that trumps the general rule is: the thing in question says it's an attack.

MaxWilson is definitely falling prey to the 'reversing the specific beats general' fallacy.

Shadow Jump grants advantage on your next "melee attack". Not "melee attack roll", because by PHB rules those are the same thing, so writing "next melee attack roll" would be redundant. Now that you've invented a class of "attacks" with ability checks instead of attack rolls, what do you plan to do with that advantage? Does it become advantage on the Athletics check for the grapple? Why does Shadow Jumping give advantage on that check, but being hidden does not?

Clearly there is a question here: do I get advantage or not? Answer: no, there is no attack roll, so you don't get advantage because it's not an attack. The PHB is clear on this.

[coolAlias]

Shadow Jump grants advantage on your next melee attack. Not "melee attack roll", because by PHB rules those are the same thing. Now that you've invented a class of attacks with ability checks instead of attack rolls, what do you plan to do with that advantage? Does it become advantage on the Athletics check for the grapple? Why does Shadow Jumping give advantage on that check, but being hidden does not?

Clearly there is a question here: do I get advantage or not? Answer: no, there is no attack roll, so you don't get advantage because it's not an attack. The PHB is clear on this.
I would argue that it does give advantage on the grapple check specifically because it does not specify "melee attack roll."

Is that worded differently from being hidden? Why wouldn't grappling someone from an unknown position give you a better chance at success than going at them in plain view?

[qube]

Read that whole section again. Grapples and shoves do not conform to the structure of an attack. Are they still attacks? The PHB is explicit: no, they are not. Specific beats general.

The PHB says you're wrong, but you can play by different rules if you want. It's not like the 5E PHB is a masterpiece of clear editing and orthogonal design.sigh ... can you quote where the PHB is explicit, because AFAIK:
The PHB says that if there is an attack roll, it is an attack
The PHB does not say that if there isn't an attack roll , it isn't an attack.
Just like a specific rule about dragons able to fly, does not imply that no other creature can fly.

There is both


<general> (any) action
↓
<specific> if there's an attack roll, it's an attack

and


<general> if there's an attack roll, it's an attack
↓
<specific> grapple is an attack as well

[DivisibleByZero]

Max:

Making an Attack
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage
or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

In the case of Grapple and Shove, they have particular rules which specify otherwise.
They are also specifically called attacks in their descriptions.
They also use an ability check instead of an attack roll. This once again falls under "rules which specify otherwise." It's part of resolving the attack. The reason that they're described as *special melee attacks* is because they use an ability check instead of an attack roll. That's precisely what makes them special.

[MaxWilson]

I would argue that it does give advantage on the grapple check specifically because it does not specify "melee attack roll."

Is that worded differently from being hidden? Why wouldn't grappling someone from an unknown position give you a better chance at success than going at them in plain view?

On hiding in combat:


Unseen Attackers and Targets
Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness. When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the GM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly. When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

As you can see, the rules for unseen attackers and targets all assume that attacks have the structure defined for all attacks at the beginning of the PHB: there is a target, some modifiers, an attack roll, and a hit or a miss. It never says anywhere that you'd get advantage on your ability checks (e.g. grapples). That's because attacks always have attack rolls, not ability checks.

[Millstone85]

Just a reminder that Crawford weighted on this very subject.

link (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/672844623602028544)
Grappling/shoving an enemy does end the sanctuary spell on you, since you have made an attack.For the purpose of something that ends if you make an attack, grappling/shoving is indeed, in the game's jargon, an attack.


The PHB does not say that if there isn't an attack roll, it isn't an attack.And even if it did, the rules on grappling/shoving could still say there is no attack roll and it is an attack anyway.

[coolAlias]

On hiding in combat:

As you can see, the rules for unseen attackers and targets all assume that attacks have the structure defined for all attacks at the beginning of the PHB: there is a target, some modifiers, an attack roll, and a hit or a miss. It never says anywhere that you'd get advantage on your ability checks (e.g. grapples). That's because attacks always have attack rolls, not ability checks.
Interesting. I agree that being unseen, RAW, would not give advantage on a grapple check, but I disagree that attacks always have attack rolls.

Specifically, grapple and shove are called out as exceptions; as such, it would appear to me that Shadow Jump, RAW, should provide advantage on those checks, as they are explicitly called out as being special attacks.

[smcmike]

That's because attacks always have attack rolls, not ability checks.

And yet the text of the PHB says otherwise.

[MaxWilson]

sigh ... can you quote where the PHB is explicit, because AFAIK:
The PHB says that if there is an attack roll, it is an attack
The PHB does not say that if there isn't an attack roll , it isn't an attack.
Just like a specific rule about dragons able to fly, does not imply that no other creature can fly.

If you want to play the pedantry game, then let's play the pedantry game:

The PHB specifies a test: If (A) there is an attack roll, (B) it is an attack. A => B. The PHB says this is how you determine whether B or not.

You're claiming that this test is incomplete, and that because from a logical perspective, not(A) does not => not(B), not(A) has no implications at all. So you look to a different section of the rules to determine whether B, and you claim that C and C => B therefore B. But C isn't part of the test, so all you can actually conclude is nothing!

That is nonsense. Definitional rules text is implicitly exhaustive, not merely logically implicative. When the PHB says that Strength measures physical power, that doesn't mean that it might also measure strength of body odor because it didn't say "physical power and only physical power." Elements not included in the definition are implicitly excluded.

[Tanarii]

Now that you've invented a class of "attacks" with ability checks instead of attack rolls, what do you plan to do with that advantage? Does it become advantage on the Athletics check for the grapple? Why does Shadow Jumping give advantage on that check, but being hidden does not?
To answer your questions with a non-answer: you were claiming we were making a mistake, that your logical was undeniable. I was pointing out what seemed to me to be a flaw.

I didn't say it wasn't better to rule grapple/shove the way you do. I don't know if it's better or worse to rule it as an attack. I'd need to consider all the interactions if I wanted to make a global 'consistent' ruling on it. Or rule it on a case by case basis when it came up, if something seemed wildly silly to me. (The latter being an answer players hate to hear, but IMO makes a better DM.)

[DivisibleByZero]

That is nonsense. Definitional rules text is implicitly exhaustive, not merely logically implicative.

I 100% agree with this.
And therefore, when the PHB clearly states that a grapple is a special melee attack, it is defining a grapple as an attack.
As someone has already linked to, JC has weighed in on this a long time ago. I was just too lazy/busy at work to look for it, so thanks to the person that did.

[coolAlias]

If you want to play the pedantry game, then let's play the pedantry game:

The PHB specifies a test: If (A) there is an attack roll, (B) it is an attack. A => B. The PHB says this is how you determine whether B or not.
Away from book, but I thought that test was the result of a tweet, not specified by the PHB. Am I mistaken?

[Unoriginal]

If you want to play the pedantry game, then let's play the pedantry game:

The PHB specifies a test: If (A) there is an attack roll, (B) it is an attack. A => B. The PHB says this is how you determine whether B or not.


Again, specific beats general. If the PHB says that something is B, then it is B, regardless of the A=> B rule. AKA, since grapple is said to be an attack (specific) it beats "attack roll = attack" (general).

[Millstone85]

Elements not included in the definition are implicitly excluded.And like I said, it doesn't even matter here. Whatever the general definition of an attack includes or excludes, the rules of grappling/shoving make an addendum to it. They are the specific that beats the general.

If there was a spell or other feature describing a non-attack with an attack roll, it would be an exception just the same.


As someone has already linked to, JC has weighed in on this a long time ago. I was just too lazy/busy at work to look for it, so thanks to the person that did.You are welcome. Note that it is not just word of god. I have come to trust Crawford's tweets, unlike Mearl's.

[MaxWilson]

Max:

Making an Attack
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage
or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

In the case of Grapple and Shove, they have particular rules which specify otherwise.
They are also specifically called attacks in their descriptions.
They also use an ability check instead of an attack roll. This once again falls under "rules which specify otherwise." It's part of resolving the attack. The reason that they're described as *special melee attacks* is because they use an ability check instead of an attack roll. That's precisely what makes them special.

You're begging the question.

I've bolded all the contrary evidence in your quote which you seem to be overlooking. The "rules which specify otherwise" let something else occur instead of damage; they never even contemplate changing all the other parts of the attack structure, because that doesn't happen. In grappling, there is a target, but it's not made with a weapon or a spell, there is no attack roll, and there is no "hit."

If I were being pedantic like the last poster seems to want: it says you should roll damage on a hit, but it doesn't say you shouldn't roll damage if you don't hit. So I guess it's undefined what happens when you don't hit, and the DM is within his rights to roll damage no matter what is rolled, right? No, that is nonsense. Rules texts are implicitly exhaustive. In the context of a rules definition, "if" means "if and only if."

Grapple and Shove get called "special melee attacks" in their description, but then it goes on to clarify that part of the specialness consists in (1) not being regular attacks; (2) getting to exploit Extra Attack anyway. Does this mean that Grapple and Shove still break Invisibility? Well, that's a good question... let me check the text of Invisibility and the definition for "attack" (as opposed to, say, "Attack")... nope, they don't break invisibility because from a rules perspective, those attacks are skill contests and not attacks. It would be have been nice if 5E's writers had picked jargon that was not so easy to confuse with plain English, in many ways (e.g. "charmed"), but they didn't. At least in this one case though they gave us a guideline for recognizing exactly what a piece of jargon refers to when you see it in the rules text.

If you try to assume the opposite (some attacks don't have attack rolls) you run into interpretative difficulties which make it clear that the PHB writers never intended to have "non-attack-roll attacks."

[MaxWilson]

Away from book, but I thought that test was the result of a tweet, not specified by the PHB. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you're mistaken. I've quoted the SRD in this thread, and the PHB text is exactly the same. That language about "here's the structure of an attack... blahblahblah... if there's ever any question, attack roll => attack" comes straight from the PHB.

[DivisibleByZero]

Note that it is not just word of god.

Except as far as RAW is concerned, that's exactly what it is. As far as RAW is concerned, JC is god, and his word is the word of god.
DMs are free to hourserule as they like. It's even encouraged. But regarding RAW, JC is indeed the voice of god.

[Citan]

I can't wrap my head around denying that the rules explicitly defines what constitutes an attack. I mean, I can clearly see that you're doing it, but I can't understand how you can think that it is correct to do so. You're attributing quite a lot of weight to a phrase which is there to highlight the fact that grapples are not regular attacks--and you're using that to justify pretending that they are. You're ignoring the inconsistencies this creates within the rules (such as Shadow Jumping now having to give advantage on grapples, even though being hidden does not give advantage on grapples). I can understand why you're doing this if I ignore the big picture, but I can't understand how you can think this interpretation is sound.
You stressed out the wrong word. The important one is "regular".
There are not regular attacks, but there are attacks nevertheless. Pretending otherwise is just blinding oneself to the truth.

I won't try to explain though, there are already 3 or 4 people that tried to do that better than I probably could. ;)

[Aett_Thorn]

Yes, you're mistaken. I've quoted the SRD in this thread, and the PHB text is exactly the same. That language about "here's the structure of an attack... blahblahblah... if there's ever any question, attack roll => attack" comes straight from the PHB.

But that is the GENERAL rule. Grapple and shove are the specifics. And specific beats general.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, on the subject of attacks, here's a question. Invisibility breaks if the beneficiary makes an attack or casts a spell. With that in mind:

Doea it break when you use a wand? Are you casting the spell with the wand, or is the wand casting the spell with you simply activating it?

Does it break when a dragonborn, or dragon, uses their breath weapon?

[coolAlias]

If you try to assume the opposite (some attacks don't have attack rolls) you run into interpretative difficulties which make it clear that the PHB writers never intended to have "non-attack-roll attacks."
We're not assuming the opposite, though - those abilities specifically state that they are exceptions to the general rule.

[DivisibleByZero]

Does this mean that Grapple and Shove still break Invisibility? Well, that's a good question... let me check the text of Invisibility and the definition for "attack" (as opposed to, say, "Attack")... nope, they don't break invisibility because from a rules perspective, those attacks are skill contests and not attacks.

They absolutely DO break invisibility, because they are attacks.
JUST LIKE JC TELLS YOU THEY ARE!
Why do you keep arguing and ignoring what JC has stated on the subject? That's borderline trolling.

[Unoriginal]

Now that you've invented a class of "attacks" with ability checks instead of attack roll

Nothing about this was invented by a forum user:


When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you, and it must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check, a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use).


Read that whole section again. Grapples and shoves do not conform to the structure of an attack. Are they still attacks? The PHB is explicit: no, they are not. Specific beats general.

The PHB says you're wrong, but you can play by different rules if you want. It's not like the 5E PHB is a masterpiece of clear editing and orthogonal design.

The PHB EXPLICITLY says that they are attacks:


SHOVING A CREATURE

Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. Ifyou're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

"Specific beats general" means that if there is a general rule on what is an attack (it has an attack roll), it is beaten by the PHB saying that it is an attack (AKA a *specific* instance where the general rule doesn't apply).


Y and the definition for "attack" (as opposed to, say, "Attack")... nope, they don't break invisibility because from a rules perspective, those attacks are skill contests and not attacks.

They are literally called attacks (and not Attack) and are in the Melee Attacks section. They are attacks from a rule perspective, since it is the *rules* that describes them as attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Except as far as RAW is concerned, that's exactly what it is. As far as RAW is concerned, JC is god, and his word is the word of god.
DMs are free to hourserule as they like. It's even encouraged. But regarding RAW, JC is indeed the voice of god.

That isn't accurate. JC's voice is authoritative for expressing the WotC corporate position, which means he can clarify Rules As Intended; but his tweets have no effect on the Rules As Written. When JC says something dumb and then has to reverse himself in a later tweet, that's not a sign of churn in the Rules As Written. It's just a mistake by a corporate spokesman.

[Unoriginal]

They absolutely DO break invisibility, because they are attacks.
JUST LIKE JC TELLS YOU THEY ARE!
Why do you keep arguing and ignoring what JC has stated on the subject? That's borderline trolling.

The PHB tells him that they are attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Well, on the subject of attacks, here's a question. Invisibility breaks if the beneficiary makes an attack or casts a spell. With that in mind:

Doea it break when you use a wand? Are you casting the spell with the wand, or is the wand casting the spell with you simply activating it?

Does it break when a dragonborn, or dragon, uses their breath weapon?

AFB but IIRC, magic items like wands in 5E typically enable you to cast a spell. They do not typically cast spells themselves.

[DivisibleByZero]

The PHB tells him that they are attacks.

That too.


When JC says something dumb and then has to reverse himself in a later tweet, that's not a sign of churn in the Rules As Written. It's just a mistake by a corporate spokesman.

When you ignore what the rules themselves state and argue what you personally want the rules to be, that's not a sign of the RAW. It's just a mistake that you refuse to admit.

I'm reminded of someone saying: If everyone else appears to be driving the wrong way down a one way street, perhaps it's time you look again and reevaluate who is really going the wrong way.

[MaxWilson]

The PHB tells him that they are attacks.

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks. Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll. You won't find it.

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

[Rebonack]

Well, on the subject of attacks, here's a question. Invisibility breaks if the beneficiary makes an attack or casts a spell. With that in mind:

Doea it break when you use a wand? Are you casting the spell with the wand, or is the wand casting the spell with you simply activating it?

Does it break when a dragonborn, or dragon, uses their breath weapon?

This is one I was puzzling over myself.

While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its Charges to cast the Magic Missile spell from it. For 1 charge, you cast the 1st-level version of the spell.

The first bolded portion seems to be implying that you're using an action, and that action is causing the wand to cast a spell. Would pulling a lever that drops a bunch of rocks on some monsters break Invisibility? Probably not. The second bolded part seems to be implying the exact opposite. This time around you're casting it.

If we're talking purely RAW, I would lean toward it breaking Invisibility, but it feels pretty muddy.

By RAW, a Dragonborn's breath weapon doesn't break invisibility. Which is likewise weird. Nor does a Warlock sneaking around ruining people's day with Maddening Hex after the Bard casts Invisibility on her.

[Aett_Thorn]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks. Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll. You won't find it.

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

But there is no doubt about whether they are attacks, because they specifically call themselves attacks. As such, this rule does not apply. Specific > General

[DivisibleByZero]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks. Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll. You won't find it.

We've already shown it to you. You refuse to see it.
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
It is an attack. The PHB calls it an attack THREE times.

[Unoriginal]

Doea it break when you use a wand? Are you casting the spell with the wand, or is the wand casting the spell with you simply activating it?

Depends of the wand in question.

Some wands indicate that *you* are casting the spell using the wand:



WAND OF BINDING
This wand has 7 charges for the following properties. It regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the wand's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles into ashes and is destroyed.

Spells. While holding the wand, you can use an action to expend some of its charges to cast one of the following spells



WAND OF FIREBALLS
This wand has 7 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast the fireball spell

In which case it does break invisibility, but in other cases the wand doesn't make you cast a spell:


WAND OF FEAR
Cone of Fear. While holding the wand, you can use an action to expend 2 charges, causing the wand's tip to emit a 60-foot cone of amber light. Each creature in the cone must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened of you for 1 minute.

In which case it does NOT break Invisibility.



Does it break when a dragonborn, or dragon, uses their breath weapon?

Nope.

[coolAlias]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks.
That's... wow. I see you will not be convinced, so have fun with your games.

[MaxWilson]

I'm reminded of someone saying: If everyone is driving the wrong way down a one way street, perhaps it's time you look again and reevaluate who is really going the wrong way.

Argumentum ad populum, a classic. "Everybody else thinks so, so I guess it must be correct." Reminds me of Solomon Asch's experiments on conformity: you can get people to express belief in things that are clearly and obviously wrong to visual inspection, like "which of these three lines is the longest?", as long as enough other people unanimously express the wrong belief first.

[MaxWilson]

But there is no doubt about whether they are attacks, because they specifically call themselves attacks. As such, this rule does not apply. Specific > General

But that wasn't even the question. It's not a question of classification: "are grapples a special type of attack?" It's a question of mechanics: "is grappling something affected by Sanctuary?" "Does it count as an attack for purposes of this spell?" Answer: no.

Otherwise you hit rules inconsistencies, because the PHB's writer's never anticipated attacks without attack rolls.

[Aett_Thorn]

Everyone else thinking the same thing, and backing it up, is a lot different from everyone just believing it.

Specific > General. Shove and Grapple Rules trump the general "if it involves an attack roll, it's an attack." Grapple and Shove are specific instances where that general rule does not apply. But that doesn't mean they aren't attacks. Their sections call them attacks multiple times.

[Aett_Thorn]

But that wasn't even the question. It's not a question of classification: "are grapples a special type of attack?" It's a question of mechanics: "is grappling something affected by Sanctuary?" "Does it count as an attack for purposes of this spell?" Answer: no.

Otherwise you hit rules inconsistencies, because the PHB's writer's never anticipated attacks without attack rolls.

But that's where you are wrong. It DOES count as an attack for the purposes of the spell. BECAUSE it IS an attack. If it's an attack, but doesn't count as an attack by the spell, that's when you start getting inconsistencies. Because then you could start considering other attacks that might not be affected by Santuary.

Sanctuary counts it as an attack because the rules clearly state that it is an attack. There's really no other way to see it based on RAW and the Specific > General rule

[Unoriginal]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks.

Yes they do, as they are special melee attacks . Special melee attacks that don't have to obey the general attack rules because, once again, specific beats general.

They are even called attacks (without mention of "special") in the same sentence as the other, regular kind of attacks.



Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll.


If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.





"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."

There is NO question about if Grapple or Shove are attacks, they are specifically said to be attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Everyone else thinking the same thing, and backing it up, is a lot different from everyone just believing it.

Specific > General. Shove and Grapple Rules trump the general "if it involves an attack roll, it's an attack." Grapple and Shove are specific instances where that general rule does not apply. But that doesn't mean they aren't attacks. Their sections call them attacks multiple times.

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

[Aett_Thorn]

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

The PHB specifically calls them attacks, so the PHB does NOT say otherwise. If they are called attacks, but you don't treat them as attacks, they you are being highly inconsistent with what the rules say.

[BurgerBeast]

Simply adding the clause: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack,..." does nothing to change the words that follow. Those words still mean what they mean.

We know what was intended (because JC told us), but what was intended is not what is written. What is written after the clause does not answer the question in all cases.


OR: if you are not sure something is an attack, and it involves an attack roll, then it is an attack. If you are not sure something is an attack, and it doesn't involves an attack roll, then it is not an attack.

Simple.

You've added the bolded bit. It does not occur in the text. It does not say this. This is interpretation (albeit correct according to JC). But the book doesn't say this.


The Champion's Survivor class feature involves the Champion regaining HPs after being damaged enough. Are you going to argue that it can be blocked by an Antimagic Field because, despite it being never mentioned to be magical, it sure *seems" magical to regain HPs like that?

No. This is precisely what I refuse to do: add information that is not given. The PHB does not say that no attack roll implies no attack. I refuse to admit that it does.


That's a false equivalence. You're not going to debate if an eagle is a skunk because there is nothing saying that the eagle is not a skunk, yes?

It's not a false a equivalence. It's exactly the point. I am saying that an eagle might be a skunk or it might not. The rules do not tell us that an eagle is not a skunk. The rules are silent. So we use our brains and the meanings of the words "eagle" and "skunk." We conclude that an eagle is not a skunk.


https://68.media.tumblr.com/e9039bc7f24b270179054a8a50991672/tumblr_otc64hLDLg1s8fftuo1_540.png



Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

Absolutely not. You made one correction, but it is still incorrect.


The book says that what determines whether X is an attack if questioned is if there is an attack roll or not.

This is the point of contention. I say it does not say this.


So by defintion, even if it is not literally RAW, "X is not an attack" is an option acknowledged by the book, and it is applied to what is questioned to be an attack but does not have attack roll.

This is not true, and saying "By definition" does not help.


Does anyone deny this?

Yes. That's the point. This is not what the RAW say.


When I talk about overformalization, I mean that the rules clearly sacrificed some preciseness in favor of readability in places, and that I approve of this decision.

Here is a drafting exercise - assume that the goal is to define "Attack" as "any action that uses an attack role + anything else the rules call an attack." Write that in language that is precise, concise, and readable.

Personally, I think they did a pretty decent job with the language they used.

I also think they did an excellent job. Regardless, they made a mistake here, if JC is correct. Aside form this, there is a long history of "specific beats general" in D&D. they've been writing these types of rules for around 40 years.


I hope I'm not misconstruing BurgerBeast, but I believe his point is that the book never actually says "X is not an attack."


This is basically my stance. But also the initial question is totally wrong. It should say: "Is the ability specifically defined as an attack in the rules?"



This doesn't, but the previous chunk of text does.

It defines "making an attack" as a three-step process that goes:
1. Pick a target.
2. DM determines cover and stuff.
3. Make an attack roll.

This is a pretty strong argument against, but I still don't think it succeeds. That part of the text is preceded by: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part a spell, an attack has a simple structure." So, if you are doing neither of these three things, the text that follows does not apply.



Then comes the bit about the converse being true as well. Making an attack roll means you are making an attack.

From blue to green and green to blue. As Unoriginal said a page ago, the RAW is very clear.

Nobody is arguing that making an attack roll means you are making an attack. (Edit: nobody is arguing against the notion. Sorry for confusion.) We're arguing the converse. There is still no blue to green.


They can, but for a different reason. When a more specific rule declares something to be an attack, the general rule surrenders.

Nobody is contending that specific beats general. We are contenting precisely what the general rule is.


Sorry mate, thats how general vs specific works.

This has nothing to do with specific beats general. I agree that specific beats general. This is a disagreement over what the general rule is.


But when the action doesn't fall under any specific rule, the general rule applies.
A specific rule being all limitting, doesn't mean you get free reign to decide whatever the heck you want, for the other senarios.

Precisely. This particular general rule is not exhaustive, though.


No. We're left with the general situation.

That's correct. And the general rule is silent on whether many actions that do not involve attack rolls are attacks.


A rule that states ogre mages can turn invisible at will, is silent on if humans can do that or not. They can't, not because "our brains" - but because it's the general rule that creatures can't do this.

Yes, so we consider whether a human is an ogre mage. We find, in the rules, that humans are not ogre mages. If the rules were silent, we would use our brains to determine whether a human is an ogre mage; because, as yo say, creatures cannot typically turn invisible, so question is whether a human is this specific type of creature.

But this is not a similar case.


And some insist it can be c) some other cases that are not explicitely "not an attack".

There's no consistency is that approach to arguments.

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that the original statement:


The RAW states that what constitutes an "attack" either a) requires and attack roll, or b) is explicitly called an attack in its description (or overview, in the case of special melee attacks such as grappling/shoving).
Spells/features/abilities that use a saving throw are not classified as attacks, as per RAW.

Is false. The part of the text that DBZ is referring to does not say this. It says something quite different.


The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

This is the intention, according to JC. It's still not what the RAW say.


This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

Except grappling is an attack in both senses of the word. It is an attack because it involves an attack roll, and it is an attack because the rules say it is an attack.

Edit: My bad. It does not involve an attack roll. It is an attack because the RAW say it is an attack.

[coolAlias]

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.
Doesn't that seem unnecessarily convoluted to you?

Why would it be taxonomically an attack but not count as an attack? How does that make any sense?

You keep claiming that the test for an attack is the specific rule that trumps the text that explicitly states grapples and shoves are attacks, but that is the general rule. Are you just trolling us?

[DivisibleByZero]

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

Yes, they count as attacks for those purposes.
We believe that they count as attacks because the book tells us that they are attacks.
You seem to believe that the rule stating anything which has an attack roll is an attack is comprehensive for attacks, when it fact it is partial.
They are not skill contests. They are attacks that involve a skill contest.

-- If it is a banana, it is yellow. Lemons are yellow, but are not bananas. (item/descriptor)
-- If it is a shark, it has a fin. Dolphins have fins, but are not sharks. (item/descriptor)
-- If it has an attack roll, it is an attack. Grapple and shove are attacks, but do not have attack rolls. (descriptor/item)
The descriptive line you so adamantly cling to is not comprehensive.
Now flip those first two around so they follow the same descriptor/item format as your attack roll line.
-- If it is yellow, it is a banana.
-- If it has a fin, it is a shark.
Do you now see why this isn't comprehensive?

One more time.
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
This attack.
Not this skill contest.
Not this special attack that doesn't actually count as an attack.
This attack.

[MaxWilson]

But that's where you are wrong. It DOES count as an attack for the purposes of the spell. BECAUSE it IS an attack. If it's an attack, but doesn't count as an attack by the spell, that's when you start getting inconsistencies. Because then you could start considering other attacks that might not be affected by Santuary.

Sanctuary counts it as an attack because the rules clearly state that it is an attack. There's really no other way to see it based on RAW and the Specific > General rule

I hate to break it to you, but you already have other attacks that might not be affected by Sanctuary. A dragon breathing on you is clearly attacking you, but it doesn't count as an attack, because there's no attack roll, so Sanctuary doesn't protect you.

Just because the MM text says beholders "can attack without fear of closing to melee range" doesn't mean that their gaze attacks count as attacks for purposes of Sanctuary/invisibility/etc. It doesn't matter how many times you quote "can attack without fear of closing to melee range", or how vehemently you claim that the beholder text is "more specific" than the definitions in the PHB--you're still wrong, and beholder gaze attacks don't count as attacks.

[Unoriginal]

But that wasn't even the question. It's not a question of classification: "are grapples a special type of attack?" It's a question of mechanics: "is grappling something affected by Sanctuary?" "Does it count as an attack for purposes of this spell?" Answer: no.

Answer: yes, because the PHB explicitly says that they are attacks, and so count as attacks.



Otherwise you hit rules inconsistencies, because the PHB's writer's never anticipated attacks without attack rolls.

...they *wrote* those attacks without attack rolls. Literally. In the section about what is a Melee Attack.



But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

That's utter nonsense.

If they are *categorized* as attacks, it means that *they count as attacks*.

Since they are *more* specific, then their rules beat the standard rules on what is an attack, and so *they count as attacks*.

It's like saying "this creature is categorized as an humanoid, but since it doesn't follow the structure of an humanoid it doesn't count as an humanoid."

[Aett_Thorn]

Specific > General

Grappling and Shoving give specific rules on how to handle those specific cases. As such, the general rule of attack roll = attack does not apply. The specific cases of these two moves trumps the more general rule. Add on to that fact that the text for both specifically calls them attacks, and you get that by RAW they are attacks.

Now, they wouldn't be affected by things like Hex, because Hex requires you to HIT with an attack. Grappling and shoving don't hit, but they are still attacks, because the book specifically calls them attacks.

[Unoriginal]

I hate to break it to you, but you already have other attacks that might not be affected by Sanctuary. A dragon breathing on you is clearly attacking you, but it doesn't count as an attack, because there's no attack roll, so Sanctuary doesn't protect you.

Just because the MM text says beholders "can attack without fear of closing to melee range" doesn't mean that their gaze attacks count as attacks for purposes of Sanctuary/invisibility/etc. It doesn't matter how many times you quote "can attack without fear of closing to melee range", or how vehemently you claim that the beholder text is "more specific" than the definitions in the PHB--you're still wrong, and beholder gaze attacks don't count as attacks.

The beholder's rays are NEVER described, defined or categorized as attacks, and the neither is the dragon's breath.

The verb "attack" is used to describe something the beholder can do in its lair ("A beholder's central lair is typically a large, spacious cavern with high ceilings, where it can attack without fear of closing to melee range"), but the action itself is never described as an attack in the rules.

Contrarily to Grapple and Shove, who are explicitly descibed, defined and categorized, as well as called, attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Doesn't that seem unnecessarily convoluted to you?

Why would it be taxonomically an attack but not count as an attack? How does that make any sense?

Because the PHB writers were kind of lazy and like to pretend they're writing in natural English, even when they slip bits of jargon in there. At least in this case they gave us a definition to rely on though, which is good since "attack" is a colloquial English word and easily misunderstood, as per this thread. Clearly a dragon who breathes fire on you is attacking you--but that's not what the rules text of Sanctuary is referring to.

I am not defending the PHB writer's style. It's sloppy in a number of ways--definitions are scattered all over the book, and critical terms such as "charmed" are not only given only a purely game-mechanical definition instead of a role-playing one, but that definition also occurs in the worst possible place: at the back of the book, after the average reader has already read most of the book and formed a bunch of false impressions based on an incorrect definition which was probably inferred from previous editions. (Just look at Create Thrall.)

If the PHB writers had just done the right thing and bolded every usage of a jargon term, we wouldn't even be having this debate. If I'm right, the grapple text would then say, "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them," whereas if you are right, it would say, "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them." In both cases, at least readers would be alerted to the fact that a new technical term "grapple" is being defined here, and that they should look elsewhere in the text for the definition of the other terms.

[Unoriginal]

If the PHB writers had just done the right thing and bolded every usage of a jargon term, we wouldn't even be having this debate. If I'm right, the grapple text would then say, "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them," whereas if you are right, it would say, "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them." In both cases, at least readers would be alerted to the fact that a new technical term "grapple" is being defined here, and that they should look elsewhere in the text for the definition of the other terms.

...so you think that something called an attack is not an attack because it wasn't bolded?

[MaxWilson]

Since they are *more* specific, then their rules beat the standard rules on what is an attack, and so *they count as attacks*.

It's like saying "this creature is categorized as an humanoid, but since it doesn't follow the structure of an humanoid it doesn't count as an humanoid."

It's more like if they said, "If there's ever any question whether something counts as a humanoid, the test is simple: if its stat block has the 'humanoid' tag, it's a humanoid." Then you point to a fluff section whether giants as described as "oversized humanoids," and repeated cite that they are "oversized humanoids" (!!!!!) and that that is more specific than the rule that requires them to have the "humanoid" tag, while other posters claim that not having the humanoid tag doesn't mean it's not a humanoid.

If giants were intended to count as humanoid for purposes of Hold Person, they would have the "humanoid" tag. They don't, and they're not, despite being humanoid.

[MaxWilson]

...so you think that something called an attack is not an attack because it wasn't bolded?

Um, no?

I think that bolding jargon text is good practice because it calls the reader's attention to when keywords are in use. I think that it was lazy of the 5E writers to pretend to write in natural English while actually using a lot of specific jargon that many people don't realize is there until much later. It produces unnecessary confusion.

[BurgerBeast]

Edited for clarity. I re-arranged the text.



-- If it is a banana, it is yellow. Lemons are yellow, but are not bananas.
(colours added)

You're absolutely right, here. Now:

Is a buttercup yellow?

Is a watermelon yellow?

Edit: because this is the same as:

-- If it involves an attack roll, it is an attack. Some things are attacks, but do not involve attack rolls.

Is dragon breath an attack?

Is magic missile an attack?

Edit: We don't know in any of these cases without further knowledge because the definition, as provided, is not exhaustive.


-- If it is a shark, it has a fin. Dolphins have fins, but are not sharks.
The descriptive line you so adamantly cling to is not comprehensive.

And cheetahs do not have fins, and are not sharks.

So, "If there is ever any question about whether an animal has fins: If it is a shark, it has fins."

Hmmm... doesn't really answer the question at all, does it?

[smcmike]

Because the PHB writers were kind of lazy and like to pretend they're writing in natural English, even when they slip bits of jargon in there.


You are arguing against the text while discussing RAW. Why would you do that? Just say "the RAW is a bit weird," and explain what you think works better.



If the PHB writers had just done the right thing and bolded every usage of a jargon term, we wouldn't even be having this debate.


That would be hideous. I'm so glad they did not do that.

[DivisibleByZero]

Ignoring what the PHB says.
Ignoring what the Rules Guru says.
Ignoring what the playerbase says.
Have fun living in your own little bubble.

[MaxWilson]

You are arguing against the text while discussing RAW. Why would you do that? Just say "the RAW is a bit weird," and explain what you think works better.

Textual clarity is only ever relevant when discussing RAW. If you're talking about house rules and RAI and things that are better than RAW, the text doesn't even come into it--it's all about the DM's judgment and what makes sense/plays well/is fair to players.

In a "rulings" thread, we wouldn't be discussing whether grappling meets the "attack test" or what kind of "specific" beats what kind of "general." We'd be talking about the style of games we like to run, whether Sanctuary ever even gets cast, whether offense is better than defense, what "appropriate difficulty" means in the first place, whether Combat As War is better than Combat As Sport, whether Gygaxian Naturalism is a positive or negative trait for a game system, etc. There would probably be just as much arguing as a RAW thread, but on a wider range of subjects.

Because this is a RAW thread, instead we've basically just got a bunch of people repeatedly asserting the same opinion with slightly different wording each time.

[MaxWilson]

Ignoring what the PHB says.
Ignoring what the Rules Guru says.
Ignoring what the playerbase says.
Have fun living in your own little bubble.

I would take it as a personal favor if you would please put me on Ignore and never again respond to anything I post. Thank you.

[DivisibleByZero]

I would take it as a personal favor if you would please put me on Ignore and never again respond to anything I post. Thank you.

I can make it easy for you.

Click here to add DBZ to your Ignore list. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=108475)

[BurgerBeast]

I can make it easy for you.

Click here to add DBZ to your Ignore list. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=108475)

Classic DBZ.

He doesn't want to ignore you. (Edit: to add you to his ignore list)

He wants you to ignore him. (Edit: to add him to your ignore list)

Those are different.

[Unoriginal]

It's more like if they said, "If there's ever any question whether something counts as a humanoid, the test is simple: if its stat block has the 'humanoid' tag, it's a humanoid." Then you point to a fluff section whether giants as described as "oversized humanoids," and repeated cite that they are "oversized humanoids" (!!!!!) and that that is more specific than the rule that requires them to have the "humanoid" tag, while other posters claim that not having the humanoid tag doesn't mean it's not a humanoid.

If giants were intended to count as humanoid for purposes of Hold Person, they would have the "humanoid" tag. They don't, and they're not, despite being humanoid.

No, it's not like that, because in the case of the Grapple and Shove the rules are stating "those are humanoids", while you're arguing "they can't be humanoid, they're as tall as Giants"

[Millstone85]

Except as far as RAW is concerned, that's exactly what it is. As far as RAW is concerned, JC is god, and his word is the word of god.
DMs are free to hourserule as they like. It's even encouraged. But regarding RAW, JC is indeed the voice of god.I said it is not just word of god. As in, it is word of god, and then some. It is the word of a creator who seems to understand what he created.

And word of god is more on the RAI side of things. It is a creator explaining how the rules were intended to be understood. In the best cases, he has to do this because people can't read (which is what I think is happening here). In the worst cases, it is because the rules are badly written (and 5e has plenty of that too).

[MaxWilson]

Classic DBZ.

He doesn't want to ignore you. (Edit: to add you to his ignore list)

He wants you to ignore him. (Edit: to add him to your ignore list)

Those are different.

Ideally both would happen, but I only have control over one.

[DivisibleByZero]

I said it is not just word of god. As in, it is word of god, and then some. It is the word of a creator who seems to understand what he created.

And word of god is more on the RAI side of things. It is a creator explaining how the rules were intended to be understood. In the best cases, he has to do this because people can't read (which is what I think is happening here). In the worst cases, it is because the rules are badly written (and 5e has plenty of that too).

Ah. I misunderstood. In light of that, I completely agree with you.

[MaxWilson]

No, it's not like that, because in the case of the Grapple and Shove the rules are stating "those are humanoids", while you're arguing "they can't be humanoid, they're as tall as Giants"

I guess that's the Internet equivalent of "nu-uh." :-P

[Unoriginal]

I guess that's the Internet equivalent of "nu-uh." :-P

No, it's the internet equivalent of a response to your argument.

You said that it was like the giants being called "oversized humanoids" despite the rules stating otherwise, but Grapple and Shove are explicitly called attacks by the rules, so your analogy does not work.

[MaxWilson]

No, it's the internet equivalent of a response to your argument.

You said that it was like the giants being called "oversized humanoids" despite the rules stating otherwise, but Grapple and Shove are explicitly called attacks by the rules, so your analogy does not work.

Rephrasing what you just wrote for clarity:

"You said that it was like the giants being called "oversized humanoids" despite the rules stating otherwise, but Grapple and Shove are explicitly called attacks [despite the rules stating otherwise], so your analogy does not work."

In short, you didn't engage with anything that I actually wrote. You just asserted the contrary without evidence.

Repeating:


It's more like if they said, "If there's ever any question whether something counts as a humanoid, the test is simple: if its stat block has the 'humanoid' tag, it's a humanoid." Then you point to a fluff section whether giants as described as "oversized humanoids," and repeated cite that they are "oversized humanoids" (!!!!!) and that that is more specific than the rule that requires them to have the "humanoid" tag, while other posters claim that not having the humanoid tag doesn't mean it's not a humanoid.

If giants were intended to count as humanoid for purposes of Hold Person, they would have the "humanoid" tag. They don't, and they're not, despite being humanoid.

We both agree that giants are humanoid, no? The question would be whether these humanoids count as humanoid for purposes of game rules like Hold Person. I would refer you to the (hypothetical) rules text delineating explicitly what counts as humanoid.

Similarly, we both agree that grappling and shoving are special melee attacks, don't we? The question is whether these attacks count as attacks for purposes of game rules like Sanctuary/invisibility. I would point you to the (not hypothetical) rules text delineating explicitly what counts as an attack.

You didn't engage with this argument in any way. You merely asserted that it was false: "nu-uh."

If the MM referred to giants as humanoid (as it obliquely does at one point for hill giants), would it be correct to argue that giants count as humanoids for purposes of Hold Person? (Hint: no.)

[Iamcreative]

Just to add some more fuel to the fire, is there something (either in the PHB or JC tweet) that spefically calls out actions that neither have attack rolls nor spefic descriptors as not attacks?

Or maybe more clearly put, after reading this entire thread and the RAW thread I can point to rules that say

'If an action has an attack roll then it is an attack'

And

'If an action says it is an attack then it is an attack'

But I havent seen (or perhaps dont remember) anything like

'If an action has no attack roll and doesnt say it is not an attack then it is not considered an attack'

Which means this entire thread boils down to one of those rules that is DM dependant. Which sucks, but otherwise its all RAI. Because I do recall a rule that goes something like

'Anything not covered in these books falls under DM fiat'
(Or something like that)

Which is fine and, I'd say, probably better than having strict hardline rules.

Edit: Im still not convinced Im actually making sense so Ill say it this way. There are rules as to what makes an action an attack. But Im not sure there are rules, either explict or implict, that govern what IS NOT an attack. Can anyone point to those?

[smcmike]

Rephrasing what you just wrote for clarity:

"You said that it was like the giants being called "oversized humanoids" despite the rules stating otherwise, but Grapple and Shove are explicitly called attacks [despite the rules stating otherwise], so your analogy does not work."

In short, you didn't engage with anything that I actually wrote. You just asserted the contrary without evidence.

Repeating:



We both agree that giants are humanoid, no? The question would be whether these humanoids count as humanoid for purposes of game rules like Hold Person. I would refer you to the (hypothetical) rules text delineating explicitly what counts as humanoid.

Similarly, we both agree that grappling and shoving are special melee attacks, don't we? The question is whether these attacks count as attacks for purposes of game rules like Sanctuary/invisibility. I would point you to the (not hypothetical) rules text delineating explicitly what is humanoid.

You didn't engage with this argument in any way. You merely asserted that it was false: "nu-uh."

If the MM referred to giants as humanoid (as it obliquely does at one point for hill giants), would it be correct to argue that giants count as humanoids for purposes of Hold Person? (Hint: no.)

Let's imagine that the MM was organized by type. Let's further imagine that under the "humanoid" heading, they included a section describing humanoids in general, and included a clause stating "If there is ever a doubt whether a creature is a humanoid, if it is human sized and shaped, it's a humanoid." (I'm aware this is not an accurate test in reality).

Let's further imagine that, within the SAME SECTION, the rules talked about "special large humanoids," and consistently referred to these as humanoids, despite the fact that they were not human sized.

(This seems like a better parallel).

[DivisibleByZero]

'If an action has an attack roll then it is an attack'
And
'If an action says it is an attack then it is an attack'

This is true.

I have no idea why some people claim that [If A --> Then B] is perfectly fine, but when the book explicitly says [This is B] they have some problem with it.

[MaxWilson]

Just to add some more fuel to the fire, is there something (either in the PHB or JC tweet) that spefically calls out actions that neither have attack rolls nor spefic descriptors as not attacks?

Or maybe more clearly put, after reading this entire thread and the RAW thread I can point to rules that say

'If an action has an attack roll then it is an attack'

And

'If an action says it is an attack then it is an attack'

But I havent seen (or perhaps dont remember) anything like

'If an action has no attack roll and doesnt say it is not an attack then it is not considered an attack'

Which means this entire thread boils down to one of those rules that is DM dependant. Which sucks, but otherwise its all RAI. Because I do recall a rule that goes something like

'Anything not covered in these books falls under DM fiat'
(Or something like that)

Which is fine and, I'd say, probably better than having strict hardline rules.

Edit: Im still not convinced Im actually making sense so Ill say it this way. There are rules as to what makes an action an attack. But Im not sure there are rules, either explict or implict, that govern what IS NOT an attack. Can anyone point to those?

The PHB says that damage is inflicted on a hit. Is there anywhere in the PHB that calls out that damage is NOT inflicted on a miss? Would you think it reasonable for your DM to miss you with an attack and roll the damage dice anyway, because the rules don't say he can't?

[Iamcreative]

This is true.

I have no idea why some people claim that [If A --> Then B] is perfectly fine, but when the book explicitly says [This is B] they have some problem with it.


Oh for sure, I was moving away from the grapple//shove debate sonce that seems pretty cut and dry.

[coolAlias]

The PHB says that damage is inflicted on a hit. Is there anywhere in the PHB that calls out that damage is NOT inflicted on a miss? Would you think it reasonable for your DM to miss you with an attack and roll the damage dice anyway, because the rules don't say he can't?
There might be a special ability that inflicts half damage on a miss, for example, so possibly. :smallamused:

[Iamcreative]

The PHB says that damage is inflicted on a hit. Is there anywhere in the PHB that calls out that damage is NOT inflicted on a miss? Would you think it reasonable for your DM to miss you with an attack and roll the damage dice anyway, because the rules don't say he can't?

Yeah Im pretty sure there is actually. AFB so Im paraphrasing but something like

'If the roll plus modifers is less than AC, then it is considered a miss and no damage applies'

[BurgerBeast]

Edit: Im still not convinced Im actually making sense so Ill say it this way. There are rules as to what makes an action an attack. But Im not sure there are rules, either explict or implict, that govern what IS NOT an attack. Can anyone point to those?

It's clear to me, and as is probably clear by now, I agree with you.


This is true.

I have no idea why some people claim that [If A --> Then B] is perfectly fine, but when the book explicitly says [This is B] they have some problem with it.

There's really only now one person who has a problem with that (MaxWilson).

On the other hand, there are a multitude of people who think that If A then B must necessarily mean that If B then A, which is not true. It's a common logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

Even those who are not affirming the consequent (because some on the other side are not making this error), I think there is some bias introduced by other (irrelevant) knowledge, and by the general human tendency to read beyond what is written as the natural process of internalizing knowledge.

[BurgerBeast]

The PHB says that damage is inflicted on a hit. Is there anywhere in the PHB that calls out that damage is NOT inflicted on a miss? Would you think it reasonable for your DM to miss you with an attack and roll the damage dice anyway, because the rules don't say he can't?

No. There are also no rules to say that looking at mushrooms causes damage, nor that speaking causes damage. There are no rules about this.

So, we consider the default assumptions, and then we consider whether the situation in question constitutes a specific exception.

By default, so do actions cause damage or not cause damage? (They do not, unless the rules say they do.)

Do you think that missing with an attack ought to cause damage, and perhaps was an oversight? (No, there is no logical reason that missing with an attack ought to cause damage.)

[coolAlias]

On the other hand, there are a multitude of people who think that If A then B must necessarily mean that If B then A, which is not true. It's a common logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
Yes, but on the other other hand, whether an ability qualifies as an attack when that ability neither uses an attack roll nor is explicitly called out as an attack in the rules lies outside of the RAW.

While you may interpret that as being solid ground for debate, the more practical take is to simply assume that such abilities are therefore not attacks as far as the rules are concerned.

[smcmike]

It's clear to me, and as is probably clear by now, I agree with you.



There's really only now one person who has a problem with that (MaxWilson).

On the other hand, there are a multitude of people who think that If A then B must necessarily mean that If B then A, which is not true. It's a common logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

Even those who are not affirming the consequent (because some on the other side are not making this error), I think there is some bias introduced by other (irrelevant) knowledge, and by the general human tendency to read beyond what is written as the natural process of internalizing knowledge.

I actually agree with your point, I think. I just don't see how it goes anywhere.

That is to say that I agree that the test, as written, does not explicitly state that any particular action is not an attack.

On the other hand, I think that the designers reasonably relied on the "general human tendency" to draw the conclusion that the test provided in the book to separate attacks from non-attacks would do so, and that negative cases would therefore not be attacks (unless explicitly named such).

Still, even if you refuse to rely upon general human tendencies, this argument doesn't take you very far, since there is no positive evidence that other things are attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Let's imagine that the MM was organized by type. Let's further imagine that under the "humanoid" heading, they included a section describing humanoids in general, and included a clause stating "If there is ever a doubt whether a creature is a humanoid, if it is human sized and shaped, it's a humanoid." (I'm aware this is not an accurate test in reality).

Let's further imagine that, within the SAME SECTION, the rules talked about "special large humanoids," and consistently referred to these as humanoids, despite the fact that they were not human sized.

(This seems like a better parallel).

Thank you--at least you're engaging with the argument. Why do you say "within the SAME SECTION" though? For a closer analogy, it needs to happen in a following subsection about large humanoids, not in the subsection where humanoids are defined. And rather than "consistently" referring to them as humanoids, it can do so only twice, in contrast with regular humanoids.

"...you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them"

becomes

"...in 5E there are also large humanoids called giants. A giant is capable of the same activities as a humanoid such as wearing armor and wielding weapons."

The analogy between the two passages isn't exact, but might be close enough for discussion purposes. In both cases you have something being called out as both a subclass of and a replacement for something in the broader general category. The question would be, given this rules text plus "If there is ever a doubt whether a creature counts as a humanoid, if it is human sized and shaped, it's a humanoid," would a giant be affected by Hold Person?

It seems to clear to me that it would not. Do you disagree?

[smcmike]

"...you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them"

becomes

"...in 5E there are also large humanoids called giants. A giant is capable of the same activities as a humanoid such as wearing armor and wielding weapons."

The analogy between the two passages isn't exact,


I don't think your two passages are close enough. Your second passage should include the phrase "these humanoids" to be parallel.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, but on the other other hand, whether an ability qualifies as an attack when that ability neither uses an attack roll nor is explicitly called out as an attack in the rules lies outside of the RAW.

While you may interpret that as being solid ground for debate, the more practical take is to simply assume that such abilities are therefore not attacks as far as the rules are concerned.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. I am not trying to say that dragon breath is an attack, nor that magic missile is an attack.

I [am] simply denying that they are certainly not. The rules do not say that they are attacks, and the rules do not say that they are [not] attacks. (Beyond this, in many cases, there are good reasons to consider the action to be an attack).

Edit: To simply assume that such abilities are therefore not attacks as far as the rules are concerned is to jump to a conclusion, and is wrong.


I actually agree with your point, I think. I just don't see how it goes anywhere.

I'm not trying to take it anywhere. I'm trying to stop people from taking it to places that it doesn't go.

Edit: I'm not trying to stop them, actually. They can take it there if they want to. I'm trying to point out that there is no RAW justification to take it there.


That is to say that I agree that the test, as written, does not explicitly state that any particular action is not an attack.

On the other hand, I think that the designers reasonably relied on the "general human tendency" to draw the conclusion that the test provided in the book to separate attacks from non-attacks would do so, and that negative cases would therefore not be attacks (unless explicitly named such).

I disagree. I know that JC says otherwise, but to take that into consideration is to read with bias. Judging the words as they are, they day say what they say.


Still, even if you refuse to rely upon general human tendencies, this argument doesn't take you very far, since there is no positive evidence that other things are attacks.

There doesn't need to be any positive evidence. I'm not making an assertion. I'm denying an assertion that is based on zero evidence.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think your two passages are close enough. Your second passage should include the phrase "these humanoids" to be parallel.

How about:

"...in 5E there are also large humanoids called giants. These giant humanoids are capable of the same activities as a humanoid such as wearing armor and wielding weapons."

Would you rule that Hold Person works?

[Unoriginal]

We both agree that giants are humanoid, no?

The question would be whether these humanoids count as humanoid for purposes of game rules like Hold Person. I would refer you to the (hypothetical) rules text delineating explicitly what counts as humanoid.

Similarly, we both agree that grappling and shoving are special melee attacks, don't we? The question is whether these attacks count as attacks for purposes of game rules like Sanctuary/invisibility. I would point you to the (not hypothetical) rules text delineating explicitly what counts as an attack.



If the MM referred to giants as humanoid (as it obliquely does at one point for hill giants), would it be correct to argue that giants count as humanoids for purposes of Hold Person? (Hint: no.)

Except, again, that the text EXPLICITLY refer to the special melee attacks as being attacks AS PER GAME RULES.

The same way that the authors took care of NEVER saying that the giants were humanoids, preasumably because they knew that it would lead to confusions like the hypothetical exemple you put above and so avoid the situation of people saying "but the text call them humanoid."

You are asserting that there are many things that are attacks that are not attacks in game term, like a dragon's Breath. And you could have a point. But the thing is, the PHB NEVER refers to dragon's breath or any of those hostile and potentially damaging actions that are not attacks as attacks. Never. Not even colloquially.

On the other hand, Grapple and Shoving are said to be attacks. Yet you are saying "they don't count as attacks, like the dragon's breath", AKA that something that is said to be an attack should be considered the same that something that is not said to be an attack.

For the same reasons that they don't refer.

Unless you pretend that in the sentence "If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.", the "attacks" parts is used to mean the attack-game-term while the "this attack" part is used to mean attack-as-plain-English. Which is absurd.

So, if you want to say that there are things that can be described as attacks in plain English that are not attacks in game term, true. But Grapple and Shove are not among those things, as they are categorized as attacks.

[Iamcreative]

I actually agree with your point, I think. I just don't see how it goes anywhere.

That is to say that I agree that the test, as written, does not explicitly state that any particular action is not an attack.

On the other hand, I think that the designers reasonably relied on the "general human tendency" to draw the conclusion that the test provided in the book to separate attacks from non-attacks would do so, and that negative cases would therefore not be attacks (unless explicitly named such).

Still, even if you refuse to rely upon general human tendencies, this argument doesn't take you very far, since there is no positive evidence that other things are attacks.

I think you make a good point here.

And although I dont know about the 'general human tendency' part since there a lot of things that dont work how you would assume they do in 5e (which is fine and makes sense due to other game mechanic reasons).

But that leaves us soidly in RAI territory, which I feel is very common in 5e and may change depending on DM.

So to answer the OP, there are rules as to what is definitly considered an attack (it has a roll or says it is). But its up to the DM to determine what is not an attack (be it a dragons breath weapon or unscrewing a chandiler to drop it on someone).

[coolAlias]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. I am not trying to say that dragon breath is an attack, nor that magic missile is an attack.

I [am] simply denying that they are certainly not. The rules do not say that they are attacks, and the rules do not say that they are attacks. (Beyond this, in many cases, there are good reasons to consider the action to be an attack).

Edit: To simply assume that such abilities are therefore not attacks as far as the rules are concerned is to jump to a conclusion, and is wrong.
I understand your point, I just don't believe that it will lead to anything particularly useful.

Arguing that we cannot conclude that taking the Dodge action (to take a more extreme example) is not an attack because it does not explicitly say so is hardly going to lead to a fruitful discussion.

Sure, there are some cases such as those you mentioned where it could be argued either way depending on your stance of English vs. game mechanics, but that's not really a RAW discussion anymore.

[BurgerBeast]

So to answer the OP, there are rules as to what is definitly considered an attack (it has a roll or says it is). But its up to the DM to determine what is not an attack (be it a dragons breath weapon or unscrewing a chandiler to drop it on someone).

The chandelier (or similar examples, such as dumping boiling water from atop a castle wall) might be modelled mechanically in different ways by different by different DMs. Some DMs might ask for an attack roll, and some might ask for a saving throw.

In such cases, using the no attack roll means not an attack argument, then the very same action is an attack in some cases, but not an attack in others. Not necessarily problematic (in fact it might even become the basis for how a DM decides whether it is an attack roll or a saving throw), but interesting to consider.

[Unoriginal]

How about:

"...in 5E there are also large humanoids called giants. These giant humanoids are capable of the same activities as a humanoid such as wearing armor and wielding weapons."

Would you rule that Hold Person works?

If the rules did define giants as humanoids, then what affect humanoids affect giants by RAW. Because as far as the books are concerned, the term "humanoid" is a game term, and so is used as the game term, not as the plain English/colloquial English use.

Of course, since the 5e writers aren't complete hacks, they took care of not saying that the giants were humanoids.

Same things for the noun "attack".

[smcmike]

How about:

"...in 5E there are also large humanoids called giants. These giant humanoids are capable of the same activities as a humanoid such as wearing armor and wielding weapons."

Would you rule that Hold Person works?

Again, to be parallel, you need to include the phrase "these humanoids," not just "these giant humanoids." The original says "this attack."

[Easy_Lee]

I think it would help if we knew why each feature or spell interacts with attacks. Ex: invisibility - why does this break upon attacking or casting a spell? If we knew, we could say what else might break invisibility.

An example of a trick that probably ought not work. A warlock casts Eyebite, then has a friend cast invisibility on him. The warlock can now perform three different Save or Bad Thing effects against foes, one each round. Unless the foes can find him while he's invisible, there's little they can do.

This technically works, to my knowledge. The warlock isn't casting a spell or attacking, just using an already-cast spell to do something hostile. The same could be done with many other spells.

And there are also the breath weapon and limited wand abilities above.

Invisibility doesn't say it breaks if you do something hostile; that's too vague, and would negate setting up traps which is probably an intended valid use. But as written, it enables a variety of hostile actions that it probably ought not.

And that's just one example. Coincidentally, sanctuary wouldn't block eyebite either, even though it arguably should.

[BurgerBeast]

I understand your point, I just don't believe that it will lead to anything particularly useful.

If the point I am making is correct, then it is not meant to bring something new to the table. It is meant to help people see that what they are currently doing/thinking is incorrect, and empower them to stop doing it.

That's the use: to prevent a currently occurring mistake and end the misconception in at least some cases. That's pretty useful.

Medicine is not useful when applied to healthy people. That's a not an argument that medicine is useless.


Arguing that we cannot conclude that taking the Dodge action (to take a more extreme example) is not an attack because it does not explicitly say so is hardly going to lead to a fruitful discussion.

Nobody is going around claiming that dodge counts as an attack. People are going around claiming that every single action that is not explicitly an attack or does not involve an attack roll is definitely not an attack. It is incorrect. It ought to be corrected.


Sure, there are some cases such as those you mentioned where it could be argued either way depending on your stance of English vs. game mechanics, but that's not really a RAW discussion anymore.

This is not about English vs. game mechanics. This is about what the book says. It is about one very specific example in the PHB and how to read it:


If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

It comes down to reading comprehension and logic. That's all. People are bringing in other contexts that do not apply and distract from the point (it is not about game language versus everyday language; it is not about general versus specific; it's not about external biases around the truth of the matter; it's not about what the writers meant to write; it's not about JC's opinion).

[BurgerBeast]

I think it would help if we knew why each feature or spell interacts with attacks. Ex: invisibility - why does this break upon attacking or casting a spell? If we knew, we could say what else might break invisibility.

An example of a trick that probably ought not work. A warlock casts Eyebite, then has a friend cast invisibility on him. The warlock can now perform three different Save or Bad Thing effects against foes, one each round. Unless the foes can find him while he's invisible, there's little they can do.

This technically works, to my knowledge. The warlock isn't casting a spell or attacking, just using an already-cast spell to do something hostile. The same could be done with many other spells.

And there are also the breath weapon and limited wand abilities above.

Invisibility doesn't say it breaks if you do something hostile; that's too vague, and would negate setting up traps which is probably an intended valid use. But as written, it enables a variety of hostile actions that it probably ought not.

And that's just one example. Coincidentally, sanctuary wouldn't block eyebite either, even though it arguably should.

None of this is problematic unless you have the incorrect assumption that actions without attack rolls are definitely not attacks. This assumption has no basis. So the problem is solved. It comes down to the DM's judgment about whether the action is an attack or not, in some specific cases where the RAW does not make the determination for the DM.

[coolAlias]

If the point I am making is correct, then it is not meant to bring something new to the table. It is meant to help people see that what they are currently doing/thinking is incorrect, and empower them to stop doing it.

That's the use: to prevent a currently occurring mistake and end the misconception in at least some cases. That's pretty useful.
I guess I'm just not seeing enough people claiming that to be an issue for me, so it seems moot.

However, I agree with you - the test is not proof for a negative, only a positive, otherwise grapple and shove, despite being explicitly called out as attacks, would not be since they fail the general test as it is written.

[Unoriginal]

None of this is problematic unless you have the incorrect assumption that actions without attack rolls are definitely not attacks. This assumption has no basis. So the problem is solved. It comes down to the DM's judgment about whether the action is an attack or not, in some specific cases where the RAW does not make the determination for the DM.

So, just to be clear, you don't think that "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" means that whenever the question "is this an attack?" is asked, you have to look if there is an attack roll, and that the answer is "it is an attack" if the attack roll is here?

[BurgerBeast]

I guess I'm just not seeing enough people claiming that to be an issue for me, so it seems moot.

However, I agree with you - the test is not proof for a negative, only a positive, otherwise grapple and shove, despite being explicitly called out as attacks, would not be since they fail the general test as it is written.

I'm not sure you've been reading the same threads as I have, then. It is exceedingly rare to find anyone who does not apply the reasoning presented by Unoriginal. Jeremy Crawford himself appears to apply the same misconception (this may not be true because he may not be speaking of RAW, but rather of RAI - however it appears to be true in some of his tweets).

The logical fallacy itself, in a different context, was the reason behind a marathon thread about how mirror image works, as well, in my opinion.

The misapplication of the expression: "RAW mean what they say, no more and no less" is both rampant and egregious. People tend to bring in a multitude of assumptions that bias their readings.

[MaxWilson]

Except, again, that the text EXPLICITLY refer to the special melee attacks as being attacks AS PER GAME RULES.

The same way that the authors took care of NEVER saying that the giants were humanoids, preasumably because they knew that it would lead to confusions like the hypothetical exemple you put above and so avoid the situation of people saying "but the text call them humanoid."

You are asserting that there are many things that are attacks that are not attacks in game term, like a dragon's Breath. And you could have a point. But the thing is, the PHB NEVER refers to dragon's breath or any of those hostile and potentially damaging actions that are not attacks as attacks. Never. Not even colloquially.

The PHB doesn't have any dragons in it, but the MM does. Try page 9:


Monsters with a challenge rating of 0 are insignificant except in large numbers; those with no effective attacks are worth no experience points, while those that have attacks are worth 10 XP each.

Are you claiming that a 1 HP micro-dragon with a 1d6 (DC 10 Dex save for half) 5' cone fire breath attack ought to provide zero experience points because it has no "attacks"?

There aren't all that many monsters in the MM that rely primarily on save-or-die effects instead of actual attacks, but one of them that does, a beholder, is said to "attack" at range, according to the MM, even though it has only eyestalks at range.

Adult dragons all have a "Wing Attack" which forces a Dex saving throw in an AoE. Creatures which fail that save take bludgeoning damage and are knocked prone. Is a Wing Attack an "attack" from the perspective of Sanctuary or Invisibility? Of course not. It's an attack, but it's not an attack.

[BurgerBeast]

So, just to be clear, you don't think that "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack" means that whenever the question "is this an attack?" is asked, you have to look if there is an attack roll, and that the answer is "it is an attack" if the attack roll is here?

1. Do the rules say that this is an attack?

a. YES -> It is an attack. Stop here.

b. NO -> Go to 2

2. Does it involve an attack roll?

a. YES -> It is an attack. Stop here.

b. No -> Undetermined. It is not explicitly an attack. It does not require an attack roll. The rules are silent.

[BurgerBeast]

Is a Wing Attack an "attack" from the perspective of Sanctuary or Invisibility? Of course not. It's an attack, but it's not an attack.

I would say it's an "attack." I understand that many will disagree (edit: and they have that right, because the answer is not clearly one way or the other), but it's not obvious in any case.

[coolAlias]

Are you claiming that a 1 HP micro-dragon with a 1d6 (DC 10 Dex save for half) 5' cone fire breath attack ought to provide zero experience points because it has no "attacks"?

There aren't all that many monsters in the MM that rely primarily on save-or-die effects instead of actual attacks, but one of them that does, a beholder, is said to "attack" at range, according to the MM, even though it has only eyestalks at range.

Adult dragons all have a "Wing Attack" which forces a Dex saving throw in an AoE. Creatures which fail that save take bludgeoning damage and are knocked prone. Is a Wing Attack an "attack" from the perspective of Sanctuary or Invisibility? Of course not. It's an attack, but it's not an attack.
In these cases (assuming they are not explicitly called out as attacks in their text - AFB), the rules do not say one way or the other with 100% certainty whether they are or are not attacks. I would expect DMs to make rulings in these cases using their best judgment.

[Unoriginal]

Are you claiming that a 1 HP micro-dragon with a 1d6 (DC 10 Dex save for half) 5' cone fire breath attack ought to provide zero experience points because it has no "attacks"?

What are you even talking about?

Even the Faerie Dragon doesn't have 1 HP.


EDIT:

Assuming that you mean an hypothetical monster created as per the Monster Creation rules:


DMG p. 275: Use the Experience Points by Challenge Rating table to determine how much XP the monster is worth. A monster of challenge rating 0 is worth 0 XP if it poses no threat. Otherwise, it is worth 10 XP

So yes, I am claiming that micro-dragon with 1 HP that needs to be in melee range to use its breath, with a breath that has a DC of 10 and cause at maximum 6 and in average 4 damages if the save is failed, is no threat to a lvl 1 PC, especially if the breath has to recharge (as dragon breaths usually do), and lacking any attacks is a significant part of this.

Such a fight would end the instant the dragon is attacked, most likely, even a mage is going to have something like 50% chances to get half damage, and even if it succeeds with its breath it's still likely to be doomed. In any case, that micro-dragon is far weaker than a Commoner, who are considered enough of a threat to warrant 10 XPs.



a beholder, is said to "attack" at range, according to the MM, even though it has only eyestalks at range.

The beholder is more than able to use ranged attacks (attack rolls and everything) by picking up objects with Telekinetic Ray and throwing them at enemies, making the description accurate. Furthermore, in game term, "attack" as a verb is not the same as "attack" the noun (the rules generally say "do an attack" or the like, not "attack").




Adult dragons all have a "Wing Attack" which forces a Dex saving throw in an AoE. Creatures which fail that save take bludgeoning damage and are knocked prone. Is a Wing Attack an "attack" from the perspective of Sanctuary or Invisibility? Of course not. It's an attack, but it's not an attack.


The Wing Attack is basically a super-Shove, so I don't see why it can't be an "attack". Especially when the Adult Dragon also has the Tail Attack legendary action just above Wing Attack, and it's described as "an attack".

[MaxWilson]

In these cases (assuming they are not explicitly called out as attacks in their text - AFB), the rules do not say one way or the other with 100% certainty whether they are or are not attacks. I would expect DMs to make rulings in these cases using their best judgment.

The DM can always make a judgment call no matter what the rules say. The point here is that there are some people here who are trying to argue that "But the thing is, the PHB NEVER refers to dragon's breath or any of those hostile and potentially damaging actions that are not attacks as attacks. Never. Not even colloquially," and yet the MM does exactly that. Sometimes, 5E's writers use "attack" colloquially or in a non-technical sense; often they mean it in a jargony sense. If you're trying to distinguish the two, you look at the guidelines explicitly provided: the presence or absence of the attack structure, which revolves around the attack roll.

If there's ever any question whether a dragon's Wing Attack can affect someone under Sanctuary per RAW, check for the presence of an attack roll. A Wing Attack has no target (unlike an attack) and has no attack roll (unlike an attack), so it's not an attack, and the dragon's Wing Beat doesn't have to target another creature instead of the one under Sanctuary. (Which is good, because a Wing Beat doesn't target creatures anyway, unlike an attack, so we aren't being required by the spell to do something nonsensical.)

A lich can use its lair action to cause spirits to "materialize and attack" a creature within its lair, for 15d6 necrotic damage (Con save for half). Does Sanctuary prevent this? Can Uncanny Dodge cut this damage in half? No, it's an attack but it's not an attack.

There's a lot of people here relying on a nonsensical reading of the text, despite the PHB giving you the only plain definition it ever gives: attack === "something with an attack roll."

[coolAlias]

The DM can always make a judgment call no matter what the rules say. The point here is that there are some people here who are trying to argue that "But the thing is, the PHB NEVER refers to dragon's breath or any of those hostile and potentially damaging actions that are not attacks as attacks. Never. Not even colloquially," and yet the MM does exactly that. Sometimes, 5E's writers use "attack" colloquially or in a non-technical sense; often they mean it in a jargony sense. If you're trying to distinguish the two, you look at the guidelines explicitly provided: the presence or absence of the attack structure, which revolves around the attack roll.

If there's ever any question whether a dragon's Wing Attack can affect someone under Sanctuary per RAW, check for the presence of an attack roll. A Wing Attack has no target (unlike an attack) and has no attack roll (unlike an attack), so it's not an attack, and the dragon's Wing Beat doesn't have to target another creature instead of the one under Sanctuary. (Which is good, because a Wing Beat doesn't target creatures anyway, unlike an attack, so we aren't being required by the spell to do something nonsensical.)

A lich can use its lair action to cause spirits to "materialize and attack" a creature within its lair, for 15d6 necrotic damage (Con save for half). Does Sanctuary prevent this? Can Uncanny Dodge cut this damage in half? No, it's an attack but it's not an attack.

There's a lot of people here relying on a nonsensical reading of the text, despite the PHB giving you the only plain definition it ever gives: attack === "something with an attack roll."
I agree in general, but arguing that grapple and shove are not attacks in the rules sense is not something I can get behind - it is clear from the PHB that they are the specific case that beats the general rule.

[Unoriginal]

Also, just to say, but Wing Attack would bypass Sanctuary because it's an AoE attack and "This spell doesn't protect the warded creature from area effects"

[MaxWilson]

Guys,

On reflection, I'm uncomfortable with how heated discussion is getting here. I just wrote a reply to Unoriginal and realized that it was waaaaay more snippy than I want it to be. I recognize that you guys all have your own opinions, and while I disagree with those opinions, I am glad to know you and glad that you're having fun playing 5E.

I reflect on this quote: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I've presented my reasons for my opinion (Shadow Jump, Wing Attack, lich lair actions, my view of general vs. specific and the rules text) and I won't seek compel anyone else's opinion further. I'm sorry if I hurt any feelings with my tone in recent posts. Have a good discussion!

Peace,
Maximilian

[Millstone85]

This is a pretty strong argument against, but I still don't think it succeeds. That part of the text is preceded by: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part a spell, an attack has a simple structure." So, if you are doing neither of these three things, the text that follows does not apply.
Nobody is arguing that making an attack roll means you are making an attack. (Edit: nobody is arguing against the notion. Sorry for confusion.) We're arguing the converse. There is still no blue to green.There is blue to green, only now you are saying it is but one shade of blue leading to green. And to you, RAW doesn't forbid a dragon's breath to count as a different shade of blue.

Or maybe these three things in bold are now violet, and violet to blue to green is not the same as blue to green.


Furthermore, in game term, "attack" as a verb is not the same as "attack" the noun (the rules generally say "do an attack" or the like, not "attack").They are the same. See the imp's Invisibility and the spell of the same name. Those end when the creature "attacks".

[PhoenixPhyre]

It comes down to reading comprehension and logic. That's all. People are bringing in other contexts that do not apply and distract from the point (it is not about game language versus everyday language; it is not about general versus specific; it's not about external biases around the truth of the matter; it's not about what the writers meant to write; it's not about JC's opinion).

Note: the rules of formal logic do not apply here. Rule statements are definitions and are this tautologies. They are not propositions. Natural language does not follow formal logic anyway. So your points about logical fallacies are irrelevant here.

Instead, we need to use the rules of conversational implicature, which are much looser. The most natural reading of this text is that the game term "attack" is defined to cover the set of interactions that use the attack roll resolution method + those interactions that are specified as attacks. As a definition, that is exhaustive and all alternatives are excluded.

[smcmike]

Note: the rules of formal logic do not apply here. Rule statements are definitions and are this tautologies. They are not propositions. Natural language does not follow formal logic anyway. So your points about logical fallacies are irrelevant here.

Instead, we need to use the rules of conversational implicature, which are much looser. The most natural reading of this text is that the game term "attack" is defined to cover the set of interactions that use the attack roll resolution method + those interactions that are specified as attacks. As a definition, that is exhaustive and all alternatives are excluded.

Yeah, I can sign on fully to this statement.

[Millstone85]

Yeah, I can sign on fully to this statement.That's what it pretty much boils down to for me as well. The PHB has a two pages long section called Making an Attack, with an introductory text that lists situations where you are making an attack and the simple three-step process that follows. You are going to assume the game is defining an attack before going into further details (Attack Rolls, Unseen Attackers and Targets, etc.) and Crawford's tweets confirm that was the expected response. It takes effort to realize that an attack, as a game term, hasn't been formally defined. But at this point you are trying to defeat the PHB, not understand it.

Somewhere inside of me, a modron is crying because it looked at a mirror and saw a slaad. On the bright side, I now have a pretty good idea of what the Infernal language must be like, with every logical connection precisely defined forward and backward, like "when-and-only-when-but-not-conversely".

[BurgerBeast]

There is blue to green, only now you are saying it is but one shade of blue leading to green. And to you, RAW doesn't forbid a dragon's breath to count as a different shade of blue.

Or maybe these three things in bold are now violet, and violet to blue to green is not the same as blue to green.

They are the same. See the imp's Invisibility and the spell of the same name. Those end when the creature "attacks".

I'm not sure how this got confused. Here it is:

TRUE: attack roll -> attack

NOT TRUE: attack -> attack roll

That's it.


Note: the rules of formal logic do not apply here. Rule statements are definitions and are this tautologies. They are not propositions. Natural language does not follow formal logic anyway. So your points about logical fallacies are irrelevant here.

We don't need formal logic. You can err logically when using it informally. You can read plain English in an illogical way. The only purpose for bringing formal logic into it is to illustrate that. If you're saying that formal logic doesn't apply, then you're saying logic doesn't apply, and the conversation is basically over. I'm not interested in illogical conversation.

At the end of the day you're just avoiding the issue, in a different way. If you think the RAW say:

attack -> attack roll

then you're wrong. Formally and informally and also by the rules of conversation (insofar as it is logical).


Instead, we need to use the rules of conversational implicature, which are much looser. The most natural reading of this text is that the game term "attack" is defined to cover the set of interactions that use the attack roll resolution method + those interactions that are specified as attacks. As a definition, that is exhaustive and all alternatives are excluded.

You can say this, but it has no bearing. The "rules of conversational implicature," whatever those may be, do not mean you get to make up what you want. The book says what it says. The words have meanings.

This is more or less woo-woo. You're waving your hands and saying you don't want the words to say what they say. I'm sorry, there's no magic to be found in the words "conversational implicature."


Yeah, I can sign on fully to this statement.

That's bizarre. This is a much bigger can of worms than even MaxWilson's contrivance. PheonixPhyre has basically decided that "the rules of conversational implicature" are a license to declare that the book says whatever he wants it to say (because it is apparently exempt from logic).

[BurgerBeast]

And now three of the people on this thread are going to invent and hide behind vagaries because they don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance presented in the truth of the matter.

@smcmike and Millstone85: you'e both obviously very intelligent. Don't buy the woo-woo. Think it through. It's difficult enough to find a point in there, never mind agree with it.

Would you let me get away with saying that you guys don't understand the "conversational vagaries" of the PHB, or that you're too concerned with logic when reading a rulebook, and that's why your arguments do not apply? I should hope not.

[BurgerBeast]

Also, just to say, but Wing Attack would bypass Sanctuary because it's an AoE attack and "This spell doesn't protect the warded creature from area effects"

I thought that by your definition, AOEs are not attacks. Am I missing something? Are you saying it's an attack because the word "attack" is found in the name?

[smcmike]

That's bizarre. This is a much bigger can of worms than even MaxWilson's contrivance. PheonixPhyre has basically decided that "the rules of conversational implicature" are a license to declare that the book says whatever he wants it to say (because it is apparently exempt from logic).

Nah. I agree, as you argue, that the text doesn't explicitly rule out the possibility that an action may be an attack without being named an attack by the text or meeting the requirements of the test set forth in the text.

I also agree with PhoenixPhyre that the most reasonable interpretation of the text is that for an action to be an attack, it must either meet the test set forth in the text to determine if something is an attack, or be labeled an attack by the text.

I admit that this interpretation goes beyond literal RAW, and am unconcerned, because literal RAW always requires interpretation, and the intended meaning of the text is very clear to me.

As you post out, this is similar to past disagreements, though this one is likely to be less contentious, as you have not decided that the RAW rules out my interpretation this time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We don't need formal logic. You can err logically when using it informally. You can read plain English in an illogical way. The only purpose for bringing formal logic into it is to illustrate that. If you're saying that formal logic doesn't apply, then you're saying logic doesn't apply, and the conversation is basically over. I'm not interested in illogical conversation.

At the end of the day you're just avoiding the issue, in a different way. If you think the RAW say:

attack -> attack roll

then you're wrong. Formally and informally and also by the rules of conversation (insofar as it is logical).

You can say this, but it has no bearing. The "rules of conversational implicature," whatever those may be, do not mean you get to make up what you want. The book says what it says. The words have meanings.

This is more or less woo-woo. You're waving your hands and saying you don't want the words to say what they say. I'm sorry, there's no magic to be found in the words "conversational implicature."


BurgerBeast, first and foremost,
humans are not logical creatures and neither is human language. Ambiguity and implications abound. Idiom and non-literal utterances are probably more common than literal utterances.

Implicature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature) is the term for understanding what is implied by a statement. Since we do not speak (or write) according to the axioms of formal logic (and thus invoking logical fallacies is not dispositive), there is much more implied than is entailed by the words we use. Thus we need to use implicature to understand natural language.

Formal logic (and statements about propositions, truth values, etc) is only useful when the preconditions are met. Definitions (like are found in the rules) are tautological in nature--they either (depending on your point of view) have no truth value (which is not the same as being false) or are always true. You have to use different rules for understanding informal writing (such as game rules) than for understanding formal statements. Natural language cannot be analyzed using the mechanisms of formal logic--if it could, it would be trivial to implement a formal grammar for english (and thus make it possible for computers to understand and translate natural language without error, a thing that is known to be impossible).

Reading strictly by the words written and ignoring implications leads to absurd results. It is the cause of most of the dysfunctions of previous editions and is a tradition that should be abandoned. The rules were never intended or written to be read in that fashion. Nothing in the PHB or DMG (or MM for that matter) would survive such a reading intact. So don't. Take the common face meaning and go with it, making rulings as needed. RAW should really be RACU (Rules as Commonly Understood). Everyone would be better off and there would be much less fighting about trivialities.

We should apply heuristics similar to those used in the legal system, called canons of construction (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Canons+of+Construction). Game canons are necessarily different than the legal canons, but will have strong similarities. One of those canons is "the words mean what they say they mean, not more and not less." This includes abilities and spells--they do what they say they do. Importing "real world logic" or other such things makes a mess. Don't do it (please?). Another would be "the simplest explanation that makes things playable is probably the right one." Yet another is "Hard cases make bad law," (meaning don't make the rules based on the exceptions. Exceptions are exceptional, after all. Handle them separately instead of trying to shove them into the general case).


As a side note, the "but it doesn't say it isn't" excuse (which is what you're pulling here) would not fly in a court of law. Logic or no logic. There are no magic words--courts (and DMs) rule based on what "reasonable people (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard)" (a term of art in the legal world) understand the words to mean. The antics of a RPG rules lawyer would get that person sanctioned by the court and would result in their client losing the case, probably on summary judgement.

[bid]

I'm not sure how this got confused. Here it is:

TRUE: attack roll -> attack

NOT TRUE: attack -> attack roll

That's it.
Yep.

TRUE: all attack rolls are attacks
TRUE: all non-attacks are non-attack-rolls
UNKNOWN: All attacks are attack rolls
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks

So, it is possible that a certain attack does not use an attack roll, we can't know this from p194 generic rule.

[Unoriginal]

I thought that by your definition, AOEs are not attacks. Am I missing something? Are you saying it's an attack because the word "attack" is found in the name?

Basically, yes.

Wing Attack is a legendary action, and it's basically a super-shove, so to speak. Tail Attack is also a legendary action of the same creature.

I've never said that AoEs can't be attacks, I'm saying that in the vast majority of cases they are not. Fireball isn't an attack, for exemple. But if something is called an attack by the rules, then it's an attack regardless of how it works.


But what do I know? I'm just an idiot whose contribution doesn't interest nor help anyone.



UNKNOWN: All attacks are attack rolls
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks

Those two are known. Not all attacks are attack rolls (Grapple and Shove are attacks but don't involved attack roll) and not all non-attack rolls are non-attacks (Grapple and Shove don't involve attack roll yet are attacks)

However, those exceptions are explicitly said in the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yep.

TRUE: all attack rolls are attacks
TRUE: all non-attacks are non-attack-rolls
UNKNOWN: All attacks are attack rolls
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks

So, it is possible that a certain attack does not use an attack roll, we can't know this from p194 generic rule.

Actually we know that at least two attacks are not resolved with attack rolls: grappling and shoving. Those are specifically called out as attacks (specific beats general) but use the "contested ability check" resolution method. That means that the 3rd statement is false: at least two attacks are not attack rolls. This also makes the fourth statement false (as @Unoriginal pointed out above).

We don't need to apply formal logic, though--the general rule covers everything.

GENERAL: Attacks have a) targets, b) modifiers, c) attack rolls (PHB 194). Note the first sentence of the subsection titled "Attack Rolls":



When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses.

Combined with the preceding subsection, this is a general definition for the term "attack". The presence of an attack roll is necessary and sufficient to indicate an attack. No other general rule for attacks is present anywhere in the text. Thus, this is the general rule and applies everywhere except for explicit exceptions.

SPECIFIC 1: Grappling. As pointed out elsewhere, PHB 195 calls this out as an attack. Since specific beats general, it's an attack despite not using an attack roll for resolution. Note the statement (same page): "you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll." This is a specific replacement for this instance only.

SPECIFIC 2: Shoving. "Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check..." Same considerations apply. Also an attack that uses the contested ability check instead of an attack roll. Still an attack.

Others may exist, but they have to be specifically called out as exceptions, otherwise the general rule applies. That goes for every rule in the book. Exceptions are exceptional and must be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise the general rule applies. Any other understanding makes the game harder to run and only advantages munchkins looking to break things.

[smcmike]

You in the law, Phoenix?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You in the law, Phoenix?

No, but my dad is and I've done lots of reading on the topic. I also grew up with an example of the worst stereotypes of the high-school debater (sophistry, twisting definitions, bad faith arguing, "winning" as the goal of conversations, verbal abuse, etc). This made me particularly sensitive to such tactics.

[bid]

Actually we know that at least two attacks are not resolved with attack rolls: grappling and shoving. Those are specifically called out as attacks (specific beats general) but use the "contested ability check" resolution method.
Yes, but you're going beyond p194. Nothing on p194 says that grappling cannot be attacks. You'd have to use other pages of the PHB to reach that conclusion.

Even if it is questionable that an "attack" is an "attack", p194 doesn't help.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but you're going beyond p194. Nothing on p194 says that grappling cannot be attacks. You'd have to use other pages of the PHB to reach that conclusion.

Even if it is questionable that an "attack" is an "attack", p194 doesn't help.

I specifically said that grappling is an attack. Not because of p194, but because of the explicit exception made in the "grappling" section on p195. It doesn't meet the general definition, but since specific beats general, and it specifically is called an attack...it's an attack.

I know I'm long-winded, but this was explicitly said in my post.

[bid]

Not because of p194,
So why are you arguing with me then?

[Zalabim]

I think the question of what is considered magical is a similar, but cleaner, proposition. An ability or effect is magical if something says it's magical, and there's little preconceptions that would suggest anything else is magical.


Shadow Jump grants advantage on your next "melee attack". Not "melee attack roll", because by PHB rules those are the same thing, so writing "next melee attack roll" would be redundant. Now that you've invented a class of "attacks" with ability checks instead of attack rolls, what do you plan to do with that advantage? Does it become advantage on the Athletics check for the grapple? Why does Shadow Jumping give advantage on that check, but being hidden does not?

Clearly there is a question here: do I get advantage or not? Answer: no, there is no attack roll, so you don't get advantage because it's not an attack. The PHB is clear on this.
The advantage given by Shadow Step doesn't have anything to do with the advantage from being Hidden anyway. Shadow Step is completely uncaring about whether you're hidden or not.

Now, Shadow Step probably says melee attacks instead of attack rolls so it doesn't benefit ranged weapons. It doesn't say attack rolls with melee weapons because monks are often not using a weapon. It doesn't say melee attack rolls because that sounds weird. It says melee attacks, so Nightcrawler also gets the benefit when he BAMFs around pushing, tripping, and pulling people into non-lethal takedowns. I'd guess the teleportation gives some sort of momentum.

Let's imagine that the MM was organized by type. Let's further imagine that under the "humanoid" heading, they included a section describing humanoids in general, and included a clause stating "If there is ever a doubt whether a creature is a humanoid, if it is human sized and shaped, it's a humanoid." (I'm aware this is not an accurate test in reality).

Let's further imagine that, within the SAME SECTION, the rules talked about "special large humanoids," and consistently referred to these as humanoids, despite the fact that they were not human sized.

(This seems like a better parallel).
I think the better parallel here is this: Aarakocra are humanoid, because that is their type, even though they are not human-shaped, because they have wings as well as arms and legs.

[Unoriginal]

I think the better parallel here is this: Aarakocra are humanoid, because that is their type, even though they are not human-shaped, because they have wings as well as arms and legs.

Lycanthropes are considered humanoid no matter if they are in beast form or not, as the text says "its statistics, other than its size, are the same in each form".

[Tanarii]

What I want to know is, when did MaxWilson's logon get stolen by my evil twin? Twinsie just loves to argue in the face of having almost everyone telling him he's crazy. :smallyuk:

Yep.

TRUE: all attack rolls are attacks
TRUE: all non-attacks are non-attack-rolls
UNKNOWN: All attacks are attack rolls
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks

So, it is possible that a certain attack does not use an attack roll, we can't know this from p194 generic rule.


So why are you arguing with me then?
His point was that :
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
becomes
FALSE : All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
once you include additional data beyond p194. In other words, the proof under grapple/shove.

(Edit: But yeah, it took me a sec to wonder where the dispute with your point was coming from. Because it seems like an accurate interpretation of a strict reading of the p194 statement, before any other data is considered.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I want to know is, when did MaxWilson's logon get stolen by my evil twin? Twinsie just loves to argue in the face of having almost everyone telling him he's crazy. :smallyuk:



His point was that :
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
becomes
FALSE : All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
once you include additional data beyond p194. In other words, the proof under grapple/shove.

(Edit: But yeah, it took me a sec to wonder where the dispute with your point was coming from. Because it seems like an accurate interpretation of a strict reading of the p194 statement, before any other data is considered.)

Right. I was trying to show that if you include the whole context, there are no unknowns. There's only a general rule and a few specific rules that override it in individual (and limited) cases. Apologies for not making that clear.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It was clear.

[Rebonack]

I think it would help if we knew why each feature or spell interacts with attacks. Ex: invisibility - why does this break upon attacking or casting a spell? If we knew, we could say what else might break invisibility.

An example of a trick that probably ought not work. A warlock casts Eyebite, then has a friend cast invisibility on him. The warlock can now perform three different Save or Bad Thing effects against foes, one each round. Unless the foes can find him while he's invisible, there's little they can do.

This technically works, to my knowledge. The warlock isn't casting a spell or attacking, just using an already-cast spell to do something hostile. The same could be done with many other spells.

And there are also the breath weapon and limited wand abilities above.

Invisibility doesn't say it breaks if you do something hostile; that's too vague, and would negate setting up traps which is probably an intended valid use. But as written, it enables a variety of hostile actions that it probably ought not.

And that's just one example. Coincidentally, sanctuary wouldn't block eyebite either, even though it arguably should.

You can do something similar with Spirit Guardians and a pal casting Invisibility on you. Then it's a question of how long it takes a group of mooks to figure out that there's a person in the middle of the radiant damage buzz-saw that's ripping them a new one. Basically any spell with a cast-then-concentration effect would fit into this loop-hole.

One of my big gripes with 5e is that there are quite a few things where we're told the mechanical impact without telling us what's physically happening in the game world. Just to grab Hex as an example. It deals 1d6 damage when you hit with an attack. But what's actually going on here? The best I can come up with is that it's a cursed-wound sort of deal. Every time the warlock hurts the hexed target the wound festers a bit, dealing that extra necrotic damage. But that doesn't really work, since it only triggers on attacks, not on damage. So somehow and for some reason the spell is distinguishing between the harm caused by an Eldritch Blast and a Magic Missile because one can be thwarted by nimbleness and armor while the other homes in on the target?

If we knew what the Hex spell is actually doing it might make more sense.

[MaxWilson]

You can do something similar with Spirit Guardians and a pal casting Invisibility on you. Then it's a question of how long it takes a group of mooks to figure out that there's a person in the middle of the radiant damage buzz-saw that's ripping them a new one. Basically any spell with a cast-then-concentration effect would fit into this loop-hole.

One of my big gripes with 5e is that there are quite a few things where we're told the mechanical impact without telling us what's physically happening in the game world. Just to grab Hex as an example. It deals 1d6 damage when you hit with an attack. But what's actually going on here? The best I can come up with is that it's a cursed-wound sort of deal. Every time the warlock hurts the hexed target the wound festers a bit, dealing that extra necrotic damage. But that doesn't really work, since it only triggers on attacks, not on damage. So somehow and for some reason the spell is distinguishing between the harm caused by an Eldritch Blast and a Magic Missile because one can be thwarted by nimbleness and armor while the other homes in on the target?

If we knew what the Hex spell is actually doing it might make more sense.

+1. Yes, this, x100. It's the single worst thing about 5E besides its initiative system.

Another example: saves vs. ability checks. For many abilities you can kind of pretend that ability checks are mostly for active things and saves are mostly for passive defense, but Con is always passive, which is why there's little guidance on the difference between Con saves and Con checks, and what there is contradicts itself. IIRC, going without food and water is ruled as requiring a Con check in one chapter in the PHB and a Con save in a different chapter.

Furthermore, when a spell like Fireball calls for a Dex save, it's unclear what is physically happening there. Is that to see if you can quickly fling yourself flat and avoid the worst of the blast? But then, why doesn't it make you prone, or cost movement to get up from being prone? (Reverse Gravity is one of the very, very few spells that actually calls out what its Dex save is doing and therefore under what circumstances no save would apply.)

What's a Strength saving throw doing? Why is a paralyzed 40-ton dragon automatically pushed 15' per round by a Gust of Wind spell from a 3rd level wizard but a 30-lb. halfling fighter with Strength 16 is not? What is the halfling physically doing that is more effective at anchoring him than weighing 80,000 lb.? (Don't tell me he's "grabbing a tree limb" unless you're prepared to argue that the tree's roots anchor it more securely than a 40-ton dragon.)

[smcmike]

+1. Yes, this, x100. It's the single worst thing about 5E besides its initiative system.

Another example: saves vs. ability checks. For many abilities you can kind of pretend that ability checks are mostly for active things and saves are mostly for passive defense, but Con is always passive, which is why there's little guidance on the difference between Con saves and Con checks, and what there is contradicts itself. IIRC, going without food and water is ruled as requiring a Con check in one chapter in the PHB and a Con save in a different chapter.

Furthermore, when a spell like Fireball calls for a Dex save, it's unclear what is physically happening there. Is that to see if you can quickly fling yourself flat and avoid the worst of the blast? But then, why doesn't it make you prone, or cost movement to get up from being prone? (Reverse Gravity is one of the very, very few spells that actually calls out what its Dex save is doing and therefore under what circumstances no save would apply.)

What's a Strength saving throw doing? Why is a paralyzed 40-ton dragon automatically pushed 15' per round by a Gust of Wind spell from a 3rd level wizard but a 30-lb. halfling fighter with Strength 16 is not? What is the halfling physically doing that is more effective at anchoring him than weighing 80,000 lb.? (Don't tell me he's "grabbing a tree limb" unless you're prepared to argue that the tree's roots anchor it more securely than a 40-ton dragon.)

Because it's just a game, man.