Is rebuke the violent potentially overpowered?

[holywhippet]

I'm reading the description for this paladin ability and depending on how you view the wording it could be really overpowered. Say an enemy spellcaster drops a fireball on the heads of your party. That would classify as an attack and even you are caught up in the blast then it would still qualify as an attack against someone else since other characters were targeted. So presumably you can use rebuke the violent. So the damage you deal back equals that damage it just dealt or half on a save. But that is the damage it dealt in general, not to the targeted creature. So you can add up all the damage it did to everyone and apply it back as radiant damage. So if 6 allies were hit and didn't save you are throwing 6 X 8d6 damage back at the caster.

[JackPhoenix]

Fireball is not an attack. No attack roll is involved.

[MeeposFire]

I'm reading the description for this paladin ability and depending on how you view the wording it could be really overpowered. Say an enemy spellcaster drops a fireball on the heads of your party. That would classify as an attack and even you are caught up in the blast then it would still qualify as an attack against someone else since other characters were targeted. So presumably you can use rebuke the violent. So the damage you deal back equals that damage it just dealt or half on a save. But that is the damage it dealt in general, not to the targeted creature. So you can add up all the damage it did to everyone and apply it back as radiant damage. So if 6 allies were hit and didn't save you are throwing 6 X 8d6 damage back at the caster.

Generally when the term attack is used in a rules description it is using the definition used in the PHB which applies to things with attack rolls and a few other special attacks like shove and not a more general colloquial definition for the word attack. In that case fireball would not apply to something that only reflects attack damage.

That said you can make some points about things that have multiple attack rolls but are considered one attack such as whirlwind attack on the PHB ranger and maybe some of the new spells in Xanthars.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I suddenly want to make a redemption paladin working alongside a drunken master monk, just so we can make two enemies defeat themselves at the same time.

I'd play that character for upwards of two years just to see it happen one time.

[Feuerphoenix]

I don't see it as overpowered. Yes it is sweet, but on the other hand it is a limited once/sr resource. You have to survive damage, which was dealt to you in a certain way (by an attack roll), and then the attacker has to fail a wisdom saving throw.

By the way: Would the victim get advantage on the saving throw, if it has magic resistance?

[holywhippet]

I have trouble buying that fireball is not an attack. Firstly because if you use it on people you are clearly trying to hurt them which is the definition of an attack.

Secondly because the PHB says:
Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. Fireball specifically sets objects that are flammable on fire if they are within range of it.

Thirdly because it would mean that damage spells which don't have an attack roll, even for a single target, can't be used with this ability.

Fourthly it suggests that if someone declares "I'm going to hold my action and shoot my crossbow at anyone who attacks" they don't get to shoot if someone casts fireball or the like since they aren't making an attack roll?

[JackPhoenix]

I have trouble buying that fireball is not an attack. Firstly because if you use it on people you are clearly trying to hurt them which is the definition of an attack.
Fireball is not an attack. Attack has specific meaning in 5e, and that meaning is not "trying to hurt someone". It's "making an attack roll, or one of the actions named as special attacks". If WotC wanted it to work with non-attack sources of damage, they would've worded it differently: see Hellish Rebuke that triggers when creature does damage, no matter how.

Secondly because the PHB says: Fireball specifically sets objects that are flammable on fire if they are within range of it.
Setting object on fire doesn't anything to do with it.

Thirdly because it would mean that damage spells which don't have an attack roll, even for a single target, can't be used with this ability.

Yes. That's what the ability does.

Fourthly it suggests that if someone declares "I'm going to hold my action and shoot my crossbow at anyone who attacks" they don't get to shoot if someone casts fireball or the like since they aren't making an attack roll?
Yes. They should word their readied action more carefully. Casting Fireball is neither an attack, or an Attack action. Or maybe not, depends on how lenient the GM is in regards to player's bad wordings. But that still doesn't make the ability work on anything that's not an attack.

[Talamare]

Attacks require Attack Rolls

If you didn't roll against an enemy AC it was (edit:probably) not an Attack

Edit: There are extremely few exception, don't try to assume that you found an exception

[holywhippet]

Ok, so how about Steel Wind Strike then? Five targets, a melee spell attack to each, and 6d10 force damage if they get hit. If it works then does the caster take up to 5 X 6d10 damage?

For that matter hail of thorns and lightning arrow do AoE damage that is triggered from a ranged attack.

[DarkKnightJin]

I've seen the "Fireball is not an attack" thing a few times now..

Regardless of what the RAW says, I'm fairly certain that most DMs would allow someone to trigger something that requires an "attack" to also trigger of things like Fireball.

Sometimes, common sense trumps RAW..

But that's how I see it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Regardless of what the RAW says, I'm fairly certain that most DMs would allow someone to trigger something that requires an "attack" to also trigger of things like Fireball.

Sometimes, common sense trumps RAW..

Wouldn't "common sense" in this case be to not play word games with the rules?

[Nettlekid]

I've seen the "Fireball is not an attack" thing a few times now..

Regardless of what the RAW says, I'm fairly certain that most DMs would allow someone to trigger something that requires an "attack" to also trigger of things like Fireball.

Sometimes, common sense trumps RAW..

But that's how I see it.

I agree with this, and it's frustrating to see people argue otherwise. Under the argued ruling of "attacks are only things which require attack rolls" a Dragon would be able to use its breath weapon without breaking Invisibility or Sanctuary. I cannot possibly imagine that any DM would allow a Dragon to retain Sanctuary after using a breath weapon, but RAW it didn't break it, unless "attack" is just "a hostile action intended to harm another creature."

[DarkKnightJin]

I agree with this, and it's frustrating to see people argue otherwise. Under the argued ruling of "attacks are only things which require attack rolls" a Dragon would be able to use its breath weapon without breaking Invisibility or Sanctuary. I cannot possibly imagine that any DM would allow a Dragon to retain Sanctuary after using a breath weapon, but RAW it didn't break it, unless "attack" is just "a hostile action intended to harm another creature."

That's the joke: Sanctuary WOULD end on using a Breath Weapon, since it is forcing a creature to make a save. Which makes Sanctuary end on them.
By RAW, they would be still under Invisibility after using yhe Breath, since they weren't "making an Attack or casting a spell".

Like I said. Common sense would be to have the Invisibility be broken. Ruling by RAW is fine. As long as it doesn't chuck common sense out the window in the process.

[Nettlekid]

That's the joke: Sanctuary WOULD end on using a Breath Weapon, since it is forcing a creature to make a save. Which makes Sanctuary end on them.
By RAW, they would be still under Invisibility after using yhe Breath, since they weren't "making an Attack or casting a spell".

Like I said. Common sense would be to have the Invisibility be broken. Ruling by RAW is fine. As long as it doesn't chuck common sense out the window in the process.

Sanctuary has the same wording of "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends," nothing about whether or not you force a creature to make a save. RAW a dragon's breath weapon doesn't break Sanctuary, if a breath weapon isn't an attack. But it absolutely is.
"Warriors, please, save us! The dragon is attacking!"
"Well actually, it's only scorched people to ash with its fire breath. Hasn't attacked yet."

[JackPhoenix]

Sanctuary has the same wording of "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends," nothing about whether or not you force a creature to make a save. RAW a dragon's breath weapon doesn't break Sanctuary, if a breath weapon isn't an attack. But it absolutely is.
"Warriors, please, save us! The dragon is attacking!"
"Well actually, it's only scorched people to ash with its fire breath. Hasn't attacked yet."

Common english =/= specific game terminology.

[Aett_Thorn]

When comparing how a class feature works to the rules, we need to actually take a look at the rules. In this case, RAW, an Attack is something that requires an Attack Roll, or is explicitly called out as an attack despite not having an attack roll (e.g., shove, grapple).

Certainly, you can houserule that a Fireball is an Attack in game terms, and then you have to deal with the consequences of that, like having Rebuke the Violent be potentially overpowered. But by RAW, Rebuke is not overpowered because it does NOT work against spells or spell-like abilities such as a dragon's breath.

[Talamare]

Ok, so how about Steel Wind Strike then? Five targets, a melee spell attack to each, and 6d10 force damage if they get hit. If it works then does the caster take up to 5 X 6d10 damage?

For that matter hail of thorns and lightning arrow do AoE damage that is triggered from a ranged attack.

Rebuke states against A creature

So pick A creature, and he will take damage equal to the damage that creature took.

So if there are 100000 creatures, and he somehow makes an attack against every single one at the same time

He takes damage equal to the amount of damage that 1 of them took

[Easy_Lee]

Like I said. Common sense would be to have the Invisibility be broken. Ruling by RAW is fine. As long as it doesn't chuck common sense out the window in the process.

Common sense doesn't apply. If it did, then we have to consider what invisibility is and why it breaks on some actions but not others. Speaking and forcing a door open don't break invisibility, but casting a verbal spell or pushing someone off a cliff do. Why? That doesn't make any logical sense if you think about it realistically. But it makes perfect sense in a game. It's there to make sure players don't get more mileage out of invisibility than the designers intended.

How many players have breath attacks they can use more than once? If the players go to the trouble of casting invisibility on someone who can deal damage without casting a spell or making an attack roll, do you really want to punish players by having their RAW strategy not work?

Don't think of D&D as an MMO, and don't think that the DM's job is to control the players or make the world make "sense." The DM is there to ensure the game keeps moving and that everyone is having fun. No one cares about your "common sense."

[Elric VIII]

Don't think of D&D as an MMO, and don't think that the DM's job is to control the players or make the world make "sense." The DM is there to ensure the game keeps moving and that everyone is having fun. No one cares about your "common sense."

I think you've got it completely backwards here. In an MMO, a glitch in "RAW" will allow players to exploit the system. The DM is there to patch out the exploits on the fly. It is absolutely the DMs job to make things make sense. Otherwise why not just play a videogame?

[Easy_Lee]

I think you've got it completely backwards here. In an MMO, a glitch in "RAW" will allow players to exploit the system. The DM is there to patch out the exploits on the fly. It is absolutely the DMs job to make things make sense. Otherwise why not just play a videogame?

Show me the line in the DMG that says, "this game doesn't make sense as written, please change mechanics so they make more sense to you, and do so on the fly so your players have no warning."

If you, as the DM, want to change things, that's great. Do it. But tell your players about it first. If you're going to change mechanics during the game, the least you can do is wait until the end of a session to do it.

[Jerrykhor]

Its not overpowered for people who can read properly.

[Dudewithknives]

The more interesting thing about the whole "it is only an attack if someone makes an attack roll" idea is when i was playing a grappler, against an annoying caster who cast a high level sanctuary spell.

He could not be attacked, or targeted with a harmful spell, that did not stop me from walking right up to them, disarming them, grappling them and then knocking them prone and keeping there.
Same against redemption paladin ability.

[Elric VIII]

Show me the line in the DMG that says, "this game doesn't make sense as written, please change mechanics so they make more sense to you, and do so on the fly so your players have no warning."

If you, as the DM, want to change things, that's great. Do it. But tell your players about it first. If you're going to change mechanics during the game, the least you can do is wait until the end of a session to do it.


The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions.

Sometimes all you need to do is read the "how to use this book" part.

[Talamare]

Sometimes all you need to do is read the "how to use this book" part.

World, not Rules

[Talamare]

The more interesting thing about the whole "it is only an attack if someone makes an attack roll" idea is when i was playing a grappler, against an annoying caster who cast a high level sanctuary spell.

He could not be attacked, or targeted with a harmful spell, that did not stop me from walking right up to them, disarming them, grappling them and then knocking them prone and keeping there.
Same against redemption paladin ability.

Grapples are Special Attack Actions

[Dudewithknives]

Grapples are Special Attack Actions

It is not an attack roll, it is a skill check.
Sanctuary stops attack rolls, not special attack actions.

Same reason that grapple/shove is not effected by advantage/disadvantage that an attack roll would have.

[Easy_Lee]

Sometimes all you need to do is read the "how to use this book" part.

That quote is not the same as what I said. Furthermore, you will seldom find anyone who advises you to change mechanics on the fly, blindsiding your players with rules changes mid-game. That's because it's a terrible idea to do that, and you know it.

Resist the urge to be snarky with me. It doesn't work.

[Talamare]

It is not an attack roll, it is a skill check.
Sanctuary stops attack rolls, not special attack actions.

Same reason that grapple/shove is not effected by advantage/disadvantage that an attack roll would have.

Wrong
Sanctuary stops ATTACK(s)

Grapple is an special melee ATTACK

Grapple ends Sanctuary. RAW.

[holywhippet]

Rebuke states against A creature

So pick A creature, and he will take damage equal to the damage that creature took.

So if there are 100000 creatures, and he somehow makes an attack against every single one at the same time

He takes damage equal to the amount of damage that 1 of them took

Therein lies the strangest part of the debate about why this particular combo won't work. It's like RAW and RAI are reversed on both ends. Most everyone is arguing that it won't work because by RAW an attack is only something which involves an attack roll. That is kind of dubious from a RAW point of view and really dubious from a RAI point of view.

The second half is what damage is done which, up until now, nobody has really questioned. By RAW it would be the combined damage from everyone who took any based upon the wording of the ability. By RAI I'd expect they meant that it is only the damage done to whichever creature was used to justify the power being activated because they took damage.

[Dudewithknives]

Wrong
Sanctuary stops ATTACK(s)

Grapple is an special melee ATTACK

Grapple ends Sanctuary. RAW.

Page 194 in the PHB:

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.

A grapple is not making an attack roll.

That is the raw.

As a matter of fact Sage Advice has ruled in both directions.

[Talamare]

Page 194 in the PHB:

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.

A grapple is not making an attack roll.

That is the raw.

As a matter of fact Sage Advice has ruled in both directions.

That says
All Attack Rolls means you're making an Attack

It doesn't say
All Attacks require an Attack Roll

Your proof has failed, feel free to try again.

[CantigThimble]

That says
All Attack Rolls means you're making an Attack

It doesn't say
All Attacks require an Attack Roll

Your proof has failed, feel free to try again.

Also doesn't say a dog can't play basketball.

Anyway, if you're right, wouldn't that be evidence that fireball could be an attack?

[Easy_Lee]

Also doesn't say a dog can't play basketball.

Anyway, if you're right, wouldn't that be evidence that fireball could be an attack?

It basically says if there's ever a question whether you're making an attack, then it's an attack if it makes an attack roll.

I've seen this logic play out before. People on a certain side of the argument will simply challenge everything, saying "I'm not so sure X is an attack." Thus, the status of the thing is called into question and one must decide whether that thing is an attack. If the thing does not make an attack roll, the argument then is that it is not an attack.

My ruling: if it makes an attack roll or is called an attack by its own text, then it's an attack.

[Aett_Thorn]

Wrong
Sanctuary stops ATTACK(s)

Grapple is an special melee ATTACK

Grapple ends Sanctuary. RAW.

This is correct, by RAW.

If you are under a Sanctuary spell, and try to Grapple/Shove someone, it ends Sanctuary on you.

[Talamare]

Also doesn't say a dog can't play basketball.

Anyway, if you're right, wouldn't that be evidence that fireball could be an attack?

Airbud?

You could use it as an argument, but there is still nothing establishing Fireball as an Attack by the rules of the game.
While the book straight up states Grapples and Shoves are Attacks.

[Aett_Thorn]

Page 194 in the PHB:

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.

A grapple is not making an attack roll.



Keep reading.

[CantigThimble]

Airbud?

You could use it as an argument, but there is still nothing establishing Fireball as an Attack by the rules of the game.
While the book straight up states Grapples and Shoves are Attacks.

Ah okay. That makes sense then.

[Elric VIII]

That quote is not the same as what I said. Furthermore, you will seldom find anyone who advises you to change mechanics on the fly, blindsiding your players with rules changes mid-game. That's because it's a terrible idea to do that, and you know it.

Resist the urge to be snarky with me. It doesn't work.

I'm not surprised snark doesn't work. I'd have trouble seeing it from behind all those strawmen, too. No one said anything about blindsiding players ffs.

[JackPhoenix]

That says
All Attack Rolls means you're making an Attack

It doesn't say
All Attacks require an Attack Roll

Your proof has failed, feel free to try again.

This. It's a case of specific vs. general.

General rule is that attack roll must be involved in an attack.
Specific rule says that grapple is an attack, even though attack roll isn't involved. Same with shove.

[holywhippet]

This. It's a case of specific vs. general.

General rule is that attack roll must be involved in an attack.
Specific rule says that grapple is an attack, even though attack roll isn't involved. Same with shove.

No the general rule is that if you are making an attack roll then it is definitely an attack. Anything else may or may not be considered an attack.

[JackPhoenix]

No the general rule is that if you are making an attack roll then it is definitely an attack. Anything else may or may not be considered an attack.

That's exactly what I said. If there's attack roll, it's an attack. That's the general rule. Specific exceptions may say that certain thing is considered attack even if there's no attack roll. Shove and grapple falls into this category. Fireball and pretty much every other ability and spell in the game does not. Unless it's specifically noted that something *is* an attack even if there's no attack roll, it's not.

[tombowings]

Which is why the rules should be edited for world-building and game-world logic, not only mechanical imbalance. One or two more passes through the flavor text would solve dozens of these issues.

The College of Glamour's Mantle of Inspiration feature, for example, is atrocious. While the mechanics are fine, I don't see how the ability when used produces mechanical result. The game is full of these issues.

[Talamare]

Which is why the rules should be edited for world-building and game-world logic, not only mechanical imbalance. One or two more passes through the flavor text would solve dozens of these issues.

The College of Glamour's Mantle of Inspiration feature, for example, is atrocious. While the mechanics are fine, I don't see how the ability when used produces mechanical result. The game is full of these issues.

Sorry, but what?

I honestly am not sure what you're arguing.

[Lalliman]

Sorry, but what?

I honestly am not sure what you're arguing.
I think what he means is that it makes no sense that magically altering your own appearance grants temporary hit points to your allies. I kinda get what they were going for, but the mechanical effect is definitely far-fetched compared to the fluff description.

[JackPhoenix]

I think what he means is that it makes no sense that magically altering your own appearance grants temporary hit points to your allies. I kinda get what they were going for, but the mechanical effect is definitely far-fetched compared to the fluff description.

(Temp) hp are, amongst other effects, morale. You use fey magic to make yourself so sexy that others will fight harder to impress you. The movement effect is weirder.

You may give temp hp with motivational speech, but only to 6 people at a time. Including yourself. In PHB.

Still better than the nonsense that is Booming Blade.

[tombowings]

(Temp) hp are, amongst other effects, morale. You use fey magic to make yourself so sexy that others will fight harder to impress you. The movement effect is weirder.

You may give temp hp with motivational speech, but only to 6 people at a time. Including yourself. In PHB.

Still better than the nonsense that is Booming Blade.

Dumb idea that does pass the logic test. My wife putting on some makeup won't make me fight harder if someone starts harassing her on the street.

The idea that a fireball is not an "attack" doesn't either, or that Rebuke the Violent should be able to work on firebolt, but not fireball; both of them are violent acts.

[JackPhoenix]

Dumb idea that does pass the logic test. My wife putting on some makeup won't make me fight harder if someone starts harassing her on the street.

The idea that a fireball is not an "attack" doesn't either, or that Rebuke the Violent should be able to work on firebolt, but not fireball; both of them are violent acts.

Is that a magic makeup, though?

Hard to say what dumb ideas pass your logic tests if you don't explain what's "logical" to you.

[Talamare]

Dumb idea that does pass the logic test. My wife putting on some makeup won't make me fight harder if someone starts harassing her on the street.

The idea that a fireball is not an "attack" doesn't either, or that Rebuke the Violent should be able to work on firebolt, but not fireball; both of them are violent acts.

I mean... It's your wife

I assume you're already fighting so hard that you're getting THP from your love for her

THP doesn't stack