Concentration changes on lesser-used or overpowered spells

[narelith]

Hello,

I'm currently running on an ongoing campaign and have been tweaking the houserules it uses consistently over its course. The party is currently Level 9, and I'm posting here today to see what the forums think of the following changes to which spells require concentration:


Charm Person and Charm Monster require concentration.
Forcecage requires concentration. Forcecage’s material component costs 250 gold.
Etherealness requires concentration.
Witch Bolt does not require concentration.
Calm Emotions does not require concentration.
Magic Weapon does not require concentration.
Ray of Enfeeblement does not require concentration.
Protection from Energy does not require concentration. A character can only benefit from one instance of Protection from Energy at a time.
Elemental Bane does not require concentration. Elemental Bane is a 5th level spell (up from 4th).
Maze does not require concentration.


From top to bottom, these are designed to: make Charm Person and Charm Monster a bit less viable outside of social situations, make Forcecage and Maze balanced with each other (and Forcecage closer to balanced in general), and improve the usability of certain niche spells (Ray of Enfeeblement is still weaker than Blindness in my opinion, but at least it's usable).

I've discussed the Protection from Energy change on these boards before, and I feel like I'm happy with its current rendition; it can't be abused to gain multiple resistances, but gives characters the ability to survive massive amounts of energy damage without a potion or a reaction spell.

Thanks for reading!

[Jerrykhor]

Charm Person and Charm Monster require concentration. No. Charm spells are bad enough, dont need a nerf.
Forcecage requires concentration. Forcecage’s material component costs 250 gold. Ok.
Etherealness requires concentration. Disagree. Spells longer than 1 hour should not require concentration (exceptions exists)
Witch Bolt does not require concentration. Ok, but its not why the spell is bad
Calm Emotions does not require concentration. Good.
Magic Weapon does not require concentration. Good. But again, not the reason people don't use it.
Ray of Enfeeblement does not require concentration. Good. But again, spell is still bad
Protection from Energy does not require concentration. A character can only benefit from one instance of Protection from Energy at a time. Good
Elemental Bane does not require concentration. Elemental Bane is a 5th level spell (up from 4th). That's a nerf overall. The spell as it is need a big buff.
Maze does not require concentration. Good



I woud like to suggest Barkskin have its concentration removed, as well as smite spells.

[sithlordnergal]

Charm Person and Charm Monster require concentration.

I'd say this is a bad idea. Charm Person and Charm Monster are pretty weak spells as it is. In combat the target has advantage on the save, and out combat its still not a spell I'd ever risk using for any reason. Not to mention the Charm status effect is terrible in 5e. Charming someone gives you advantage on social rolls you make against it, and it prevents the creature from attacking you, or targeting you with harmful abilities. Grapple, Shove, and Disarming is still allowed, and if you or any of your allies attack the creature the spell ends. All this spell really does is prevent damage, but there are plenty of non-damaging things you can do to someone that doesn't count as an attack.


Forcecage requires concentration. Forcecage’s material component costs 250 gold.

Mmmm, I think this is fine. Forcecage is powerful in its own right. Reducing the cost and making it concentration makes it a bit more managable, on both the player and DM's side without nerfing it to nothing.


Etherealness requires concentration.

Gonna say this is a bad idea. Not only should spells that last 8 hours not be concentration, but this is basically a travel spell. Its really no different from something like Water Breathing, only it allows you to more easily scout things. Considering that you only get a single 7th level spell slot until level 19, you'd never really use this spell.


Witch Bolt does not require concentration.

This is a good idea. It won't make the spell better, but it does improve it a little.


Calm Emotions does not require concentration.

This one is fine too. I can't see anything breaking with a concentrationless Calm Emotions.


Magic Weapon does not require concentration.

This also shouldn't be concentration, at all. For any reason. So I agree with you.


Ray of Enfeeblement does not require concentration.

I'm gonna disagree with you on this one. Not because its too strong against NPCs, but because it can be such a detriment to martial characters. A martial PC needs a way to end this effect early. If they can't break concentration, then someone is gonna have to use a 3rd level Dispel Magic to get rid of a 2nd level spell effect. Removing concentration nerfs Strength even more and makes Dex even stronger then it already is. Because now it can halve the damage of a Paladin, Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Strength Rogue, or Strength Monk, and the only chance of ending it is making a Con save.


Protection from Energy does not require concentration. A character can only benefit from one instance of Protection from Energy at a time.

Fully agree, this shouldn't be concentration.


Elemental Bane does not require concentration. Elemental Bane is a 5th level spell (up from 4th).

This one is ok. I wouldn't make it a 5th level spell though, because its still not a good spell at all. Remove concentration and keep it as a 4th level spell.


Maze does not require concentration.

This is kind of like Ray of Enfeeblement in that removing Concentration makes this spell way OP. Not because its too good against monsters, but because its too good against the PCs. If you have any PC that has a negative Int score, then it is impossible to escape this spell if you fail that int save. I have been hit by it before with a character that dumped intelligence. It wasn't very fun doing nothing for 30 minutes because I couldn't make a DC 20 Int check. I even rolled two Nat 20's on the check, but because of my -1 to Int, I failed the check since I had rolled a 19, not 20. And you can't get Guidance to help you, not unless you have that cantrip yourself.

-----
Now, some spells that I feel should be changed:

Hunter's Mark and Hex: There is no reason for these two spells to require concentration. Hex requires you to make an attack roll while Hunter's Mark requires a weapon attack, and all they do is add 1d6 to damage, and you either have advantage Perception and Survival checks or you give disadvantage to an ability score check. Not to mention both of these spells only scale how long they last.

Barkskin: Basically +3 Mage Armor, but only for 1 hour. This really shouldn't be Concentration at all. I've played a Moon Druid that has a Staff of the Woodlands. I have never once bothered with Barkskin. Why? Because there are so many better things you can be doing with your concentration.

Freedom of Movement: This should probably be Concentration. It lets you ignore difficult terrain, spells and magical effects that reduce speed, paralyze, or restrain you, you can automatically escape from grapples and non-magical restraints with 5 feet of movement, and you have no penalties under water. In exchange for making it Concentraion, I'd let it be upcast to let you target 1 extra creature per spell level.

Resistance and True Strike: These should not require Concentration, and they should both be bonus actions. Blade Ward gets a special mention since it should be a bonus action too.

[Contrast]

...then it is impossible to escape this spell if you fail that int save.

Not sure if you just mispoke but part of the reason this spell would be so powerful without concentration is that there is no initial save.

Otherwise I broadly agree with the comments others have already made OP.

[Segev]

Out of curiosity (because it’s not obvious to me, but hasn’t come up in my games), why don’t people use Magic Weapon?

[narelith]

Thanks!

It definitely sounds like the Charm spells and Etherealness are fine without concentration. I’ll be using that!

re: Maze on players, I agree that that’s a potentially large issue but I’m unlikely to use it against the players because even in the best case it’s likely to result in even the toughest characters not contributing for a bit.

[Chronos]

Barkskin is actually even worse than Mage Armor, even aside from the concentration. Mage Armor doesn't stack with actual armor, but it does still stack with dexterity and/or a shield, as well as a few more niche bonuses. Barkskin never stacks with anything. Turn into a beast with a 16 or more Dex, and it does absolutely nothing.

[Karsalem]

Out of curiosity (because it’s not obvious to me, but hasn’t come up in my games), why don’t people use Magic Weapon?

It's mostly the opportunity cost of casting Magic Weapon vs casting anything else. In the players handbook only Paladins, Wizards, and War Clerics have access to the spell. There may be newer classes/subclasses that get access to it as well that could better benefit from it but we'll stick with the PHB for this discussion.

For a Wizard there are so many 2nd level spells that are, damage-wise, utility-wise, better than casting magic weapon. The wizard typically doesn't need it for himself and it's just better damage-wise to cast scorching ray than give the fighter 5% better chance to hit and 1 extra point of damage IF they hit.

For a Paladin, Magic Weapon has to compete against all smites. Since all smites are concentration as well it's simply a non-starter.

There may be a case for the War Cleric to hang back and play a supporting role but again there are better spells they can be casting. I would much rather have Bless, a 5-20% chance to hit + 5-20% increase chance to succeed on a saving throw, than 5% chance to hit and +1 damage. Bless can be done at range while Magic Weapon is a touch spell, which becomes problematic when the big dumb fighter charges into combat.

Now if you can store Magic Weapon in a Ring of Spell Storing and hand it to the BDF and let them concentrate on it for as long as they can then that would be a great use of the spell.

It's not that Magic Weapon is itself a bad spell, it's that there are so many MUCH better alternatives. Removing concentration from it would go a long way to making it useful.

[Callak_Remier]

Stone skin should not require concentration.

Boom an actually useful 4th level spell.

[Segev]

Stone skin should not require concentration.

Boom an actually useful 4th level spell.

Not with that material component cost and the effects it has.

There are so many ways to get resistance to damage. 100 gp for a short duration of it isn't worth it. A pile of temporary hp would have been better. Especially if it granted immunity to "rider" effects. Though I do'nt know that they're codified in a way that makes wording that useful. (I'm thinking about things like a grung's dagger attack, which also has a save for more poison damage riding on it.)

[MaxWilson]

Charm Person and Charm Monster require concentration.

I'd say this is a bad idea. Charm Person and Charm Monster are pretty weak spells as it is. In combat the target has advantage on the save, and out combat its still not a spell I'd ever risk using for any reason. Not to mention the Charm status effect is terrible in 5e. Charming someone gives you advantage on social rolls you make against it, and it prevents the creature from attacking you, or targeting you with harmful abilities. Grapple, Shove, and Disarming is still allowed, and if you or any of your allies attack the creature the spell ends. All this spell really does is prevent damage, but there are plenty of non-damaging things you can do to someone that doesn't count as an attack.

You're not wrong about how weak Charmed is, but Charm Monster does more than just charm the monster. It also says "The charmed creature is friendly to you."

Charm Monster is rather good overall. Because it is non-concentration you can even do things like e.g. combine with Pass Without Trace to sneak ahead in wildshape form, find some monsters, bonus-action to wildshape back into human form and immediately upcast Charm Monster V to target two monsters. Because they're not fighting you yet (they probably don't even see you!) they don't get advantage on their saves, so there's a good chance you just gained yourself a couple of dungeon friends. Since Charm Monster doesn't require concentration, you still have Pass Without Trace up and can potentially sneak your dungeon friends back to the party, or go look for more dungeon friends.

(Yes, yes, I know that you still have to persuade them to help you--"friendly" means they're inclined to help you, but not necessarily ready to risk their lives for you. That's where the roleplaying comes in, in terms of thinking from the other creature's perspective and figuring out what motivates it.)

[Segev]

Charming someone gives you advantage on social rolls you make against it, and it prevents the creature from attacking you, or targeting you with harmful abilities. Grapple, Shove, and Disarming is still allowed, and if you or any of your allies attack the creature the spell ends. All this spell really does is prevent damage, but there are plenty of non-damaging things you can do to someone that doesn't count as an attack.

Not...quite. You're right about all Charmed does. But you're wrong that grappling and shoving are allowed. They are "special melee attacks." (Emphasis added)

So, to engage in one, you must attack the target. Thus, Charmed creatures cannot grapple or shove those by whom they are Charmed.

[MaxWilson]

Not...quite. You're right about all Charmed does. But you're wrong that grappling and shoving are allowed. They are "special melee attacks." (Emphasis added)

So, to engage in one, you must attack the target. Thus, Charmed creatures cannot grapple or shove those by whom they are Charmed.

PHB is very specific though: if there's ever any question whether something counts as an attack, check if it has an attack roll. If it has an attack roll, it's an attack. (By implication: otherwise it's not.)

You can't get more specific than that.

[Segev]

PHB is very specific though: if there's ever any question whether something counts as an attack, check if it has an attack roll. If it has an attack roll, it's an attack. (By implication: otherwise it's not.)

You can't get more specific than that.

"If there's ever a question." I suppose that means "always," if people want to be really stubborn about saying that the webbed-footed creature with a duck-bill saying "quack" that is a member of waterfowl family Anatidae is not a "duck" even though it's being called one in the description of it.

Because you're essentially saying, "Because it doesn't require an attack roll, it's not an attack even though it says flat-out that it's an attack."

Which...technically isn't even what the rule of thumb says, since, as you note, it's only by implication that it's not an attack if it doesn't have an attack roll. What it actually says is that it IS an attack if it requires an attack roll, and that if there's any question, you can confirm for sure that something is an attack by that rule of thumb. It nowhere says, "If it doesn't have an attack roll, it is not an attack," and it certainly doesn't say that something called "a special attack action" is not an attack. In fact, "if there's ever a question" should kick in, because there should be no question that something called "a special attack action" is an attack.

[MaxWilson]

Because you're essentially saying, "Because it doesn't require an attack roll, it's not an attack even though it says flat-out that it's an attack."

I am definitely saying that rules, like Charm Monster, which refer to attacks are not referring to grappling.


Which...technically isn't even what the rule of thumb says, since, as you note, it's only by implication that it's not an attack if it doesn't have an attack roll. What it actually says is that it IS an attack if it requires an attack roll, and that if there's any question, you can confirm for sure that something is an attack by that rule of thumb. It nowhere says, "If it doesn't have an attack roll, it is not an attack," and it certainly doesn't say that something called "a special attack action" is not an attack. In fact, "if there's ever a question" should kick in, because there should be no question that something called "a special attack action" is an attack.

There's a question: does it count as an attack?
Check the indicator.
Indicator is not present.
Your claim: it is now ambiguous whether it counts or not.

I can buy that as an argument that WotC needs better editors (as if we didn't know that already). I can't buy it as an argument that the rule is ambiguous. What is it there for if not to define what "attack" means in 5E game jargon terms?

[Segev]

I am definitely saying that rules, like Charm Monster, which refer to attacks are not referring to grappling.



There's a question: does it count as an attack?
Check the indicator.
Indicator is not present.
Your claim: it is now ambiguous whether it counts or not.

I can buy that as an argument that WotC needs better editors (as if we didn't know that already). I can't buy it as an argument that the rule is ambiguous. What is it there for if not to define what "attack" means in 5E game jargon terms?
Right. There is a question because you’re deliberately asking in order to change the obvious into a counter-intuitive reading.

As well say that a Warlock isn’t casting a spell when he uses Armor of Shadows. I mean, sure, it says he is, but I’m asking if he’s doing so, so we need a rule of thumb. I know, if there’s any question, it’s casting a spell if it uses a spell slot! Clearly, the “if there’s ever a question” clause is irrelevant, because there is always a question since somebody CAN ask, no matter what the text says.

If you want to rule that grappling and shoving someone to the ground is fine when they have you Charmed, that’s your prerogative at your table, I guess. But to me, if there is only a question because someone’s being deliberately dense, “if there’s ever a question” is not triggered. I can read the rules that say it’s an attack just fine, thank you. It’s right there in the same paragraph that describes what to roll to determine success of the special attack action.

I’ll acknowledge that you can make an awkward, squint until it fits what you want RAW reading to get to your ruling, but it’s hardly the only valid reading of the RAW, and I find it tortured.

Heck, you could even make an argument from specific trumping general. This rule specifically says that grappling and shoving are attacks. So the general rule of thumb is overridden, if it would contradict.

[MaxWilson]

Right. There is a question because you’re deliberately asking in order to change the obvious into a counter-intuitive reading.

The technical term for what you're doing is "begging the question".

The question I'm asking is, "What restrictions is the charmed condition (or Charm Monster, or Sanctuary) actually imposing? Does it prevent casting Fireballs? Laying caltrops? Poisoning? Oh, I see, it prevents anything with an attack roll."

If I adopted your reasoning then I could claim Fireballs and poisoning are "obviously and unquestionably" attacks and then point back to the definition of "attack" to "prove" that it never says they aren't.


As well say that a Warlock isn’t casting a spell when he uses Armor of Shadows. I mean, sure, it says he is, but I’m asking if he’s doing so, so we need a rule of thumb. I know, if there’s any question, it’s casting a spell if it uses a spell slot!

5E would be a much different game if it adopted this rule you are proposing. Lots of things that are spells today would turn into not-spells, and paladin smiting would be Counterspellable.

[Segev]

The technical term for what you're doing is "begging the question".

The question I'm asking is, "What restrictions is the charmed condition (or Charm Monster, or Sanctuary) actually imposing? Does it prevent casting Fireballs? Laying caltrops? Poisoning? Oh, I see, it prevents anything with an attack roll."

If I adopted your reasoning then I could claim Fireballs and poisoning are "obviously and unquestionably" attacks and then point back to the definition of "attack" to "prove" that it never says they aren't.Except that you're the one who's begging the question. In this case, literally begging to question something answered in the plain text.

You're literally asking, "Is this special attack action an attack?" because you're hoping to apply a default rule to something caught by an earlier categorization rule. You're simultaneously ignoring and magnifying the "If there's ever a question" clause. That's a clause that indicates this is a default, fall-back rule. If you can't tell by any other means, this is how you finally check.


5E would be a much different game if it adopted this rule you are proposing. Lots of things that are spells today would turn into not-spells, and paladin smiting would be Counterspellable.Amazing how deliberately misinterpreting rules gets you weird results, like having somebody who is magically unable to bring themselves to attack you able to shove you around and violently grab hold of you. Or how you don't feel attacked, apparently, if somebody who you're magically compelled to feel unable to attack grabs you and shoves you around.

Less sardonically, that is my whole point: applying things the way you're trying to leads to weirdness. Weirdness that you, yourself, are complaining is weird.



To elaborate on an earlier point, though, in categorization rules, you often want to make them as concise as possible. This means you can wind up with things "falling through the cracks," and it also means that you have as few qualifiers in each rule as you can get away with. Because of this, you want to have your most absolute rules as the first ones you check. That way, you can assume, for the rules you check after them, that the conditions that were in prior rules have already been checked and found not to be the case.

In a system with only ravens, rats, squirrels, and bats, you might have the following categorization rules:

If it has feathers, it's a bird.
If you can't tell if it's a bird, bat, or squirrel, and it has a bushy tail, it's a squirrel.
If you can't tell if it's a bird, bat, or squirrel, and it flies, it's a bat.
Otherwise, it's a rat.

Now, you might point out that there are flying squirrels. Clearly, they must be bats, since if it flies, it's a bat, right? Also, any flightless birds must be rats, since we're ignoring that we CAN, in fact, tell if something's a bird by the fact that it has feathers.


In the case of this rule of thumb in 5e, it's giving us a catch-all. "If there's any question." That is, if you can't tell any other way, use this final rule.

If something says, "This is an attack," there isn't really any question, unless somebody is being dense. Maybe they're not doing it on purpose, fine. But if you have to ask, "Is this special attack action an attack?" you deserve people looking at you funny for it.

Because you should first look to see if you can tell in any other way, you should never get a "special attack action" to the point of asking if it meets the criterion given for determining if it's an attack "if there's any question." Because you should already have answered it. You have the answer right there in the question.

[MaxWilson]

Amazing how deliberately misinterpreting rules gets you weird results, like having somebody who is magically unable to bring themselves to attack you able to shove you around and violently grab hold of you.

Sorry, dude, the weird results are built right into the uncontroversial RAW: charmed clearly does not prevent Fireballing the object of your devotion, or poisoning their food, because "attack" in 5E means "things with attack rolls" and neither Fireball nor administrating poison has one.

Charmed is just a weirdly-specific condition, full stop. Unless you're going to switch to arguing now that Fireball counts as an attack also?


In the case of this rule of thumb in 5e, it's giving us a catch-all. "If there's any question." That is, if you can't tell any other way, use this final rule.

That's not how "ever any question" is used in English. It's an authoritative, "I'm about to lay this matter to rest once and for all" directive, not a tie-breaker to be used only as a last resort.

[Segev]

Sorry, dude, the weird results are built right into the uncontroversial RAW: charmed clearly does not prevent Fireballing the object of your devotion, or poisoning their food, because "attack" in 5E means "things with attack rolls" and neither Fireball nor administrating poison has one.

Charmed is just a weirdly-specific condition, full stop. Unless you're going to switch to arguing now that Fireball counts as an attack also?No, I do see where you're coming from.

Personally, as DM, I will say, "Yes, it's an attack." But I fully admit I'm in rulings territory, here. It's very hard, if I strip away rules-lawyering, for me to claim that fireballing somebody isn't an attack on them. However, I will not pretend it says anywhere in fireball or spellcasting that it qualifies.

They really should have used the same phrasing they used for what breaks invisibility: if you attack them or force them to make a saving throw. Or, rather, Charmed doesn't let you attack them or force them to make a saving throw. (This still might catch you out with magic missile, if you're insisting that there's always a question as to whether something's an attack rather than using that as a catch-all qualifier.)


That's not how "ever any question" is used in English. It's an authoritative, "I'm about to lay this matter to rest once and for all" directive, not a tie-breaker to be used only as a last resort.

It really isn't. It's a literally meaningless clause, the way you're using it.

Tell me: is there a qualitative difference between these two sentences?

1) "Something is an attack if it calls for an attack roll."
2) "If there's ever any question, something is an attack if it calls for an attack roll."

It seems to me that you're saying that "If there's ever any question" is entirely irrelevant, and a waste of word-count.

[greenstone]

PHB is very specific though: if there's ever any question whether something counts as an attack, check if it has an attack roll. If it has an attack roll, it's an attack. (By implication: otherwise it's not.)
I'm not seeing that implication.

I read the book as saying: If you rolled an attack roll then its an attack. If you didn't roll an attack roll then it might be an attack, it might not.

There are, after all, game procedures which do not requre an attack roll but which are explicitly labelled attacks: grapple and shove.

[MaxWilson]

I read the book as saying: If you rolled an attack roll then its an attack. If you didn't roll an attack roll then it might be an attack, it might not.

Then what's the point of the definition? What confusion is it trying to dispel? What situation is it clarifying?

Your reading means that it's ambiguous in all of the cases where it matters, e.g. "can Charmed creatures still Fireball the person who charmed them?" According to your reading, the rule is absolutely useless.

[sithlordnergal]

Not sure if you just mispoke but part of the reason this spell would be so powerful without concentration is that there is no initial save.

Otherwise I broadly agree with the comments others have already made OP.

You're right...it doesn't have a save. I misread that. No concentration would make this spell even stronger then. You're just out of combat for the next 10 minutes, with nothing to do but sit and wait

[sithlordnergal]

Not...quite. You're right about all Charmed does. But you're wrong that grappling and shoving are allowed. They are "special melee attacks." (Emphasis added)

So, to engage in one, you must attack the target. Thus, Charmed creatures cannot grapple or shove those by whom they are Charmed.

The PHB is also very specific about what you can do while charmed: A charmed creature can’t Attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful Abilities or magical Effects.

So, while there may be an argument to be made about fireball, since you aren't targeting the person directly, Grapple, Shove, and Disarming a person is not really harmful. And while it is called a "special attack", its not an attack, it is a skill check. You do not need to roll to hit the target with a grapple, shove, or disarm. You could have a 32 AC and you can still be grappled by someone with a -1 modifier without them having to hit your AC first.

In fact there is also a really good argument to be made that someone friendly to you would try to grapple you to stop you from getting hurt in an RP sense, kind of like if a friend tries to hold you back from fighting someone.

[MaxWilson]

It really isn't. It's a literally meaningless clause, the way you're using it.

Tell me: is there a qualitative difference between these two sentences?

1) "Something [counts as] an attack if it calls for an attack roll."
2) "If there's ever any question, something [counts as] an attack if it calls for an attack roll."

It seems to me that you're saying that "If there's ever any question" is entirely irrelevant, and a waste of word-count.

Note BTW that you're misquoting slightly. I have corrected it above.

Yes, there's a difference. #1 leaves it ambiguous whether or not it intends to leave some questions unanswered: it might just be saying that some things that count as attacks have attack rolls. You'd have to look at the context and other uses elsewhere to see if "if" is meant to mean "if and only if".

#2 is explicit that it means to be exhaustive and definitive, answering all questions. It says that looking for an attack roll will answer 100% of questions about whether the thing counts as an attack. All attacks have attack rolls, without question.


In fact there is also a really good argument to be made that someone friendly to you would try to grapple you to stop you from getting hurt in an RP sense, kind of like if a friend tries to hold you back from fighting someone.

I also like how it interacts with Sanctuary: sure, you can't hit the (evil?) priest and the priest can't hit you, because he's a holy man, but you can hang on to each other and keep each other from getting away! Seems genre-appropriate.

[Segev]

You and I read the presence of a acknowledgment that sometimes there is a question that needs answering very differently. You seem to think failing to acknowledge it means that it’s unclear that the definition is definitive. But acknowledging that sometimes there’s a question, and providing a way to answer it if all else has failed, means that there is no question, ever.

[MaxWilson]

You and I read the presence of a acknowledgment that sometimes there is a question that needs answering very differently. You seem to think failing to acknowledge it means that it’s unclear that the definition is definitive. But acknowledging that sometimes there’s a question, and providing a way to answer it if all else has failed, means that there is no question, ever.

Yes, clearly we do. Let's review the context:


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.

This is one of the very few places where 5E lays out in details exactly what one of its terms means: attacks have targets, modifiers, hits (or misses), and usually damage. (Throwing a net is an example of an attack that hits but does not damage.)

Then a "simple rule" is laid out for determining whether something counts as an attack: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

A grapple has a target, but doesn't care about cover, has no attack roll, and there is no hit or miss, and no damage. It doesn't conform at all to the structure of an attack, and just in case you were still wondering if it counts as an attack anyway, it fails the explicit test: no attack roll, so does not count as an attack.

Grappling costs an attack to make and benefits from Extra Attack, but it's an opposed ability check, not an attack as the term is used by e.g. Sanctuary or charmed.

[Segev]

We’re just repeating ourselves at each other, I’m afraid. It says, explicitly, that it’s a special attack action.

That means it’s an attack.

I’ll stop here because I know I’m just repeating myself and this really is a tangent from the original topic.

[MaxWilson]

We’re just repeating ourselves at each other, I’m afraid. It says, explicitly, that it’s a special attack action.

And Chimeras breathe fire as part of a Multiattack--but that doesn't mean its fire breathing AoE counts as an attack.


We’re just repeating ourselves at each other, I’m afraid.

Not really repeating so much as elaborating--post #27 was new evidence, the first time in this thread that I've brought up the rest of the PHB text that say attacks by definition have attack rolls, can hit or miss, are subject to disadvantage from cover, etc. And this post is the first time I've brought up non-attack Multiattacks.

But sure, I know you're not going to change your mind, and I know I'm not going to change my mind without a new printing of the PHB that changes the wording of the rules. Enough is enough.

Peace,
Max

[KorvinStarmast]

Barkskin: Basically +3 Mage Armor, but only for 1 hour. This really shouldn't be Concentration at all. I've played a Moon Druid that has a Staff of the Woodlands. I have never once bothered with Barkskin. Why? Because there are so many better things you can be doing with your concentration. Agree; this being concentration renders it moot for use in most cases.

[Segev]

I get the impression that they thought a 16 AC was stupidly powerful, and needed to be kept from making druids untouchable. The trouble is, the only druid in a module I've seen is a port from 3e. Belak, in the Sunless Citadel, has it recommended that he have barkskin cast before the fight starts, and that he then open the fight with his Wand of Entangle.

Given that this would negate his barkskin, it's clear the writers didn't think about the way the rules had changed on his spell list in the update to 5e.

My solution was to give him three potions of barkskin, and have him have drunken one. This gave the party two more such potions as loot, and explained how he managed a Concentration-less barkskin.

[MaxWilson]

I get the impression that they thought a 16 AC was stupidly powerful, and needed to be kept from making druids untouchable. The trouble is, the only druid in a module I've seen is a port from 3e. Belak, in the Sunless Citadel, has it recommended that he have barkskin cast before the fight starts, and that he then open the fight with his Wand of Entangle.

Given that this would negate his barkskin, it's clear the writers didn't think about the way the rules had changed on his spell list in the update to 5e.

My solution was to give him three potions of barkskin, and have him have drunken one. This gave the party two more such potions as loot, and explained how he managed a Concentration-less barkskin.

Good solution.