Attack types: (melee vs ranged) and (weapon vs spell)

[x3n0n]

Questions and arguments come up frequently about which game choices interact with features that trigger on certain kinds of attacks.
(In large part, I think this is a result of the overloading of certain words that mean different things in similar contexts, and I'm going to try to tease that out here.)

I'm going to try to summarize my understanding of the rules around this.

What is an "attack"?
In general, an "attack" is something with an attack roll against some target that has an Armor Class, and its possible results are "miss", "hit", and "critical hit".
If a game action doesn't involve an attack roll that has one of those results, it's probably not "an attack".
(However, if the rules say something is an attack, that always wins: see, for example, PHB Ch9 Combat, Making an Attack, Melee Attacks; "Grappling" and "Shoving a Creature".)

In particular, anything that uses a saving throw to determine the result is not "an attack" (for example, the sacred flame and fireball spells), unless specifically overridden by the rule in question.

What kinds of attacks are there?
There are two dimensions under which attacks are classified: (melee vs ranged) and (weapon vs spell). If you look at a creature's stat block, many of its relevant actions will be defined in exactly these terms. (Examples below.)

Melee attacks require that the target be within the attacker's reach as defined for that attack (which is 5 feet unless specified or modified by something like a melee weapon with the "reach" property), and there is typically an unbroken physical connection between the attacker and the target at the moment of a hit or critical hit.
Ranged attacks have no reach, but rather have range(s). At the time of hit, there is generally no physical connection between the attacker and target. (Aside: the three ranges that are typically relevant are "within 5 feet of the target", "short range", and "long range".)
Spell attacks will be specifically denoted as such; typically, these are granted by a spell, but they may also be granted by other magical features. Typically, the ability score used to determine the to-hit bonus is the spellcasting ability associated with the feature in question (usually Int, Wis, or Cha).
Any attack that is not a spell attack is a weapon attack, and most of them are denoted as such. (In my opinion, this would be much clearer if this characteristic was called something like "physical" instead.) One often-confused case: an unarmed strike is a weapon attack. The ability score used to determine the to-hit bonus (and any additional damage) is typically determined by the weapon type: melee weapons use Str (even if thrown), ranged weapons use Dex, and weapons with the "finesse" property use whichever the attacker prefers. (Any exceptions will be called out by another feature, like Monk's Martial Arts or the Dhampir race's Bite.)


A melee attack is under the control of the attacker at the point of contact; typically a ranged attack is not. (Thus the logic in PHB Ch9, Damage and Healing, "Knocking a Creature Out".)
A weapon attack's effectiveness comes from contact that is determined by the physical action and skill of the attacker; a spell attack's effectiveness comes from some different source, typically the spellcasting prowess of the source of the attack.
A weapon attack almost always involves contact with some object that can be seen as causing the effect, like a weapon, body part, piece of ammunition, or glob of sticky web; a spell attack's effect may or may not come from such an object.


When reading features, note that there are ranged attacks and ranged weapons, melee attacks and melee weapons. However, not all attacks with melee weapons are melee attacks, and not all attacks with ranged weapons are ranged attacks: for example, a melee weapon with the "thrown" property can be used to make a ranged attack, and a ranged weapon can generally be used to make a melee attack as an improved weapon. (See PHB, Ch5 Equipment, Weapons; "Weapon Properties" and "Improvised Weapons".)

That yields four categories of attacks (with some examples of each):

melee weapon attack: attacking with a melee weapon without throwing it, an unarmed strike, the attack associated with booming blade or green-flame blade, a monster's bite or claw, swinging an improvised weapon without throwing it
ranged weapon attack: firing a ranged weapon, throwing a (melee or ranged) weapon with the "thrown" property, throwing a vial of acid (PHB Ch5), the Giant Spider "Web" action
melee spell attack: shocking grasp, thorn whip, inflict wounds, steel wind strike, Monsters of the Multiverse (MotM) Apprentice Wizard's "Arcane Burst"
ranged spell attack: fire bolt, eldritch blast, magic stone, guiding bolt, MotM Apprentice Wizard's "Arcane Burst", Circle of Stars Druid's Archer form


If a feature triggers on (unqualified) "attacks" (e.g., hex), all of the above will qualify.

If a feature triggers on "weapon attacks" (e.g., hunter's mark), then "melee weapon attacks" and "ranged weapon attacks" should interact with it, but spell attacks will not.
In particular, unless you have a specific reason to think it will not apply, features that interact with "attacks", "melee attacks", "weapon attacks", or "melee weapon attacks" will interact with unarmed strikes. (See, for example, Monk's Stunning Strike and its entry in Sage Advice Compendium.) This includes features like the Circle of Spores Druid's Symbiotic Entity.
(Sage Advice Compendium mentions that some features have additional restrictions that are implicitly embedded in the effect of the feature's trigger: see, for example, the SAC entry on Paladin's Divine Smite with respect to unarmed strikes. Many people (including me) disagree with that ruling.)

If a feature triggers on an "attack with a weapon" (see, for example, Paladin's Improved Divine Smite), that is not the same condition as a "weapon attack", and SAC has a stronger argument here that it does not apply to unarmed strikes.

Does anybody have book references that contradict anything above?
Can anybody suggest other good PHB references to cite?
Fellow rules pedants: can we sharpen this down so that this post can be used as a reference for related questions?

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are also the category of "X attacks with a weapon". E.G. Improved Divine Smite. Which specifically excludes Unarmed Strike. And possibly (unclear on this) natural/improvised weapons.

As a side note, you could, in principle (I'm not aware of any of these out there) make a ranged spell attack with a melee weapon. Such as if a hypothetical spell told you that you threw your sword (a component of the spell) at a target and to make a ranged spell attack. What that would mean, I'm not sure.

Weapon attacks use STR or DEX by default. If using a melee weapon or improvised weapon, the attack uses STR (ranged attack or not) by default. If using a ranged weapon, the attack uses DEX. The finesse property allows you to use either, which is why you can use STR with darts, which as ranged weapons default to DEX.

Spell attacks use the spellcasting ability by default. And count as magical for things that care about such (such as AMF).

Other than that, they're tags for other abilities to hang off of.

[x3n0n]

There are also the category of "X attacks with a weapon". E.G. Improved Divine Smite. Which specifically excludes Unarmed Strike. And possibly (unclear on this) natural/improvised weapons.

As a side note, you could, in principle (I'm not aware of any of these out there) make a ranged spell attack with a melee weapon. Such as if a hypothetical spell told you that you threw your sword (a component of the spell) at a target and to make a ranged spell attack. What that would mean, I'm not sure.

Weapon attacks use STR or DEX by default. If using a melee weapon or improvised weapon, the attack uses STR (ranged attack or not) by default. If using a ranged weapon, the attack uses DEX. The finesse property allows you to use either, which is why you can use STR with darts, which as ranged weapons default to DEX.

Spell attacks use the spellcasting ability by default. And count as magical for things that care about such (such as AMF).

Other than that, they're tags for other abilities to hang off of.

All good points. The final one ("they're tags for other abilities to hang off of") is the one that I was trying to focus on, but I don't think it would hurt to add some of this to the post above.

I'm also tempted to add a bit of "flavor" around those tags.

A weapon attack almost always involves a "thing" hitting you, with its success determined by the physical action of the attacker (like a weapon, a body part, a piece of ammunition, or a glob of sticky web). A spell attack typically deviates on one of those dimensions: either it's not a physical object, or its success is not determined by the attacker's physical action.
A ranged attack typically involves the target being hit (or missed) by something that is no longer under the control of or physical contact with the attacker. The point of contact for a melee attack should always be under the control of the attacker at the time it hits (or misses).

[RSP]

Per SAC, Natural Weapons count as weapons.

[meandean]

I think in an exception-based system, avoid trying to describe "flavor" or come up with ways to harmonize the entire system into a grand unified theory. When you start getting into the "it usually means something like this" zone, you're giving people an impression that is probably going to make them understand the exceptions less, rather than more.

I think the useful project would be to describe the general rules, and compile all of the exceptions. You don't need the philosophy, and it'll probably harm more than help anyway. Just literal reference material. e.g.

Rule 1: Weapon types are defined by the Weapons table (PHB, p. 149). EXCEPTION A: Natural weapons don't appear on this table, but are considered weapons (SAC, p. 14)...

Rule 2: If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack (PHB, p. 194). EXCEPTION A: Grappling doesn't involve an attack roll, but is an attack (PHB, p. 195). EXCEPTION B: Shoving doesn't involve an attack roll, but is an attack (PHB, p. 195)...

[...]

Rule 5: A melee weapon attack is a melee attack with a weapon (SAC, p. 13). EXCEPTION A: Unarmed strikes don't use weapons, but are considered melee weapon attacks (PHB, p. 195)...

etc., etc.

[x3n0n]

I think the useful project would be to describe the general rules, and compile all of the exceptions. You don't need the philosophy, and it'll probably harm more than help anyway. Just literal reference material. e.g..

Thanks for the input. I think I had two different goals in mind, and you've helped me clarify.

Goal 1: provide a comprehensive reference from a compendium of the relevant RAW (almost all of which should be in the PHB and DMG) and what clarifying RAI exist (presumably all from SAC). This would be best served in the manner you describe, and I just realized I have precious little appetite for writing it.

Goal 2: provide most of the general relevant RAW and a coherent story for how they hold together along with an interpretation of the flavor, as a
* useful rubric for players and DMs to determine more than 80% (hopefully more than 98%) of rulings accurately
* record of precedent and flavor interpretations that can guide people who are making intentional deviations from and extensions to the RAW (that is, house rules and homebrew).

I am fine relegating this post to the second goal, I guess--but if someone wanted to make a document that covered goal 1 comprehensively, I'd be interested to see it.

PS. thanks for the reminder to read the RAW on grapples and shoves more closely--they are indeed "special melee attacks" that don't use an attack roll and have no definition of "miss", "hit", or "critical hit" (which only confuses the matter further for me, but whatever).

[Tanarii]

I wonder if the considered changing the order of the wording to designate the difference between a spell or weapon attack via melee and ranged, vs an attack with a melee weapon or ranged weapon.

In other words:
Weapon ranged attack (ranged attack with a weapon)
Ranged weapon attack (attack with a ranged weapon)
melee weapon ranged attack (ranged attack with a melee weapon)

Basically "ranged weapon attack" is easily read as an attack with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a ranged attack with a weapon.

[Chronos]

We still have the whole mess "ranged weapons" and "melee weapons" to sort through, as well as whether improvised weapons count as either of those.

[RSP]

PS. thanks for the reminder to read the RAW on grapples and shoves more closely--they are indeed "special melee attacks" that can't hit.

Does anything actually say they can’t hit? I’ve played where a Shove / Shield Master Shove can “hit”, for purposes of Hex.

[x3n0n]

Does anything actually say they can’t hit? I’ve played where a Shove / Shield Master Shove can “hit”, for purposes of Hex.

Not that I'm aware of, but the only things that I'm aware of that are defined as being "hits" are successful attack rolls. (That is, I don't see anywhere in shove or grapple that defines a won contest as a hit, or a lost/tied contest as a miss.)
I probably wouldn't rule them as hex hits at my table, but it's not the kind of thing I'd happily argue about over the internet. :)

Edit: I'll go rephrase the quoted clause to reflect what I meant.

[RSP]

Not that I'm aware of, but the only things that I'm aware of that are defined as being "hits" are successful attack rolls. (That is, I don't see anywhere in shove or grapple that defines a won contest as a hit, or a lost/tied contest as a miss.)
I probably wouldn't rule them as hex hits at my table, but it's not the kind of thing I'd happily argue about over the internet. :)

Edit: I'll go rephrase the quoted clause to reflect what I meant.

Hit isn’t a game term, at least not in the majority of the PHB (the monster section in the back does define it differently if I remember correctly). Hit is used as it’s common English meaning.

[diplomancer]

Hit isn’t a game term, at least not in the majority of the PHB (the monster section in the back does define it differently if I remember correctly). Hit is used as it’s common English meaning.

I'd say "hit", in the common English meaning, is the opposite of "miss". And though I'm not a native speaker it sounds odd to say that someone "missed" or "hit" a shove or a grapple, as opposed to "fail" or "succeed" a shove or a grapple. So I also would rule that attack rolls hit or miss, ability checks* and saving throws fail or succeed.

* (including shoves and grapples; despite being "special melee attacks", their resolution is through a contested ability check)

[x3n0n]

Hit isn’t a game term, at least not in the majority of the PHB (the monster section in the back does define it differently if I remember correctly). Hit is used as it’s common English meaning.

I mean, it kind of is a game term? PHB Ch 9, Making an Attack, Attack Rolls, emphasis mine: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. [...] If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits." Subsection "Rolling 1 or 20" also directly uses the terms "hit", "miss", and "critical hit" in ways most readers here are well familiar with.

That text positively defines "hit" (and "critical hit") and "miss", and I'm not aware of any other PHB or DMG text that defines anything else to be a hit or miss.

YMMV, and I don't intend to engage any further on this particular question--I have no desire to litigate how the question "can an attack without an attack roll hit?" is resolved at anybody else's table.

[RSP]

I mean, it kind of is a game term? PHB Ch 9, Making an Attack, Attack Rolls, emphasis mine: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. [...] If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits." Subsection "Rolling 1 or 20" also directly uses the terms "hit", "miss", and "critical hit" in ways most readers here are well familiar with.

That text positively defines "hit" (and "critical hit") and "miss", and I'm not aware of any other PHB or DMG text that defines anything else to be a hit or miss.

YMMV, and I don't intend to engage any further on this particular question--I have no desire to litigate how the question "can an attack without an attack roll hit?" is resolved at anybody else's table.

Hit and miss aren’t used outside of its normal English meaning, nor is there any definition given for them. The rules using the terms “hit” and “miss” as they relate to attacks, isn’t redefining them (I’m not sure what “positively defines” means as you’re using it): it’s just using their normal definitions.

“Critical hit” is a game term: it has a specific game meaning and it’s definition is given. You need to know the rules to understand what it means (doubling the damage dice), whereas you can have no idea about the 5e rules and still understand what “hit” means in the statement “the attack hits”.



* (including shoves and grapples; despite being "special melee attacks", their resolution is through a contested ability check)

Shove (and particularly the Shield Master Shove) can absolutely involve forcefully hitting someone else (in non-grappling situations, I’d imagine it’s the norm).

[diplomancer]

Hit and miss aren’t used outside of its normal English meaning, nor is there any definition given for them. The rules using the terms “hit” and “miss” as they relate to attacks, isn’t redefining them (I’m not sure what “positively defines” means as you’re using it): it’s just using their normal definitions.

“Critical hit” is a game term: it has a specific game meaning and it’s definition is given. You need to know the rules to understand what it means (doubling the damage dice), whereas you can have no idea about the 5e rules and still understand what “hit” means in the statement “the attack hits”.



Shove (and particularly the Shield Master Shove) can absolutely involve forcefully hitting someone else (in non-grappling situations, I’d imagine it’s the norm).

I'd say a Shield Mastet shove, whether it succeeds or fails, probably involves "hitting" an opponent. Nevertheless, I'd not apply effects that trigger "on a hit". Instead of having a lot of table arguments, I'd rather keep the dichotomy clean and say only an attack roll "hits".

Imagine the DM describing a situation when both of you rolled well, but your shove failed: "you push your shield forcefully against the ogre, but the massive creature stands his ground" and then having to decide whether that counts as "a hit" or not! That you take bludgeoning damage from an Ice Storm, whether you suceed or fail on your saving throw, means you've been hit by falling Ice rocks; but I'd definitely not add any effects that trigger "on a hit" in that case ;)


But, specially after all the nerfs Sage Advice has done to Shield Master, if you want to grant it that small boon to encourage more people to take it, I don't think that this would be a big deal.

[meandean]

I wonder if the considered changing the order of the wording to designate the difference between a spell or weapon attack via melee and ranged, vs an attack with a melee weapon or ranged weapon.

In other words:
Weapon ranged attack (ranged attack with a weapon)
Ranged weapon attack (attack with a ranged weapon)
melee weapon ranged attack (ranged attack with a melee weapon)

Basically "ranged weapon attack" is easily read as an attack with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a ranged attack with a weapon.Oh, have you not seen their brilliant idea about how to re-write it? (Sage Advice Compendium, (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf)p. 13 (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf))
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.This to me is as hilarious as rule-writing gets, because:


It would, very obviously, JUST BE EVEN MORE CONFUSING.
They proceed to never actually do it, so it's just a weird aside about how they could (ALLEGEDLY) write something better, but... for some reason choose not to?

(Although, to be fair, I don't think the actual phrase "attack with a melee weapon" ever appears in the rules. There's "hit [a creature] with a melee weapon", and there's "attack with a ranged weapon" [Sharpshooter], but I don't think there's "attack with a melee weapon.")

[RSP]

I'd say a Shield Mastet shove, whether it succeeds or fails, probably involves "hitting" an opponent. Nevertheless, I'd not apply effects that trigger "on a hit". Instead of having a lot of table arguments, I'd rather keep the dichotomy clean and say only an attack roll "hits".


Not arguing it needs to be used: just pointing out that the rules allow it.

SM should not be played according to JC tweets, at least in my opinion.

[diplomancer]

Not arguing it needs to be used: just pointing out that the rules allow it.

SM should not be played according to JC tweets, at least in my opinion.

The rules, under a particular interpretation, allow it. As I believe this interpretation only leads to confusion and possible arguments at the table, and it's definitely not the only possible interpretation, I prefer to interpret it differently (and I guess so would many DMs, but YMMV).

I don't like Crawford's rulings on Sage Advice about Shield Master, but I do think that they are the interpretation most closely aligned with RAW.

[Chronos]

"Hit" is very clearly not used with its normal English meaning in the rules. If a knight in full plate suddenly attacked you, and you grabbed a sword that conveniently happened to be nearby, swung it, and it clanged against the knight's armor, in normal English, you hit the knight. You hit him ineffectively, because of the armor, but you hit.

But by the game meaning, that "ineffective hit" would be defined as a "miss". And this is specific to D&D: In most other game systems, the effect of armor is not modeled as causing a miss, but as decreasing damage from a hit (possibly decreasing it all the way to zero, depending on the system).

[stoutstien]

"Hit" is very clearly not used with its normal English meaning in the rules. If a knight in full plate suddenly attacked you, and you grabbed a sword that conveniently happened to be nearby, swung it, and it clanged against the knight's armor, in normal English, you hit the knight. You hit him ineffectively, because of the armor, but you hit.

But by the game meaning, that "ineffective hit" would be defined as a "miss". And this is specific to D&D: In most other game systems, the effect of armor is not modeled as causing a miss, but as decreasing damage from a hit (possibly decreasing it all the way to zero, depending on the system).

Probably a good argument the armor should be DR/DT not avoidance.

[RSP]

"Hit" is very clearly not used with its normal English meaning in the rules. If a knight in full plate suddenly attacked you, and you grabbed a sword that conveniently happened to be nearby, swung it, and it clanged against the knight's armor, in normal English, you hit the knight. You hit him ineffectively, because of the armor, but you hit.

But by the game meaning, that "ineffective hit" would be defined as a "miss". And this is specific to D&D: In most other game systems, the effect of armor is not modeled as causing a miss, but as decreasing damage from a hit (possibly decreasing it all the way to zero, depending on the system).

You’re conflating a few things here.

First, you’ve added a story element (that a failed attack roll hits armor) and are equating it to the RAW mechanics of an attack roll, which state nothing in terms of how the result is described in the game world. If I describe that failed attack as missing entirely instead of clanging off the armor, does that change your proof? Or do we all know what hit and miss mean regardless because we know their English meaning?

Next, you’ve decided an “ineffective hit” is equivalent to a “hit”: which it very much isn’t in natural English. The word “ineffective” has a meaning, that is applied to the term. Further, you can indeed say “you hit the knight” when you hit their armor; but you could also say “you didn’t hit them, you hit their armor”.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that the RAW uses the natural English meaning of “hit”. Again, compare this to “Armor Class” or “Speed”: those have specific game meanings that are defined in the rules.

[Chronos]

Sure, a miss can be "he dodged out of the way". But a miss can also be due to armor. You can have an attack roll that would have hit against an unarmored opponent, but didn't hit the armored opponent. That's the whole point of armor. How else can you describe that, narratively, than hitting the armor? And OK, you can say that "you hit the armor instead of hitting the knight", but what if we're talking about natural armor? Nobody would ever claim, in normal English, "you didn't hit the monster; you just hit the monster's skin".

[diplomancer]

"Hit" is very clearly not used with its normal English meaning in the rules. If a knight in full plate suddenly attacked you, and you grabbed a sword that conveniently happened to be nearby, swung it, and it clanged against the knight's armor, in normal English, you hit the knight. You hit him ineffectively, because of the armor, but you hit.

But by the game meaning, that "ineffective hit" would be defined as a "miss". And this is specific to D&D: In most other game systems, the effect of armor is not modeled as causing a miss, but as decreasing damage from a hit (possibly decreasing it all the way to zero, depending on the system).


You’re conflating a few things here.

First, you’ve added a story element (that a failed attack roll hits armor) and are equating it to the RAW mechanics of an attack roll, which state nothing in terms of how the result is described in the game world. If I describe that failed attack as missing entirely instead of clanging off the armor, does that change your proof? Or do we all know what hit and miss mean regardless because we know their English meaning?

Next, you’ve decided an “ineffective hit” is equivalent to a “hit”: which it very much isn’t in natural English. The word “ineffective” has a meaning, that is applied to the term. Further, you can indeed say “you hit the knight” when you hit their armor; but you could also say “you didn’t hit them, you hit their armor”.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that the RAW uses the natural English meaning of “hit”. Again, compare this to “Armor Class” or “Speed”: those have specific game meanings that are defined in the rules.


Sure, a miss can be "he dodged out of the way". But a miss can also be due to armor. You can have an attack roll that would have hit against an unarmored opponent, but didn't hit the armored opponent. That's the whole point of armor. How else can you describe that, narratively, than hitting the armor? And OK, you can say that "you hit the armor instead of hitting the knight", but what if we're talking about natural armor? Nobody would ever claim, in normal English, "you didn't hit the monster; you just hit the monster's skin".

And those are the sort of table arguments that I was referring to, that could be easily avoided by the more restrictive interpretation of "hit" (I.e, a "hit" is a successful attack roll, and not anything else, no matter what the narration is). And if you're "hitting the armor", how many hit points does it have? Does it take the additional "damage on a hit"? Endless pedantic arguments that could be easily avoided.

[RSP]

Sure, a miss can be "he dodged out of the way". But a miss can also be due to armor. You can have an attack roll that would have hit against an unarmored opponent, but didn't hit the armored opponent. That's the whole point of armor. How else can you describe that, narratively, than hitting the armor? And OK, you can say that "you hit the armor instead of hitting the knight", but what if we're talking about natural armor? Nobody would ever claim, in normal English, "you didn't hit the monster; you just hit the monster's skin".

But this isn’t a “hit” issue, it’s a “how the rules work” issue.

Plenty of spells require touching an opponent to have the effect take place. How do you realistically differentiate a successful attack against an opponent in full plate: there’s no opening to touch the actual person wearing the armor, so, using your approach, whether or not the attack rule succeeds, the caster is “hitting” the armor.

That has nothing to do with hit, it’s just how the rules work.

Likewise, a 3’ gnome using a dagger can hit and kill a Fire Giant in full plate, even though said gnome would be poking their armored boot toe with a dagger not big enough to actually penetrate the steel.

These are all mechanic issues with the ruleset and how it applies to the in-game “reality”, and aren’t actually arguments against the word “hit”.


And those are the sort of table arguments that I was referring to, that could be easily avoided by the more restrictive interpretation of "hit" (I.e, a "hit" is a successful attack roll, and not anything else, no matter what the narration is). And if you're "hitting the armor", how many hit points does it have? Does it take the additional "damage on a hit"? Endless pedantic arguments that could be easily avoided.

There isn’t a “more restrictive interpretation” to hit though. I’m assuming your not suggesting failed Athletics checks result in successful attacks:

“At your DM’s option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump’s distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it.”

[diplomancer]

Of course there is. I already said what it was. Any mechanical effect that requires "a hit" requires a successful attack roll. Obviously, the converse is not true. If a character says, after drinking a mug of beer "oh, that hit the spot", that doesn't mean there was a successful attack roll; or do you add "damage on a hit" effect when someone fails the athletic check and hits the hedge? Or, for that matter, my more relevant (because who cares about damage to a hedge?), earlier question: do you add "damage on a hit" effects when someone succeeds on a saving throw against Ice Storm, but takes bludgeoning damage nevertheless (thus being hit by falling Ice rocks)?

And if we took this discussion to different languages (plenty of people, myself included, don't play D&D only in English), you'd have complete chaos. Trust me, it's a lot easier to say that a hit is the result of a successful attack roll than to try to figure out when something counts as a hit and when something doesn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course there is. I already said what it was. Any mechanical effect that requires "a hit" requires a successful attack roll. Obviously, the converse is not true. If a character says, after drinking a mug of beer "oh, that hit the spot", that doesn't mean there was a successful attack roll; or do you add "damage on a hit" effect when someone fails the athletic check and hits the hedge? Or, for that matter, my more relevant (because who cares about damage to a hedge?), earlier question: do you add "damage on a hit" effects when someone succeeds on a saving throw against Ice Storm, but takes bludgeoning damage nevertheless (thus being hit by falling Ice rocks)?

And if we took this discussion to different languages (plenty of people, myself included, don't play D&D only in English), you'd have complete chaos. Trust me, it's a lot easier to say that a hit is the result of a successful attack roll than to try to figure out when so mething counts as a hit and when something doesn't.

I agree with this 100%.

[RSP]

Of course there is. I already said what it was. Any mechanical effect that requires "a hit" requires a successful attack roll.

That’s not what the rules say though.



or do you add "damage on a hit" effect when someone fails the athletic check and hits the hedge? Or, for that matter, my more relevant (because who cares about damage to a hedge?), earlier question: do you add "damage on a hit" effects when someone succeeds on a saving throw against Ice Storm, but takes bludgeoning damage nevertheless (thus being hit by falling Ice rocks)?

What rule are you referring to that adds damage on a hit? I’m not sure what the relevance is of your questions: when Ice Storm damages someone, they take the damage listed in the rules for Ice Storm. I’m unaware of any generic “damage on a hit” rule, that would interact with Ice Storm, but if you have something specific, we can take a look.