When is an attack, not an attack?

[NecessaryWeevil]

So I don't expect to convince my DM by posting questions to the Internet, but I just want to check that I'm not off-base, myself.
His position is that an Attack of Opportunity is nothing but a simple melee attack, full stop. Any feature that is triggered by 'an attack' can only be triggered by attacks from the Attack action.
My position is that an attack is an attack, and anything intended to interact only with the Attack action is explicitly described as such (for example Shield Master: "If you take the Attack action on your turn...").
I'm not crazy, am I?

[Kane0]

Yeah i'd agree with you. An attack is something that includes an attack roll, or if using natural language is an act intended to cause harm (damage). It doesnt really matter what action is used to make the attack unless the ability specifies as such (like haste specifying you can only make one attack with its additional attack action).

That said, I believe shoves and grapples are reliant on the attack action and thus opportunity attacks cannot be substituted for them IIRC.

[Frogreaver]

More specificity is required. What do you have in mind that should work with an OA?

[Keltest]

No, youre basically correct. PHB 194 says


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.

[NecessaryWeevil]

More specificity is required. What do you have in mind that should work with an OA?

It's a feature from a third-party supplement, Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting. The ability triggers "Once per turn, when your companion hits a creature with an attack..."
It's a third-party feature he's found, and he's the boss regarding what the 'intent' is, but I just wanted to check that I'm not misunderstanding the basic RAW of the game.

[Psyren]

When it turns into a driveway!

...Oh, right, this was an actual question.


It's a feature from a third-party supplement, Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting. The ability triggers "Once per turn, when your companion hits a creature with an attack..."
It's a third-party feature he's found, and he's the boss regarding what the 'intent' is, but I just wanted to check that I'm not misunderstanding the basic RAW of the game.

Yes, this wording would mean the ability works with OAs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, this wording would mean the ability works with OAs.

I agree. Generally abilities that are limited to the Attack action say so.

[Chronos]

Let's just put it this way: By his interpretation, a creature with the Invisibility spell could make all the opportunity attacks they want without breaking the spell.

[Derges]

An Attack [action] has one or more attack [rolls]. You are right, as far as I'm aware Attack Action is used whenever the action itself is intended while attack roll is often left implied.

1. A Brown bear takes its Multiattack Action and makes two attacks.
2. Someone moves away from the Brown bear and it makes an Opportunity Attack with its reaction and makes one attack.
3. A 5th level Fighter has Extra Attack, he takes the Attack action once and makes 2 attacks.
4. Our Fighter takes Sentinel and someone attacks a nearby friendly target. He can use his reaction to make one attack roll (which is not an Opportunity Attack).

I would expect the ability to trigger on all 4 of these, your DM's ruling would have it only trigger on #3.

[Greywander]

I hate when DMs do things like this. It's totally okay for a DM to say, "I know RAW says X, but I want to run it as Y because [reason]." The DM does not require the support of RAW to justify their rulings, so it really bugs me when they claim something is RAW when it isn't. It's ignorant at best, but more likely the DM is power tripping and just slapping down the player to show them who's boss, or because they're genuinely insecure in their position as DM. I also dislike when DMs take a hard line and refuse to consider a player's argument. I understand that the DM has to make a decision and stick with it, but they should at least listen to the player and see if what they're saying makes sense.

I think the best thing you can do is talk to your DM privately, and affirm that they can run it this way if that's what they think is best. How deep you want to get into a discussion of what is and isn't RAW, as well as the cascade of effects of deviating from RAW (e.g. OAs while invisible), is going to have to be a judgement call on your part. Hopefully they're at least willing to listen to you and understand your position, even if they end up sticking to the rule change.

[Easy e]

I came to this thread looking for the punchline, but sadly did not find one.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/1/10/McBain_-_Let%27s_Get_Silly.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130813194642

Comic: When is an attack, not an attack?
.....
Comic: When it's a tack!

Audience: Boo! Hiss! You suck McBain!

[Psyren]

I came to this thread looking for the punchline, but sadly did not find one.


I tried dammit :smallfrown:

[Unoriginal]

Opportunity Attack resulting in an attack roll is an attack, even if it is not the Attack action.

Your DM can choose to change the rule for the effect to only trigger on an Attack action, but it is a nerf, and could have wonky consequences.


What wonky consequences? Fun fact: it's possible to take the Attack action and makes no attack roll.

For example: pushing someone with a STR (Athletics) check is not an attack (and does not benefit from/is not hindered by anything that triggers from an attack), but it requires the Attack action for most characters.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I hate when DMs do things like this. It's totally okay for a DM to say, "I know RAW says X, but I want to run it as Y because [reason]." The DM does not require the support of RAW to justify their rulings, so it really bugs me when they claim something is RAW when it isn't. It's ignorant at best, but more likely the DM is power tripping and just slapping down the player to show them who's boss, or because they're genuinely insecure in their position as DM. I also dislike when DMs take a hard line and refuse to consider a player's argument. I understand that the DM has to make a decision and stick with it, but they should at least listen to the player and see if what they're saying makes sense.


I think he likes more 'dynamic' combat so he dislikes anything that discourages combatants from moving around. I would prefer that he just declare it a houserule, though, yeah.

[JonBeowulf]

When your DM likes more 'dynamic' combat so he dislikes anything that discourages combatants from moving around.

[JackPhoenix]

For example: pushing someone with a STR (Athletics) check is not an attack (and does not benefit from/is not hindered by anything that triggers from an attack), but it requires the Attack action for most characters.

Shove and grapple specifically ARE attacks, even though no attack roll is involved.

[Easy e]

I tried dammit :smallfrown:

Re-reading....

Not bad..... <slow clap>

[DomesticHausCat]

If you are high above an enemy and throw down a dagger as an attack, then drop a sword as a "free action," I wouldn't call that an attack. I'd give you disadvantage on that roll. This did come up in one of my games.

[Frogreaver]

It's a feature from a third-party supplement, Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting. The ability triggers "Once per turn, when your companion hits a creature with an attack..."
It's a third-party feature he's found, and he's the boss regarding what the 'intent' is, but I just wanted to check that I'm not misunderstanding the basic RAW of the game.

Barring any important words missing then that ability would work on an OA.

It’s the same reason sneak attack, hex, collosus slayer, etc all work on OA’s.

[Jerrykhor]

Ask your DM if making an attack as a Bonus Action is considered an Attack. If he says no, then he's an idiot. Attacks are quite clearly defined in the rules, and also JC has clarified it (not that he need to anyway, I surely wasn't confused by it): If you are making an attack roll, its an attack.

To answer your question, an attack is not an attack if it takes the place of the attack, like a Grapple. It requires you to use one of your weapon attacks, but its not an attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To answer your question, an attack is not an attack if it takes the place of the attack, like a Grapple. It requires you to use one of your weapon attacks, but its not an attack.

No, it's literally called out as a special, non standard attack. Specific beats general.

[Jerrykhor]

No, it's literally called out as a special, non standard attack. Specific beats general.

It may say special melee attack, but its not an attack as defined mechanically. Theres a difference between 'attack' the general english term for harming people, and Attack the D20 roll plus modifiers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It may say special melee attack, but its not an attack as defined mechanically. Theres a difference between 'attack' the general english term for harming people, and Attack the D20 roll plus modifiers.

The exact text is


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


It calls it an attack, in the section on Attacks. It takes more logic-chopping and close-parsing than I'm willing to engage in to say anything other than "this is a specific exception that overrides the previously-given rules on what is a mechanical attack, because specific exceptions always override general rules."

Note that when it means "the result of rolling 1d20 + modifiers vs AC", it always uses "an attack roll", not the bare term "attack". When it says "attack" in the rules, it means (mechanical) attack, not "harm person". It's always very specific about this language.