-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
So, ideally, the players would be able to think: "Well, he's trying to kill us, so therefore he's attacking us" and the mechanics would not matter. This gets rid of almost all (but not all) ambiguity. It leaves about as much ambiguity as there would be regardless of game mechanics.
Why is this ideal? It sounds like you've introduced a new test, totally separate from the test PROVIDED IN THE TEXT, one that works quite poorly:
Is the Baron who just ordered his troops to charge the party performing an Attack? He's trying to kill them, after all. What about the assassin who slipped poison into their water? Can the rogue Dodge the poison as it hits her tongue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
The same criteria we tend to use in everyday language. There will be disagreements, but these can be resolved by the DM. The point I am trying to make is that a common sense approach is almost categorically better than using the mechanics to make the determination.
Better why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
You wouldn't need to if you realized that RAW all of those other hostile actions can very well be considered attacks, and most likely were intended to be considered to be for such reasons. I think the writers left it this way on purpose.
If so, why are they going around explaining otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I am not sure how to answer this without sounding flippant, but here is my answer: the definition of the word attack, applied consistently.
Yeah, arguments without any basis do often sound flippant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
This particular list is pretty clearly exclusive. Unless there is some other text that tells us otherwise.
What is strong to me is that this section of the text is much more strongly worded imply that anything other than climbing, jumping, and swimming is not Athletics.
Yet, apparently, here you are willing to entertain other options, but in the case of attacks you are not. This appears to be inconsistent.
As I've clearly stated, twice, other text does tell us otherwise. In fact, it's the same text that provides our only example of an attack without an attack roll. Pretty freaking consistent on my part!
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
Look...any RAW that says that a Dragon breathing at will or a Beholder flinging Eye beams around while not breaking Invisibility or Sanctuary is simply flawed at some level.
To be fair though, personally, I believe the real flaw is in the wording of the aforementioned spells.
Hell, all I had to do was mention to my players about the whole Dragon/Beholder and whatever other monsters that could wreck havok while still maintaining invisible/sanc and they were all in full agreement that the wording of said spells was...incomplete.
And again, I contest that the rules are not actually incomplete. All of these problems go away when you read the "definition" of attack (attack roll -> attack) properly. By this I mean to say that DMs are totally justified, by the RAW as they are, in considering beholder eye attacks and dragon breath as attacks.
I contest that this is the correct reading of the text; it is the way the text is, in fact written; and the assumption that the writers wrote what they meant to write (no more and no less), (alternatively expressed as they are not idiots), leads to the conclusion that they wrote rules that work perfectly.
This is totally irrelevant of what JC has to say on the matter, which necessarily adds a layer of complexity (his interpretation) (proved it was not specifically he who wrote this particular couple of sentences).
Problem solved. The dog is dead. Now... get ready for some more kicking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
I am interested in resolving this, but that's a two way street. So, I'll humor you, and I'll expect you to humor me:
As you didn't specify, I suppose you're talking about IRL. So, let me give you a clear and simple answer.
Is a platypus an animal IRL? Yes.
Your turn: the same question you asked me:
If able, present me with a similar clear and simple answer as I gave you.
No. A jubjub bird is not an animal. (This is the first I've ever heard of a jujube jubjub bird, I'm ashamed to say. I need to read Lewis Carroll)
Next question: if you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would it be a creature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
Why is this ideal? It sounds like you've introduced a new test, totally separate from the test PROVIDED IN THE TEXT, one that works quite poorly:
Is the Baron who just ordered his troops to charge the party performing an Attack? He's trying to kill them, after all. What about the assassin who slipped poison into their water? Can the rogue Dodge the poison as it hits her tongue?
No. The Baron has not directly attacked anyone. Slipping poison into water is not an attack.
The question about the rogue is independent of what constitutes an attack. I would say no, but not because it is not an attack. It's because dodging help against things that are in your mouth.
So, although it may appear to be a "new" test, it's not actually a new test. It's the test that English speaking human beings have been using their whole lives to discern the definitions of words. It can lead to some disagreements, and it can be vague at times, but through discussion we can gain clarity on these matters, and if there is an irreconcilable dispute, we have the DM to call it, ending those arguments in any given particular case.
It doesn't lead to nonsensical rulings that prescribe the reality of the narrative based on what's happening at the game table. People are correct to wonder why firebolt is an attack but a dragon born's breath attack is not. There is no satisfying reason for why these are different, and when you say: it's because Joe rolled, but Sally did not... that does not sit right (nor should it). These things deserve sensible explanations.
Quote:
If so, why are they going around explaining otherwise?
My point is, and has always been, that they are not. Obliquely, it's true that JC has misinterpreted this bit of RAW, because he actually cites it and then makes the same logical error that others are making here.
Spoiler: In anticipation of the unwarranted backlash
Show
Typical Response: "Oh yeah, sure, BurgerBeast... Jeremy Crawford, the creator of the game, has no idea what he is talking about, but you are right about this
No. Jeremy Crawford is brilliant, and he does a tremendous god despite the constant gripes of forum goers. He goes to great pains to stick to the point and not elaborate because the types of people who typically raise such questions also tend to be the types who find further fault within those explanations. In this particular case, he made a simple mistake. That's all. And it's a common mistake.
Quote:
Yeah, arguments without any basis do often sound flippant.
Agreed. But this argument does have a basis. Attack does have a definition outside of D&D. That's the basis.
It's probably worth noting that if attack roll -> attack, then the word attack is meaningless in D&D because it means exactly the same thing as attack roll. If that were true, then why didn't the writers just leave the term "attack" out of it, and change every ability that depends on being attacked to "when another rolls an attack roll against you"?
I'll tell you why: because an attack and an attack are not connected in the way that you think they are. The DM is free to connect them in this way, but the rules do not do it.
Quote:
As I've clearly stated, twice, other text does tell us otherwise. In fact, it's the same text that provides our only example of an attack without an attack roll. Pretty freaking consistent on my part!
Yes, but as you are probably aware, I see no evidence that the text tells us otherwise, and you haven't shown me any (that I accept).
What's interesting here is the parallel, though. The rules say that Athletics covers climbing, jumping, and swimming. So you should conclude that this is all they cover, except for exceptions. There is one exception: grappling.
So that ought to be the end of it. Your view, if you're being consistent, ought to be that the DM is wrong if he considers anything other than climbing, jumping, swimming, or grappling to be Athletics because the rules clearly state that those, and only those, are Athletics in game terms.
But you don't. I'd say it's because you apply common sense. Now I'd like to see you apply the exact same common sense to attacks.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
The question about the rogue is independent of what constitutes an attack. I would say no, but not because it is not an attack. It's because dodging help against things that are in your mouth.
Can my rogue use Uncanny Dodge against fireballs? It seems like you've talked yourself into a position where the answer has to be yes, rather than your previous undefined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
It doesn't lead to nonsensical rulings that prescribe the reality of the narrative based on what's happening at the game table. People are correct to wonder why firebolt is an attack but a dragon born's breath attack is not. There is no satisfying reason for why these are different, and when you say: it's because Joe rolled, but Sally did not... that does not sit right (nor should it). These things deserve sensible explanations.
So your entire argument is throwing up the dictionary definition of a word against the test provided by the rulebook. That's it. Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
My point is, and has always been, that they are not. Obliquely, it's true that JC has misinterpreted this bit of RAW, because he actually cites it and then makes the same logical error that others are making here.
Spoiler: In anticipation of the unwarranted backlash
Show
Typical Response: "Oh yeah, sure, BurgerBeast... Jeremy Crawford, the creator of the game, has no idea what he is talking about, but you are right about this
No. Jeremy Crawford is brilliant, and he does a tremendous god despite the constant gripes of forum goers. He goes to great pains to stick to the point and not elaborate because the types of people who typically raise such questions also tend to be the types who find further fault within those explanations. In this particular case, he made a simple mistake. That's all. And it's a common mistake.
Your argument is that they intentionally failed to provide for the negative case in the test the provided for determining if something was an attack, on the assumption that the dictionary would fill in, despite the fact that many people (including BurgerBeasts, when they are off their guard) read in the implied negative, and then subsequently made the mistake set up by that text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
It's probably worth noting that if attack roll -> attack, then the word attack is meaningless in D&D because it means exactly the same thing as attack roll.
Attacks use attack rolls as part of their structure. They aren't the same thing. A book without defintions in it isn't a dictionary, but it does not follow that "dictionary" means exactly the same thing as "definitions."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
If that were true, then why didn't the writers just leave the term "attack" out of it, and change every ability that depends on being attacked to "when another rolls an attack roll against you"?
Because "attacks" is shorter and easier to use. Next question?
(On Athletics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Yes, but as you are probably aware, I see no evidence that the text tells us otherwise, and you haven't shown me any (that I accept).
(Other than the one you are about to talk about?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
There is one exception: grappling.
Or, if you read to the bottom of the page, two exceptions, grabbing and shoving.
Or, if you read the DMG, multiple exceptions, including pushing through a crowd during a chase and basically anything your players can talk you into.
Reading is fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
So that ought to be the end of it. Your view, if you're being consistent, ought to be that the DM is wrong if he considers anything other than climbing, jumping, swimming, or grappling to be Athletics because the rules clearly state that those, and only those, are Athletics in game terms.
But you don't. I'd say it's because you apply common sense. Now I'd like to see you apply the exact same common sense to attacks.
Athletics include anything you make an Athletics check for. If I used the dictionary definition of Athletics, or "common sense," I might also include things which require an Acrobatics check, since gymnasts are certainly athletes.
You are doing something very weird when you first disassociate the mechanics from the name, then use your newly defined term for a mechanical effect.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
And again, I contest that the rules are not actually incomplete. All of these problems go away when you read the "definition" of attack (attack roll -> attack) properly. By this I mean to say that DMs are totally justified, by the RAW as they are, in considering beholder eye attacks and dragon breath as attacks.
I contest that this is the correct reading of the text; it is the way the text is, in fact written; and the assumption that the writers wrote what they meant to write (no more and no less), (alternatively expressed as they are not idiots), leads to the conclusion that they wrote rules that work perfectly.
This is totally irrelevant of what JC has to say on the matter, which necessarily adds a layer of complexity (his interpretation) (proved it was not specifically he who wrote this particular couple of sentences).
Problem solved. The dog is dead. Now... get ready for some more kicking...
Preaching to the choir dude. I'm the reason this thread even exists because I was mucking up the RAW sticky too much about it.
BTW, the thing that started it all was whether or not Cutting Words would break Sanctuary.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
BTW, the thing that started it all was whether or not Cutting Words would break Sanctuary.
To which the answer is obviously no, right? I mean, this isn't really a close case. Even if you refuse to accept that Attacks generally take the form described in the Attacks section of the book and pass the test described there, Cutting Words doesn't appear to fit with even a colloquial definition of "attack." You'd have better luck arguing that it is similar to a harmful spell.
Speaking of which, the way that Sanctuary includes both Attacks and Harmful Spells is pretty decent evidence that not all harmful spells are attacks, right?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
To which the answer is obviously no, right? I mean, this isn't really a close case. Even if you refuse to accept that Attacks generally take the form described in the Attacks section of the book and pass the test described there, Cutting Words doesn't appear to fit with even a colloquial definition of "attack." You'd have better luck arguing that it is similar to a harmful spell.
Speaking of which, the way that Sanctuary includes both Attacks and Harmful Spells is pretty decent evidence that not all harmful spells are attacks, right?
Depends if you believe Charm spells should break Sanctuary.
That not withstanding, I have a hard time accepting that one is able to insult/distract a target enough while under the effects of a spell that literally is trying to force said target to ignore you.
Counter productive much?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
Depends if you believe Charm spells should break Sanctuary.
That not withstanding, I have a hard time accepting that one is able to insult/distract a target enough while under the effects of a spell that literally is trying to force said target to ignore you.
Counter productive much?
Would you argue that simply yelling at a target and taunting them with no connected mechanical ability should also break Sanctuary?
Sanctuary doesn't force anyone to ignore you. It forces them not to target you with harmful spells or attacks. You can fluff it many ways.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
No. A jubjub bird is not an animal. (This is the first I've ever heard of a jujube jubjub bird, I'm ashamed to say. I need to read Lewis Carroll)
Next question: if you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would it be a creature?
So,
> Is a platypus an animal IRL? Yes.
> Is a jubjub bird an animal IRL? No.
On your next question, I suppose this is, for example, for a DM that makes an encounter that spots (or encounters) some platypusses? Discounting they be some illusion or something - so, actual platypusses you were talking about in the previous question; then the answer, again is simple:
If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would it be a creature? Yes.
And as could probbably expect, my question to you:
If you were to represent a platypus jubjub bird in D&D, would it be a creature?
Actually, I got a second qeustion, which perhaps seems a bit 'off topic'
If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would anything other than animal be acceptable?
(dunno where I'm going with that. Me and others have pointed out toward the posibility the DM categorizes it as monstrosity - in light of the historical context of the platypus; I'm wondering about your view)
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
Would you argue that simply yelling at a target and taunting them with no connected mechanical ability should also break Sanctuary?
But you're not simply yelling at someone, you're actually charming them.
So again, if casting a Charm spell breaks Sanctuary, then using Cutting Words should as well.
You are simply opening the door to too many abuses with your interpretation.
Dragon Breath, Beholder Eye Rays, Vampire Charm ect, ect.
The list is pretty exhaustive and definitely doesn't favour the PCs. I have yet to meet a player in person that is willing to make that trade off just so a Bard can use Cutting Words.
Quote:
Sanctuary doesn't force anyone to ignore you. It forces them not to target you with harmful spells or attacks. You can fluff it many ways.
Cutting Words is a targeted ability that does indeed cause a harmful effect.
At the end of the day the whole crux of the argument that an attack must have an attack roll is that that's what RAW says.
Problem is it doesn't say that. If it did actually say simply that an attack must have an attack roll, there wouldn't be any argument.
What it actually says is that when determining if an action is an attack, if it has an attack roll, it is definitely an attack and that is not the same thing.
Why the need for all this extra language? If an attack is only an attack if it has an attack roll, that would've been one line and a closed door. It would be over with but that didn't happen.
Instead we have an open door.
And quite frankly...anyone that doesn't consider a Dragon breathing on you or a Beholder shooting Eye Rays at you as an attack is missing some mental faculties IMO.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
But you're not simply yelling at someone, you're actually charming them.
So again, if casting a Charm spell breaks Sanctuary, then using Cutting Words should as well.
That is not clear to me at all. The fact that immunity to charm prevents cutting words does not necessarily mean that you are "charming" them when you use it. You don't impose the charmed condition, after all.
Further, even if you are charming them, and even assuming that Charm is a hostile spell, there may be some logic that distinguishes charming using a spell from charming using wit, which is what the Bard is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
You are simply opening the door to too many abuses with your interpretation.
Dragon Breath, Beholder Eye Rays, Vampire Charm ect, ect.
The list is pretty exhaustive and definitely doesn't favour the PCs. I have yet to meet a player in person that is willing to make that trade off just so a Bard can use Cutting Words.
Cutting Words is a targeted ability that does indeed cause a harmful effect.
It isn't my interpretation, it's the way the spell is written. I note that you have not made an argument that Cutting Words is an attack, but rather that it is a hostile spell-like effect. If the problem is hostile spell-like effects, add those to Sanctuary and Invisibility. Problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
Why the need for all this extra language? If an attack is only an attack if it has an attack roll, that would've been one line and a closed door. It would be over with but that didn't happen.
Instead we have an open door.
Because there are a few rare examples of attacks without attack rolls. The language allows for them. The door is open a crack, but there is no evidence apart from applying colloquial language to a game term to indicate that other things are attacks. The inclusion of "hostile spells" as something distinct from attacks within the language of invisibility is strong evidence that not all hostile actions are attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
And quite frankly...anyone that doesn't consider a Dragon breathing on you or a Beholder shooting Eye Rays at you as an attack is missing some mental faculties IMO.
There is no need to be rude!
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinnS
Preaching to the choir dude...
Yeah, I'm sorry if I came off as though I thought I was opposing you. I was trying to take your point and elaborate further, and my comments were not aimed at you, but at those on the side opposite me in this thread.
On Cutting Words and the Spectrum of Attacks
I do not personally consider cutting words to be an attack, but I would consider it to be direct enough and harmful enough to break some effects that other DMs might disagree with.
The point is that there is a spectrum of effects that are on the table for debate, ranging from things like fireball (very understandably arguably attacks), and ranging through things like heat metal and various charms, to things like shape earth that might be put to harmful use.
My point is that different DMs will draw the line in different in places, and RAW they have that right. For you or anyone to say that fireball is (according to RAW) definitely not an attack is factually incorrect.
On platypuses
Both a platypus and a jubjub bird would be animals in D&D (again, with the condition attached that my knowledge of jujube birds is limited).
The reason is what is important. The reason a platypus is a creature in D&D is not because it is an animal in real life. The reason is because the thing that a platypus is belongs to the animal category in real life, and to the creature category in D&D.
That's all. I was never trying to claim that a platypus belongs in the creature category because it is an animal IRL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
Actually, I got a second qeustion, which perhaps seems a bit 'off topic'
If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would anything other than animal be acceptable?
(dunno where I'm going with that. Me and others have pointed out toward the posibility the DM categorizes it as monstrosity - in light of the historical context of the platypus; I'm wondering about your view)
Yes, that's why I chose the platypus and that's why I used "creature" instead of "beast." Likewise, it's possible that particular fantastic or mythical creatures that are not strictly animals IRL could be regular animals (even though it's not a game term) in D&D. Here I mean things like stirges and owl bears.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would anything other than animal be acceptable?
Sure -- the most obvious monster type is probably a Beast (I'm guessing that's the game referent for animal in this stuff), but you could no doubt justify that it's a Fey without too much trouble, or poke fun at it by calling it a Monstrosity or an Aberration. You could do other stuff too with lore or fluff as you see fit -- maybe the platypus is an early Construct that used biological parts from other creatures to be created, or maybe it looks so odd in "our" plane because it's actually a Celestial.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Both a platypus and a jubjub bird would be animals in D&D (again, with the condition attached that my knowledge of jujube birds is limited).
Okidoki
> Is a platypus an animal IRL? Yes.
> Is a jubjub bird an animal IRL? No.
> supposing we're talking about the thing from the previous question your character encounteers:
> If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would it be a creature? Yes.
> If you were to represent a jubjub bird in D&D, would it be a creature? Yes.
My next question:
you will perhaps find it odd that I added "supposing we're talking about the thing from the previous question your character encounteers" in the above. But ... how about instead of representing a creature you encounter, what if the DM invents a NPC bard called Louie Carol, who writes nonsense poems about (in game) non existant creatures, and writes one about a nonsense creature, a platypus.
As you pointed out, Is a jubjub bird an animal IRL? No ... Would a platypus then be a creature In game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
The reason is what is important. The reason a platypus is a creature in D&D is not because it is an animal in real life. The reason is because the thing that a platypus is belongs to the animal category in real life, and to the creature category in D&D.
That's all. I was never trying to claim that a platypus belongs in the creature category because it is an animal IRL.
Seeing as this is the statement that started the problem:
Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature? The answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes). How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D?
Because platypuses are creatures. That's why.
-- #282
@qube: I thought it was clear from the context, but when I said "...because platypuses are creatures" I meant "because platypuses (in real life) are creatures (in real life; not the game-term creatures).
-- #308
Color me confused you are now claiming
"the reason a platypus is a creature in D&D is not because it is an animal in real life."
(the underlining isn't even mine, but yours). Considering you both claim
because platypuses (in real life) are creatures (in real life; not the game-term creatures).
-- your clarification, #308
I was never trying to claim that a platypus belongs in the creature category because it is an animal IRL.
-- now, in #371
It really looks like those two are hard to add up ...
Even more, you made my point for me:
The reason a platypus is a creature in D&D is not because it is an animal in real life. The reason is because the thing that a platypus is belongs to the animal category in real life, and to the creature category in D&D
Considering that the jubjub bird proves it being an animal IRL is irrelevant, You now argue that it's a D&D creature because it's a D&D creature - which is not a decent reason.
BurgerBeast, you're not a human, you're a turtle.
Why? you're a turtle because you're a turtle.
At best, That's Rule 0: you're a turtle because you're a turtle, and I'm the DM so I'm right. (reducing the argument even further, as the "because" part becomes irrelevant, to "you're a turtle because I'm the DM and I say so" )
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
@qube: you are just continuing to read what I read as something that I didn't mean, which I actually alluded to in my original post when I put "there is room to nitpick" in the parentheses.
There is a semantic issue here which I have been trying to illustrate, and you just keep ignoring and going back to what I wrote. The problem is that you will keep reading the way you think I meant it, and I will keep reading it the way I think I meant it.
Here is another attempt to say this:
We both know what a platypus is. A platypus, in real life, is an animal because what a platypus is fits the category of animal. A platypus is a creature in D&D because what a platypus is fits the category of a creature in D&D. This is not revolutionary. There is really nothing to argue, which is what makes this such a colossal waste of time, and which Cybren tried to point out.
Everything you've done, since you started disagreeing with me, is try to twist what a platypus is into some vague and nebulous concept that can be substituted for anything you like. But once you do that, it's not a platypus anymore. You can call it a platypus, but it is not what a platypus is.
Anyway, I've had enough of this. Insisting that I meant something I didn't mean, when I am telling you that it is not what I meant, is a waste of time. It's only worse when you are accusing me of putting forward an argument that is so obviously weak, on the face of it, that no-one would put it forward seriously. It's not what I meant, and I think you know it.
It's reminiscent of the old quote (probably mistakenly) attributed to Abraham Lincoln:
1: If you consider a tail to be a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?
2: Five.
1: Wrong. It has four. Considering a tail to be a leg doesn't make it a leg.
So, how do you know a tail is a tail? You tell me.
Because you now what a tail is? Because you know the definition of a tail? Say it however you want.
The reason you know what a platypus is, is because you know what a platypus is. From there, you can determine that:
* it is an animal
* it is not a garden tool
* it is not a word
* in D&D, it's a creature
So the basis is not specifically that it is an animal IRL. The basis is the concept of what a platypus is. That's why I started with asking you to pick an example, X, of an animal. Because most people will pick an animal and most animals turn out to be creatures in D&D. Not because they are animals, in other words the categorization of them as animals does not cause their categorization in D&D. But because of what they are.
I'm done with this. I enjoy pedantry, but this is absurd. I am telling you what I mean and what I don't mean, and you are just stubbornly repeating the same false accusation.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Anyway, I've had enough of this. Insisting that I meant something I didn't mean, when I am telling you that it is not what I meant, is a waste of time.
I'm not Insisting that you mean anything. I'm confronting you with your own words & logic.
- to claim the reason it's a creature (in game), is because it's a creature (in game) - is tautologic (opposite to being the reason)
- to claim the reason it's a creature (in game), is because it's a creature (IRL) - is disproven by a jubjub bird being a creature in game
- to claim the reason it can't be anything else then a creature (in game), is because it's a creature (IRL) - is disproven by the bard Louie Carol, and his nonsense creature, the Platypus
You can claim you don't mean the 3rd dot,
But you can't claim you don't mean the 3rd dot, so you're right -- as all 3 dots are wrong.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
I'm not Insisting that you mean anything. I'm confronting you with your own words & logic.
- to claim the reason it's a creature (in game), is because it's a creature (in game) - is tautologic (opposite to being the reason)
- to claim the reason it's a creature (in game), is because it's a creature (IRL) - is disproven by a jubjub bird being a creature in game
- to claim the reason it can't be anything else then a creature (in game), is because it's a creature (IRL) - is disproven by the bard Louie Carol, and his nonsense creature, the Platypus
You can claim you don't mean the 3rd dot,
But you can't claim you don't mean the 3rd dot, so you're right -- as all 3 dots are wrong.
You've just done it again. You're asserting that those three dots are my claims. None of them is my claim.
The first dot is not my claim. It's how you've interpreted my claim.
The second dot is (1) not my claim, and (2) your argument against is illogical. The fact that orcs are creatures in D&D is not proof that lions are not.
The third dot is also not my claim.
So, you do not understand my claims at all. I am the one making the claims, and I am telling you these are not them.
Here's the bottom line:
Were a platypus to appear in D&D, it would be a creature. If you disagree with this, then there is a discussion to be had.
If your only beef is with my reasons, then you need to first understand my reasons before there is any conversation to be had. You do not understand my reasons. You supply reasons that are not mine, and then you proceed to defeat the straw man that you've erected. The truth is, the arguments you are attributed to me are so obviously false that there's really no need. You can stop there, because they're obviously not true.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
@BurgerBeast - qube's point is that there is no a priori reason why a platypus in D&D would be a creature other than that it is a creature (in real life, fiction, or whatever doesn't matter). So you're taking a creature and putting it in D&D and saying it can't be anything other than a creature because it is one... that's just circular reasoning.
Basically you are saying "the test for whether something is a creature or not is whether it is a creature," which I assume you then want us to apply to attacks? I'm just not seeing how this is even worth consideration.
That said, I do agree with you that the test for whether something is an attack in the PHB does not strictly exclude anything that doesn't pass the test, though it is, I would argue, implied by the common understanding of such tests.
That there are exceptions does not negate the implication that failing the test is a strong indicator that something is not an attack as far as the game is concerned. While it is a DM's prerogative to make rulings about what is or is not an attack when something is in question (e.g. cutting words vs. sanctuary), the more exceptions to the test you make, the harder it becomes to stay consistent and for players to make decisions based on the RAW.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
coolAlias
@BurgerBeast - qube's point is that there is no a priori reason why a platypus in D&D would be a creature other than that it is a creature (in real life, fiction, or whatever doesn't matter). So you're taking a creature and putting it in D&D and saying it can't be anything other than a creature because it is one... that's just circular reasoning.
I agree though. There is no a priori reason that a platypus would be a creature in D&D. But a platypus would be a creature in D&D.
Quote:
Basically you are saying "the test for whether something is a creature or not is whether it is a creature," which I assume you then want us to apply to attacks? I'm just not seeing how this is even worth consideration.
It's not, if you take it the way you're taking it. I'm saying that a platypus is a creature because it matches the definition of (i.e. is) a creature.
You tell me why a platypus, were it to appear in D&D, would be a creature. Because it appears that no matter what I say, you'll just continue to (disingenuously) reduce it to an a priori. But it's not. For that matter, tell me why a platypus is an animal in real life, and do so in a way that is not an a priori.
I'm saying there's a reason that a platypus is an animal, and it's not a priori. But when I try to explain it you reply with "that's an a priori." Well then why doesn't it work on a fork? Because a fork doesn't meet the definition of a creature. That's why. Is that an a priori? Or are we just playing?
If you take this reasoning all the way, then ultimately you're saying that there is no good reason to consider a platypus an animal, so we need to stop doing it. That's why this conversation is ultimately absurd. It's purely semantic and rhetorical.
Quote:
That said, I do agree with you that the test for whether something is an attack in the PHB does not strictly exclude anything that doesn't pass the test, though it is, I would argue, implied by the common understanding of such tests.
If you'd said "by the common misunderstanding" of such tests, I'd agree.
Quote:
That there are exceptions does not negate the implication that failing the test is a strong indicator that something is not an attack as far as the game is concerned.
This statement is correct. But the implication is not there. Some people are insisting that the text game cues gives a strong indication. It does not.
Quote:
While it is a DM's prerogative to make rulings about what is or is not an attack when something is in question (e.g. cutting words vs. sanctuary), the more exceptions to the test you make, the harder it becomes to stay consistent and for players to make decisions based on the RAW.
This is a bogus argument. How do you know if something is or is not an attack outside of the game? Apply the same logic. If there is confusion, the DM will explain his logic, and it generally will be at least as clear as the book.
[Edit: what's being proposed is a narcissistic (that was supposed to say nihilistic, but take your pick), naive relativist denial of empiricism. For example:
A: that's a fork.
B: how do you know?
A: becauae I know what fork is!
B: that's an a priori!
A: Because it matches the definition of a fork.
B: that's an a priori!
A: because this thing I'm pointing at meets the criteria of a fork.
B: a priori!
A: well, I can see it. And I know what a fork is. Combining these, I can tell you it's a fork.
B: A priori! Argument from authority!
Yeah... no.]
[Edit 2: What's the endgame, here? It would appear to be this:
A platypus is not a priori a platypus, therefore a platypus is not a platypus.]
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I agree though. There is no a priori reason that a platypus would be a creature in D&D. But a platypus would be a creature in D&D.
It's not, if you take it the way you're taking it. I'm saying that a platypus is a creature because it matches the definition of (i.e. is) a creature.
You tell me why a platypus, were it to appear in D&D, would be a creature. Because it appears that no matter what I say, you'll just continue to (disingenuously) reduce it to an a priori. But it's not. For that matter, tell me why a platypus is an animal in real life, and do so in a way that is not an a priori.
I'm saying there's a reason that a platypus is an animal, and it's not a priori. But when I try to explain it you reply with "that's an a priori." Well then why doesn't it work on a fork? Because a fork doesn't meet the definition of a creature. That's why. Is that an a priori? Or are we just playing?
If you take this reasoning all the way, then ultimately you're saying that there is no good reason to consider a platypus an animal, so we need to stop doing it. That's why this conversation is ultimately absurd. It's purely semantic and rhetorical.
That's what I mean, though - it is a pointless argument, and probably moreso because I believe that the analogy is flawed.
An attack is a type of action, and which actions are considered attacks are defined either as passing the test or explicitly called out as an attack. Other actions may be considered attacks at the DM's discretion.
So with the platypus - it is a creature because that's what it is (whether due to real life, DM introducing it as a creature, or whatever), but what type of creature? We could write a test that would tell us if, in general, any given creature is an animal as opposed to something else like a monstrosity, and then apply that test to the platypus. Failing the "animal" test wouldn't preclude the platypus still being classified as an animal, but it would strongly suggest to many people that it is then not an animal.
As for the stuff about a priori, I admit to using the term incorrectly as I intended it to be inclusive of definitions, so if you define something as a fork (or creature or what have you), it is a fork by definition, which is what I was getting at.
From what I have understood of your replies, you are arguing that if something doesn't match the definition of a fork, that leaves us none the wiser as to whether that object is a fork, whereas others (including myself) are saying that by implication of not matching the definition, the object is unless otherwise specified not a fork.
I don't see what is so controversial about that. I mean, you're right, we can't be absolutely 100% positive that it is not a fork, but 99.9% of the time, we'll probably be right.
As to whether something is or is not an attack if it neither passes the test in the PHB nor is explicitly called an attack, that is up to the DM. Yes, in some cases (e.g. invisibility) I would argue that e.g. dragon's breath should be considered an attack, but in others (perhaps sanctuary) I would argue not. The issue is that the game term "attack" does not match exactly what we may consider that word to mean in plain English, as even in plain English there is a lot of room for interpretation as to what might be considered an attack.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dalebert
I know the answer
Dalebert you big troll, tell us the answer already! People are getting antsy and debating in circles, let's settle this once and for all.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Coffee_Dragon
Dalebert you big troll, tell us the answer already! People are getting antsy and debating in circles, let's settle this once and for all.
Lol, yeah, I don't know why I let myself get dragged back in, especially since Dalebert knows the answer. They probably just enjoy watching the rest of us fools squirm back and forth and want to get through as many bags of popcorn as they can before it comes to an end.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
How do you know if something is or is not an attack outside of the game?
This is not something that matters outside of the game. There are no questions that are answered by determining if something is or is not an "attack" outside of the game.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
coolAlias
That's what I mean, though - it is a pointless argument, and probably moreso because I believe that the analogy is flawed.
An attack is a type of action, and which actions are considered attacks are defined either as passing the test or explicitly called out as an attack. Other actions may be considered attacks at the DM's discretion.
No, that is not true, for two reasons. (1) Attacks are not defined in this way. (2) Even if they were, it would be an operational definition, which entirely misses the point of what an attack is (despite what faculty psychology would tell us).
It's the equivalent of supplying a method of recognizing happiness. Happiness can be spotted because the people smile and laugh a lot and say "yes" if you ask them if they're happy. Except that is not what happiness is. Happiness is a particular feeling that cannot always be determined by behaviour.
Quote:
So with the platypus - it is a creature because that's what it is (whether due to real life, DM introducing it as a creature, or whatever), but what type of creature?
I never made a claim about the type of creature that it is (in D&D), ever. In any case, that looks like suspiciously like the same literal argument I made, which was dismissed as an a priori.
Quote:
Also,
We could write a test that would tell us if, in general, any given creature is an animal as opposed to something else like a monstrosity, and then apply that test to the platypus. Failing the "animal" test wouldn't preclude the platypus still being classified as an animal, but it would strongly suggest to many people that it is then not an animal.
I'm not sure where this obsession with "tests" comes from. How about definitions? Tests reduce the thing to something it is not. A definition at least tries to avoid this.
Quote:
As for the stuff about a priori, I admit to using the term incorrectly as I intended it to be inclusive of definitions, so if you define something as a fork (or creature or what have you), it is a fork by definition, which is what I was getting at.
And I am saying that I am not the one defining the fork. The fork is objectively a fork, whether we call it a tree or a chainsaw, or anything.
Quote:
From what I have understood of your replies, you are arguing that if something doesn't match the definition of a fork, that leaves us none the wiser as to whether that object is a fork, whereas others (including myself) are saying that by implication of not matching the definition, the object is unless otherwise specified not a fork.
No, my point is that what is given in the text is not a definition. If it was, it would (hopefully) be a complete definition, because that's the point of a definition. But a test is not a definition. Examples abound.
Quote:
I don't see what is so controversial about that. I mean, you're right, we can't be absolutely 100% positive that it is not a fork, but 99.9% of the time, we'll probably be right.
I'm good with that. I draw the line when someone says it's 100% correct. That's the problem. Also, you'd have no way of knowing the percentage chance, unless you had access to every known potential example.
Quote:
As to whether something is or is not an attack if it neither passes the test in the PHB nor is explicitly called an attack, that is up to the DM. Yes, in some cases (e.g. invisibility) I would argue that e.g. dragon's breath should be considered an attack, but in others (perhaps sanctuary) I would argue not. The issue is that the game term "attack" does not match exactly what we may consider that word to mean in plain English, as even in plain English there is a lot of room for interpretation as to what might be considered an attack.
I'd like to hear why you think the game term "attack" does not perfectly match the regular definition of the word. I would argue that more or less every term used in the PHB matches the English definition of the word unless the rules tell us otherwise. In this case they do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
This is not something that matters outside of the game. There are no questions that are answered by determining if something is or is not an "attack" outside of the game.
Tell that to a lawyer. Of course it matters.
But even if it didn't, you're just dodging the question by saying it is irrelevant. I'd prefer that you answer the question.
If you watch an incident between two people, and then one of them comes to you and says: "Did you see that? He attacked me!"
Then how do you know if that's true?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Here's the bottom line:
Were a platypus to appear in D&D, it would be a creature. If you disagree with this, then there is a discussion to be had.
I disagree with that. Perhaps you missed when I asked you
My next question:
you will perhaps find it odd that I added "supposing we're talking about the thing from the previous question your character encounteers" in the above. But ... how about instead of representing a creature you encounter, what if the DM invents a NPC bard called Louie Carol, who writes nonsense poems about (in game) non existant creatures, and writes one about a nonsense creature, a platypus.
I hope, you would answer that was no. And you will probbably follow that by pointing out you don't care if it appears as myth
Oppositly, what you seem to want to a ask "Were a platypus to appear in D&D as creature, it would be a creature?" (opposite to "Were a platypus to appear in D&D as nonsense creature a bard made up, it would be a creature?", or "Were a platypus to appear in D&D as illusion, it would be a creature?" or ... )
And that's the problem: - asking the question in a broad way, gets you answers you don't like
- Yet, asking the question in such a way, that there's only one response, you're no longer asking the question, you're asking to respond with whatever you twisted the quetion to give.
- - - - - -
As coolAlias hinted: I still find it odd you have no trouble that a platypus is animals IRL, but you don't care what it is in game (as long as it's a creature of some sort). When you introduce it as monstrosity, you get "Platypus: animal IRL, not an animal in game "
... kind of breaking your point: if we substitute animal by attack, you ended up arguing it's OK if it sorta maybe looked like what it is IRL, but pfft, the rules around them ... that' don't really matter.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Edit 2: Here's my better answer, and you can ignore the rest:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
I disagree with that.
Then you don't know what a platypus is.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
As coolAlias hinted: I still find it odd you have no trouble that a platypus is animals IRL, but you don't care what it is in game (as long as it's a creature of some sort).
What does this have to do with caring? And what are you talking about. I'm saying that if the platypus from real life was put into the game narration, it would appear as a creature. Do you deny this?
Because here's how it looks to me:
You deny that a platypus is a platypus. Once you do that, I'm sorry, but you get what you get. Go ahead and play that game, but stop trying to drag me down with you. You're denying reality. Have fun with that.
Quote:
When you introduce it as monstrosity, you get "Platypus: animal IRL, not an animal in game "
Edit: I never said that a platypus is an animal in D&D. I said it would be a creature in D&D if it did appear in D&D. /endedit
5e does not define animals, so far as I know. I'm not sure what you're driving at. You are adding things and making things up that are not coming from me.
I've rarely come across this sort of intentional ignorance. I'm more or less at a loss.
A platypus is a platypus. It's one of these: platypus.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
No, that is not true, for two reasons. (1) Attacks are not defined in this way. (2) Even if they were, it would be an operational definition, which entirely misses the point of what an attack is (despite what faculty psychology would tell us).
It's the equivalent of supplying a method of recognizing happiness. Happiness can be spotted because the people smile and laugh a lot and say "yes" if you ask them if they're happy. Except that is not what happiness is. Happiness is a particular feeling that cannot always be determined by behaviour.
I never made a claim about the type of creature that it is (in D&D), ever. In any case, that looks like suspiciously like the same literal argument I made, which was dismissed as an a priori.
Never claimed you made that claim. The point of introducing a question of creature type vs. simply being a creature is that it is a more appropriate analogy.
When questioning whether something is an attack, if that something is not some sort of action (not necessarily the game term), then we already know it can't be an attack. Asking if a monkey is an attack makes no sense, just as asking if Platypus, Inc. is a creature makes no sense.
So for something to be uncertain whether it is or is not an attack (or a certain type of creature), it must be of a nature that it is at least possible i.e. it is an action of some sort (or a creature).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I'm not sure where this obsession with "tests" comes from. How about definitions? Tests reduce the thing to something it is not. A definition at least tries to avoid this.
The "obsession" with tests comes from the fact that that is all the PHB gives us to go on when it is in doubt whether something is or is not an attack. If there was never any doubt, there would be no need for any tests nor discussion on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
And I am saying that I am not the one defining the fork. The fork is objectively a fork, whether we call it a tree or a chainsaw, or anything.
No, my point is that what is given in the text is not a definition. If it was, it would (hopefully) be a complete definition, because that's the point of a definition. But a test is not a definition. Examples abound.
No, it is not a definition, you are correct. A definition of the word "attack" in English, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:
1: to set upon or work against forcefully
2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
Would you agree that angrily shouting at someone with bitter, personal attacks breaks invisibility?
It is an attack by the English definition, after all, but I believe that it would be ludicrous to rule that way in D&D. This is the basis for my claim that D&D "attack" does not have exactly the same definition as the general English word. I admit that my interpretation may be the incorrect ruling, but I've never played with anyone who would rule otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I'm good with that. I draw the line when someone says it's 100% correct. That's the problem. Also, you'd have no way of knowing the percentage chance, unless you had access to every known potential example.
Unless whatever definition or test one was using was horribly inaccurate, the infinite other things in the universe that are, in fact, not the thing in question vastly outweigh any number of false negatives. Even the most liberal interpretation of the word "attack" providing us with the most false negatives possible pales in comparison to infinity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I'd like to hear why you think the game term "attack" does not perfectly match the regular definition of the word. I would argue that more or less every term used in the PHB matches the English definition of the word unless the rules tell us otherwise. In this case they do not.
Addressed above. Further evidence can be had from spells like hex - is the extra 1d6 damage added to a dragonborn's breath weapon attack? If so, to every affected creature, or just one? How about when I verbally assault you? Technically, one could argue that if you heard my words you were "hit with an attack," but that is clearly not RAI.
Perhaps every possible action is perfectly clear to you whether it is or is not an attack in D&D terms simply by the English definition of the word, but for many of us, either some cases exist that are not perfectly clear or the result of which causes some weird rules interactions that seem clearly not intended.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Then you don't know what a platypus is.
I know what a platypus is, you nitwit. But I also know:
There are ways to someone (or a platypus, in this case) into a game, without it being a creature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Edit: I never said that a platypus is an animal in D&D. I said it would be a creature in D&D if it did appear in D&D. /endedit
Indeed. you answered this question positive, if you recall
If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would anything other than animal be acceptable?
(dunno where I'm going with that. Me and others have pointed out toward the posibility the DM categorizes it as monstrosity - in light of the historical context of the platypus; I'm wondering about your view)
You yourself indicate that the DM is free to interpret a platypus how he wants to. After all, when a druid can talk to beasts, but not to monstrosities ... you have indicated it's OK if he's not be able to talk to the platypus.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Is, in the end, not the platypus an analogy for something you do IRL that cause harm (or something in those lines)?
So, like the platypus being a creature, doing something that causes harm is an action.
But, as far as the nitty bitty rules go, just like a talk to beasts might not be able to talk to a platypus, the action might not be an attack
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Tell that to a lawyer. Of course it matters.
I am a lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
But even if it didn't, you're just dodging the question by saying it is irrelevant. I'd prefer that you answer the question.
Your preferences mean very little to me. It's a dumb question.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
coolAlias
Never claimed you made that claim. The point of introducing a question of creature type vs. simply being a creature is that it is a more appropriate analogy.
I wasn't trying to draw an analogy to attacks. I was only trying to make the point that we can use reason to reach conclusions.
Quote:
When questioning whether something is an attack, if that something is not some sort of action (not necessarily the game term), then we already know it can't be an attack. Asking if a monkey is an attack makes no sense, just as asking if Platypus, Inc. is a creature makes no sense.
This line of reasoning has been put forward before, but I don't find it convincing. Adding the phrase "If there's ever any doubt about X,..." does not mean that what follows automatically removes doubt. It definitely signals that the person who wrote it apparently thinks it does, but that's a point I've already conceded.
So, for example, I might say: "If there's ever any doubt about whether something is an animal: if it is a monkey, it is an animal."
The phrase does nothing.
Quote:
So for something to be uncertain whether it is or is not an attack (or a certain type of creature), it must be of a nature that it is at least possible i.e. it is an action of some sort (or a creature).
Agreed. Combining this with the fact that what follows after the phrase does not remove any doubt in many cases... we're left with doubt in many cases.
Quote:
The "obsession" with tests comes from the fact that that is all the PHB gives us to go on when it is in doubt whether something is or is not an attack. If there was never any doubt, there would be no need for any tests nor discussion on the matter.
And if all the text have you was: if it's a monkey, it's an animal, and you extended that to mean: if it is not a monkey, it is not an animal, you'd be making a mistake.
Quote:
No, it is not a definition, you are correct. A definition of the word "attack" in English, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:
1: to set upon or work against forcefully
2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
Would you agree that angrily shouting at someone with bitter, personal attacks breaks invisibility?
The problem here is that you're not using the dictionary properly. Those are three definitions, and not every use of the word of the word attack must satisfy all three definitions. That's what context is for. So if I told you: Donald Trump attacked Barrack Obama's character, would you suggest this meant he physically assaulted Obama's character? -of course not.
The context of "attack" in this passage of the PHB is there to see (I'm AFB, but it is the three contexts given in the PHB: something like: "whether you are attacking with a melee weapon, as part of casting a spell,...").
Quote:
It is an attack by the English definition, after all, but I believe that it would be ludicrous to rule that way in D&D. This is the basis for my claim that D&D "attack" does not have exactly the same definition as the general English word. I admit that my interpretation may be the incorrect ruling, but I've never played with anyone who would rule otherwise.
It would be ludicrous precisely because the context tells us that definition 2 is not the definition that is being used.
Quote:
Unless whatever definition or test one was using was horribly inaccurate, the infinite other things in the universe that are, in fact, not the thing in question vastly outweigh any number of false negatives. Even the most liberal interpretation of the word "attack" providing us with the most false negatives possible pales in comparison to infinity.
This is an assumption that is not a part of what is written. The number of animals that are not monkeys pales in comparison to the infinitely vast number of things that are not both monkeys and animals. But when you assume that a dog is not an animal, or a platypus is not an animal, you're still wrong.
Quote:
Addressed above. Further evidence can be had from spells like hex - is the extra 1d6 damage added to a dragonborn's breath weapon attack? If so, to every affected creature, or just one? How about when I verbally assault you? Technically, one could argue that if you heard my words you were "hit with an attack," but that is clearly not RAI.
I say, as I always have, that assuming this is not already called out in the rules (AFB), it's up to the DM. I think the weight of the evidence suggests that this is not the intention and there are many reasons for the DM to say no in this case.
Quote:
Perhaps every possible action is perfectly clear to you whether it is or is not an attack in D&D terms simply by the English definition of the word, but for many of us, either some cases exist that are not perfectly clear or the result of which causes some weird rules interactions that seem clearly not intended.
Every possible action is not clear to me. But this doesn't change the fact that the book makes does not clarify it, either. You don't get to change what the book says just because if you didn't change it, it wouldn't be clear. It's not clear. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
I know what a platypus is, you nitwit. But I also know:
But if you put a hologram of a platypus into the game, you haven't put a platypus into the game, because a hologram of a platypus is not a platypus.
Quote:
There are ways to someone (or a platypus, in this case) into a game, without it being a creature.
No, there are not. A hologram is not a platypus. A literary reference to a platypus is not a platypus. A statue of a platypus is not a platypus.
Quote:
Indeed. you answered this question positive, if you recall
If you were to represent a platypus in D&D, would anything other than animal be acceptable?
(dunno where I'm going with that. Me and others have pointed out toward the posibility the DM categorizes it as monstrosity - in light of the historical context of the platypus; I'm wondering about your view)
That's because a platypus would be a creature in D&D. There are creatures in D&D that are not animals.
Quote:
You yourself indicate that the DM is free to interpret a platypus how he wants to. After all, when a druid can talk to beasts, but not to monstrosities ... you have indicated it's OK if he's not be able to talk to the platypus.
No, I did not say the DM is free to interpret a platypus however he wants to. I said a platypus is a creature. But being a creature does not preclude other possibilities that are also creatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
I am a lawyer.
Well you're still wrong in this in this case. Lawyers are not infallible. Case in point.
Quote:
Your preferences mean very little to me. It's a dumb question.
We're back to this, again?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy_Lee
This is exactly why the idea of an attack needs to be mechanically clear. I'm fine with defining attacks as anything that makes an attack roll. But people have to be willing to accept the consequences of that mechanic, and not change their minds on a case by case basis.
I'm looking at you, Crawford.
It's fortunate for all of us that there's an ability immediately following which applies to those non-attack abilities which deal damage through saving throws. Evasion says hello.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxWilson
Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.
The actual flow chart is much simpler:
Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.
The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.
This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.
Grapple doesn't hit the subject, which is why Hex doesn't work with it. "whenever you hit it with an attack" (PHB 251)
It is still an attack, per the entry on grapple. "you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple." (PHB 195)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy_Lee
An example of a trick that probably ought not work. A warlock casts Eyebite, then has a friend cast invisibility on him. The warlock can now perform three different Save or Bad Thing effects against foes, one each round. Unless the foes can find him while he's invisible, there's little they can do.
To be fair, Panicked ends if the target can't see you and is more than 60 feet away. So it's more limited to one of two bad things.
As an aside, in no system ever devised are rules assumed to do anything beyond what they state. To start now would be to abandon all reason.