-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
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.
It's so interesting that you are SO close to the answer, but you somehow yet are unable to see that last inch.
You ask
Were a platypus to appear in D&D, it would be a creature?
So, I ask you
Were a platypus to appear in D&D as an illusion, it would be a creature?
That is litterly YOUR question, with the exception that you do not specify as what the platypus appears; I simply chose to fill that in differently then you. Your entire response is based on the silently presumtion that the platypus appears HAS TO BE a creature -- yet that's a VERY important distinction. Logically it's the difference between
If I presume the pope is a women then the pope is a woman.
(a tautology) and
Is the pope a woman? the answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes)
(hiding important presumptions to reach the conclusion you want, opposite to the actual conclusion). Stop with that silent presumption:
Were a platypus to appear in D&D as a creature, it would be a creature?
And see how your logic falls through. The fact that you even go out of your way to say ...
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.
Show how yuo are so close to the answer
You are right at that those aren't platypusses ... but that's not what you were asking, was it?
They are a way for a platypus to make an appearance in D&D, which was what you were asking.
They just don't appear the way according to your silent assumption.
Quote:
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.
I'm sorry mate, but you were still the one who answered
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)
Positive. Monstrosity are creatures, sure, but there are game-mechanical different from cats, dogs, etc ... (a druid that can speak with beasts can't (nccecairly) speak with monstrosities).
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
It's so interesting that you are SO close to the answer, but you somehow yet are unable to see that last inch.
What is so amazing is that I have known all along what you are trying to say, but that "1 inch move" was never there to make. The only reason you think I am incapable of making the 1-inch move is because you made it when you changed my argument.
My assumption was always that a platypus is an animal. You can go ahead and call that a "hidden" assumption all you like, but there are two problems with that: (1) it is a bigger, and much more disingenuous, assumption to assume that someone means "anything you want to call a platypus" when he says platypus; (2) it was never, ever hidden. This whole thing began when I said: "pick any animal, X, ...", so I specifified, from the very beginning, that X is an animal.
You then made the unsavoury move of suggesting that I had somehow made an obvious error. You said that, for example, if X is an illusion of platypus, then I am wrong. So I pointed out that in my original statement, X must be an animal.
It is a very simple, straightforward, and to my mind unarguable point.
And you've wasted all of this time on a mission that could have ended before it started, if you'd only read my post (the one that started all of this) with the absolute minimum generosity required of an honest reader.
Quote:
You ask
Were a platypus to appear in D&D, it would be a creature?
So, I ask you
Were a platypus to appear in D&D as an illusion, it would be a creature?
And I told you that this does not refute my point at all, because a platypus is not an illusion. This is not a refutation of my argument. This is you changing my argument.
Note that I did not specify what "appear" means, nor what "D&D" means, nor what "creature" means, either.
I could have made the same move that you made, if I was petty and only interested in winning this argument, by saying: "yes, an illusion of a platypus is a creature." Why? Because an illusion of a platypus is an illusion of a creature. You did not specify that a creature can't be an illusion of a creature! Of course this would be bulls@#t. But it's what you did.
Quote:
That is litterly YOUR question, with the exception that you do not specify as what the platypus appears; I simply chose to fill that in differently then you.
See above.
Once you chose to "fill it in differently," you changed my argument.
Quote:
Your entire response is based on the silently presumtion that the platypus appears HAS TO BE a creature -- yet that's a VERY important distinction.
No, it was based on the presumption that a platypus has to be an animal. But, yes, my argument does depend on a platypus being a platypus. That's been my point all along. If you change the meaning of the word, you change the argument. At that point, it is not my argument anymore. It is a straw man argument.
As I said, I could have played you bulls@#t game, too, and I could have said: "Yes, an illusion of a platypus is a creature." Why? "Because an illusion of a platypus is an illusion of a creature. You never specified what you mean by creature, so a creature could be an illusion of a creature." This is bulls@#t. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it.
Quote:
Logically it's the difference between
If I presume the pope is a women then the pope is a woman.
(a tautology) and
Is the pope a woman? the answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes)
No, it's not like this at all. It's more like this:
A: "A fork is a dog."
B: "No it is not."
A: "Yes it is."
B: "Wait a minute. A fork is a utensil. A dog is an animal. Utensils and animals are different things."
A: "That's ridiculous! I did not specify that a fork must be a utensil! I only said "a fork," so if a fork appeared as a German shepherd, the statement would be true! Therefore you are wrong!"
B: "But a fork is not a German shepherd."
A: "I did not specify what it is, so you do not have the right to make that assumption."
B: ...
Quote:
(hiding important presumptions to reach the conclusion you want, opposite to the actual conclusion). Stop with that silent presumption:
Were a platypus to appear in D&D as a creature, it would be a creature?
Edit: note that the question, as you have presented it, is tautological, and therefore rhetorical, and therefore pointless. Pretty ironic that you are insisting that my initial question was tautological but now you're suggesting that I amend it into a true tautology (Abraham Lincoln's refutation notwithstanding)
You are conflating "animal" and "creature." That a platypus is automatically a creature (in D&D) because it is an animal (IRL) was not only never a given, it is in fact false. The point I was trying to make is that a platypus can be determined to be both an animal IRL and a creature in D&D independent of a relationship between animals IRL and creatures in D&D, because each determination can be made independently.
Quote:
And see how your logic falls through. The fact that you even go out of your way to say ...
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.
Show how yuo are so close to the answer
You are right at that those aren't platypusses ... but that's not what you were asking, was it?
They are a way for a platypus to make an appearance in D&D, which was what you were asking.
No, it is not what I was asking. This is you making that false accusation again. I asked for a way for platypuses to appear, not for a way for illusions of platypuses to appear.
Quote:
They just don't appear the way according to your silent assumption.
"Silent assumption" here being: a platypus is a platypus.
Quote:
I'm sorry mate, but you were still the one who answered
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)
Positive. Monstrosity are creatures, sure, but there are game-mechanical different from cats, dogs, etc ... (a druid that can speak with beasts can't (nccecairly) speak with monstrosities).
Yes, because monstrosities are creatures, and I only claimed that platypuses would appear as creatures. There is no trickery here.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
One of the things I am trying to point out is that the DM is free to use an attack roll for the water in one case, and a saving throw in another, and multiple attack rolls in another... but under the view that it is only an attack if there is an attack roll, this becomes a problem, because now the act of dumping water interacts differently with other game elements when the DM treats it differently.
The reason the rules need to tell us what an 'attack' is, is because other rules elements interact with 'attack'; invisibility ends, hex damage applies, Uncanny Dodge applies while Evasion does not, etc.
These other rules elements are dependent on 'attack', as defined by the 5E rules. Whether it makes sense or not is a separate issue!
For something to interact with these things, then it must be defined as an attack in the rules. If it is not so defined (or to put it another way, if the rules are 'silent on the issue') then it does not interact.
For example, Uncanny Dodge says, "Starting at 5th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack’s damage against you". Since this is about the rules, not about natural language, then in order for Uncanny Dodge to be used, what 'hit' them must be 'an attack' as defined by the rules. If what 'hits' then has not been defined by the rules as 'an attack', then Uncanny Dodge does not apply.
By definition, if the rules are 'silent on the issue' on whether or not breath weapons are an attack, then that very silence means that breath weapons have definitely not been defined by the rules as 'an attack', therefore Uncanny Dodge does not apply.
Any time the rules are 'silent on the issue' then they have not met the standard, which is to be actually defined as 'an attack'.
Quote:
For this reason, while still preserving the DM's right to use whatever mechanics he deems appropriate, it is better for each DM to consider the act either an attack or not an attack at all times (within a given campaign), and not have it be an attack in one circumstance and not an attack in another. This way, spell effects that end when someone attacks do not start to behave randomly in the world.
When we are adjudicating whether something that is already in the rules is 'an attack', we already know the answer. Because we already know if the breath weapon (or whatever) in question has an attack roll then it is 'an attack', if it is specifically called out as 'an attack' then it is, but if it has neither then it has not been defined as an attack. If it had, you would be able to quote it. If the rules are 'silent on the issue', then there has been nothing defining it as 'an attack' so it does not interact with game elements which call for things which have been defined as 'an attack', either by specific wording or by using an attack roll.
But if the DM is introducing something that the rules do not already cover, like tipping boiling water off the battlements onto soldiers climbing up ladders, then the DM will make the determination of whether it counts as 'an attack' at the moment he introduces it as a game element. If the DM has it work by an attack roll then it is 'an attack'. If the DM doesn't have it use the attack roll mechanic but nevertheless defines it as counting as 'an attack', then it is. If he does neither, then it has not been defined as 'an attack and will not interact with other game rules as if it were.
If the DM defines his new game element as using an attack roll versus a single creature but using a saving throw versus multiple creatures (without defining it as 'an attack' in that circumstance) then he's made a poor choice as a DM! That's not 5E's fault, that's his fault! He should make consistent decisions in his game.
Sure, different DMs may independently introduce the same concept (boiling water/battlements) and end up using different game rules to represent that concept, so that some DMs define it as 'an attack' and some do not. But the players have no legitimate expectation that whether or not it counts as 'an attack' depends on their opinion! As always, it is a game rule element and if they want to know if it counts as 'an attack' in rules terms the solution is to ask the DM how he's defined it in his game! Therefore, there will be a consistent answer for that game, which is all that players can ask for when the DM introduces a new concept or game element.
TL;DR: if something has no written definition as 'an attack', either by using the attack roll mechanic or by specific written exception, then it does not interact with other game elements which require 'an attack' as if it had been defined as 'an attack'.
If the rules are 'silent on the issue', then by definition it has not been defined as 'an attack' and cannot be used as if it had been defined as 'an attack'.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arial Black
The reason the rules need to tell us what an 'attack' is, is because other rules elements interact with 'attack'; invisibility ends, hex damage applies, Uncanny Dodge applies while Evasion does not, etc.
These other rules elements are dependent on 'attack', as defined by the 5E rules. Whether it makes sense or not is a separate issue!
For something to interact with these things, then it must be defined as an attack in the rules. If it is not so defined (or to put it another way, if the rules are 'silent on the issue') then it does not interact.
I understand that we need a definition for attack. But the fact that we need a definition does not mean we have one. There isn't one.
Quote:
By definition, if the rules are 'silent on the issue' on whether or not breath weapons are an attack, then that very silence means that breath weapons have definitely not been defined by the rules as 'an attack', therefore Uncanny Dodge does not apply.
This is false. Silence is not an assertion of the opposite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Quote:
Any time the rules are 'silent on the issue' then they have not met the standard, which is to be actually defined as 'an attack'.
This is a false standard. For example, see PHB 150. Are you saying that an abacus does not add sums in D&D? Because the rules don't say you can use it to add sums. Therefore you can't, right? What about chalk? Can you us chalk to draw on a rock? Because the rules don;t say you can.
No, the truth everything in D&D is assumed to work as it ought to work unless it is overridden by rules. So, take antitoxin, for example. Absent any explanation, the DM would have to think about how it interacts with poisons in the game. But to keep things consistent, the writers introduced a standard. Now DMs must follow it. But if they had not written anything on the matter (as in the case of the abacus or of chalk), we would not then say "antitoxins do nothing."
Quote:
When we are adjudicating whether something that is already in the rules is 'an attack', we already know the answer. Because we already know if the breath weapon (or whatever) in question has an attack roll then it is 'an attack', if it is specifically called out as 'an attack' then it is, but if it has neither then it has not been defined as an attack. If it had, you would be able to quote it. If the rules are 'silent on the issue', then there has been nothing defining it as 'an attack' so it does not interact with game elements which call for things which have been defined as 'an attack', either by specific wording or by using an attack roll.
But if the DM is introducing something that the rules do not already cover, like tipping boiling water off the battlements onto soldiers climbing up ladders, then the DM will make the determination of whether it counts as 'an attack' at the moment he introduces it as a game element. If the DM has it work by an attack roll then it is 'an attack'. If the DM doesn't have it use the attack roll mechanic but nevertheless defines it as counting as 'an attack', then it is. If he does neither, then it has not been defined as 'an attack and will not interact with other game rules as if it were.
If the DM defines his new game element as using an attack roll versus a single creature but using a saving throw versus multiple creatures (without defining it as 'an attack' in that circumstance) then he's made a poor choice as a DM! That's not 5E's fault, that's his fault! He should make consistent decisions in his game.
Sure, different DMs may independently introduce the same concept (boiling water/battlements) and end up using different game rules to represent that concept, so that some DMs define it as 'an attack' and some do not. But the players have no legitimate expectation that whether or not it counts as 'an attack' depends on their opinion! As always, it is a game rule element and if they want to know if it counts as 'an attack' in rules terms the solution is to ask the DM how he's defined it in his game! Therefore, there will be a consistent answer for that game, which is all that players can ask for when the DM introduces a new concept or game element.
TL;DR: if something has no written definition as 'an attack', either by using the attack roll mechanic or by specific written exception, then it does not interact with other game elements which require 'an attack' as if it had been defined as 'an attack'.
If the rules are 'silent on the issue', then by definition it has not been defined as 'an attack' and cannot be used as if it had been defined as 'an attack'.
"Attack" is never defined.
The default is not: anything that is undefined in the rules is not a part of the rules.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
This is just my opinion. You don't have to take this as a ruling. But.... this is how I would interpret the definition of "attack" based on the wording.
Quote:
MAKING AN ATTACK
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target.
Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers.
The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage ar disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities. and other effects can apply penalties as bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack.
You make the attack roll. (the person in question)
On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
>If< there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: >if< you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
1st Part: Examples
2nd Part: Definition
1. Choose a target. //What if I don't get to choose the target? I guess the DM would choose.
2. Determine Modifiers.
3. Resolve the attack. //Do I need to make an attack roll? What about if the attack would hit automatically?
3rd Part: Clarification.
... if ....
Basically, anything that can be considered "an attack" per the English definition can be considered an attack (violence). TECHNICALLY those are just examples.
Technically, it doesn't state anything about what cannot be an attack. Why? Well.... if this was a function, checking for (attack roll) based on (action), if true then (action = attack) //does not mean that an action cannot be an attack without an attack roll tied to it. This means, "Yes it's an attack because you made an attack roll" not "No, it's not an attack because you didn't make an attack roll." Those aren't the same thing.
Technically, anything that the DM (or players for that matter) feels is an attack, is an attack (so long as it fits the English definition).
Technically, it does not state (it implies) that the attacker must make an attack roll. It does not state that the "action" must have an attack roll. Rather, the whenever the actor makes an attack roll, that action is automatically considered to be an attack.
Technically, a healing spell can be treated as a violent act against a target (this means if damage would be dealt) and therefore an attack.
Here's the thing. This makes certain spells/feats more overpowered and certain ones more balanced. But, it's not world shattering.
As an example: most attacks would be considered things that deal damage. Something that impairs a person doesn't necessarily need to be considered violent (a spell is not necessarily violent for instance). So, though a lot of damaging spells would be brought up, not all harmful spells would be brought up. An attack isn't necessarily harmful. An attack is something violent(damaging) directed (intentionally or unintentionally) towards a person, place or object.
-
An alternative ruling would be something like this: all attacks require attack rolls. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that all attacks "have" attack rolls.
This alternatively ruling would be based on the idea that the 3rd part of the definition is read as:
if (action == attack)
{
AttackRoll();
}
.
Basically, it's the same ruling as above (the players and DM decide what constitutes an attack based on whether or not the action is "violent"), but, the attacker must make an attack roll.
I suppose this ruling could potentially harm the balance of the game. Not really that big of a deal imo.
This was longer than I wanted it to be. I apologize for how long this post was. But, I hope it helped somebody to make up their mind.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
TL;DR (the whole thread)
For great entertainment go straight from reading page 1 to reading this page where nerds are talking about platypus, Abraham Lincoln, and tautologies.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Theodoxus
.
I didn't read the RAW thread because it always degrades into unsubstantiated opinion, as this will as well - but it's pretty easy to determine what an attack is.
....Prophetic
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I've no idea why the **** people are talking abput Platypii, but it's ****ing glorious.
*Insert Michael Jackson Eating Popcorn here*
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaz
I've no idea why the **** people are talking abput Platypii, but it's ****ing glorious.
*Insert Michael Jackson Eating Popcorn here*
Platypi is incorrect. (For that matter, so is platypuses, though - so I was wrong, too.) It's supposed to be platypus or platypodes. Apparently this is because it is a Greek word (not Latin).
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I like how in 2 posts, this thread has suddenly become more educational than the last like 15 pages.
That's an awesome bit of pub trivia, cheers!
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bobkin
This is just my opinion. You don't have to take this as a ruling. But.... this is how I would interpret the definition of "attack" based on the wording.
1st Part: Examples
2nd Part: Definition
1. Choose a target. //What if I don't get to choose the target? I guess the DM would choose.
2. Determine Modifiers.
3. Resolve the attack. //Do I need to make an attack roll? What about if the attack would hit automatically?
3rd Part: Clarification.
... if ....
Basically, anything that can be considered "an attack" per the English definition can be considered an attack (violence). TECHNICALLY those are just examples.
Technically, it doesn't state anything about what cannot be an attack. Why? Well.... if this was a function, checking for (attack roll) based on (action), if true then (action = attack) //does not mean that an action cannot be an attack without an attack roll tied to it. This means, "Yes it's an attack because you made an attack roll" not "No, it's not an attack because you didn't make an attack roll." Those aren't the same thing.
Technically, anything that the DM (or players for that matter) feels is an attack, is an attack (so long as it fits the English definition).
Technically, it does not state (it implies) that the attacker must make an attack roll. It does not state that the "action" must have an attack roll. Rather, the whenever the actor makes an attack roll, that action is automatically considered to be an attack.
Technically, a healing spell can be treated as a violent act against a target (this means if damage would be dealt) and therefore an attack.
Here's the thing. This makes certain spells/feats more overpowered and certain ones more balanced. But, it's not world shattering.
As an example: most attacks would be considered things that deal damage. Something that impairs a person doesn't necessarily need to be considered violent (a spell is not necessarily violent for instance). So, though a lot of damaging spells would be brought up, not all harmful spells would be brought up. An attack isn't necessarily harmful. An attack is something violent(damaging) directed (intentionally or unintentionally) towards a person, place or object.
-
An alternative ruling would be something like this: all attacks require attack rolls. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that all attacks "have" attack rolls.
This alternatively ruling would be based on the idea that the 3rd part of the definition is read as:
if (action == attack)
{
AttackRoll();
}
.
Basically, it's the same ruling as above (the players and DM decide what constitutes an attack based on whether or not the action is "violent"), but, the attacker must make an attack roll.
I suppose this ruling could potentially harm the balance of the game. Not really that big of a deal imo.
This was longer than I wanted it to be. I apologize for how long this post was. But, I hope it helped somebody to make up their mind.
See, I agree that part 1 is examples, 2 is a definition, and 3 is a test. However, how I would read it is as follows:
IF the ability text mentions that it is an attack, THEN it is an attack. (Specific beats general)
ELSE IF, the action follows the structure of
1. You choose a target that is a creature, point in space, or object
2. Modifiers are applied
3. You resolve the action by making an attack roll and by rolling damage if you hit.
THEN it is an attack. (This is a specific rule, but more general than the prior if/then)
ELSE IF, you make an attack roll (even if you do not pick a target, the target is neither a creature, a point in space, nor an object, you do not apply modifiers, you do not roll damage if you hit, you roll damage regardless of if you hit, etc etc) THEN the action is an attack.
ELSE the action is not an attack
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Platypi is incorrect. (For that matter, so is platypuses, though - so I was wrong, too.) It's supposed to be platypus or platypodes. Apparently this is because it is a Greek word (not Latin).
Damn. My haiku is ruined.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
Platypi is incorrect. (For that matter, so is platypuses, though - so I was wrong, too.) It's supposed to be platypus or platypodes. Apparently this is because it is a Greek word (not Latin).
Wikipedia's take:
There is no universally agreed plural of "platypus" in the English language. Scientists generally use "platypuses" or simply "platypus". Colloquially, the term "platypi" is also used for the plural, although this is technically incorrect and a form of pseudo-Latin; the correct Greek plural would be "platypodes". Early British settlers called it by many names, such as "watermole", "duckbill", and "duckmole".The name platypus is occasionally prefixed with the adjective "duck-billed" to form duck-billed platypus.
I like "Platypuses."
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
Wikipedia's take:
There is no universally agreed plural of "platypus" in the English language. Scientists generally use "platypuses" or simply "platypus". Colloquially, the term "platypi" is also used for the plural, although this is technically incorrect and a form of pseudo-Latin; the correct Greek plural would be "platypodes". Early British settlers called it by many names, such as "watermole", "duckbill", and "duckmole".The name platypus is occasionally prefixed with the adjective "duck-billed" to form duck-billed platypus.
I like "Platypuses."
Platypiusesodes
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Would a kaput platypus be a platyput?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I thought that was what was made when they played Golf.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I understand that we need a definition for attack. But the fact that we need a definition does not mean we have one. There isn't one.
You can deny it all you want, and play semantic games all you want, but if you want to know what THE GAME calls 'an attack', it is right there.
Quote:
This is false. Silence is not an assertion of the opposite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
True, but not relevant here.
When a game rule element is asking you a question about another game rule element (like, "Is what you just did 'an attack' or 'a spell'?) then it not asking for that set of things that have not been defined as 'not a spell' or 'not an attack'! It is asking for things that the GAME calls 'a spell' or 'an attack'. In this case the 'absence of evidence' means you have failed to meet the standard.
Imagine turning up to immigration without a passport. You need your passport to get in the country in this circumstance, but when asked by the official you do not produce a passport. Don't worry! You can quote 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' at them, asserting that the fact that you are not producing a passport does not mean you don't have one, or are not legally allowed in the country. Or, you can produce a piece of paper on which 'Passport' is written in felt tip pen, and assure them that this counts as a passport in your opinion.
When invisibility (for example) wants to know if what you are doing is 'a spell', it is not asking for your opinion on whether it counts as 'a spell', it is asking if THE RULES say that IT IS 'a spell'. Similarly, when it asks if what you are doing counts as 'an attack', it is not asking your opinion on whether what you are doing should count as 'an attack', it is asking if THE RULES actually SAY that IT IS 'an attack'.
Quote:
This is a false standard. For example, see PHB 150. Are you saying that an abacus does not add sums in D&D? Because the rules don't say you can use it to add sums. Therefore you can't, right? What about chalk? Can you us chalk to draw on a rock? Because the rules don;t say you can.
And yet there are no rules elements which need to know if you are doing sums. This is a false equivalency.
Quote:
No, the truth everything in D&D is assumed to work as it ought to work unless it is overridden by rules. So, take antitoxin, for example. Absent any explanation, the DM would have to think about how it interacts with poisons in the game. But to keep things consistent, the writers introduced a standard. Now DMs must follow it. But if they had not written anything on the matter (as in the case of the abacus or of chalk), we would not then say "antitoxins do nothing."
You are pretending that the writers of 5E have written nothing about what counts as 'an attack'. When measuring 'an attack' against the scale of how solid and detailed 5E defines 'antitoxin' and 'abacus' in rules terms, you are asserting that 'an attack' is as undefined as 'abacus' in rules terms. The truth is that 'an attack' has been much, much more defined by 5E than even the top of that scale, 'antitoxin'.
Your assertion is 'alternative truth'.
Quote:
"Attack" is never defined.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Quote:
The default is not: anything that is undefined in the rules is not a part of the rules.
Let me put it another way. When invisibility et al asks about 'an attack', they are asking about [the set of all things that THE RULES describe as 'an attack'].
This results in only those things that the rules actually define as 'an attack' in that set, leaving out anything on which the rules are 'silent'.
Meanwhile, you assert that it is actually asking for [the set of all things which have not been described by the rules as 'not an attack'].
This would result in everything that has not been written to be 'not an attack' breaking the invisibility!
If we were to understand the rules as you want us to, where if the rules have not specifically said that X is not something, then we can treat X as if it IS that thing, without breaking the rules, then my 1st level fighter can cast wish at will because nowhere in the rules does it specifically say that 1st level fighters cannot cast 9th level spells! 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', after all!
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
A(2) it was never, ever hidden. This whole thing began when I said: "pick any animal, X, ...", so I specifified, from the very beginning, that X is an animal.
You then made the unsavoury move of suggesting that I had somehow made an obvious error. You said that, for example, if X is an illusion of platypus, then I am wrong. So I pointed out that in my original statement, X must be an animal
Unsavoury? I was opperating under the assumption you had a point, trying to link RL actions that are considered attacks to game actions. But hey - if you're telling me now that your original question was
if a platypus is an animal in D&D, is it a creature in D&D?
Then yes. Absolutely NOT because of what you claim, but because animal in D&D are creatures with the beast sybtype. (MM 6 / DMG 273). It is in fact very irrelevant if it's a creature IRL, because the following question:
if an iPod is an animal in D&D, is it a creature in D&D?
Likewise has the same answer: yes.
Quote:
This is bulls@#t. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it.
Apparently you are unaware un how unclear you are with you lacking to specify if you mean IRL or in D&D. When you don't specify don't complain people presume the logical answer, as seen below:
Quote:
That a platypus is automatically a creature (in D&D) because animal (IRL) was not only never a given, it is in fact false.
Dude, seriously, when you write stuff like this
How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D? Because platypuses are creatures. That's why.
-- you #392
don't complain to me I don't understand your point. Are you know claiming that you actually meant
How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D? Because platypuses are creatures in D&D. That's why.
-- what you apparently meant?
I'm truely sorry if I "made the unsavoury move" of presuming you used "because" in a non-tautologic way, as it is nearly always used in the english language. Argumenting it's a creature in D&D because it's a creature in D&D? ? to quote you: This is bulls@#t. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it.
Quote:
Yes, because monstrosities are creatures, and I only claimed that platypuses would appear as creatures. There is no trickery here.
That is very confusing, becasue in accepting platypus might not count as the creature subtype beast in D&D,
and the platypus being an analogy for doing something harmful
you're accepting harmful actions might not count as attacks in D&D.
... which IIRC was the opposite of what you were arguing?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gloryblaze
See, I agree that part 1 is examples, 2 is a definition, and 3 is a test. However, how I would read it is as follows:
IF the ability text mentions that it is an attack, THEN it is an attack. (Specific beats general)
ELSE IF, the action follows the structure of
1. You choose a target that is a creature, point in space, or object
2. Modifiers are applied
3. >>>You<<< resolve the action by making an attack roll and by rolling damage if you hit. <<< This part specifies "who" is rolling the dice, not "dice must be rolled".
THEN it is an attack. (This is a specific rule, but more general than the prior if/then)
ELSE IF, you make an attack roll (even if you do not pick a target, the target is neither a creature, a point in space, nor an object, you do not apply modifiers, you do not roll damage if you hit, you roll damage regardless of if you hit, etc etc) THEN the action is an attack.
ELSE the action is not an attack <<< No, you can't add text like this
Point #3 emphasizes "who" rolls for attack, not "that" you roll for attack.
This means "the attacker rolls", not "you must make an attack roll".
Part #3 (not point #3), does not include an "else" statement. The clarification does not describe "what an attack is not" (yes, I know how silly it is to say this, don't get upset).
Even if we treat this as having an implied "else", the end result is that we must roll for attack on anything considered to be an attack, but....
Let me clarify:
The issue I have with part #2 - it's not a real definition. It's a description of a sequence of events to carry out an action based on the idea that the action has already been confirmed. In other words, it describes the formula, not the meaning.
This is a real description:
"An attack is any action where the actor carrying out the action directly causes damage (or greater damage) when:
a. he succeeds on a check for
b. another target fails a check against
- this action (where the opposite outcomes would result in no damage or reduced damage)."
But, here's the thing; other than rolling for attack (and if the description says "attack"), the players (including the DM) have no way (based on RAW) to decide on if an action should be treated as an attack. This means you fall back on the English definition.
At this point, it boils down to whatever the DM (and players) consider to be "violent".
From where I sit, it means that you cannot use breath and such to get around the restriction of certain spells and abilities based on RAW (not that it matters). It also makes certain feats better I guess.
PS. I don't know if it's just me - there are no attacks that don't require attack rolls? Is this right?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I object, your honor. I did not attack that adventurer. I merely breathed on him, as you are breathing on us all right now. It's not my fault that adventurers are so highly flammable. Furthermore, my co-defendant clearly is not beholden to penalties for attacking adventurers either when it has only looked at them. Surely your honor looks at people every day without incurring assault charges. It is only fair to extend the same courtesy to the defendant in this case. Charges must be dropped or reduced as no reasonable person could call the actions in question "attacks." Any harm we have caused by breathing and looking are merely accidents. To judge otherwise would be draggin' my good name through the mud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobkin
PS. I don't know if it's just me - there are no attacks that don't require attack rolls? Is this right?
Either read the thread, read the book, look it up online, or prepare to be spoonfed.
Spoiler: Here comes the airplane.
Show
Grappling and Shoving are attacks that do not roll attack rolls.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
What about a Cleric using Divine Intervention, and then the Deity sending a Solar down to fight in the stead of the Cleric?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaz
What about a Cleric using Divine Intervention, and then the Deity sending a Solar down to fight in the stead of the Cleric?
To quote
The DM chooses the nature of the intervention; the effect of any cleric spell or cleric domain spell would be appropriate.
You might want to ask for a Solar ... but your god could decide you need to do a quest first and depending on how well you do, you get an amount of angels; heck, evil DM might decide god decides you need to become a martyr for it to work. (meaning, you die, and your god doesn't allow your soul to return, as it would defeat the purpose of martyrdom).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobkin
Part #3 (not point #3), does not include an "else" statement. The clarification does not describe "what an attack is not" (yes, I know how silly it is to say this, don't get upset).
doesn't really matter.
They are both actions - if specified in RAW as attack, then it's an attack
- if not speficied in RAW as attack, you can homebrew/rule0 it whatever way you want, but it has no bearing on these discussions - as I can homebrew something else then you
One could homebrow that creatures with aura's can't turn invisible, or that beholders can't be put in a sanctuary ... but that doesn't make it RAW.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arial Black
You can deny it all you want, and play semantic games all you want, but if you want to know what THE GAME calls 'an attack', it is right there.
But it isn't.
I will be the first to admit that I made an error earlier when I said something to the effect of "telling someone how to use a hammer is not the same as defining a hammer." Because this is not quite the correct analogy.
What the text does is purport to offer a diagnostic test for attacks. The problem is that the diagnostic test doesn't cover all cases.
We can accuse each other of semantic games all day (because it appears to me that you are the one employing them, intentionally or not - as I'm sure it appears the opposite to you), but we would do better to assume each other is being honest.
It is abundantly clear that whoever wrote the sentence thought that writing: "If there is any doubt..." would help to remove doubt. But the phrase that follows leaves doubt. It is only through considering what the writer tried to write that you can conclude that he meant to write what you are suggesting he wrote. But he did not write it.
Quote:
True, but not relevant here.
When a game rule element is asking you a question about another game rule element (like, "Is what you just did 'an attack' or 'a spell'?) then it not asking for that set of things that have not been defined as 'not a spell' or 'not an attack'! It is asking for things that the GAME calls 'a spell' or 'an attack'. In this case the 'absence of evidence' means you have failed to meet the standard.
The writers could have indicated this rather easily, but they did not. This is all your interpretation. For example: "If there is ever any doubt about whether something is an attack: if there is no attack roll, it is not an attack. The only exceptions are abilities that are specifically described as attacks in the rules." Or: "If there is ever any doubt about whether something is an attack: An attack requires an attack roll. Any ability that does not use an attack roll is not an attack. The only exceptions are abilities that are specifically described as attacks in the rules."
They did not.
Quote:
Imagine turning up to immigration without a passport. You need your passport to get in the country in this circumstance, but when asked by the official you do not produce a passport. Don't worry! You can quote 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' at them, asserting that the fact that you are not producing a passport does not mean you don't have one, or are not legally allowed in the country. Or, you can produce a piece of paper on which 'Passport' is written in felt tip pen, and assure them that this counts as a passport in your opinion.
The difference here is in the underlying assumption, which is good because this is what we (you and I) are ultimately contesting. You think this is analogous because you think nothing is an attack unless the rules say so, just as no one can enter the country unless they have a passport. So the default is "No Entry." But I hold the view that the default view is the English language, so I point to a second standard. In my view, the default stance on attacks is not "nothing is an attack unless the rules say so."
Quote:
When invisibility (for example) wants to know if what you are doing is 'a spell', it is not asking for your opinion on whether it counts as 'a spell', it is asking if THE RULES say that IT IS 'a spell'. Similarly, when it asks if what you are doing counts as 'an attack', it is not asking your opinion on whether what you are doing should count as 'an attack', it is asking if THE RULES actually SAY that IT IS 'an attack'.
You're using a strange form of personification to turn each of these things into a sort of diagnostic or litmus test. The reason I point this out is because this way of looking at things tends to lead to operational definitions (which are not proper definitions and are used only when there is no tangible way to properly define something). A diagnostic test is not a proper definition.
Quote:
And yet there are no rules elements which need to know if you are doing sums. This is a false equivalency.
I wan't trying to equate them. I was using analogy to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
You say you can't do X unless the rules say you can. You say this is the default. Well the rules do not give any use for an abacus, so how do you know what an abacus can do or what a player can do with it? (Hint: the acceptable answer to this question is also an acceptable answer to the question: how do you know if an action is an attack?)
The rules are not intended to be treated like board game rules, wherein you cannot do anything unless the rules say you can. Instead, D&D operates on the presumption that you can try to do anything, and the rules acknowledge that even though they may not cover anything, you can certainly try it, and they provide a core mechanic and some systems for those resolutions. They then give specific guidelines for the most generally useful and commonly performed tasks, so that it's clear what to do in those situations.
Quote:
You are pretending that the writers of 5E have written nothing about what counts as 'an attack'. When measuring 'an attack' against the scale of how solid and detailed 5E defines 'antitoxin' and 'abacus' in rules terms, you are asserting that 'an attack' is as undefined as 'abacus' in rules terms. The truth is that 'an attack' has been much, much more defined by 5E than even the top of that scale, 'antitoxin'.
No, I am not doing this at all. I am contending that the writers have written exactly what they have written about attacks, and no more.
I agree that attacks are much more defined than either the abacus or the antitoxin, however attacks are still only defined as far as they are defined, and no more. And the question still remains: if the definition is incomplete, then how does it work?
Under your reasoning: the abacus can do nothing. The antitoxin can do only exactly what it says. Attacks must include an attack roll.
Under my reasoning: an in-game abacus can do what a real abacus can do because it is supposed to be an abacus; an antitoxin can whatever the a real antitoxin can do, but if used for the purpose described in the PHB, the DM should follow the prescribed rules; an attack is whatever an attack actually is in real life, but in the three cases outlined in the PHB, the DM should follow the prescribed rules to resolve the attack.
Quote:
Let me put it another way. When invisibility et al asks about 'an attack', they are asking about [the set of all things that THE RULES describe as 'an attack'].
That's right. We agree, here. The point of disagreement is what is included in that set, and (as a consequence) whether the set is completely defined. It is not completely defined.
Quote:
This results in only those things that the rules actually define as 'an attack' in that set, leaving out anything on which the rules are 'silent'.
Meanwhile, you assert that it is actually asking for [the set of all things which have not been described by the rules as 'not an attack'].
This would result in everything that has not been written to be 'not an attack' breaking the invisibility!
No, you've made a logical error here. This is not a floodgate. It's not the set of all things are not described as not being attacks.
Quote:
If we were to understand the rules as you want us to, where if the rules have not specifically said that X is not something, then we can treat X as if it IS that thing, without breaking the rules, then my 1st level fighter can cast wish at will because nowhere in the rules does it specifically say that 1st level fighters cannot cast 9th level spells! 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', after all!
Again, it's not a floodgate. You fall back on the definition of the word. Is what the character is doing an attack (by the regular definition of the word)? If so, then it's an attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qube
...if you're telling me now that your original question was
if a platypus is an animal in D&D, is it a creature in D&D?
Then yes...
If a platypus is an animal on earth? If? You're playing. A platypus is an animal on earth.
Quote:
...Absolutely NOT because of what you claim, but because animal in D&D are creatures with the beast sybtype. (MM 6 / DMG 273).
This is false. Animals on earth are not a subset of D&D beasts. There are animals on earth that are not D&D creatures at all, most notably microscopic animals and harmless insects. They do not require stat blocks and are mechanically not creatures.
Quote:
It is in fact very irrelevant if it's a creature IRL, because the following question:
if an iPod is an animal in D&D, is it a creature in D&D?
Likewise has the same answer: yes.
An iPod is not an animal. You're playing.
Quote:
Apparently you are unaware un how unclear you are with you lacking to specify if you mean IRL or in D&D. When you don't specify don't complain people presume the logical answer,...
Don't presume that a platypus is an animal and an iPod is not? I'm making this unclear to you? How much clearer can it be that a platypus is an animal and an iPod is not?
Quote:
Dude, seriously, when you write stuff like this
How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D? Because platypuses are creatures. That's why.
-- you #392
don't complain to
me I don't understand your point. Are you know claiming that you actually meant
How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D? Because platypuses are creatures in D&D. That's why.
-- what you apparently meant?
I'm truely sorry if I "
made the unsavoury move" of presuming you used "
because" in a non-tautologic way, as it is nearly always used in the english language. Argumenting it's a creature in D&D because it's a creature in D&D? ? to quote you:
This is bulls@#t. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it.
Okay, hold on. There is a mistake here. I did not do a good job of clarifying that sentence. When I wrote "Because platypuses are creatures in D&D." I meant this:
A real life platypus fits the definition of (i.e. is) a D&D creature.
I'm sure I clarified this somewhere else, but I'm not going to drudge it up. In any case it was pretty clear from the context (see Cybren).
Quote:
That is very confusing, becasue in accepting platypus might not count as the creature subtype beast in D&D,
and the platypus being an analogy for doing something harmful
you're accepting harmful actions might not count as attacks in D&D.
... which IIRC was the opposite of what you were arguing?
If a platypus does not fit the subtype beast, it still fits the type creature, which was intended all along, and my point remains true.
It was never an analogy to attacks. It was an example to show that we can use our brains to resolve definitions, when the definitions exist and when we understand the particular example we are discussing. (Yes, I recognize the irony.)
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
@qube; is essentially declaring fatwa or calling a crusade not an attack though?
Regardless of how the DM interprets the Divine Intervention, is the Divine Intervention seperate from the Cleric. And is it the Cleric who calls the attacker an attacker or are they just a bystander?
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I'm honestly unsure if this thread has reached any sort of agreement - I don't really want to read pages about holographic platypuses :smallbiggrin:. But I figure if this hasn't already been linked (sorry if it has), it should because it is a pretty (entirely) concrete answer to the original question.
What is an attack?
As such, beholder eye rays, dragon breath weapons, cutting words, and heck, platypuses are not (RAW and RAI) attacks. Even, as this link was about, firing a magic missile in someone's face is explicitly not considered an attack by the rules. But this is only in the context of d&d rules. If beholders were real, and one zapped you, I'd definitely consider that an attack. The rules however, and spells that reference these rules, do not (though I agree sanctuary should end when dealing damage. It just doesn't, as far as the rules are concerned).
Once again, sorry if this has been mentioned and settled on already, I'm just honestly worried about the sanity of the people still debating :smallwink:.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArtificialElf
I'm honestly unsure if this thread has reached any sort of agreement - I don't really want to read pages about holographic platypuses :smallbiggrin:. But I figure if this hasn't already been linked (sorry if it has), it should because it is a pretty (entirely) concrete answer to the original question.
What is an attack?
As such, beholder eye rays, dragon breath weapons, cutting words, and heck, platypuses are
not (RAW
and RAI) attacks. Even, as this link was about, firing a magic missile in someone's face is explicitly
not considered an attack by the rules. But this is only in the context of d&d rules. If beholders were real, and one zapped you, I'd definitely consider that an attack. The rules however, and spells that reference these rules, do not (though I agree
sanctuary should end when dealing damage. It just doesn't, as far as the rules are concerned).
Once again, sorry if this has been mentioned and settled on already, I'm just honestly worried about the sanity of the people still debating :smallwink:.
I'm not sure if this specific tweet has been mentioned, but Crawford's interpretation is well known, and won't convince anyone who is arguing against it. They just claim he is mistaken.
The whole thing hinges on whether one is willing to accept the implication that things without attack rolls are not attacks. That's it. The other side simply denies that such an implication exists at all. This is a very difficult gap to bridge: how do you demonstrate the presence of an implication to someone who has decided that it does not exist?
Here's an attempt:
Let's start with the proposition that "attack" we are meant to simply use the common English definition of "attack," and set aside for the moment all of the questions that using such a definition raises.
Now, let's ask a simple question: if we assume that "attack" already has a clear definition*, and we are meant to use it, what is the point of the test set forth in the rules?
As the other side has pointed out, the test only explicitly sets forth the positive case, indicating that actions involving attack rolls are attacks. Assuming that this is the entire extent of the rule, and that it has no negative implication, and also assuming that "attack" already has a clear common usage, does this rule do anything? Are there any actions which are not "attacks" in common language, but become attacks by the action of this rule? I can't think of any, but I might be missing something.
If not, what does this rule do?
Here we run up against one of my underlying assumptions; rules are included for a reason. If your reading indicates that a rule does absolutely nothing, perhaps there is more going on there. They must give you the test for a reason. This leads to the implied negative case: if you read the implication in, the rule makes perfect sense, since it excludes a large number of ambiguous cases.
A second place where this implication comes up is the text of Sanctuary, which includes attacks and targeted harmful spells. Applying, again, the assumption that rules are written for a reason, this implies that there are targeted harmful spells which are not attacks. If your definition of "attack" includes all harmful actions, it simply does not make sense to include targeted harmful spells in this language.
*On the definition of "attack," I'm curious how one is supposed to choose from the very long list of English meanings. Despite assertions otherwise, "attack" is not a very precise term in everyday English, and isn't used much in settings where precision is required, such as the law. I assume, for example, that no one is arguing that publishing a pamphlet criticizing one's political opponent is an "attack" within the meaning of the rules, despite common English usage.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smcmike
I'm not sure if this specific tweet has been mentioned, but Crawford's interpretation is well known, and won't convince anyone who is arguing against it. They just claim he is mistaken.
The whole thing hinges on whether one is willing to accept the implication that things without attack rolls are not attacks. That's it. The other side simply denies that such an implication exists at all. This is a very difficult gap to bridge: how do you demonstrate the presence of an implication to someone who has decided that it does not exist?
Here's an attempt:
Let's start with the proposition that "attack" we are meant to simply use the common English definition of "attack," and set aside for the moment all of the questions that using such a definition raises.
Now, let's ask a simple question: if we assume that "attack" already has a clear definition*, and we are meant to use it, what is the point of the test set forth in the rules?
As the other side has pointed out, the test only explicitly sets forth the positive case, indicating that actions involving attack rolls are attacks. Assuming that this is the entire extent of the rule, and that it has no negative implication, and also assuming that "attack" already has a clear common usage, does this rule do anything? Are there any actions which are not "attacks" in common language, but become attacks by the action of this rule? I can't think of any, but I might be missing something.
If not, what does this rule do?
Here we run up against one of my underlying assumptions; rules are included for a reason. If your reading indicates that a rule does absolutely nothing, perhaps there is more going on there. They must give you the test for a reason. This leads to the implied negative case: if you read the implication in, the rule makes perfect sense, since it excludes a large number of ambiguous cases.
A second place where this implication comes up is the text of Sanctuary, which includes attacks and targeted harmful spells. Applying, again, the assumption that rules are written for a reason, this implies that there are targeted harmful spells which are not attacks. If your definition of "attack" includes all harmful actions, it simply does not make sense to include targeted harmful spells in this language.
*On the definition of "attack," I'm curious how one is supposed to choose from the very long list of English meanings. Despite assertions otherwise, "attack" is not a very precise term in everyday English, and isn't used much in settings where precision is required, such as the law. I assume, for example, that no one is arguing that publishing a pamphlet criticizing one's political opponent is an "attack" within the meaning of the rules, despite common English usage.
One might argue that throwing a net at someone else isn't an attack by the common English definition, but since that uses an attack roll, the rules would consider it one. I can't think of other examples, though.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
On Whether Crawford is Mistaken
Yes, some of us think Crawford is mistaken if he claims that the RAW say the same thing as what he said in the tweets. The RAW say something different.
However, it is clear that Crawford is saying that this is how the game was intended to be played.
I think Crawford is making an error in judgement in saying so because the game works better, is more consistent, and is more intuitive if it is played RAW, in this particular regard. And these are damned good reasons.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BurgerBeast
I think Crawford is making an error in judgement in saying so because the game works better, is more consistent, and is more intuitive if it is played RAW, in this particular regard. And these are damned good reasons.
To be clear, are you arguing that RAW precludes Crawford's interpretation, or simply that other interpretations are possible? I thought your initial stance was simply that other interpretations were possible, but I might be have been wrong, or your argument may have changed.
-
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I wonder if it boils down to control? A breath weapon, for example, isn't controlled once you unleash it, it potentially hits everything in it's path, so it falls to the friends and foes in it's path to avoid it; it's indiscriminate manner makes it an effect and not an attack in terms of game mechanics. While something like a sword swing is made against a specific target in a controlled manner, you control the angle, the speed, etc., of the hit, and that makes it an attack in the terms of game mechanics.
Just because I feel attacked, doesn't make it an actual attack against me, after all.