What is technically considered an attack?

[BurgerBeast]

Simply adding the clause: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack,..." does nothing to change the words that follow. Those words still mean what they mean.

We know what was intended (because JC told us), but what was intended is not what is written. What is written after the clause does not answer the question in all cases.

OR: if you are not sure something is an attack, and it involves an attack roll, then it is an attack. If you are not sure something is an attack, and it doesn't involves an attack roll, then it is not an attack.

Simple.

You've added the bolded bit. It does not occur in the text. It does not say this. This is interpretation (albeit correct according to JC). But the book doesn't say this.

Spoiler: For Unoriginal

Show

The Champion's Survivor class feature involves the Champion regaining HPs after being damaged enough. Are you going to argue that it can be blocked by an Antimagic Field because, despite it being never mentioned to be magical, it sure *seems" magical to regain HPs like that?

No. This is precisely what I refuse to do: add information that is not given. The PHB does not say that no attack roll implies no attack. I refuse to admit that it does.

That's a false equivalence. You're not going to debate if an eagle is a skunk because there is nothing saying that the eagle is not a skunk, yes?

It's not a false a equivalence. It's exactly the point. I am saying that an eagle might be a skunk or it might not. The rules do not tell us that an eagle is not a skunk. The rules are silent. So we use our brains and the meanings of the words "eagle" and "skunk." We conclude that an eagle is not a skunk.

Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

Absolutely not. You made one correction, but it is still incorrect.

The book says that what determines whether X is an attack if questioned is if there is an attack roll or not.

This is the point of contention. I say it does not say this.

So by defintion, even if it is not literally RAW, "X is not an attack" is an option acknowledged by the book, and it is applied to what is questioned to be an attack but does not have attack roll.

This is not true, and saying "By definition" does not help.

Does anyone deny this?

Yes. That's the point. This is not what the RAW say.

Spoiler: For smcmike

Show

When I talk about overformalization, I mean that the rules clearly sacrificed some preciseness in favor of readability in places, and that I approve of this decision.

Here is a drafting exercise - assume that the goal is to define "Attack" as "any action that uses an attack role + anything else the rules call an attack." Write that in language that is precise, concise, and readable.

Personally, I think they did a pretty decent job with the language they used.

I also think they did an excellent job. Regardless, they made a mistake here, if JC is correct. Aside form this, there is a long history of "specific beats general" in D&D. they've been writing these types of rules for around 40 years.

I hope I'm not misconstruing BurgerBeast, but I believe his point is that the book never actually says "X is not an attack."

This is basically my stance. But also the initial question is totally wrong. It should say: "Is the ability specifically defined as an attack in the rules?"

This doesn't, but the previous chunk of text does.

It defines "making an attack" as a three-step process that goes:
1. Pick a target.
2. DM determines cover and stuff.
3. Make an attack roll.

This is a pretty strong argument against, but I still don't think it succeeds. That part of the text is preceded by: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part a spell, an attack has a simple structure." So, if you are doing neither of these three things, the text that follows does not apply.

Spoiler: For Millstone

Show

Then comes the bit about the converse being true as well. Making an attack roll means you are making an attack.

From blue to green and green to blue. As Unoriginal said a page ago, the RAW is very clear.

Nobody is arguing that making an attack roll means you are making an attack. (Edit: nobody is arguing against the notion. Sorry for confusion.) We're arguing the converse. There is still no blue to green.

They can, but for a different reason. When a more specific rule declares something to be an attack, the general rule surrenders.

Nobody is contending that specific beats general. We are contenting precisely what the general rule is.

Spoiler: For qube

Show

Sorry mate, thats how general vs specific works.

This has nothing to do with specific beats general. I agree that specific beats general. This is a disagreement over what the general rule is.

But when the action doesn't fall under any specific rule, the general rule applies.
A specific rule being all limitting, doesn't mean you get free reign to decide whatever the heck you want, for the other senarios.

Precisely. This particular general rule is not exhaustive, though.

No. We're left with the general situation.

That's correct. And the general rule is silent on whether many actions that do not involve attack rolls are attacks.

A rule that states ogre mages can turn invisible at will, is silent on if humans can do that or not. They can't, not because "our brains" - but because it's the general rule that creatures can't do this.

Yes, so we consider whether a human is an ogre mage. We find, in the rules, that humans are not ogre mages. If the rules were silent, we would use our brains to determine whether a human is an ogre mage; because, as yo say, creatures cannot typically turn invisible, so question is whether a human is this specific type of creature.

But this is not a similar case.

Spoiler: For bid

Show

And some insist it can be c) some other cases that are not explicitely "not an attack".

There's no consistency is that approach to arguments.

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that the original statement:

The RAW states that what constitutes an "attack" either a) requires and attack roll, or b) is explicitly called an attack in its description (or overview, in the case of special melee attacks such as grappling/shoving).
Spells/features/abilities that use a saving throw are not classified as attacks, as per RAW.

Is false. The part of the text that DBZ is referring to does not say this. It says something quite different.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

This is the intention, according to JC. It's still not what the RAW say.

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.

Except grappling is an attack in both senses of the word. It is an attack because it involves an attack roll, and it is an attack because the rules say it is an attack.

Edit: My bad. It does not involve an attack roll. It is an attack because the RAW say it is an attack.