What is technically considered an attack?

[smcmike]

It is totally relevant to a conversation about what was said.

We are having a conversation about what is written in the PHB. So what is written is what is relevant.

There is no significant conversation to be had about what is written in the PHB. It's written. I am talking about what the PHB means.

If you want to claim that what is written means something different than what I think it does, you can (1) use reasons, evidence, and examples to illustrate why my reading is not correct; or (2) point to other parts of the written text and tell me how they are relevant, and how they apply.

What you cannot do is say: It obviously means X, because in everyday language it would mean X. Not least because every example that has been raised has turned out to be ambiguous and support my point of view.

Nah.

Well, that's an interesting way to frame this conversation. I am the one who is saying that you can't determine what they are thinking. You are the one who is pretending that the text says something that it does not say.

Yes, you are are the one claiming not to be able to determine the meaning of a common idiom when used conversationally. This is the core of why you are wrong.

Okay, then. Keeping assuming that a rulebook, or a definition, are written in colloquial language.

I plan to. This assumption is supported by statements of the authors, though they use the word "idiomatic," which I prefer. Your assumption that it is not is not supported by anything much that I'm aware of.

So: Is it an attack or not? It would seem to me that, independent of how the DM chooses to mechanically resolve this situation, it ought to be the case that dumping boiling water on someone is either an attack or it is not.

Why?