What is technically considered an attack?

[Dalebert]

I know the answer but I'm making a thread for this discussion because it's become a point of contention in the RAW thread. After a certain amount of back and forth, I feel like it's time for the discussion to graduate from the RAW thread to its own thread. I encourage folks to continue the discussion here.

Thank you.

[Aett_Thorn]

I just looked through the discussion in the RAW thread, and I think that it's important to note that how people will answer this will be dependant on whether they are replying as RAW or RAI.

RAW, I agree with many in that thread that if, and only if, it either involves making an attack roll, OR the feature/spell/whatever specifically says that it is an attack. Otherwise, it is not an attack.

Now, this means that you need to somewhat distinguish between what is an attack, and what is a harmful action. Clearly, there are harmful actions that are not attacks, like a Dragon's Breath or Beholder Eye Rays. These are not specifically called out as attacks, and as such, would not break effects that rely on an attack being made.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Anything that is resolved using an attack roll (PHB 194).

A serious argument was made some time ago that since the rule in question begins "If there's ever any question", players can conspire to not question that something is or isn't an attack, so that by RAW anything can be or not be as long as the requisite amount of doublethink is applied. Is that what's going on now as well?

[Theodoxus]

What? Breath weapons and eye beams are very specifically attacks. They require the recipient(s) to make saves against a detrimental (and generally lethal) effect.

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.

My question is, what is the reason for asking the question? Is it "what breaks Sanctuary/Invisibility?" Is it "can I do 'x' and then 'y' before I use bonus action 'z'?" Or something else? Because the answer will be dependent on what the point is.

[Millstone85]

I went looking for tweets of Jeremy Crawford and not only did I find a neat one:

link

An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving.

... but also that someone had that very same discussion with Crawford himself:

link

if I cast Magic Missile at a Hexed target, does it take an extra 1d6 necrotic, or 3d6 extra? or none, because Magic Missile is not an 'attack'?

Magic missile isn't an attack.

yes it is, and rules lawyers are never welcome in my games.

By rule, magic missile doesn't involve an attack, but as DM, you're empowered to ignore/change rules.

"casts Magic Missile at you, they are attacking. It does damage & isn't friendly."

Again, you are welcome to ignore the rules. That is the prerogative of the DM.

Again, I'm not ignoring the rules. Those aren't the rules. Those are things written in 5e books.

My tweets are about the official rules of 5E. Whatever rules you're using, I hope you're having fun.

... and that's kind of funny.

[jas61292]

Anything that is resolved using an attack roll (PHB 194).

A serious argument was made some time ago that since the rule in question begins "If there's ever any question", players can conspire to not question that something is or isn't an attack, so that by RAW anything can be or not be as long as the requisite amount of doublethink is applied. Is that what's going on now as well?

The real issue with "if there is ever any question" is that it is not a universal rule covering all situation. It is saying "A implies B." As anyone who knows a bit of logic can tell you, that is not the same as saying that "not A implies not B" and as such, we cannot conclude that things without attack roles are not attacks. This makes sense, as if it was a hard and fast rule, the wording about there being "any question" would not make any sense. Now its easy enough to just say that this is to cover any situation where something is explicitly named to be an attack, but lacks an attack roll, such as a grapple, but nothing for sure makes this the only possible case.

You can argue that, RAW, nothing else could possibly be considered an attack, but I would disagree with that analysis, because it is not actually stated by RAW. I think people often blur the lines between RAW and RAI by claiming that something not explicitly spelled out by the rules is not RAW, even if it is allowable within them. Or, rather, that RAW must only ever have one possible interpretation. This is not the case, especially where rules are ambiguous, and in this edition, the rules are even designed in some places such that the rules themselves, by RAW, are supposed to be at the DMs discretion.

In this specific case case, RAW does not say that things like a dragon's breath are not attacks, and as such, ruling that they are, is acceptable by the rules as written. It just so happens that it is also acceptable RAW to say they are not attacks.

[smcmike]

What? Breath weapons and eye beams are very specifically attacks. They require the recipient(s) to make saves against a detrimental (and generally lethal) effect.

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.

Is it? What is your definition? What rules do you draw upon to support that definition?

My question is, what is the reason for asking the question? Is it "what breaks Sanctuary/Invisibility?" Is it "can I do 'x' and then 'y' before I use bonus action 'z'?" Or something else? Because the answer will be dependent on what the point is.

This is the sort of question that could be answered by reading the RAW thread. Is your position that "attack" means something different in different contexts within the ruleset (beyond compound constructions like "spell attack" or "melee weapon attack")?

[MeeposFire]

Do note that what can be defined as a game term does not have to agree with how you might use the same term in general.

[smcmike]

The real issue with "if there is ever any question" is that it is not a universal rule covering all situation. It is saying "A implies B." As anyone who knows a bit of logic can tell you, that is not the same as saying that "not A implies not B" and as such, we cannot conclude that things without attack roles are not attacks. This makes sense, as if it was a hard and fast rule, the wording about there being "any question" would not make any sense. Now its easy enough to just say that this is to cover any situation where something is explicitly named to be an attack, but lacks an attack roll, such as a grapple, but nothing for sure makes this the only possible case.

You can argue that, RAW, nothing else could possibly be considered an attack, but I would disagree with that analysis, because it is not actually stated by RAW. I think people often blur the lines between RAW and RAI by claiming that something not explicitly spelled out by the rules is not RAW, even if it is allowable within them. Or, rather, that RAW must only ever have one possible interpretation. This is not the case, especially where rules are ambiguous, and in this edition, the rules are even designed in some places such that the rules themselves, by RAW, are supposed to be at the DMs discretion.

In this specific case case, RAW does not say that things like a dragon's breath are not attacks, and as such, ruling that they are, is acceptable by the rules as written. It just so happens that it is also acceptable RAW to say they are not attacks.

So what you are saying is that dragon's breath may or may not be an attack under RAW, but that there is no question as to whether it is an attack?

[Easy_Lee]

5e's complexity strikes again. Reaction attacks are not opportunity attacks, 5' and reach are different terms, and not everything that directly causes harm is technically an attack.

I use the dictionary definition, personally. Deliberately causing direct harm is an attack, and I use player intent to determine what is deliberate. Tipping over a barrel of oil and lighting it on fire? Not an attack. Hurling a barrel of burning oil? Attack. That's going to break invisibility.

Magic missile? That's an attack that doesn't require a roll. Since the bolts strike simultaneously, it's one attack that does multiple dice of damage, like sneak attack.

[Theodoxus]

It's easy. Would said action - whatever it might be - be considered battery in modern US law.

Magic Missile? Battery. An attack.
Dragon breath? Battery. An attack.
Hold Person? Battery. An attack.
Grappled? Battery. An attack.
Striking with a weapon? Battery. An attack.
Using Cutting Words? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Jeremy Crawford being an idiot? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Clear as crystal.

[smcmike]

It's easy. Would said action - whatever it might be - be considered battery in modern US law.

Magic Missile? Battery. An attack.
Dragon breath? Battery. An attack.
Hold Person? Battery. An attack.
Grappled? Battery. An attack.
Striking with a weapon? Battery. An attack.
Using Cutting Words? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Jeremy Crawford being an idiot? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Clear as crystal.

Oh, I see. I didn't realize from your first post you weren't talking about RAW. This system works fine for the most part, though I expect there are some corner cases where it causes weirdness. Also, Cutting Words is not necessarily assault, and Crawford's rulings are clearly not!

Is Viscious Mockery an attack?

[Aett_Thorn]

It's easy. Would said action - whatever it might be - be considered battery in modern US law.

Magic Missile? Battery. An attack.
Dragon breath? Battery. An attack.
Hold Person? Battery. An attack.
Grappled? Battery. An attack.
Striking with a weapon? Battery. An attack.
Using Cutting Words? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Jeremy Crawford being an idiot? Assault. Not battery, hence not an attack.

Clear as crystal.

Still, this is all RAI, not RAW. I would agree that any harmful action is an "attack", and should be treated as such. However, RAW, there are certain things that count as an attack, and those require an attack roll. Without any additional clarification on what else could consitute an attack, everything else is just RAI, no matter how much sense it makes.

There is a clear difference between:

"Hey, he just hit me with a fireball, he attacked me!" in all practical effect, and "Spell X lasts until I make an attack, and I've only used Fireball" by RAW.

Also keep in mind that most spells that fall under the latter category also specify "an attack or any harmful spell", so the Fireball would count. But if it doesn't specify that harmful spells also count, then by RAW, they don't.

[Millstone85]

It is like the charmed condition and what is technically considered a target.

Can't attack you or target you with harmful abilities or magical effects? Well, the only target I chose was a point in space for a fireball to spread from. Yes, right next to you. I could even have targeted your space, really.

So, after rules-as-written, rules-as-intended and rules-as-fun, do we have rules-as-plain-English? Wait, no, really bad acronym there.

[Unoriginal]

There is attack -the game term- and attack -the way the action could be described.


Magic Missile is not an attack (game term) because it doesn't use the attack mechanic, even if it is an offensive spell.

You are not going to say that using Domination is an attack, even if you are indeed causing harm to the target using a spell, right?

Same way that casting Invisibility on yourself doesn't mean you are engaging in the Hide action, casting a spell that cause harm doesn't mean you are using an attack.

[Easy_Lee]

It is like the charmed condition and what is technically considered a target.

Can't attack you or target you with harmful abilities or magical effects? Well, the only target I chose was a point in space for a fireball to spread from. Yes, right next to you. I could even have targeted your space, really.

So, after rules-as-written, rules-as-intended and rules-as-fun, do we have rules-as-plain-English? Wait, no, really bad acronym there.

I think the last one is Crawford's preference, based on his reply to one of my questions including the term "plain English."

Plain English is not plain when discussing mechanics. 5e isn't even consistent about what the term "when" means. Hint: it doesn't mean during (mage slayer), but sometimes it does (protection fighting style).

In practical terms, everything is DM fiat. I once had an AL DM tell me that I couldn't grapple with a human because the human was medium while my character was small. Is that rule anywhere in the rules? No. In fact, medium can grapple up to large. And AL is supposed to follow all punished rules. But it happened in AL, anyway.

Each DM must use his own best judgment. Consistency is key. And at the end of the day, no DM is forced to follow rules he doesn't like.

[Theodoxus]

Is Viscious Mockery an attack?

It's battery, so yes.

Also keep in mind that most spells that fall under the latter category also specify "an attack or any harmful spell", so the Fireball would count. But if it doesn't specify that harmful spells also count, then by RAW, they don't.

Then it falls into the category of "we need to explicitly write 'this is an attack' on everything that could be construed as an attack. Why the editors / layout manager felt it was ok to expand the Index to include every reference of "X, see Y" instead of "X page Y" and yet couldn't be bothered to denote every instance of attacks or 'not-attacks' is beyond me.

Since RAW doesn't specify everything in a binary fashion that X is an Attack while Y is not an Attack, we only have RAI to go on. So, easiest to conclude, even if it flies in the face of Crawford and his lack of foresight - that if it's considered battery, it's considered an attack. If it's an assault with no battery, it's not an attack and thus doesn't break spells that break on an attack.

Perhaps a project would be to either go through every action and determine if it's an attack or not, or go through every spell that says it breaks on an attack and change "attack" to "battery". I know which would take a LOT less time to do...

[Easy_Lee]

Perhaps a project would be to either go through every action and determine if it's an attack or not, or go through every spell that says it breaks on an attack and change "attack" to "battery". I know which would take a LOT less time to do...

You'd also need to go through every action to determine whether it's one attack or several. Whirlwind attack, magic missile, eldritch blast, etc. And nobody would agree.

[kladams707]

The first question to ask before answering is: in what context are you asking what an attack is?

Because the answer, depending on context ranges from "actions resolved with a d20 attack roll" to "any action that can be read as hostile or otherwise putting a character in disadvantageous position"

[Theodoxus]

You'd also need to go through every action to determine whether it's one attack or several. Whirlwind attack, magic missile, eldritch blast, etc. And nobody would agree.

This is known

Weren't you one of the ones back in 2014 arguing that Rulings, not Rules was awesome, Easy? That 5e, unlike 3.5 and 4th particularly, wasn't written with RAW in mind, but RAI? And that was a good thing? Maybe I'm mis-remembering and you were on the opposite side of that debate... but as I've run games and played them, RnR has been a far better friend than "hold please, I'm looking up the exact wording of this particular subparagraph to make sure we have the complete understanding of the author in respects to what this ability should be" - as experienced in 3.P I played and ran for over a dozen years.

[Aett_Thorn]

In the RAW thread, much of the focus was whether or not a Dragon under the effects of a Sanctuary spell would break the spell if they used their breath weapon.

The spell specifically states: "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends." Since the breath weapon is not a spell, it comes down to whether it is an attack or not. RAI, I would definitely say that it is an attack, and Sanctuary ends. But RAW it is not an attack, since it doesn't make an attack roll.

[Theodoxus]

Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?

[smcmike]

It's battery, so yes.

Battery requires contact. This is why involving a whole second, and much larger, body of rules is probably a bad idea. If you think RAW is confusing or obtuse, boy, wait til you check out the common law.

Since RAW doesn't specify everything in a binary fashion that X is an Attack while Y is not an Attack, we only have RAI to go on.

This isn't true. RAW gives us a test. I don't know why you have discarded it.

The first question to ask before answering is: in what context are you asking what an attack is?

Because the answer, depending on context ranges from "actions resolved with a d20 attack roll" to "any action that can be read as hostile or otherwise putting a character in disadvantageous position"

The context is "any rule that refers to an attack."

You'd also need to go through every action to determine whether it's one attack or several. Whirlwind attack, magic missile, eldritch blast, etc. And nobody would agree.

Yup. Also, this adds in the concept of attacks that do not target a creature or object, so you have to deal with that.

[Easy_Lee]

This is known

Weren't you one of the ones back in 2014 arguing that Rulings, not Rules was awesome, Easy? That 5e, unlike 3.5 and 4th particularly, wasn't written with RAW in mind, but RAI? And that was a good thing? Maybe I'm mis-remembering and you were on the opposite side of that debate... but as I've run games and played them, RnR has been a far better friend than "hold please, I'm looking up the exact wording of this particular subparagraph to make sure we have the complete understanding of the author in respects to what this ability should be" - as experienced in 3.P I played and ran for over a dozen years.

Regardless of where I was or seemed to be in the past, at this time I know where I stand. Clear mechanics reduce headache for everyone involved. Back on the whirlwind attack thing, entire builds can be invalidated depending on whether it's one attack or several. No one wants to be the player who makes the wrong assumption about how his DM will rule.

I can't make 5e consistent. But I can, I hope, encourage DMs to be consistent.

[smcmike]

Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?

Correct. A cleric casting Sacred Flame is not making an attack.

If you would like a test to determine whether a spell includes an attack, here it is: read the spell. Does it say "make an ... attack?" If so, it includes an attack.

[FreddyNoNose]

I know the answer but I'm making a thread for this discussion because it's become a point of contention in the RAW thread. After a certain amount of back and forth, I feel like it's time for the discussion to graduate from the RAW thread to its own thread. I encourage folks to continue the discussion here.

Thank you.

Please create a complete list of everything you want to consider for this question. Context might be important.

[MaxWilson]

Anything that is resolved using an attack roll (PHB 194).

A serious argument was made some time ago that since the rule in question begins "If there's ever any question", players can conspire to not question that something is or isn't an attack, so that by RAW anything can be or not be as long as the requisite amount of doublethink is applied. Is that what's going on now as well?

This is my reading of the rules too. Grappling? No attack roll, so not an attack. You can grapple a Sanctuary'ed dragon all you like. It counts as a pacifist, non-attack action, and so does not interact with Sanctuary.

If Jeremy Crawford wants to change that, he can ask them to rewrite the PHB. Tweets from a company employee don't change the rules text--"Death of the Author" and all that jazz.

Yes, this does imply that you can use the Extra Attack feature to "attack" multiple times without actually making an attack at all, but that's a consequence of the way they wrote the grappling rules: you can convert attacks into grapples, so getting two attacks means you have two things that can be converted into grapples. Specific beats general.

[smcmike]

This is my reading of the rules too. Grappling? No attack roll, so not an attack. You can grapple a Sanctuary'ed dragon all you like. It counts as a pacifist, non-attack action, and so does not interact with Sanctuary.

If Jeremy Crawford wants to change that, he can ask them to rewrite the PHB. Tweets from a company employee don't change the rules text--"Death of the Author" and all that jazz.

Yes, this does imply that you can use the Extra Attack feature to "attack" multiple times without actually making an attack at all, but that's a consequence of the way they wrote the grappling rules: you can convert attacks into grapples, so getting two attacks means you have two things that can be converted into grapples. Specific beats general.

Grappling and shoving are both explicitly "special melee attacks," per RAW. There is therefore no question.

[MeeposFire]

Neither does a cleric casting Sacred Flame... you're stating the cleric isn't making an attack?!?

IN terms of game mechanics no the cleric is not making an attack, even if I may describe it as such outside of a game context. Remember the game can define a term as having a different definition from how it is generally used.

Make note that this does have game implications a cleric using sacred flame does not get a bonus 1d6 damage on his hex target (assuming they had hex of course) and also the rogue he is targeting cannot use uncanny dodge to reduce the damage.

[smcmike]

Uncanny Dodge is a great example of why this question matters. If you subscribe the the idea that any action that does damage is an attack, this becomes an incredibly powerful ability!