What is technically considered an attack?

[Cybren]

if the problem was that if a platypus (as is IRL), would be an animal/creature in d&d?, then I would agree with you. The thing is though - that that isn't the problem at hand. You will note

• "Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"
• "Yes, Because platypuses are creatures. "

The problem dealt with isn't "if a platypus is an animal in d&d", but "why would a platypus be an animal/creature in d&d".


The only reason it would be is, because the question is set up that way. As Unoriginal pointed out, even within the same context it could be a monstrosity or a fey. With different context, it could even be a feat*, or even a type of movement ! **

---
*: the reason I jumped to feat, and not monstrocity/fey is that BurgerBeast reasoned it would be a creature, and monstrocity/fey are still creatures. While it might seem more strange, more metaphysical as you say -- it's the same reasoning: a homebrew of the DM is a homebrew of the DM.

** : in black, BurgerBeast's reaonsing; in blue, me applying that logic: "Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules. (OK, ... lets pick .... the common and wellknown annoying animal: the fly) Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D (oh look, fly appears in D&D! right there: under Dragon. I knew I made a good pick!), a creature ? The answer is yes (wait, say what now? no, it's not an animal. it's a type of movement) How do I know? ( because you presume you speak about the animal only to conclude you speak about an animal, a.k.a. circular logic.)

If you were to write up a platypus as a monstrosity or a fey it wouldn't be a platypus, given that a platypus is a real thing, and monstrosity's and fey are not, so the dishonesty is treating "a platypus in D&D" as "something in D&D called a platypus". Anything can be called anything, but we all know what a platypus is.

I would just add that of course it's been questioned and researched and answers have been written online about the meaning and origin of the phrase, with my preferred answer being "It's sarcastic."

Other explanations are of course that I could care less, so quit while you're ahead, or that I couldn't care less is obviously not true since I am still talking about it, and that would mean I'm giving more than the minimum level of caring about the subject (i.e. none at all).

Alternatively, I care so little that I won't bother paying enough attention to what I'm saying to make sure they follow some arbitrary rules that incorrectly assume language should adhere to formal mathematical logic

[Unoriginal]

I would just add that of course it's been questioned and researched and answers have been written online about the meaning and origin of the phrase, with my preferred answer being "It's sarcastic."

Other explanations are of course that I could care less, so quit while you're ahead, or that I couldn't care less is obviously not true since I am still talking about it, and that would mean I'm giving more than the minimum level of caring about the subject (i.e. none at all).

Why add that? The whole point is that there is no reason to have this debate, because as smcmike said some people use that idiom in a way while others use in another way, but BurgerBeast went "yeah no, it's used like that."

[Coffee_Dragon]

I thought it was clear that this particular discussion was not worth pursuing by anyone by the time it was suggested that knowledge of games, game rules and game rule writing is an unwanted bias when interpreting game rules.

[Arial Black]

I totally agree with BurgerBeast re: "Couldn't care less".

I disagree with everything other point he's trying to make in this thread.

Except that D&D is not that type of game, and the rules traditionally go to pains to explain that. It is a part of the design intent of D&D that the players will try to have their characters do things that are not covered in the rules and that the DM will improvise. This is very different from other games, such as board games, where the assumption is the exact opposite.

There are things that are covered by the rules, and things that are not covered by the rules.

Although it is true that a defining feature of RPGs in general is that players can do things not covered by the rules and the DM will improvise, is is dishonest to say that the DM is expected to 'improvise' when the players are doing something covered by the rules! The DM is expected to follow the rules in those cases where the situation does have rules which cover it. Like, y'know, 'attacks'.

For the things that the rules do not cover, improvise away. The humble platypus is not covered by the rules, so improvise. It's not a challenge to realise that the game would treat it as a creature.

But for the things that the game rules definitely do cover, USE THOSE RULES! It's dishonest to pretend that the game expects DMs to improvise how to resolve an action when they took the trouble to write a rule for it.

In those parts of the rules, where the rules do cover the situation, the game is prescriptive. Combat is the most defined part of the game! Combat rounds, initiative, attacks, spells, actions, bonus actions, ALL of these things are prescriptive. You CANNOT do something, unless the rules say you can.

It is utterly dishonest to represent the 5E rules as if they expect you to understand that when they define something, they don't really mean it! When the rules say, for example, "As an action....", your response of, "Well, it never says that I can't do that as a bonus action! It is 'silent' on the subject, so the rules allow me to do that thing any way I want: action, bonus action, free object interaction! So I'll cast that fireball as a FREE action thank you very much, and the rules NEVER say that I can't!"

That is your argument for, "Well, it says what 'attacks' are, but it does not say what 'attacks' aren't, therefore I can totally say that anything I fancy counts as an 'attack'!"

[Unoriginal]

That is your argument for, "Well, it says what 'attacks' are, but it does not say what 'attacks' aren't, therefore I can totally say that anything I fancy counts as an 'attack'!"

Technically he's saying "the rules say that those things are attacks, but they don't say anything if something else is an attack or not."

Not that I agree with him, it's pretty absurd to pretend that "when there is a question if X is an attack: look for an attack roll, and X is an attack if it has one" doesn't mean "when there is a question if X is an attack: look for an attack roll, and X is not an attack if it doesn't have one".

[smcmike]

I totally agree with BurgerBeast re: "Couldn't care less".

"I could care less" was only introduced as an example of an idiom that is also an error.

It bothers me too, but I've learned to tolerate it. As someone pointed out up the thread, the inclusion of such an error in the phrase might actually serve to reinforce just how very little the speaker cares. Still, if I used either version of the idiom (I don't think I do), it would be the "couldn't" version.

[MaxWilson]

"I could care less" was only introduced as an example of an idiom that is also an error.

It bothers me too, but I've learned to tolerate it. As someone pointed out up the thread, the inclusion of such an error in the phrase might actually serve to reinforce just how very little the speaker cares. Still, if I used either version of the idiom (I don't think I do), it would be the "couldn't" version.

I don't use either, but I can imagine, if I were a valley girl, using the "could" version with a sarcastic intonation and verbal stress on "less!" plus an eye-roll.

In real life though I would just say, coldly, "I don't care."

[BurgerBeast]

TL;DR: Some people use the phrasing of the sentence as evidence that the writers meant something that the literal words do not mean. I refuse to speculate about what the writers meant. I take the words at face value.

On Platypuses:

@qube: I thought it was clear from the context, but when I said "...because platypuses are creatures" I meant "because platypuses (in real life) are creatures (in real life; not the game-term creatures).

So I more or less meant what Cybren thinks I meant.

On Not Caring Less:

Yeah, man, you took my example of "one man's idiom is another man's error" and "corrected" it.

Since I don't think I can come up with a more perfect encapsulation of your ability to completely miss the point, I'll stop trying.

I did not miss the point. My point remains that no matter how many people mistakenly say "I could care less" when the context calls for "I couldn't care less," they will always be wrong. This is what I meant when I said, earlier, that the truth is not determined by consensus.

There have been some pretty contrived explanations offered in this thread for why some people tend to say "I could care less." The truth of the matter is that people say it because they do not understand or do not care what they are saying (see Orwell's Politics and the English Language.)

Saying "I could care less"* instead of "I couldn't care less" is more or less the same thing as writing "tow the line" instead of "toe the line." It is a clear demonstration that the speaker/writer does not know or care what he is saying/writing.

*Zalabim offers an explanation that could be quite clever, but I have never seen it used in such a way.

@qube: Could you provide a source for that history lesson, because that's news to me, and it's interesting, if it is true. In any case, we're talking about the context in which it is used (in place of "I don't care"), not because the other contexts are not relevant or don't matter, but because it's where we are (I've never seen the phrases "I couldn't care less" nor "I could care less" used in a context so as to convey deeply caring about something).

Why add that? The whole point is that there is no reason to have this debate, because as smcmike said some people use that idiom in a way while others use in another way, but BurgerBeast went "yeah no, it's used like that."

The whole point is that smcmike and I both know people use the idiom incorrectly. His point is that: since so many people use it this way, you should assume it's what they mean and therefore they are right to say it this way and I am right to assume to that they meant something different than what they said.

I disagree. I think you should never assume what someone means. To take it a step further (as is being suggested) and assume that the opposite is what is meant is egregious, in my opinion. (Even when it turns out you're right, because you're right for the wrong reasons, and now you're conceivably gaining confidence in your invalid reasoning.)

And this is only in the context of conversation. If anything, in the context of reading a rulebook (in fact a part of a rulebook that some would even claim is a definition), it is more imperative that you do not make assumptions.

On the Main Topic:

So, according to you, what are the other ways to make an attack aside from those three?

According to me, the possibility is left open. I am not trying to assert that there definitely are other ways. I am trying to deny that: there are definitely zero other ways (excepting specific exceptions).

I totally agree with BurgerBeast re: "Couldn't care less".

I disagree with everything other point he's trying to make in this thread.

I daresay I think you've misunderstood my points.

There are things that are covered by the rules, and things that are not covered by the rules.

Although it is true that a defining feature of RPGs in general is that players can do things not covered by the rules and the DM will improvise, is is dishonest to say that the DM is expected to 'improvise' when the players are doing something covered by the rules! The DM is expected to follow the rules in those cases where the situation does have rules which cover it. Like, y'know, 'attacks'.

For the things that the rules do not cover, improvise away. The humble platypus is not covered by the rules, so improvise. It's not a challenge to realise that the game would treat it as a creature.

But for the things that the game rules definitely do cover, USE THOSE RULES!

Up to here, we're in 100% agreement.

It's dishonest to pretend that the game expects DMs to improvise how to resolve an action when they took the trouble to write a rule for it.

This is a false charge. I agree that it would be dishonest. I am not doing it.

I would add that it is dishonest to assume that a rule is exhaustive when it is not. Many rules are not exhaustive. The rules for skills are not exhaustive. How do you know if a rule is exhaustive? You look for indications either way.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no indication in this case, so some people are supplying one.

Some people use the phrasing of the sentence as evidence that the writers meant something that the literal words do not mean. I refuse to do this.

In those parts of the rules, where the rules do cover the situation, the game is prescriptive. Combat is the most defined part of the game! Combat rounds, initiative, attacks, spells, actions, bonus actions, ALL of these things are prescriptive. You CANNOT do something, unless the rules say you can.

I think I agree with you up until the last sentence. You can, in fact, as a player, try to do whatever you want during combat. The DM must then try to be as faithful to the rules as he possibly can (ideally following them directly) while adjudicating. (In the process, the DM is well advised to consider whether the proposed action can be represented in the existing rules and framework of the game, and if it cannot he is well advised to propose a solution that fits the underlying design philosophy of the game, so as to feel like it is naturally a part of the game.)

It is utterly dishonest to represent the 5E rules as if they expect you to understand that when they define something, they don't really mean it! When the rules say, for example, "As an action....", your response of, "Well, it never says that I can't do that as a bonus action! It is 'silent' on the subject, so the rules allow me to do that thing any way I want: action, bonus action, free object interaction! So I'll cast that fireball as a FREE action thank you very much, and the rules NEVER say that I can't!"

I agree with all of this. It would indeed be dishonest. It's not what I'm doing.

That is your argument for, "Well, it says what 'attacks' are, but it does not say what 'attacks' aren't, therefore I can totally say that anything I fancy counts as an 'attack'!"

No, it's not.

Technically he's saying "the rules say that those things are attacks, but they don't say anything if something else is an attack or not."

Not that I agree with him, it's pretty absurd to pretend that "when there is a question if X is an attack: look for an attack roll, and X is an attack if it has one" doesn't mean "when there is a question if X is an attack: look for an attack roll, and X is not an attack if it doesn't have one".

First of all, I'm not pretending. Second of all, it's not absurd. Let's use a little play on the general/specific thing.

Generally: It is always wrong to assume that X -> Y means Y -> X.

Always. Literally always. X -> Y never means that Y -> X. It cannot. Unless...

Specifally: There are occasions when X -> Y and Y -> X.

This is not because X -> Y. It is because there are specific types of things for which both implications are true. These are special cases.

So, it is never right to read "If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack" as "if you make an attack, you are making an attack roll." Never. Ever.

However, upon further investigation, it may be true that every time you are making an attack, you are making an attack. This would be a totally independent point. If it could be universally determined to be true or if it was declared in the rules to be true, then it would be true.

It is not possible to make the universal determination: you simply cannot consider all possibilities. This has been discussed repeatedly in these forums. The authors do not try to do it.

It is never declared to be true.

Conclusion: It's not true, since it's not an exception to the general rule that X->Y does not mean Y->X.

Additional Point: It may be the case that there is not single example of an attack that does not involve an attack roll, but we can never know that, because the rules only tell us about three cases (not all cases).

[smcmike]

On Not Caring Less:
I did not miss the point.

Sure you didn't.

My point remains that no matter how many people mistakenly say "I could care less" when the context calls for "I couldn't care less," they will always be wrong. This is what I meant when I said, earlier, that the truth is not determined by consensus.

If the speaker means to convey that they do not care about something, and the hearer understands that meaning, the desired communication has occurred. Whether this communication was "wrong" isn't really all that relevant.

The whole point is that smcmike and I both know people use the idiom incorrectly. His point is that: since so many people use it this way, you should assume it's what they mean and therefore they are right to say it this way and I am right to assume to that they meant something different than what they said.

I disagree. I think you should never assume what someone means. To take it a step further (as is being suggested) and assume that the opposite is what is meant is egregious, in my opinion. (Even when it turns out you're right, because you're right for the wrong reasons, and now you're conceivably gaining confidence in your invalid reasoning.)

I'm not actually saying that "they are right" to say it this way. I'm saying that you are wrong to pretend not to understand their meaning.

And this is only in the context of conversation. If anything, in the context of reading a rulebook (in fact a part of a rulebook that some would even claim is a definition), it is more imperative that you do not make assumptions.

If you think you aren't making assumptions, that only means that you are bad at identifying your assumptions.

[Unoriginal]

According to me, the possibility is left open. I am not trying to assert that there definitely are other ways. I am trying to deny that: there are definitely zero other ways (excepting specific exceptions).

First of all, I'm not pretending. Second of all, it's not absurd. Let's use a little play on the general/specific thing.

Generally: It is always wrong to assume that X -> Y means Y -> X.

Always. Literally always. X -> Y never means that Y -> X. It cannot. Unless...

Specifally: There are occasions when X -> Y and Y -> X.

This is not because X -> Y. It is because there are specific types of things for which both implications are true. These are special cases.

So, it is never right to read "If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack" as "if you make an attack, you are making an attack roll." Never. Ever.

However, upon further investigation, it may be true that every time you are making an attack, you are making an attack. This would be a totally independent point. If it could be universally determined to be true or if it was declared in the rules to be true, then it would be true.

It is not possible to make the universal determination: you simply cannot consider all possibilities. This has been discussed repeatedly in these forums. The authors do not try to do it.

It is never declared to be true.

Conclusion: It's not true, since it's not an exception to the general rule that X->Y does not mean Y->X.

Additional Point: It may be the case that there is not single example of an attack that does not involve an attack roll, but we can never know that, because the rules only tell us about three cases (not all cases).

Alright, let's test something.



Is pressing a button that fills a room with acid, when people are stuck in said room, an attack, in DnD term?

[bid]

Not sure what to add to that...

The problem with always being correct is sometimes you have to play the juggernaut and crash through the walls of sanity.

[Unoriginal]

The problem with always being correct

Not a problem that anyone in this thread has ever encountered, then.

[qube]

@qube: I thought it was clear from the context, but when I said "...because platypuses are creatures" I meant "because platypuses (in real life) are creatures (in real life; not the game-term creatures).

Then you admit you are wrong. Becuase in the context you at forehand presume it's a creature you encounter ... only then to conlcude that it is a creature.


Oppositely, to use a simple example ... why has nobody in the Marvel Universe wondered where the nazis keep their hydras !? And where is Agant Coulson's Shield !? Or where are the ghosts in James Bond (Spectre this, spectre that ... yet, no spectres anywhere. DFQ!?)

If not feat or ability, why is, Platypus not an organisation this hypothetical D&D game?

@qube: Could you provide a source for that history lesson,

2 second google lead me to a movie about it on de site of Merriem Webster (of whatever that dictionairy is called).

... You know, it's a good habbit to know what you're about before claiming others are wrong ...

[BurgerBeast]

If the speaker means to convey that they do not care about something, and the hearer understands that meaning, the desired communication has occurred. Whether this communication was "wrong" isn't really all that relevant.

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.

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.

I'm not actually saying that "they are right" to say it this way. I'm saying that you are wrong to pretend not to understand their meaning.

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.

If you think you aren't making assumptions, that only means that you are bad at identifying your assumptions.

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

Alright, let's test something.

Is pressing a button that fills a room with acid, when people are stuck in said room, an attack, in DnD term?

The RAW are silent on this.

I don't want to detract from this example, but here's an example I considered bringing into the discussion earlier: suppose during a siege, a character dumps boiling water in his enemies. What is that? Is it an attack?

Here's why it's interesting:

A DM could conceivably to a variety of things, assuming he decided that the water might potentially hit 3 enemies:

(1) call for three attack rolls and three damage rolls (on hits only)
(2) call for three attack rolls but only one damage roll applied to all targets
(3) call for one attack roll and apply it to all targets and three damage rolls (on hits only)
(4) call for one attack roll and one damage roll (applied to hits only)
(5) call for reflex saves form all targets and roll damage individually
(6) call for reflex saves from all targets and roll damage individually
(7) any number of resolutions I haven't thought 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.

However, from the point of view of smcmike and others, whether this action is an attack or not can and should change from table to table based on how the particular DM chooses to resolve it (not based on whether the DM considers it attack or not - mind you - but based on how the DM chooses to mechanically resolve it).

Did you think 1 or 2 was best? Then it is definitely an attack.

Some others (not smcmike or the others here so far as I know) would even argue that 1 and 2 tell us that dumping the water is not an attack. It's three attacks. So therefore it doesn't count (I'm not kidding - this came up in the whirlwind attack thread).

A reasonable interpretation of smcmike's stance (I hope - sorry if I'm wrong) would be that if you use methods 1-4 it is an attack, but if you use 5-6 it is not.

The whole idea of making determinations about whether such an action would break invisibility based on the mechanical resolution method instead of independent, common sense interpretation, is not only inconsistent, it doesn't make sense.

Again, I'm sorry to bring in another example, and I'm happy to ignore it and continue with your line of questioning, if you prefer.

Then you admit you are wrong. Becuase in the context you at forehand presume it's a creature you encounter ... only then to conlcude that it is a creature.

I think you're still misunderstanding my point. You'd have to connect the dots for me. Here's a thought: instead of telling me what I think, why don't you try to figure it out? for example, you could ask me what I think.

Oppositely, to use a simple example ... why has nobody in the Marvel Universe wondered where the nazis keep their hydras !? And where is Agant Coulson's Shield !? Or where are the ghosts in James Bond (Spectre this, spectre that ... yet, no spectres anywhere. DFQ!?)

I'm sorry but I don't know enough about the Marvel Universe to comment.

If not feat or ability, why is, Platypus not an organisation this hypothetical D&D game?

Who said it isn't? I don't think you understand what I said.

"Cobra" could be the name of an animal and the name of an organization. See G.I. Joe.

2 second google lead me to a movie about it on de site of Merriem Webster (of whatever that dictionairy is called).

... You know, it's a good habbit to know what you're about before claiming others are wrong ...

Again, you are missing the point. I never claimed to know the history of the expression. I claimed to know what it means, and to know that it is used incorrectly. You might also note that the reason I asked is because I do like to be proven wrong. It's too bad you haven't done it, here, yet.

[Edit: Yeah.. I watched the video. You are wrong about it.]

[bid]

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.

Wrong.

One table might decide it's (5) and not an attack.
Another DM would go for (1) and call it an attack.

As you can see, it is and isn't at the same time.

[BurgerBeast]

Wrong.

One table might decide it's (5) and not an attack.
Another DM would go for (1) and call it an attack.

As you can see, it is and isn't at the same time.

That's (part of) my point.

Edit: By your view, there is no way to know if pouring water on someone is an attack or not until you know which resolution method the DM chooses.

This doesn't make sense. (It makes a certain degree of sense (but remains inconsistent) when we are talking about the game term attack (i.e. spell attack or saving throw?), but not in terms of things like whether an attack breaks invisibility.)

[bid]

Edit: By your view, there is no way to know if pouring water on someone is an attack or not until you know which resolution method the DM chooses.

This doesn't make sense. (It makes a certain degree of sense (but remains inconsistent) when we are talking about the game term attack (i.e. spell attack or saving throw?), but not in terms of things like whether an attack breaks invisibility.)

Yes it makes perfect sense. The DM decides which universe he is playing. Elves ear length, dwarves beard bushiness, saves willfull attacks.

You cannot go around and claim the One True Way to handle that. Even Blessed RAW could never yield a single answer, I'll refer you to Hilbert's program and Goedel's answer.


I will go further and posit that a most DM will pick the mechanic that matches the desired result, just as 5e RAW choices were made to yield the desired results. Nobody goes around wishing that arrows were thrown weapons, they just invent a "long dart" as a martial ranged weapon.

[Chugger]

I'll refer you to Hilbert's program and Goedel's answer.


.

Too funny. I was trying to think up a Set Theory ------> I.T. remark, but I can see I don't have to. Thanks for saving me the effort!

[BurgerBeast]

@bid: you appear to have no idea what my point is. I am saying that there is not one true way to handle it and that any of them is acceptable. Are you reading what I am writing?

Yes it makes perfect sense. The DM decides which universe he is playing. Elves ear length, dwarves beard bushiness, saves willfull attacks.

Agreed.

You cannot go around and claim the One True Way to handle that. Even Blessed RAW could never yield a single answer, I'll refer you to Hilbert's program and Goedel's answer.

I haven't. What are you reading?

I will go further and posit that a most DM will pick the mechanic that matches the desired result, just as 5e RAW choices were made to yield the desired results. Nobody goes around wishing that arrows were thrown weapons, they just invent a "long dart" as a martial ranged weapon.

I'm at a loss. Not sure who you're trying to respond to, but none of these points address what I've actually said.

Edit: 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.

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.

[Zalabim]

Why add that? The whole point is that there is no reason to have this debate, because as smcmike said some people use that idiom in a way while others use in another way, but BurgerBeast went "yeah no, it's used like that."

Because I care way more about "I could care less" than I do about whatever nonsense Burgerbeast is arguing at any given time.
--------
Consider this: I am invisible (as the spell) and pick up a dagger. Assuming the dagger doesn't become invisible when I pick it up, I then throw that dagger to an ally who needs a weapon. Not an attack? But if I throw that dagger at an enemy who needs to be hit with a weapon, it's definitely an attack.

You may say that dumping boiling water [on someone] should always be an attack or never be an attack, but I also dump a pot of boiling water when I cook pasta. Is that to be an attack too? To provide an actual answer, whether an improvised action should use an attack roll depends on if you think armor would protect you or only dodging.

Also, the rules do in fact say "to make an attack, make an attack roll," as well as "if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." Excepting exceptions, which are specifically explained, it is quite plain to identify what is an attack. With this knowledge, it's no more necessary to specify what is not an attack than it is necessary to specify what is not magical or is not a spell. According to the rules, it's a spell if it says it's a spell, it's magical if it says it's magical, and it's an attack if it says it's an attack. Anything other than that is only rule 0.

Otherwise, I actually get the point BB is arguing and wish he'd apply it to other areas where he persists in being wrong.

[qube]

I think you're still misunderstanding my point. You'd have to connect the dots for me. Here's a thought: instead of telling me what I think, why don't you try to figure it out? for example, you could ask me what I think.

He's a thought: instead of claiming others have to figure out what you're saying, how about you decently explain it.

I am in fact connecting the dots. That they don't add up, is your problem, not mine.

"Cobra" could be the name of an animal and the name of an organization. See G.I. Joe.

EXACLTY. However, according to your reasoning - it's not an organization. It's an animal. How do you know?


In black, what you said, in red changing the animal example, in blue me, connecting the dots you make

Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules.

I'm going to use the cobra example, becasue that seems to be the analogy you confirmed to know. So, lets presume that cobras are not explicitedly defined in D&D, and thus X be cobra. It obviously could be the platypus organisation as well, or whatever name you chose

Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?

The DM introduces the Cobra organisation, and thus now it appears in D&D. This obviously isn't the animal, just an organisation by a name.
... This is perfectly viable, unless you litterly mean that the DM throws the creature "cobra" (opposite to the organisation "cobra") at the party ... in which case you're litterly asking "is a creature a creature" - which would obliterate your "why" response because it has nothing to do with RL creatures. it in fact is a tautology that applies to anything (ex. "is a creature called computerscreen, a creature? Yes. Yes it is.")

The answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes). How do I know? How can I say that a platypus cobra is a creature in D&D?

As the answer is no, it's an organisation, not a creature (again, unless tautology). Ergo, whatever follows as explenation why the answer is yes, is flawed logic

Because platypus cobra are creatures. That's why.

And there we have it. It's not because a cobra is an animal IRL, it's a creature in D&D. The only way the cobra is introduced in the game, is by Rule 0 - and by such, a cobra is whatever the DM decides it is.
- (creature IRL, not creature IC) If the DM introduced an organisation named cobra in the game, it's not a creature
- (not creature IRL, creature IC) If the DM introduced a creature called named Jubjub bird in the game, it's a creature
- Only if the DM introduced a creature named cobra in the game, like the Jubjub bird, it's a creature

Bottomline:

• If you a priori presume the DM introduced a creature, you're disingenuous in asking if they are creature, and followed it by bogus reason why they are (opposite to the obvious self evident truth that creatures are creatures)
• if you don't make that a priori presumption, your logic errors as there's no justification why it should be a creature, and not something else

[BurgerBeast]

EXACLTY. However, according to your reasoning - it's not an organization. It's an animal. How do you know?

Because I'm the one who brought up the platypus, and I was talking about the animal.

It falls apart here (emphasis added):

Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules.

I'm going to use the cobra example, becasue that seems to be the analogy you confirmed to know. So, lets presume that cobras are not explicitedly defined in D&D, and thus X be cobra. It obviously could be the platypus organisation as well, or whatever name you chose

No, it can't. If you pick the platypus organization, then you did not pick an animal. End of story. None of what follows applies, because you're not playing along.

You can't assign an organization to X, because X must be an animal. I said pick an animal, not pick an organization, and not pick anything you want. It's hard to know if you're being serious, because this is pretty obvious.

[qube]

Because I'm the one who brought up the platypus, and I was talking about the animal.

It falls apart here (emphasis added):

No, it can't. If you pick the platypus organization, then you did not pick an animal. End of story. None of what follows applies, because you're not playing along.

if you even bothered to read further, you would have noted that I apply both senarios.
indeed,the reasoning falls apart, because you talking about the animal. Ergo, to quote, the bottomline in the senario you now admit:

If you a priori presume the DM introduced a creature, you're disingenuous in asking if they are creature, and followed it by bogus reason why they are (opposite to the obvious self evident truth that creatures are creatures)

[BurgerBeast]

Otherwise, I actually get the point BB is arguing and wish he'd apply it to other areas where he persists in being wrong.

I do. One day you may even learn to see it.

[BurgerBeast]

if you even bothered to read further, you would have noted that I apply both senarios.
indeed,the reasoning falls apart, because you talking about the animal. Ergo, to quote, the bottomline in the senario you now admit:

If you a priori presume the DM introduced a creature, you're disingenuous in asking if they are creature, and followed it by bogus reason why they are (opposite to the obvious self evident truth that creatures are creatures)

So, again, you do not understand my point which is this:

There is room within the rules for creatures that are not explicitly given in the rules.

Likewise, there is room within the rules for attacks that are not explicitly given in the rules.

[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?

[qube]

So, again, you do not understand my point which is this:

I'm sorry that you make bad points - but that's not my problem. You are not adressing the freedom of interpretation, but Rule 0. Introducing a new creature in the game, and then turning around to ask if that if that's a creature has NOTHING to do with the freedom to interprete existing rules.


You know what a better analogy is for your point?


The soldier background gives +2 strength and +2 constitution. Why?

1. denial of the consequent
   the rules don't state that the soldier background doesn't get +2 strength and +2 constitution.
2. use brain
   it makes sense that people who had army training have better physique then regular people

So, whoever claims that backgrounds (or the soldier background in particular) don't give stat increases, is making claims that are not adressed in RAW.

[Unoriginal]

The RAW are silent on this.

I don't want to detract from this example,

Let me reformulate, then.

How would *you* deal with this situation?

[Theodoxus]

In Saves vs Checks, why does proficiency (if you're proficient in said save) enter the equation? Why, if you're proficient in Dex Saves, for example, are you better at dodging the full force of fireballs? What does that proficiency represent?

In the matter of drinking less than the daily amount of water, why is a barbarian, fighter or sorcerer better suited to surviving on less water than other classes? What in their training grants them a heightened chance at living on less?

Why can't I be proficient at opening stuck doors and windows, and thus use a Strength Save when trying to open them, instead of just a strength check? Why does adding a crowbar suddenly provide said proficiency? Have I ever used a crowbar before?

I think proficiency should be the underlying determinant, not whether something is active or passive or decisive or indecisive or whatever else you want to use as a designator.

[bid]

I haven't. What are you reading?

"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."

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.

Each DM will make his own choice, whether they follow RAW or extend it.

DMs who know what an attack is by RAW might pick a save to stop the rogue's feature, or do the opposite. They could even reverse and stay coherent:
- "you can dump it anywhere, it will splash/flow the right way." {save, not attack}
- "they're on a higher block, you need to hit them directly." {attack roll}


There are no reason to limit the DM by forcing how undefined actions work. This line of argument is ultimately self-defeating. It's as unlikely as volontarily painting yourself into a corner of a patio and refusing to go through the bush.