What is technically considered an attack?

[BurgerBeast]

That often happens when you don't bother actually reading what other people write, which is the most charitable explanation for your above characterization.

Hold the phone.

When I wrote it, I was not actually talking about your stance. I was talking about the other side, generally. So, I wasn't talking about you.

In any case, are you really this immature? And a lawyer?

Edit: And how is is that gloryblaze is able to accurately summarize the whole thread? Because as far as I can tell, the summary is spot-on.

[Easy_Lee]

Alright, I see what's going on. We all know what things definitely count as attacks: anything that says it's an attack or makes an attack roll. Players will assume other things aren't attacks. That doesn't mean a DM can't treat something as an attack that wouldn't normally qualify. It just means you should notify your players. "If you do that, your invisibility will break. Are you sure you still want to?"

[BurgerBeast]

Alright, I see what's going on. We all know what things definitely count as attacks: anything that says it's an attack or makes an attack roll. Players will assume other things aren't attacks. That doesn't mean a DM can't treat something as an attack that wouldn't normally qualify. It just means you should notify your players. "If you do that, your invisibility will break. Are you sure you still want to?"

In spirit, you've got it, but a few nitpicks:

1. There is no such thing as "normally qualifying," because RAW, the only things that we know how to test are those that make attack rolls and those that are already labelled as attacks. There is no standard (or normal) qualification test to cover other things.

I suggested that, in such a case, we simply use our brains, as we would in any other (out-of-game) situation in which we weren't sure whether something is an attack or not. (Remarkably, I was met with flak for this by qube.)

"Joe got hit in the head by a baseball bat."
"What? Was he attacked?"
(a) "Yes! Another player got angry and cracked him right in the head!"
(b) "Well, sort of... the guy with the bat was trying to hit another person but he caught Joe by mistake."
(c) "No. Joe was catching. The batter slipped as he tried to throw his bat. It ended up hitting Joe."

2. The notification thing is sound advice, but it goes beyond the actual point of disagreement, in my opinion.

[Aett_Thorn]

For me, the following things would need to occur for me to consider it an attack:

1) It needs to specifically call itself an attack

2) It needs to make an attack roll

3) It would need to count as an attack for Uncanny Dodge AND Sanctuary by the terms those abilities use. If I don't think that it would be used for one or the other, than it's not an 'attack' as the game rules it.


It's this third one that is tripping us up. Because people are taking the definition and applying it in one area, but not in all others that use the same term. Uncanny Dodge can be used against an "attack", but Rogues also have Evasion for things that grant a saving throw. I don't think that it was the intention of the Devs to allow Rogues to be able to apply Evasion and Uncanny Dodge to the same effects. As such, an "attack" in terms of the game for Uncanny Dodge would not include things like a Breath Weapon. However, that means that these can be used while under the effects of Sanctuary. It's a hole in the logic of the game, but not in the logic of "attack". It's a hole in the logic of Sanctuary (and other spells like Invisibility), which should have been more broad in the language it used to refer to effects that end it.

Without the issues raised in the language of these spells, there would really be no problem here, as effects would quite obviously be one or the other (either an attack or not). But instead, we had Devs who thought that we could figure it out based on shoddy spell-language logic.

[smcmike]

When I wrote it, I was not actually talking about your stance. I was talking about the other side, generally. So, I wasn't talking about you.

In any case, are you really this immature?

Hence my qualifying statement.

As for my maturity level, I don't see how it is relevant.

Alright, I see what's going on. We all know what things definitely count as attacks: anything that says it's an attack or makes an attack roll. Players will assume other things aren't attacks. That doesn't mean a DM can't treat something as an attack that wouldn't normally qualify. It just means you should notify your players. "If you do that, your invisibility will break. Are you sure you still want to?"

Sure. I'd argue that, in general, a DM should not call things "attacks" that do not meet the above test. I think the rules work better if Fireballs are not attacks, with the added benefit of consistency with the assumption of the players you've identified, as well as with Crawford's tweets on the matter.

I suggested that, in such a case, we simply use our brains, as we would in any other (out-of-game) situation in which we weren't sure whether something is an attack or not.

This suggestion contradicts your statement that your stance was limited to:

"If not (attack roll) then not (attack) is false."

For me, the following things would need to occur for me to consider it an attack:

1) It needs to specifically call itself an attack

2) It needs to make an attack roll

3) It would need to count as an attack for Uncanny Dodge AND Sanctuary by the terms those abilities use. If I don't think that it would be used for one or the other, than it's not an 'attack' as the game rules it.

It's this third one that is tripping us up. Because people are taking the definition and applying it in one area, but not in all others that use the same term. Uncanny Dodge can be used against an "attack", but Rogues also have Evasion for things that grant a saving throw. I don't think that it was the intention of the Devs to allow Rogues to be able to apply Evasion and Uncanny Dodge to the same effects. As such, an "attack" in terms of the game for Uncanny Dodge would not include things like a Breath Weapon. However, that means that these can be used while under the effects of Sanctuary. It's a hole in the logic of the game, but not in the logic of "attack". It's a hole in the logic of Sanctuary (and other spells like Invisibility), which should have been more broad in the language it used to refer to effects that end it.

Without the issues raised in the language of these spells, there would really be no problem here, as effects would quite obviously be one or the other (either an attack or not). But instead, we had Devs who thought that we could figure it out based on shoddy spell-language logic.

Yes, I think there is a hole in the logic of Sanctuary, and to a lesser extent, invisibility.

These spells also provide good indirect evidence that hostile spells are a separate class of action from attacks.

[PhantomSoul]

It's this third one that is tripping us up. Because people are taking the definition and applying it in one area, but not in all others that use the same term. Uncanny Dodge can be used against an "attack", but Rogues also have Evasion for things that grant a saving throw. I don't think that it was the intention of the Devs to allow Rogues to be able to apply Evasion and Uncanny Dodge to the same effects.

As far as I know, we don't know that the Devs didn't intend Evasion and Uncanny Dodge to apply to the same instances of damage (and they maybe even planned that those could stack, since technically neither give Resistance to the damage, and Resistance would be an easy and automatic way for these not to stack with each other or with sources of Resistance), nor do we know that the Devs didn't plan and/or allow an overlap in the contexts where Evasion and Uncanny Dodge apply (I'd expect that Evasion does indeed apply in a subset of potentially Uncanny Dodge-triggering contexts).

[BurgerBeast]

Hence my qualifying statement.

Which I understood. Which is why I know what I am arguing with the others in this thread about, but I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. Frankly, I don't really care. But I do read what you write, and I do understand it. I just don't understand why you're doing it if your endgame is not in any way related to what I am saying.

As for my maturity level, I don't see how it is relevant.

It became relevant when it became a part of the conversation. If you leave it out of the conversation, then it will not come up.

Sure. I'd argue that, in general, a DM should not call things "attacks" that do not meet the above test. I think the rules work better if Fireballs are not attacks, with the added benefit of consistency with the assumption of the players you've identified, as well as with Crawford's tweets on the matter.

This is exactly the position that I said you hold. You said I lied. Well, if I did, then i'm a psychic, I guess. You say the DM should do it that way. I say there is no should. He can if he thinks it's right.

This suggestion contradicts your statement that your stance was limited to:

"If not (attack roll) then not (attack) is false."

No it doesn't. My stance is exactly that. The statement you mentioned is a response to a challenge from someone else, which essentially said that I must be wrong because, according to my view, attack has no definition. The statement is not a part of my stance, it is a dismissal of a rebuttal against my stance.

And you are the one who accused me of not reading what you write?

[smcmike]

This is exactly the position that I said you hold. You said I lied. Well, if I did, then i'm a psychic, I guess.

No.

This:

Sure. I'd argue that, in general, a DM should not call things "attacks" that do not meet the above test. I think the rules work better if Fireballs are not attacks, with the added benefit of consistency with the assumption of the players you've identified, as well as with Crawford's tweets on the matter.

Is not the same as this:

One side of the argument is saying that RAW explicitly states that all abilities which do not use an attack roll are definitively not attacks.

Claiming that they are the same is dishonest, which is why I called it a lie.

But we're not arguing over rulings.

You say the DM should do it that way. I say there is no should. He can if he thinks it's right.

I am arguing over rulings. I'm saying this is what I think the best ruling is.

[BurgerBeast]

Frank the Fighter: Oh man, I still remember our very first quest as though it were yesterday. We were sneaking up on this tribe of goblins... we thought we had them, but boy oh boy were we in for a surprise! They had three spell casters with them! No sooner do I start to charge than one of the bastards attacks me with a fire bolt. Singed the hair off my chest!
Caleb the Cleric: Oh yeah, that was quite the encounter! I was able to bless the three of you but I also got attacked when one of them hit me with a ray of frost.
Randy the Rogue: Oh yeah! I thought I was being sneaky as I tried to get around to the wizard and hit him from behind, but one of them saw me and attacked me with sacred flame.
Frank and Caleb, together, glaring: ...
Randy: What?
Frank and Caleb, together, glaring: ...
Caleb: Did you just say he attacked you with sacred flame?
Randy: Yeah. And he hit me, too.
Caleb: Attacked you? With sacred flame? Seriously, Randy... that's not an attack. Sacred flame is a spell. That's not an attack.
Randy: Wait... what? Fire bolt and ray of frost are spells, too.
Frank and Caleb, together: <roll eyes> ...
Caleb: Umm... yeah, Randy. Fire bolt and ray of frost are spell attacks. Sacred flame is just a spell. It's not an attack.
Randy: Wait.. what? What's the difference?

...

The difference is whether the players, existing in a different reality, rolled a die to determine the outcome or not.

So, the reality in the fiction comes down to whether a die is rolled or not rolled.

...

Caleb: Okay, Randy. How about this? If the spell shield can block it, then it's a spell attack. Shield can't block sacred flame, can it?
Randy: <light bulb> Oh yeah! That's neat! So that's why sacred flame can't be blocked by the shield spell!
...
Man that reminds me of the time Wally used the shield spell to block five magic missiles at once! That was a fierce attack from that evil wizard!
Caleb: <sigh> Magic missile isn't an attack either.
Randy But the shield spell blocks them! I've seen it.
Caleb: That's true, but it's not an attack. It's an exception.
Randy: How do you know that?

...

Because in the alternate reality occupied by the players, magic missile doesn't require an attack roll.

...

Caleb: Ever notice how magic missile always hits unless the target casts shield? Magic missile is special.
Randy: Oh, yeah I think I get it.
...
Hey, why don't wizards just make a giant magic missile ball spell instead of fire ball? That way guys like me would never dodge it!
Caleb: <sighs> <rolls eyes> <under his breath: "Here we go again."> Randy! Did you say dodge? No, Randy! You don't dodge fireballs! You evade them!

[BurgerBeast]

I am arguing over rulings. I'm saying this is what I think the best ruling is.

Then you're not arguing with me. Take it easy. [edit: that's supposed to be take it easy as in "see you later," not as in "calm down"]

Also, [edit: I] think you've been in the wrong thread for quite some time, now.

[Kane0]

Tsk. Poor randy.
By the way, the spell he's wondering about is called Isaac's Missile Storm, and it comes in lesser and greater varieties.

I know it's not the technical answer, but I usually take it to mean 'An action taken with the intent to cause harm'. That usually sorts out the 'does it break invis?' questions and the like.

[Easy_Lee]

Quick reminder: casting a spell also breaks invisibility.

[smcmike]

Frank the Fighter: ...

This is a pretty good example of how silly it is to use game terms in character.

Also, [edit: I] think you've been in the wrong thread for quite some time, now.

Not how this works, but better than mischaracterizing my argument, I suppose.

[qube]

Qube: Mine is that, as General vs specific works, the absence of a specific rule means the general rule - and only the general rule - applies.

So far, so good.

Here's what I do. I do what you said you do, but didn't do. I point to the general rule:

General Rule: After your turn finishes, the turn passes to the left.

Specific Rule: If you roll doubles, you take another turn.

Qube: There is no rule specifically saying you get a second turn ... so you don't get one.

This is not a general rule that you are pointing at. You are pointing at the absence of a rule. In other words, you are pointing at nothing. This does not work.
The absence of a rule proves nothing. This logic fails.

Considering this comes from the same quote ... one can color me very confused.

Yes, I am "pointing at the absence of a rule. ", as "the absence of a specific rule means the general rule - and only the general rule - applies."

[Vogonjeltz]

I see something different. You told that there were index entries. In the index (p. 313) I see this:

Those are the index entries.

Why did you stop there instead of going to the pages and looking at the entries?

I don't see how it was reasonable of you to stop at the index I was explicitly using to reference the page entries.
I know sometimes we don't realize how our actions look to outside observers, so you should know that you stop halfway through a process (i.e. at the Index page) and cry foul it looks like you're arguing in bad faith.

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you'd say this.

I surmise you are not sure because you are still reading the index instead of the pages with the entries on them. Your remaining responses reflect this, so I think it's safe to say we can shortcut the process if you were to actually use the index to refer to the page entry.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the record, I'll toss this in here ...

Both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were anti rules lawyers. Just a thought to ponder on ....(from E.G.G's letter to the newsletter "Alarums and Excursions; 1976).

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in D&D. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, D&D will have become staid and boring indeed.
Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another.
D&D is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. ... Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. D&D enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.

From the Kobold Press interview with Dave Arneson ...(He uses the original term, referee, that long ago became Game Master or Dungeon Master.)
What is at the heart of a good game?
Arneson: As far as I am concerned it is the story. It can make or break a game quite easily.
What do you enjoy most about designing games? About playing them?
Arneson: Watching the players interact and do things that were not planned by the poor referee.
What do games mean to you?
Arneson: The mental challenges, not just rolling the dice.
Rules… strict or loose?
Arneson: I like loose so you can change things that are not working. I dislike “Rules Lawyers” intensely. I regard them as the enemy.
What role does improvisation play in game design in general?
Arneson: Lots. The rules cannot cover every possibility. And frankly speaking, they shouldn’t. The referee needs the freedom to keep making the game fun.

[Arial Black]

Why D&D is Different

There is no generally prescribed way to determine whether something is an attack, so there is no general rule for determining whether something is an attack.

However, there is a specific rule, which applies when the ability in question has an attack roll. In that case, the ability is definitively an attack.

General Rule: ---

Specific Rule: If an ability utilizes an attack roll, the ability is an attack.

For 5E:-

General: "the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack"

Specific: "you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple"

[qube]

For 5E:-

General: "the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack"

Specific: "you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple"

And even more general:

unless specified, actions are as much an attack as the fighter class allows you to cast wish*


(* something also perfectly valid if one were to reason the absence of a rule specifying it isn't / he can't mean it can be either way)