What is technically considered an attack?

[Unoriginal]

Sometime people really *want* to make something simple to be complicated.

The Sanctury spell makes very clear that there is a difference between an attack and a spell with an harmful effect.

Note that by RAW it means that Sanctuary protects from all spells with harmful effects, like Imprisonment.

[Coffee_Dragon]

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.

Granted the wording is awkward either way, but since the sentence in question is obviously meant to clarify, I believe the most reasonable way to read it is to say, "to clarify what an attack is, this is what it is [and generally only this]". This makes sense from a rules writing perspective, and kinda works.

The alternative reading, "to clarify what an attack is, here's one thing that definitely is an attack, and there may be other things that qualify on a general level, but I'm sure as **** not going to tell you", does not make much sense as a piece of rules writing.

Now, whether this cannot rise to the level of RAW because of some threshold of ambiguity is a meta-rule question, but if you're asking me what the book is communicating the general rule is, I'm pretty sure what I believe.

(I'd be shocked, shocked to learn there are people on this board who think the people behind 5E are some kind of gibbering mouthers whose communications correlate with reality only by coincidence.)

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.

Yes. I'm assuming the word "technically" in the thread title means we're not concerned with the second, or what is or isn't a reasonable special adjudication.

[Unoriginal]

Now, whether this cannot rise to the level of RAW because of some threshold of ambiguity is a meta-rule question, but if you're asking me what the book is communicating the general rule is, I'm pretty sure what I believe.

I personally don't see the ambiguity.

[Theodoxus]

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'

Is that bug or feature?

[Dalebert]

There's plain English meanings of words and there are the technical rules meanings of words. If they don't have a technical meaning of a word explicitly defined somewhere in the rules, it's reasonable to just use the plain English meaning of it.

I just don't want to second guess the rules designers too much. A lot of these rules are about balance. For instance, they clearly did not intend for Hex to work with Magic Missile. They clearly did not intend for Cutting Words or the assist action to break the Invisibility spell. Some effects are intended to have a certain amount of power but not more, or they're intended to work for some things but not others. If you just decide "I don't like that definition. It doesn't make any sense!" that's fine, I guess, particularly in a homebrew game vs. say an AL game.

It's not unheard of for me to do the same thing. However, I am very reluctant and cautious in such things because I do think it sways the power dynamic in possibly unpredictable and undesirable ways. The context is important. This thread started because someone asked the question in the RAW thread. That's why the title specifies "technically" as opposed to "What do you think attacking means in plain English?"

[smcmike]

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'

Is that bug or feature?

I'm afraid this question does not provide much clarity, since invisibility ends when the cleric casts any spell.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

[Unoriginal]

So, to clarify, a cleric in Sanctuary, casts Sacred Flame, looses Sanctuary because 'harmful spell.'
Same cleric with invisibility, casts Sacred Flame, stays invisible because 'not an attack.'

No.

In the first case the cleric loses Sanctuary because "if the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends", and in the second case the caster loses Invisibility because "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell".

Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

That is not the question of the thread, and balance was not the concern of anyone here. I don't see what unbalanced UA options (or options that can be considered unbalanced by some) have to do in this discussion, either.

Unless you're talking about the comment on how interpreting anything harmful as an attack would make Uncanny Dodge very powerful, but that'd be a very confusing way of addressing it.

[smcmike]

Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

If you aren't interested in the question, why don't you leave it to people who are?

[Easy_Lee]

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!

This is exactly why the idea of an attack needs to be mechanically clear. I'm fine with defining attacks as anything that makes an attack roll. But people have to be willing to accept the consequences of that mechanic, and not change their minds on a case by case basis.

I'm looking at you, Crawford.

[smcmike]

This is exactly why the idea of an attack needs to be mechanically clear. I'm fine with defining attacks as anything that makes an attack roll. But people have to be willing to accept the consequences of that mechanic, and not change their minds on a case by case basis.

I'm looking at you, Crawford.

Are you referring to specific cases here?

[Unoriginal]

ATTACK
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

MAKING AN ATTACK

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a
spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's
range: a creature, an object, ar a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether
the target has cover and whether you have advantage
ar disadvantage against the target. In addition, spel1s,
special abilities. and other effects can apply penalties as bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause
special effects in addition to ar instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

ATTACK ROLLS
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended
target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier +your proficiency bonus.

Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a
ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9)

Really, what's not clear?

[Tanarii]

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.

[FreddyNoNose]

Are you referring to specific cases here?

I agree. Things are working fine. If the OP has as specific situation that is a problem, he should list it. On the other hand, if he is just lonely and need to talk to people let us know so we can consider this deeply intelligent thread.

[Unoriginal]

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.

A good portion of those effects are spells by selves already, and most of the damaging ones are listed under the monster's attacks, to be fair.

[smcmike]

In the specific case of monsters using pseudo-magical or magical effects, it's certainly reasonable for the DM to rule them as 'spells' for purposes of sanctuary and invisibility. IMO the entire question on if they are attacks or not is a red herring in those specific cases.

While I agree that this is a good solution, it's maybe worth noting that this problem applies to Dragonborn characters as well.

[Tanarii]

A good portion of those effects are spells by selves already, and most of the damaging ones are listed under the monster's attacks, to be fair.

They're labeled 'Actions', not 'Attacks'. And only include things that require an action, non-actions, including damaging effects like Aura, are before that in an uncatgorized section. I double checked, because the very first thing I was gonna post is 'the MM tells you what's an attack and what isn't'. While that's technically true, it only includes things with attack rolls in each given actions line that it applies to. So spell like abilities, which aren't a defined thing in 5e, exist in a grey space. Check out the Dretch's Fetid Cloud, or Dretch's Scare or even Invisibility, as examples. They're not explicitly spells. Contrast with the Lich's Spellcasting ability (spells) and Paralyzingly Touch. The last is melee spell attack, so definitely an attack, but debatably not a spell despite the type of attack.

While I agree that this is a good solution, it's maybe worth noting that this problem applies to Dragonborn characters as well.

Yup. Definitely something that would need to fall under the same ruling, one way or the other.

[Unoriginal]

While I agree that this is a good solution, it's maybe worth noting that this problem applies to Dragonborn characters as well.

The Dragonborn's breath is neither a spell nor an attack, per RAW.

Same can be said of the Turn (Undead or otherwise) option for Channel Divinity of the Cleric and Paladin (as well as a few others Channel options), the Draconic Presence of the Sorcerer, the Fey Presence, Dark Delirium, and Create Thrall of the Warlock, and probably others I've not seen.

Ergo, by RAW, all of this would work even if under a "no attack, no spell" effect.

If the DM decides to do otherwise, it's their prerogative.

[Drackolus]

Both seem pretty clear. If it were AL, dragonborn's breath would not break invisibility or sanctuary. "Causing damage" or "forcing a target to make a saving throw" are not mentioned in the "making an attack" section. In a home game, I would most likely say it does break, as the intent is also clear for those effects, but I would allow the player to "take back" the action and possibly the spell, as I am directly changing the function of those spells.

Really, the only things that are wrong are Sanctuary and Invisibility. They need to be more specific. Everything else that I can think of work fine.

[Unoriginal]

They're labeled 'Actions', not 'Attacks'. And only include things that require an action, non-actions, including damaging effects like Aura, are before that in an uncatgorized section. I double checked, because the very first thing I was gonna post is 'the MM tells you what's an attack and what isn't'. While that's technically true, it only includes things with attack rolls in each given actions line that it applies to. So spell like abilities, which aren't a defined thing in 5e, exist in a grey space. Check out the Dretch's Fetid Cloud, or Dretch's Scare or even Invisibility, as examples. They're not explicitly spells. Contrast with the Lich's Spellcasting ability (spells) and Paralyzingly Touch. The last is melee spell attack, so definitely an attack, but debatably not a spell despite the type of attack.

It's not a grey area.

5e does categorize magic features that are not spell-based,as "magical effects". If it's not described as a spell (Innate Spellcasting or otherwise), then it's a magical effect, and so not a spell. And only the Actions that requires an attack roll are attacks, per definition (some effects only trigger if an attack/a hit happens, so they would be blocked too).

[Unoriginal]

One shouldn't have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day. It is a design flaw of 5E.

That's not specifically a 5e flaw. Any game can have the GM saying "I decided to change X because Y, so now it works like that at my table."

EDIT:

Double post due to responding to deleted post.

[Millstone85]

That's not specifically a 5e flaw. Any game can have the GM saying "I decided to change X because Y, so now it works like that at my table."

But then the DM is aware they changed X, and they felt the need to inform the player in advance. Whereas with different readings of X, both the DM and the player will be surprised to not find each other on the same page even though the page is right here.

[Tanarii]

Really, the only things that are wrong are Sanctuary and Invisibility. They need to be more specific. Everything else that I can think of work fine.

Thats my feeling. They should include magical abilities / effects, not just spells.

It's not a grey area.

5e does categorize magic features that are not spell-based,as "magical effects". If it's not described as a spell (Innate Spellcasting or otherwise), then it's a magical effect, and so not a spell. And only the Actions that requires an attack roll are attacks, per definition (some effects only trigger if an attack/a hit happens, so they would be blocked too).

Page reference for "magical effects?"

[Unoriginal]

Page reference for "magical effects?"

There is no page with the definition of "magical effects", but the book makes clear that it includes both spells and other magic instance that are not spells.

"At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects. Vou start with two such effects: Turn Undead and an effect determined by your domain" PHB p.58

"WHAT IS A SPELL?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression." p. 201

"Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it" p. 213

"For the duration, each friendly creature in the area (including you) has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects." p. 222

"You change the way the target appears to spells and magical effects that detect creature types, such as apaladin's Divine Sense or the trigger of a symbol spell." p. 263

"The quasit has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects" (PHB) p. 309

But then the DM is aware they changed X, and they felt the need to inform the player in advance. Whereas with different readings of X, both the DM and the player will be surprised to not find each other on the same page even though the page is right here.

Arguing about the rules' interpretation is also something that can happen with any game.

[Theodoxus]

However, I am very reluctant and cautious in such things because I do think it sways the power dynamic in possibly unpredictable and undesirable ways. The context is important.

Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?

That is not the question of the thread, and balance was not the concern of anyone here. I don't see what unbalanced UA options (or options that can be considered unbalanced by some) have to do in this discussion, either.

Unless you're talking about the comment on how interpreting anything harmful as an attack would make Uncanny Dodge very powerful, but that'd be a very confusing way of addressing it.

I'm talking about Dalebert, who very specifically questioned balance (ie sways the power dynamic). Since I was replying directly under him at the time, I didn't think to reference his post. Once I posted, I was AFK and couldn't rectify. Perhaps this makes it clearer? But I get the fun of finding the guy with the dissenting opinion and ganging up. It's cool - and the general consensus seems to be what I said in the first place, so there's that.

[Unoriginal]

I'm talking about Dalebert, who very specifically questioned balance (ie sways the power dynamic). Since I was replying directly under him at the time, I didn't think to reference his post. Once I posted, I was AFK and couldn't rectify. Perhaps this makes it clearer? But I get the fun of finding the guy with the dissenting opinion and ganging up. It's cool - and the general consensus seems to be what I said in the first place, so there's that.

I do not "gang up on the guy with the dissenting opinion for fun", thank you very much.

[BurgerBeast]

The whole "if there's ever a question..." can be defeated by never asking the question argument is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

But there is still a major problem in the literal words that people relentlessly overlook. I've colour coded it here to make the analogy crystal clear.

If you are a mammal, you are an animal. This does not mean that if you are an animal, you are a mammal. Therefore some things that are not mammals can be animals.

If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack. This does not mean that if you are making an attack, you are making an attack roll. Therefore some things that do not involve attack rolls can be attacks. [edited]

So, RAW, there is room for things that do not involve attack rolls to be attacks. There is nothing in the RAW that explicitly forbids anything that does not involve an attack roll from being an attack.

Obviously, JC is telling us that they meant for this to be the rule, but it is not. There was clearly an intention for the game-term Attack to denote an instance in which an attack roll is made. However, this never occurs in the RAW.

People have misread this, or made logical errors around it, for a long, long, time.

[Tanarii]

There is no page with the definition of "magical effects", but the book makes clear that it includes both spells and other magic instance that are not spells.

Yes, I'm aware that the term is used many times. The problem is it's not defined, nor are many things clear led labeled as being such, with the clear exception of spells being a part of it. I thought from your post you were aware of somewhere it was defined explicitly.

I guess my stance is that Sanctuary really should break on using harmful magical effects, or at least ones that require an action. Not sure about things like an aura. Likewise Invisibility should break on using a magical effect.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's RAW. I'm saying I think it should have been, or something along those lines.

[smcmike]

RAW, there is room for things that do not involve attack rolls to be attacks. There is nothing in the RAW that explicitly forbids anything that does not involve an attack roll from being an attack.

Agreed. Shoves or grabs, for example, are explicitly described as attacks, but do not involve attack rolls.

Obviously, JC is telling us that they meant for this to be the rule, but it is not. There was clearly an intention for the game-term Attack to denote an instance in which an attack roll is made. However, this never occurs in the RAW.

People have misread this, or made logical errors around it, for a long, long, time.

It's a two part test.

1. Does the text call it an attack?
2. Does it involve an attack roll?

Meet one of these conditions, and you've got yourself an attack.

[BurgerBeast]

test. 1. Does the text call it an attack?
2. Does it involve an attack roll?

Meet one of these conditions, and you've got yourself an attack.

This is what is intended. It is decidedly not what is written. If we are talking about RAW, this is not how it is determined. (edit: 2 fails as per my argument above)

Edit: yes thank you. If it is explicitly called an attack, it is an attack, regardless of whether it involves an attack roll. But that is a separate point.