What is technically considered an attack?

[Drackolus]

There is sort of the trouble that, if something counts or doesn't count as an attack for invisibility or sanctuary, the same is true for hex.
Thus, if fireball breaks invisibility because it is an attack, it also adds hex's damage. Magic missile does the same, but since it's classified as an instantaneous multi-target spell, it only procs once regardless of the number of missiles (similar to why, raw, you only roll one d4 and use it for all missiles).
Grappling a target would also allow the extra d6 of damage. It is described as a special melee attack, and it does not use an attack roll, so it's kind of wonky.

[smcmike]

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.

Technically, my formulation follows the RAW in not stating the negative, so I'm not sure how 2 fails - if you make an attack roll, you've got yourself an attack.

The question is what happens in the negative case. I think you are asking for overformalized language, but I suppose I see your point.

[Easy_Lee]

There is sort of the trouble that, if something counts or doesn't count as an attack for invisibility or sanctuary, the same is true for hex.
Thus, if fireball breaks invisibility because it is an attack, it also adds hex's damage. Magic missile does the same, but since it's classified as an instantaneous multi-target spell, it only procs once regardless of the number of missiles (similar to why, raw, you only roll one d4 and use it for all missiles).
Grappling a target would also allow the extra d6 of damage. It is described as a special melee attack, and it does not use an attack roll, so it's kind of wonky.

Casting a spell also breaks invisibility. As far as fireball vs sanctuary, I think fireball goes off without a problem

[bid]

The question is what happens in the negative case. I think you are asking for overformalized language, but I suppose I see your point.

The rule cannot say "anything else isn't an attack" because it contains exceptions such as shoving that do you use an attack roll.

Enumerating all non-attacks, and repeating that behavior to cover the negative space of all other definitions would be tedious. Madness lies in calling a wink an attack.

You could stretch and say harmful spells behave as if they were attacks, in the sense that they do damage. But that is not sufficient to say that RAW extends any further than its positive case.

There's no support for hex vs save spells anywhere in RAW, just as there's no support for hex vs winking.

tl;dr
Clear and unambiguous use of "attack" is required to extend beyond its "attack roll" definition.

[smcmike]

tl;dr
Clear and unambiguous use of "attack" is required to extend beyond its "attack roll" definition.

This is my conclusion as well.

[Dalebert]

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.

Your snark is uncalled for. I kindly ask that you not make personal judgments of me based on a single post in a forum. If you feel I need to justify my motivations for posting a thread on a contentious subject then fine. I'll share.

There was an extensive argument developing in the Simple RAW thread, the key word here being "simple". It's not the place for extensive debates. I believe the thread opens with guidance to that effect. It was many posts back and forth before I even saw it. I respectfully requested that the folks debating this point make a separate thread for it so as not to clutter the Simple RAW thread. A couple more replies were posted still without anyone taking my suggestion so I made a thread and linked to it. It appears to have worked. The discussion was moved.

So if you think it's a stupid subject to be debating, tell the folks who started it.

[qube]

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.

The thing is I agree ... HOWEVER, RAW works in such a way that specific overwrites generic.

• all mammals are animals
• if another thing says it's an animal too, then it's an animal; else it isn't

A crocodile is only an animal because it's a reptile (and it is mentioned somewhere that reptiles are considered animals)
A table is not an animal, because nowhere it is mentioned that it is (as no where it it mentioned it, or wooden objects, or ... are animals).

... or back to D&D: in RAW, making a diplomacy check is as much an attack as a fire breath, namely not. Not because they don't follow the rule the specific rule that states attack roll means attack, but because there is no rule that states they are.

[greenstone]

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!

There are lots of such questions.

Does a rogue or ranger's uncanny dodge feature halve the damage of a dragonborn's breath weapon?

Does a dragonborn's breath weapon count for maintaining barbarian rage? For a warlock's hurl through hell feature?

Does magic missile qualify for a warlock's hurl through hell feature? If it does, spending a level 1 spell slot to do an automatic 10d10 psychic damage is pretty overpowered.

Does a druid's nature's sanctuary feature protect you against a winter wolf's breath weapon?

[BurgerBeast]

Technically, my formulation follows the RAW in not stating the negative, so I'm not sure how 2 fails - if you make an attack roll, you've got yourself an attack.

The question is what happens in the negative case. I think you are asking for overformalized language, but I suppose I see your point.

I'm sorry, you've been right about this. I've been misreading your posts.

While both conditions, 1 and 2, tell us that an action is an attack, however, there is no reason to assume that other things cannot also be attacks nor do the rules ever explicitly say that an action is not an attack unless 1 or 2.

Edit: i'm not asking for overformalized language. I'm asking for the RAW to be the RAW, no more and no less. Ironically, I have been opposed on this and similar contentious points that are rooted in the same problem, and my opposition has used the "no more, no less" line against me. It's bewildering. Absence of explanation is not explanation of absence.

The thing is I agree ... HOWEVER, RAW works in such a way that specific overwrites generic.

• all mammals are animals
• if another thing says it's an animal too, then it's an animal; else it isn't

(emphasis added)

I disagree. I'm with you up until "else it isn't." This is a mistake, and it's being made all over the place. RAW do not work in this way, and they never have.

A crocodile is only an animal because it's a reptile (and it is mentioned somewhere that reptiles are considered animals)

No, a crocodile is not only an animal because it is a reptile. A crocodile is an animal because it is an animal. It also happens to be a reptile.

A table is not an animal, because nowhere it is mentioned that it is (as no where it it mentioned it, or wooden objects, or ... are animals).

Not sure where we're going here. Tables are not animals. Agreed.

... or back to D&D: in RAW, making a diplomacy check is as much an attack as a fire breath, namely not.

You're making a mistake here. The RAW are silent on whether either of these is an attack. We're left to use our brains.

Not because they don't follow the rule the specific rule that states attack roll means attack, but because there is no rule that states they are.

It's an error to think that attacks are only those things that the rules say are attacks. D&D does not, and has never, worked this way. It's quite the opposite. Things are what they seem unless the rules say otherwise.

If there are no rules regarding skunks (for example) in D&D, then we don't assume that in D&D skunks are not creatures, or they do not exist, just because there is no RAW to say they are or do.

[Theodoxus]

If there are no rules regarding skunks (for example) in D&D, then we don't assume that in D&D skunks are not creatures, or they do not exist, just because there is no RAW to say they are or do.

Right, that runs into the problem that you can't do anything that isn't expressly enumerated. There's no RAW rule on jumping from a staircase onto a swinging chandelier and using it to avoid a yawning pit trap to hell. So the option are "Well, there's no rule, so you can't do that" or "Well, there's no rule, so I'll have to make a ruling."

Then, years down the line, there's a Swinging Chandelier feat, and suddenly, you can no longer jump over a yawning pit trap to hell if you don't have the feat...

So, we only have logic (or a particular DMs take on logic, to answer these questions...

There are lots of such questions.

Does a rogue or ranger's uncanny dodge feature halve the damage of a dragonborn's breath weapon?

Uncanny Dodge states: ...when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack...
Dragonborn breath weapon states: When you use your breath weapon, each creature in the area of the exhalation must make a saving throw. the type of which is determined by your draconic ancestry.

Verdict: Because UD requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.

Does a dragonborn's breath weapon count for maintaining barbarian rage? For a warlock's hurl through hell feature?

We know what DBW states, so wording on barbarian rage:
lt ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends ... or you [haven't] taken damage since then. (DBW does state that it's save for half.)

Verdict: DBW would maintain rage as it deals damage regardless.

Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: Because HtH requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.

Does magic missile qualify for a warlock's hurl through hell feature? If it does, spending a level 1 spell slot to do an automatic 10d10 psychic damage is pretty overpowered.

Magic Missile states: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.
Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: MM would trigger HtH. Of course, at 14th level, you're casting MM from a 5th level spell slot, not 1st, unless you're MC'd into Bard/Sorc/Wiz or grabbed MM from Magic Initiate... even then, you're at least 14th level... 10d10 is 55 points of damage on average... that's not that much, at that level. It just sounds impressive...

Does a druid's nature's sanctuary feature protect you against a winter wolf's breath weapon?

Nature's Sanctuary states: ...beast or plant creature...
Winter Wolf states: Large monstrosity...

Verdict: Winter wolves aren't beasts or plant creatures - they're monstrosities related to worgs; thus WWs would ignore NS.

I did a quick and dirty search through beasts and plants, and the vast majority of them require hit rolls to affect creatures. The gas spore Death Burst however, doesn't - but that's not really targeting, it's just exploding when it dies, so I'd rule that wouldn't trigger NS either.

Ok, myconid spores, finally something useful...

Nature's Sanctuary states: When a beast or plant creature attacks you, that creature must make a Wisdom saving throw... On a failed save, the creature must choose a different target, or the attack automatically misses.
Pacifying Spores states: The myconid ejects spores at one creature it can see within 5 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Verdict: Inconclusive. We finally have an example that brings the point home. Now, I would rule that because it's a targeted attack spray at a singular creature, that it would trigger NS and require a Wis save to continue. I honestly can't see how it could be ruled as anything else, other than the absolute strictest ruling of RAW, which in my estimation, in this specific instance, would reduce player agency and be detrimental to their fun... but that's another argument.

[Unoriginal]

You're making a mistake here. The RAW are silent on whether either of these is an attack. We're left to use our brains.

The RAW is not silent:

"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."

OR: if you are not sure something is an attack, and it involves an attack roll, then it is an attack. If you are not sure something is an attack, and it doesn't involves an attack roll, then it is not an attack.

Simple.

Edit: i'm not asking for overformalized language. I'm asking for the RAW to be the RAW, no more and no less. Ironically, I have been opposed on this and similar contentious points that are rooted in the same problem, and my opposition has used the "no more, no less" line against me. It's bewildering. Absence of explanation is not explanation of absence.

The RAW is the RAW, and there is an explanation. Namely, the rule about what to consider an attack if you are debating if it is an attack or not.

It's an error to think that attacks are only those things that the rules say are attacks. D&D does not, and has never, worked this way. It's quite the opposite. Things are what they seem unless the rules say otherwise..

The Champion's Survivor class feature involves the Champion regaining HPs after being damaged enough. Are you going to argue that it can be blocked by an Antimagic Field because, despite it being never mentioned to be magical, it sure *seems" magical to regain HPs like that?

If there are no rules regarding skunks (for example) in D&D, then we don't assume that in D&D skunks are not creatures, or they do not exist, just because there is no RAW to say they are or do.

That's a false equivalence. You're not going to debate if an eagle is a skunk because there is nothing saying that the eagle is not a skunk, yes?

[smcmike]

I'm sorry, you've been right about this. I've been misreading your posts.

While both conditions, 1 and 2, tell us that an action is an attack, however, there is no reason to assume that other things cannot also be attacks nor do the rules ever explicitly say that an action is not an attack unless 1 or 2.

Edit: i'm not asking for overformalized language. I'm asking for the RAW to be the RAW, no more and no less. Ironically, I have been opposed on this and similar contentious points that are rooted in the same problem, and my opposition has used the "no more, no less" line against me. It's bewildering. Absence of explanation is not explanation of absence.

When I talk about overformalization, I mean that the rules clearly sacrificed some preciseness in favor of readability in places, and that I approve of this decision.

Here is a drafting exercise - assume that the goal is to define "Attack" as "any action that uses an attack role + anything else the rules call an attack." Write that in language that is precise, concise, and readable.

Personally, I think they did a pretty decent job with the language they used.

[Unoriginal]

Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

[Millstone85]

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.

This doesn't, but the previous chunk of text does.

It defines "making an attack" as a three-step process that goes:
1. Pick a target.
2. DM determines cover and stuff.
3. Make an attack roll.

Then comes the bit about the converse being true as well. Making an attack roll means you are making an attack.

From blue to green and green to blue. As Unoriginal said a page ago, the RAW is very clear.

And the RAI agrees, if we consider tweets from the lead rules developer to be that.

Therefore some things that do not involve attack rolls can be attacks.

They can, but for a different reason. When a more specific rule declares something to be an attack, the general rule surrenders.

[smcmike]

Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

I hope I'm not misconstruing BurgerBeast, but I believe his point is that the book never actually says "X is not an attack."


I don't know what Theodoxus is doing. He seems to want to use "hit" as the term of art instead of "attack," which seems like a very bad decision to me.

[Unoriginal]

I hope I'm not misconstruing BurgerBeast, but I believe his point is that the book never actually says "X is not an attack."

The book says that what determines whether X is an attack if questioned is if there is an attack roll or not. So by defintion, even if it is not literally RAW, "X is not an attack" is an option acknowledged by the book, and it is applied to what is questioned to be an attack but does not have attack roll.

Furthermore:



Does anyone deny this?

I don't know what Theodoxus is doing. He seems to want to use "hit" as the term of art instead of "attack," which seems like a very bad decision to me.

Theodoxus is missing the point by trying to conflate "hit" and "hit with an attack", which are different.

Magic Missile hits the target, yes, but it is not an attack, so it wouldn't trigger Hurl through Hell

More on this later.

[qube]

I disagree. I'm with you up until "else it isn't." This is a mistake, and it's being made all over the place.

Sorry mate, thats how general vs specific works.

There are actions (general).

Actions that have an attack roll are attacks (specific).

... maybe, one day, there will be an additional rule, for example

Actions that have an intelligence(psychic combat skill) check are attacks (specific).

But when the action doesn't fall under any specific rule, the general rule applies.
A specific rule being all limitting, doesn't mean you get free reign to decide whatever the heck you want, for the other senarios.

The RAW are silent on whether either of these is an attack. We're left to use our brains.

No. We're left with the general situation.

A rule that states ogre mages can turn invisible at will, is silent on if humans can do that or not. They can't, not because "our brains" - but because it's the general rule that creatures can't do this.

Specific Rules specify things about their scope, and nothing more.

[Unoriginal]

Uncanny Dodge states: ...when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack...
Dragonborn breath weapon states: When you use your breath weapon, each creature in the area of the exhalation must make a saving throw. the type of which is determined by your draconic ancestry.

Verdict: Because UD requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.

You're right that it doesn't trigger it, but it's because "hits you with an attack...", not because of the "hit" part.

Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: Because HtH requires a hit (arguably, that references a To-Hit Roll), and DBW is a saving throw, it would not trigger UD. Nor would Fireball, Cloud Kill, Sacred Flame, Viscous Mockery, etc. etc.

Same mistake. It's "when you hit a creature with an attack...", not "when you hit"

(Also I assume you meant HtH, not UD )

Magic Missile states: Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range.
Hurl through Hell states: ...when you hit a creature with an attack...

Verdict: MM would trigger HtH.

No, because Magic Missiles may hit, but it does not hit "with an attack", which is explicitly Hurl Through Hell's trigger condition. Magic Missile is not an attack.

Nature's Sanctuary states: When a beast or plant creature attacks you, that creature must make a Wisdom saving throw... On a failed save, the creature must choose a different target, or the attack automatically misses.
Pacifying Spores states: The myconid ejects spores at one creature it can see within 5 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Verdict: Inconclusive. We finally have an example that brings the point home. Now, I would rule that because it's a targeted attack spray at a singular creature, that it would trigger NS and require a Wis save to continue. I honestly can't see how it could be ruled as anything else, other than the absolute strictest ruling of RAW, which in my estimation, in this specific instance, would reduce player agency and be detrimental to their fun... but that's another argument.

Does Pacifying Spores includes an attack roll? Answer: no. Ergo, Pacifying Spores is not an attack, and by definition it is not included in the things Nature's Sanctuary protect from.

There is nothing about it that "reduce player agency". Pacifying Spores are simply not something that NS protect against, the same way that it wouldn't protect against a non-thinking mushroom projecting spores.

[smcmike]

Ok, myconid spores, finally something useful...

Nature's Sanctuary states: When a beast or plant creature attacks you, that creature must make a Wisdom saving throw... On a failed save, the creature must choose a different target, or the attack automatically misses.
Pacifying Spores states: The myconid ejects spores at one creature it can see within 5 feet of it. The target must succeed on a DC 11 Constitution saving throw or be stunned for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Verdict: Inconclusive. We finally have an example that brings the point home. Now, I would rule that because it's a targeted attack spray at a singular creature, that it would trigger NS and require a Wis save to continue. I honestly can't see how it could be ruled as anything else, other than the absolute strictest ruling of RAW, which in my estimation, in this specific instance, would reduce player agency and be detrimental to their fun... but that's another argument.

I hope this not does not come come across as piling on, but this is a useful case you have found, and goes strongly against your conclusion.

You state that the Myconid Spores would require a Wisdom save to "continue," but the actual effect of Nature's Sanctuary (assuming no alternate target) is that the attack misses. Missing is not something that Pacifying Spores can do - it is resolved with a save, not an attack roll. This mismatch makes perfect sense if you acknowledge that PS is not an attack.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. The special melee attacks throw a wrench into things. But the test is in the book, in black and white. BurgerBeast is engaging with that test, but I haven't seen you do so.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not saying the system is perfect. The special melee attacks throw a wrench into things.

Which ones? I haven't seen any that throw a wrench into things, but I might have missed them.

[DivisibleByZero]

I haven't read through all three pages of this, so I am absolutely certain that this has already been covered, but the answer depends on the context.
In this context, we have moved from the RAW thread. The RAW states that what constitutes an "attack" either a) requires and attack roll, or b) is explicitly called an attack in its description (or overview, in the case of special melee attacks such as grappling/shoving).
Spells/features/abilities that use a saving throw are not classified as attacks, as per RAW.

Common English (or even RAI) may persuade you to disagree with that explanation, but we aren't talking about common English, we're talking about game terminology and RAW.

You are more than welcome to call a dragon's breath weapon or a magic missile spell or a sacred flame spell attacks if you want to, from a narrative standpoint. But from a mechanical standpoint none of them qualify as attacks.
Hostile actions? Absolutely.
Attacks? Not by the rules.
That whole "assault vs. battery" thing has no bearing on the rules.

[smcmike]

Which ones? I haven't seen any that throw a wrench into things, but I might have missed them.

By "special melee attacks" I mean grappling and shoving. What happens when a beast tries to shove someone who has Nature's Sanctuary? There isn't any way by RAW for a shove to miss that I can see.

[bid]

The RAW states that what constitutes an "attack" either a) requires and attack roll, or b) is explicitly called an attack in its description (or overview, in the case of special melee attacks such as grappling/shoving).

And some insist it can be c) some other cases that are not explicitely "not an attack".

There's no consistency is that approach to arguments.

[Arial Black]

Do we all agree this is what the book tell us to do?

This diagram does not line up with the rules.

Specifically, it cannot have a path that says, "is there any doubt whether this counts as an attack".

That question cannot be part of the diagram, because you only use the diagram to answer that very question.

By choosing to consult the diagram to resolve a question about whether something counts as an attack or not, you have already shown that there is a doubt! Therefore, there can be no-one who is consulting the diagram who can honestly say that there is no doubt! That path cannot be taken honestly. You are consulting the diagram to resolve the question, therefore there is a question, a 'doubt'.

[Unoriginal]

By "special melee attacks" I mean grappling and shoving. What happens when a beast tries to shove someone who has Nature's Sanctuary? There isn't any way by RAW for a shove to miss that I can see.

Shoving and grappling are attacks, so if a beast tries to shove someone who has NS, as per the RAW, if the beast failed its save the shoving would miss (like any failed shoving attempt), because specifics trump generals and so the "NS makes attacks miss" is one way that shoving can miss.

This diagram does not line up with the rules.

Specifically, it cannot have a path that says, "is there any doubt whether this counts as an attack".

That question cannot be part of the diagram, because you only use the diagram to answer that very question.

By choosing to consult the diagram to resolve a question about whether something counts as an attack or not, you have already shown that there is a doubt! Therefore, there can be no-one who is consulting the diagram who can honestly say that there is no doubt! That path cannot be taken honestly. You are consulting the diagram to resolve the question, therefore there is a question, a 'doubt'.

One, this diagram does line up with the rules.

Two, this diagram is not to "consult to resolve the question", it is about what has to be considered to confirm that X is an attack (a small difference, I admit, but still noticeable), so the question matters.

But if you want a different diagram:

[Rebonack]

RAW, it's only an attack if it resolves as an attack roll or mentions being an attack in the ability description.

At my table, however, anything that deals damage is considered an attack. Because otherwise you could turn an Imp familiar into an invisible attack helicopter with a Wand of Magic Missile. Closes a few abusive edge-cases AND fits better with plain language understanding? Done.

[Unoriginal]

RAW, it's only an attack if it resolves as an attack roll or mentions being an attack in the ability description.

At my table, however, anything that deals damage is considered an attack. Because otherwise you could turn an Imp familiar into an invisible attack helicopter with a Wand of Magic Missile. Closes a few abusive edge-cases AND fits better with plain language understanding? Done.

Casting a magical effect also dispel the Invisibility, though. So the Imp trick wouldn't work.

[Millstone85]

Casting a magical effect also dispel the Invisibility, though. So the Imp trick wouldn't work.

Invisibility, as in the spell, has that clause. Invisibility, as in the imp action, does not.

[smcmike]

RAW, it's only an attack if it resolves as an attack roll or mentions being an attack in the ability description.

At my table, however, anything that deals damage is considered an attack. Because otherwise you could turn an Imp familiar into an invisible attack helicopter with a Wand of Magic Missile. Closes a few abusive edge-cases AND fits better with plain language understanding? Done.

Arguably, though, your houserule opens more abusive edge cases than it closes. Can a Rogue use Uncanny Dodge to reduce Fireball damage?

[Rebonack]

Covered already, but I'll reiterate.

An Imp's invisibility is broken ONLY by making an attack or losing concentration.

Invisibility: The imp magically turns Invisible until it attacks, or until its Concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell). Any Equipment the imp wears or carries is Invisible with it.