What is technically considered an attack?

[MaxWilson]

Does anyone deny this?

Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.

This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

[smcmike]

Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.

This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

Can you grapple someone without breaking invisibility then?

[Rebonack]

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

The biggest net-gains are the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge becoming more powerful and from Hex being able to trigger on a wider range of damage sources. Being able to use your Reaction to reduce damage from all damage sources rather than eighty percent of them isn't that huge of a deal. Nor is being able to get an extra 1d6 damage off a casting of Magic Missile or Fireball. However, an invisible imp with a wand of Magic Missile is going to give the party a pretty significant boost to their action economy, especially at lower levels.

For me at least, this is less about 'will this make a few features a bit stronger?' than it is about 'could this have a significant negative impact on the game?' The Warlock player might have fun with their stealth bomber Imp, but everyone else would likely find it annoying.

Something getting slightly stronger or a bit more flexible doesn't count as an 'abusive edge case' in my book. But the Imp? Geeze. It isn't just the fact that the Warlock is getting ~10 extra damage each turn. It's the fact that this damage is also coming from an invisible, stealthy, small flying source that is already an incredible out-of-combat resource.

In the end, it's all a preference thing. If you want to prevent Magic Missile from triggering Hex once per cast or Rogues getting to cut Disintegrate damage in half (because let's be real, they already Evasion'd that Fireball) then more power to you! The RAW definition of an Attack is weird but it certainly works. Just beware of stealth bomber imps.

[MeeposFire]

Covered already, but I'll reiterate.

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

Well considering how much this edition has gone the way of being REALLY technical in its rulings we can make this work.

The ability actually says "until it attacks" not "when it makes an attack" or similar language. In this case one could argue that the word is not the game term of attack but is the more broad term of general English of "attacks" and thus could be ruled to include things that are not just what the game terms is strictly an attack.

Really technical sure but if you want another example of really technical language making a ruing look no further than the magic initiate ruling on whether you can use the spell with your spell slots (ruled to only work if it is on your class's list) or why the various different +stat to spell damage abilities work differently depending on their exact wording.

[smcmike]

The biggest net-gains are the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge becoming more powerful and from Hex being able to trigger on a wider range of damage sources. Being able to use your Reaction to reduce damage from all damage sources rather than eighty percent of them isn't that huge of a deal. Nor is being able to get an extra 1d6 damage off a casting of Magic Missile or Fireball. However, an invisible imp with a wand of Magic Missile is going to give the party a pretty significant boost to their action economy, especially at lower levels.

For me at least, this is less about 'will this make a few features a bit stronger?' than it is about 'could this have a significant negative impact on the game?' The Warlock player might have fun with their stealth bomber Imp, but everyone else would likely find it annoying.

Something getting slightly stronger or a bit more flexible doesn't count as an 'abusive edge case' in my book. But the Imp? Geeze. It isn't just the fact that the Warlock is getting ~10 extra damage each turn. It's the fact that this damage is also coming from an invisible, stealthy, small flying source that is already an incredible out-of-combat resource.

In the end, it's all a preference thing. If you want to prevent Magic Missile from triggering Hex once per cast or Rogues getting to cut Disintegrate damage in half (because let's be real, they already Evasion'd that Fireball) then more power to you! The RAW definition of an Attack is weird but it certainly works. Just beware of stealth bomber imps.

It seems like the solution is not give your players wands of magic missile.

[Rebonack]

Well considering how much this edition has gone the way of being REALLY technical in its rulings we can make this work.

The ability actually says "until it attacks" not "when it makes an attack" or similar language. In this case one could argue that the word is not the game term of attack but is the more broad term of general English of "attacks" and thus could be ruled to include things that are not just what the game terms is strictly an attack.

Really technical sure but if you want another example of really technical language making a ruing look no further than the magic initiate ruling on whether you can use the spell with your spell slots (ruled to only work if it is on your class's list) or why the various different +stat to spell damage abilities work differently depending on their exact wording.

The magic initiate ruling is still pretty mind-warping to me. I can see it, though. Sure you're learning it, but in all class features that have similar effects they also specify 'And it becomes a (Class) spell for you' while the Magic Initiate feat lacks that clause. For the +Stat effects, I think most of them have been irrata'd to include (or not include) something that it specifies whether or not it only applies once per turn. The dragon sorcerer, for example, applies bonus damage once per turn. The phoenix sorcerer lacks that clause. They caught it on the Celestial Warlock vs the Undying Light Warlock, too.

And for running with technicality, I can see that too. The Imp's invisibility action states 'Until it attacks' as opposed to 'until it uses an Attack'. Though the invisibility SPELL uses the same language, so it feels like a stretch to me. Also probably worth mentioning that this was something of a compromise. The game at the table is Princes of the Apocalypse and the party found a Wand of Magic Missile pretty early on with some pre-set loot. The Warlock player spotted the interaction (or rather lack of interaction) between the Wand and the Imp's version of invisibility and made the pitch to me. I vetoed it, but to keep 'attacks' mechanically consistent I conceded that Hex would be able to trigger off basically any damage source.

In the end, the Warlock netting an extra 1d6 Hex damage off Fireball has proven to be the MUCH lesser of two evils.

[Theodoxus]

Well, F me in the B - had I but known that simply saying "at my table" would have avoided all the negativity...

Are we now going to move away from the OP and talk about what technically an attack should be? It'd probably be a more productive conversation...

[Tanarii]

For me at least, this is less about 'will this make a few features a bit stronger?' than it is about 'could this have a significant negative impact on the game?' The Warlock player might have fun with their stealth bomber Imp, but everyone else would likely find it annoying.

Trying to prevent invisible magic missile imps by making Hex and Uncanny Dodge far more powerful, along with breaking anything else that triggers on attacks, is the exact definition of 'a significant negative impact on the game'. You're trying to put out a campfire with forest fire because you're worried it might use up all you firewood.

[coolAlias]

Trying to prevent invisible magic missile imps by making Hex and Uncanny Dodge far more powerful, along with breaking anything else that triggers on attacks, is the exact definition of 'a significant negative impact on the game'. You're trying to put out a campfire with forest fire because you're worried it might use up all you firewood.

Agreed, but at the same time, why does it have to be so all or nothing? Why not simply say they qualify as an attack in the colloquial language sense and for purposes of breaking all sorts of invisibility (and perhaps even Uncanny Dodge - wouldn't be that terribly OP), but they don't qualify as an 'attack' in the "roll d20+mod" game mechanic sense and thus do not qualify for Hex, etc.?

No one in my group would think twice if I ruled an imp familiar became visible after using a Wand of Magic Missiles, nor would they expect Hex to apply to such damage.

[Rebonack]

Trying to prevent invisible magic missile imps by making Hex and Uncanny Dodge far more powerful, along with breaking anything else that triggers on attacks, is the exact definition of 'a significant negative impact on the game'. You're trying to put out a campfire with forest fire because you're worried it might use up all you firewood.

This is feeling a tad hyperbole-y to me here. Under what situation would Hex triggering off spells like Shatter or Fireball be breaking the game? Or even count as 'far more powerful'? The Warlock boosting his average damage by 3.5 against one guy when he drops an AoE spell has yet to break anything. The strongest application I can think of off hand is blasting someone with Kiss of Mephistopheles after Hexing them, but that's still just 3.5 extra damage and requires a round of setup time.

There are very few effects (that don't require concentration) that don't use attack rolls and deal multiple or reoccurring instances of damage to augment riders like Hunter's Mark and Hex. I mean, maybe if you let it trigger off every single individual rider on a Bladelock's lifedrinking eldritch smite? That would be 7 Hex instances if they're rolling with Polearm Master. About 14 extra damage at level 12+? But I don't think you would have a leg to stand on there since it's all one damage roll, same as Magic Missile. One damage roll, one Hex instance.

On Uncanny Dodge I'm just not seeing it either. Eighty percent or more of the damage sources a party is going to be dealing with over the course of a game come from attack rolls. The Rogue being able to uncannily dodge a Beholder's deathray won't break anything. It'll just mean he gets petrify ogled next round instead. It's no more game breaking than Bear Totem Barbarians are. Just quite a bit more manageable since it's only one instance of damage mitigation a round. Or just modify the wording of Uncanny Dodge to 'when the Rogue is hit by an attack roll'.

[Tanarii]

Obviously the way I phrased it I'd hyperbole. ;)

But you're claiming its necessary to break a large number of interactions with 'attack' because you're worried about invisible imps wielding magic missile wands. Hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to such hyperbole.

[qube]

Can you grapple someone without breaking invisibility then?

Nope: because of specific vs general rule.

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee attack, a grapple.
-- grapple

a special attack (grapple)
↓
attack
↓
(any) action

STEP1 : we consider the 'special' part has no bearing on invisibility. Who knows, perhaps the 'special' part of the attack action was that it didn't break invisibility. This is not the case here. What makes it special, is that unlike typical attack actions, there's no attack roll used, damage rolled, etc ..., so we fall through to a more general level: the attacks

STEP 2: As attacks break invisibility, so grapple breaks.

/RAW.

No one in my group would think twice if I ruled an imp familiar became visible after using a Wand of Magic Missiles, nor would they expect Hex to apply to such damage.

I bet nobody would think twice either if you'd ruled you are able to use sneak attack with a monks unarmed strike.

(despite not being weapons, nor having the finesse quality, the fact monks cn use dex on their attack & damage with unarmed strikes, and use their hands as weapons ... they look very simelar. yet both RAW & Sage Advice have ruled you can't combine them.)

RAW =/= Rule 0 (a.k.a. reasoning "this makes sense to me, and it seems balanced, so I'll allow/disallow it" )


That is not to say Rule 0 isn't important, but there's no use for a "Rule 0" thread. When someone asks you what the rules are, people should be honest - and not present oppinion as fact. Best case, it would look something like this

"according to RAW & sage advice, you can't sneak attack with unarmed strike, but as I personally don't see the inbalance of it , I allow it at my table".

or

"Technically magic missle doesn't break invisibility as it's not considered an attack by RAW. Personally, in my games, I rule it as an attack that always hits, (opposite to other attacks that can do more damage, but don't always hit), so I have it break invisibility"

[Rebonack]

Obviously the way I phrased it I'd hyperbole. ;)

But you're claiming its necessary to break a large number of interactions with 'attack' because you're worried about invisible imps wielding magic missile wands. Hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to such hyperbole.

Oh good, I was worried for a moment this was going to be sliding into some pretty silly territory.

I'm curious what approach you would have taken if it was your game since other perspectives are always great in situations like these. Would you have let them use the stealth bomber interaction? Would you have ruled that any hostile action counts as an attack for the purpose of Invisibility? Obviously you wouldn't let them treat spells as attacks for the purpose of Hex. If you would I doubt this conversation would have made it this far.

Agreed, but at the same time, why does it have to be so all or nothing? Why not simply say they qualify as an attack in the colloquial language sense and for purposes of breaking all sorts of invisibility (and perhaps even Uncanny Dodge - wouldn't be that terribly OP), but they don't qualify as an 'attack' in the "roll d20+mod" game mechanic sense and thus do not qualify for Hex, etc.?

No one in my group would think twice if I ruled an imp familiar became visible after using a Wand of Magic Missiles, nor would they expect Hex to apply to such damage.

The reason I would feel leery about only going part-way is because the player would likely feel like they're being picked on. 'Nope, you can't use this cool RAW interaction you found. Nope, you can't use the logical consequence of not being able to use that RAW interaction, either. Sorry.'

[Citan]

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

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

Aaaah, so that's why. Interesting point.
I'm always following RAW for my players so they can use nice tricks (such as casting Sanctuary while maintaining SPirit Guardians) so I would probably also allow the Dragon to attack, although that would indeed feel very weird to me.
Well... Really not sure in fact. I'd probably ask my players about these kind of interactions beforehand, because I wouldn't want them to feel "cheated" while I'm just following RAW. If it would make them feel bad, I'd prepare another tactic.

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

But it is casting a spell, since cantrips are still spells technically, and it affects an enemy creature, so it would break Sanctuary (that's why, unfortunately, you cannot spend your time just Commanding everyone around while under Sanctuary, although this would be very fun and classy).

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?

Seems several people here don't bother fully reading the description of spells. XD
Invisibility explicitely breaks also when you cast a spell. ;)
(Greater Invisibility doesn't bear this limit but it's a 4th level spell too).

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.

Totally agreed.

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.

Hmm, that is a good argument too (or at least, let's say, a very good hint to help DM adjudicate in the fairest way). ;)

[DivisibleByZero]

Well, F me in the B - had I but known that simply saying "at my table" would have avoided all the negativity...

Nice try. I call shenanigans.
The title of the thread itself, and the OP's description of how this discussion came directly from the RAW thread, and pretty much every single dissenting view after that referencing the rules, means that you knew full good and well that literally no one was asking about what happens "at your table."

[greenstone]

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.

My question wasn't about being hit by a breath weapon; it was about using it.

Barbarian's have to make an attack every round or their rage drops. Does using a breath weapon count for this?

[Unoriginal]

Yes. Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

Is there an attack roll?
Y: It's an attack.
N: It's not an attack.

The PHB says as much explicitly in almost exactly those words. The definition of an attack is practically the only thing in 5E's jargon that is well-defined. :-P Unlike, say, the difference between a Constitution check and a Constitution save.

This is why grappling someone whom you've Hexed does not inflict 1d6 points of damage to them--because it's not an "attack" despite being an attack.

What.

Since the specifics trump the general, the fact there are specifics needs to be addressed in the flow chart.

My question wasn't about being hit by a breath weapon; it was about using it.

Barbarian's have to make an attack every round or their rage drops. Does using a breath weapon count for this?

It wouldn't count.



In the case of Dragon's breath VS Sanctuary, is should be noted that Sanctuary doesn't protect against the blast of an explosion or the like, and a dragon's breath is basically "I'm covering this given area with my breath, beware anyone who's in it."

[Citan]

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.

I think this bolded part pretty much nails it here. As far as RAI goes, it all depends on WHY is Sanctuary supposed to break in the first place when "making an attack" or "casting a spell that affects an enemy creature".
Most of us suppose that the intent of the spell is something like "Sanctuary provides a protection as long as you keep a clear, peaceful mind" or something like that. Like, it's the "agressive" intent that is the pillar of the effect.

But, although a bit far-stretched, you could also argue that Sanctuary breaks in aforementioned cases not necessarily because of an intent, but because making such actions require too intense of an physical/mental effort (because you are trying to impose an interaction on a creature, that the creatures does not want), compared to interactions you would make towards a willing creature such as buff/heal.
ALthough a bit weird, it could work to explain the apparent RAW incoherence...
- Maintaining concentration on a precast spell such as Spirit Guardians or Moonbeam does not need any "additional" effort (it's something you are used to, it's natural). Also, it's an AOE effect, you are not directing anything towards a specific creature either (same would be technically true for a Flaming Sphere or Dust Devil, even though you are directing the direction of their movement).
- Using Channel Divinity can be viewed as borrowing your god's power, aka you are just making a prayer and god is answering to it, but Cleric is not doing the "heavy lifting" himself.
- Using a natural ability such as Breath Weapon (Dragonborn), because it's an innate one (also, IIRC it's also an AOE effect, not targeting a specific creature).
- Abilities such as Tempest Cleric's reaction would be probably more difficult to legitimate like this though (you are creating a harmful effect towards a single creature after all), although it's still conceivable imo (since it's a reaction, you could argue it's instinctive, so "natural" even if in the end you still choose whether to use it or not on a per case basis).

I think Sanctuary is a good example of why people making spells should not be afraid of providing at least a paragraph of fluff. Keeping it "all open" (devoid of any fluff) is great to provide flexibility to DMs, but sometimes it's just too open for its own good. ;)

[smcmike]

Nope: because of specific vs general rule.

Thanks. I'm in your camp. I was just trying to understand MaxWilson's position.

[Arial Black]

But if you want a different diagram:

Much better.

Using words, something counts as an 'attack' in game terms if:-

* it uses the 'attack roll' mechanic

* it doesn't, but specifically says that it counts as an attack (shove, grapple)

If the thing in question does not meet either criteria, then it is not an 'attack' in game terms; which is what matters when interacting with other game terms, like when sanctuary/invisibility ends early.

[MaxWilson]

Can you grapple someone without breaking invisibility then?

I assume you're asking about the spell Invisibility? [Consults Invisibility spell description] Yes, and you can Help allies with their attacks, lay caltrops, stabilize allies, light things on fire, close portcullises, drag around someone you already have grappled, use breath weapons and Bardic Inspiration, and even put people to sleep with an Eyebite that you are already maintaining. (Oddly enough, enemies do not have to be able to see you to be affected by Eyebite.) You can interact with allies and enemies in numerous ways; it just so happens that for some reason, you cannot attack nor cast spells.

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

[coolAlias]

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

Grappling is a special melee attack that uses an ability check rather than an attack roll to resolve; it is still an attack.

[smcmike]

I assume you're asking about the spell Invisibility? [Consults Invisibility spell description] Yes, and you can Help allies with their attacks, lay caltrops, stabilize allies, light things on fire, close portcullises, drag around someone you already have grappled, use breath weapons and Bardic Inspiration, and even put people to sleep with an Eyebite that you are already maintaining. (Oddly enough, enemies do not have to be able to see you to be affected by Eyebite.) You can interact with allies and enemies in numerous ways; it just so happens that for some reason, you cannot attack nor cast spells.

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

I cannot wrap my head around denying that something that the book calls an attack (repeatedly, and not just as a title) is an attack.

[Unoriginal]

I assume you're asking about the spell Invisibility? [Consults Invisibility spell description] Yes, and you can Help allies with their attacks, lay caltrops, stabilize allies, light things on fire, close portcullises, drag around someone you already have grappled, use breath weapons and Bardic Inspiration, and even put people to sleep with an Eyebite that you are already maintaining. (Oddly enough, enemies do not have to be able to see you to be affected by Eyebite.) You can interact with allies and enemies in numerous ways; it just so happens that for some reason, you cannot attack nor cast spells.

Furthermore, because grappling is an ability check and not an attack, you also do not gain advantage on it from Shadow Jumping, because shadow jumping just gives you advantage on your "next attack," and grappling isn't an attack from a rules jargon standpoint.

PHB, p. 195, Melee Attacks section:

GRAPPLING
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Grappling is an attack.

[MaxWilson]

PHB, p. 195, Melee Attacks section:

Grappling is an attack.

From a common English standpoint, yes. Not from a rules jargon standpoint. To re-iterate:

Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are 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.

Choose a target: Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.

Determine modifiers: The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

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 or 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.

Grappling does not conform to this structure. You're not striking with a melee or ranged weapon or using a spell, there are no modifiers to an attack roll per step #2, and there is no attack roll per step #3 nor any possibility of a "hit". For extra measure, the rules go on to explicitly state that an attack roll is the defining feature of an attack.

Specific beats general. Grappling is a "special attack" (from a common English standpoint) which is not, from a rules jargon standpoint, an attack. This is one of the very few things which 5E's rules are clear about.

[DivisibleByZero]

From a common English standpoint, yes. Not from a rules jargon standpoint. To re-iterate:

Are you kidding me?
The PHB literally says that you "use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."
Snip that down to remove the descriptors:
use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple.
Make a melee attack, a grapple.

You don't honestly believe that this means it is *NOT* an attack, do you?
I mean, you can't! Can you?
Really?

[Millstone85]

Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test.

You got that backward. The "attack test" is the general rule. Grapple being an attack is the specific rule. Specific beats general in that grapple needs not pass the test.

[coolAlias]

From a common English standpoint, yes. Not from a rules jargon standpoint. To re-iterate:

Specific beats general. When evaluating whether a "special kind of attack", such as a grapple, counts as an attack for game-mechanical purposes, you look at the specific thing (the grapple) to see whether it meets the attack test. If it has an attack roll, then it's an attack. If it doesn't, it's not, even though the general thing of which it is a special case (attacks in general) are attacks.



Grappling does not conform to this structure. You're not striking with a melee or ranged weapon or using a spell, there are no modifiers to an attack roll per step #2, and there is no attack roll per step #3 nor any possibility of a "hit". For extra measure, the rules go on to explicitly state that an attack roll is the defining feature of an attack.

Specific beats general. Grappling is a "special attack" (from a common English standpoint) which is not, from a rules jargon standpoint, an attack. This is one of the very few things which 5E's rules are clear about.

You've got it backwards - the general rule is that an action is an attack if it uses an attack roll to resolve; the specific is that a grapple, despite not using an attack roll to resolve, is an attack - specifically, a special melee attack.

EDIT: Ninja'd. :P

[Aett_Thorn]

This is the part where you're wrong:

"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."

There's no doubt or question that grapple or shoves are attacks, because they SPECIFICALLY state that they are attacks. They are special attacks, sure, because they are attacks that don't use an attack roll. But they quite clearly are attacks in the rules jargon.

[MaxWilson]

I cannot wrap my head around denying that something that the book calls an attack (repeatedly, and not just as a title) is an attack.

I can't wrap my head around denying that the rules explicitly defines what constitutes an attack. I mean, I can clearly see that you're doing it, but I can't understand how you can think that it is correct to do so. You're attributing quite a lot of weight to a phrase which is there to highlight the fact that grapples are not regular attacks--and you're using that to justify pretending that they are. You're ignoring the inconsistencies this creates within the rules (such as Shadow Jumping now having to give advantage on grapples, even though being hidden does not give advantage on grapples). I can understand why you're doing this if I ignore the big picture, but I can't understand how you can think this interpretation is sound.