What is technically considered an attack?

[DivisibleByZero]

The PHB tells him that they are attacks.

That too.

When JC says something dumb and then has to reverse himself in a later tweet, that's not a sign of churn in the Rules As Written. It's just a mistake by a corporate spokesman.

When you ignore what the rules themselves state and argue what you personally want the rules to be, that's not a sign of the RAW. It's just a mistake that you refuse to admit.

I'm reminded of someone saying: If everyone else appears to be driving the wrong way down a one way street, perhaps it's time you look again and reevaluate who is really going the wrong way.

[MaxWilson]

The PHB tells him that they are attacks.

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks. Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll. You won't find it.

"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."

[Rebonack]

Well, on the subject of attacks, here's a question. Invisibility breaks if the beneficiary makes an attack or casts a spell. With that in mind:

Doea it break when you use a wand? Are you casting the spell with the wand, or is the wand casting the spell with you simply activating it?

Does it break when a dragonborn, or dragon, uses their breath weapon?

This is one I was puzzling over myself.

While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its Charges to cast the Magic Missile spell from it. For 1 charge, you cast the 1st-level version of the spell.

The first bolded portion seems to be implying that you're using an action, and that action is causing the wand to cast a spell. Would pulling a lever that drops a bunch of rocks on some monsters break Invisibility? Probably not. The second bolded part seems to be implying the exact opposite. This time around you're casting it.

If we're talking purely RAW, I would lean toward it breaking Invisibility, but it feels pretty muddy.

By RAW, a Dragonborn's breath weapon doesn't break invisibility. Which is likewise weird. Nor does a Warlock sneaking around ruining people's day with Maddening Hex after the Bard casts Invisibility on her.

[Aett_Thorn]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks. Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll. You won't find it.

"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."

But there is no doubt about whether they are attacks, because they specifically call themselves attacks. As such, this rule does not apply. Specific > General

[DivisibleByZero]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks. Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll. You won't find it.

We've already shown it to you. You refuse to see it.
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
It is an attack. The PHB calls it an attack THREE times.

[coolAlias]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks.

That's... wow. I see you will not be convinced, so have fun with your games.

[Unoriginal]

Doea it break when you use a wand? Are you casting the spell with the wand, or is the wand casting the spell with you simply activating it?

Depends of the wand in question.

Some wands indicate that *you* are casting the spell using the wand:

WAND OF BINDING
This wand has 7 charges for the following properties. It regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the wand's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles into ashes and is destroyed.

Spells. While holding the wand, you can use an action to expend some of its charges to cast one of the following spells

WAND OF FIREBALLS
This wand has 7 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast the fireball spell

In which case it does break invisibility, but in other cases the wand doesn't make you cast a spell:

WAND OF FEAR
Cone of Fear. While holding the wand, you can use an action to expend 2 charges, causing the wand's tip to emit a 60-foot cone of amber light. Each creature in the cone must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened of you for 1 minute.

In which case it does NOT break Invisibility.

Does it break when a dragonborn, or dragon, uses their breath weapon?

Nope.

[MaxWilson]

I'm reminded of someone saying: If everyone is driving the wrong way down a one way street, perhaps it's time you look again and reevaluate who is really going the wrong way.

Argumentum ad populum, a classic. "Everybody else thinks so, so I guess it must be correct." Reminds me of Solomon Asch's experiments on conformity: you can get people to express belief in things that are clearly and obviously wrong to visual inspection, like "which of these three lines is the longest?", as long as enough other people unanimously express the wrong belief first.

[MaxWilson]

But there is no doubt about whether they are attacks, because they specifically call themselves attacks. As such, this rule does not apply. Specific > General

But that wasn't even the question. It's not a question of classification: "are grapples a special type of attack?" It's a question of mechanics: "is grappling something affected by Sanctuary?" "Does it count as an attack for purposes of this spell?" Answer: no.

Otherwise you hit rules inconsistencies, because the PHB's writer's never anticipated attacks without attack rolls.

[Aett_Thorn]

Everyone else thinking the same thing, and backing it up, is a lot different from everyone just believing it.

Specific > General. Shove and Grapple Rules trump the general "if it involves an attack roll, it's an attack." Grapple and Shove are specific instances where that general rule does not apply. But that doesn't mean they aren't attacks. Their sections call them attacks multiple times.

[Aett_Thorn]

But that wasn't even the question. It's not a question of classification: "are grapples a special type of attack?" It's a question of mechanics: "is grappling something affected by Sanctuary?" "Does it count as an attack for purposes of this spell?" Answer: no.

Otherwise you hit rules inconsistencies, because the PHB's writer's never anticipated attacks without attack rolls.

But that's where you are wrong. It DOES count as an attack for the purposes of the spell. BECAUSE it IS an attack. If it's an attack, but doesn't count as an attack by the spell, that's when you start getting inconsistencies. Because then you could start considering other attacks that might not be affected by Santuary.

Sanctuary counts it as an attack because the rules clearly state that it is an attack. There's really no other way to see it based on RAW and the Specific > General rule

[Unoriginal]

They are "special attacks", but they don't count as attacks.

Yes they do, as they are special melee attacks . Special melee attacks that don't have to obey the general attack rules because, once again, specific beats general.

They are even called attacks (without mention of "special") in the same sentence as the other, regular kind of attacks.

Find me anywhere in the PHB where it says they count as attacks despite not having an attack roll.

If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

"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 is NO question about if Grapple or Shove are attacks, they are specifically said to be attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Everyone else thinking the same thing, and backing it up, is a lot different from everyone just believing it.

Specific > General. Shove and Grapple Rules trump the general "if it involves an attack roll, it's an attack." Grapple and Shove are specific instances where that general rule does not apply. But that doesn't mean they aren't attacks. Their sections call them attacks multiple times.

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

[Aett_Thorn]

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

The PHB specifically calls them attacks, so the PHB does NOT say otherwise. If they are called attacks, but you don't treat them as attacks, they you are being highly inconsistent with what the rules say.

[BurgerBeast]

Simply adding the clause: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack,..." does nothing to change the words that follow. Those words still mean what they mean.

We know what was intended (because JC told us), but what was intended is not what is written. What is written after the clause does not answer the question in all cases.

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.

You've added the bolded bit. It does not occur in the text. It does not say this. This is interpretation (albeit correct according to JC). But the book doesn't say this.

Spoiler: For Unoriginal

Show

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?

No. This is precisely what I refuse to do: add information that is not given. The PHB does not say that no attack roll implies no attack. I refuse to admit that it does.

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?

It's not a false a equivalence. It's exactly the point. I am saying that an eagle might be a skunk or it might not. The rules do not tell us that an eagle is not a skunk. The rules are silent. So we use our brains and the meanings of the words "eagle" and "skunk." We conclude that an eagle is not a skunk.

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

Absolutely not. You made one correction, but it is still incorrect.

The book says that what determines whether X is an attack if questioned is if there is an attack roll or not.

This is the point of contention. I say it does not say this.

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.

This is not true, and saying "By definition" does not help.

Does anyone deny this?

Yes. That's the point. This is not what the RAW say.

Spoiler: For smcmike

Show

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.

I also think they did an excellent job. Regardless, they made a mistake here, if JC is correct. Aside form this, there is a long history of "specific beats general" in D&D. they've been writing these types of rules for around 40 years.

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

This is basically my stance. But also the initial question is totally wrong. It should say: "Is the ability specifically defined as an attack in the rules?"

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.

This is a pretty strong argument against, but I still don't think it succeeds. That part of the text is preceded by: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part a spell, an attack has a simple structure." So, if you are doing neither of these three things, the text that follows does not apply.

Spoiler: For Millstone

Show

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.

Nobody is arguing that making an attack roll means you are making an attack. (Edit: nobody is arguing against the notion. Sorry for confusion.) We're arguing the converse. There is still no blue to green.

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

Nobody is contending that specific beats general. We are contenting precisely what the general rule is.

Spoiler: For qube

Show

Sorry mate, thats how general vs specific works.

This has nothing to do with specific beats general. I agree that specific beats general. This is a disagreement over what the general rule is.

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.

Precisely. This particular general rule is not exhaustive, though.

No. We're left with the general situation.

That's correct. And the general rule is silent on whether many actions that do not involve attack rolls are attacks.

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.

Yes, so we consider whether a human is an ogre mage. We find, in the rules, that humans are not ogre mages. If the rules were silent, we would use our brains to determine whether a human is an ogre mage; because, as yo say, creatures cannot typically turn invisible, so question is whether a human is this specific type of creature.

But this is not a similar case.

Spoiler: For bid

Show

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.

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that the original statement:

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.

Is false. The part of the text that DBZ is referring to does not say this. It says something quite different.

The actual flow chart is much simpler:

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

This is the intention, according to JC. It's still not what the RAW say.

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.

Except grappling is an attack in both senses of the word. It is an attack because it involves an attack roll, and it is an attack because the rules say it is an attack.

Edit: My bad. It does not involve an attack roll. It is an attack because the RAW say it is an attack.

[coolAlias]

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

Doesn't that seem unnecessarily convoluted to you?

Why would it be taxonomically an attack but not count as an attack? How does that make any sense?

You keep claiming that the test for an attack is the specific rule that trumps the text that explicitly states grapples and shoves are attacks, but that is the general rule. Are you just trolling us?

[DivisibleByZero]

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

Yes, they count as attacks for those purposes.
We believe that they count as attacks because the book tells us that they are attacks.
You seem to believe that the rule stating anything which has an attack roll is an attack is comprehensive for attacks, when it fact it is partial.
They are not skill contests. They are attacks that involve a skill contest.

-- If it is a banana, it is yellow. Lemons are yellow, but are not bananas. (item/descriptor)
-- If it is a shark, it has a fin. Dolphins have fins, but are not sharks. (item/descriptor)
-- If it has an attack roll, it is an attack. Grapple and shove are attacks, but do not have attack rolls. (descriptor/item)
The descriptive line you so adamantly cling to is not comprehensive.
Now flip those first two around so they follow the same descriptor/item format as your attack roll line.
-- If it is yellow, it is a banana.
-- If it has a fin, it is a shark.
Do you now see why this isn't comprehensive?

One more time.
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
This attack.
Not this skill contest.
Not this special attack that doesn't actually count as an attack.
This attack.

[MaxWilson]

But that's where you are wrong. It DOES count as an attack for the purposes of the spell. BECAUSE it IS an attack. If it's an attack, but doesn't count as an attack by the spell, that's when you start getting inconsistencies. Because then you could start considering other attacks that might not be affected by Santuary.

Sanctuary counts it as an attack because the rules clearly state that it is an attack. There's really no other way to see it based on RAW and the Specific > General rule

I hate to break it to you, but you already have other attacks that might not be affected by Sanctuary. A dragon breathing on you is clearly attacking you, but it doesn't count as an attack, because there's no attack roll, so Sanctuary doesn't protect you.

Just because the MM text says beholders "can attack without fear of closing to melee range" doesn't mean that their gaze attacks count as attacks for purposes of Sanctuary/invisibility/etc. It doesn't matter how many times you quote "can attack without fear of closing to melee range", or how vehemently you claim that the beholder text is "more specific" than the definitions in the PHB--you're still wrong, and beholder gaze attacks don't count as attacks.

[Unoriginal]

But that wasn't even the question. It's not a question of classification: "are grapples a special type of attack?" It's a question of mechanics: "is grappling something affected by Sanctuary?" "Does it count as an attack for purposes of this spell?" Answer: no.

Answer: yes, because the PHB explicitly says that they are attacks, and so count as attacks.

Otherwise you hit rules inconsistencies, because the PHB's writer's never anticipated attacks without attack rolls.

...they *wrote* those attacks without attack rolls. Literally. In the section about what is a Melee Attack.

But the question is whether they count as attacks for purposes of invisibility/Sanctuary/etc., or whether Grapple and Shove are more specific and therefore different. You seem to believe that they still count as attacks despite not being structured like attacks and not meeting the definition of attacks. The PHB says otherwise. Taxonomically, they are attacks, but from a rules perspective, they are skill contests, and explicitly do not count as attacks.

That's utter nonsense.

If they are *categorized* as attacks, it means that *they count as attacks*.

Since they are *more* specific, then their rules beat the standard rules on what is an attack, and so *they count as attacks*.

It's like saying "this creature is categorized as an humanoid, but since it doesn't follow the structure of an humanoid it doesn't count as an humanoid."

[Aett_Thorn]

Specific > General

Grappling and Shoving give specific rules on how to handle those specific cases. As such, the general rule of attack roll = attack does not apply. The specific cases of these two moves trumps the more general rule. Add on to that fact that the text for both specifically calls them attacks, and you get that by RAW they are attacks.

Now, they wouldn't be affected by things like Hex, because Hex requires you to HIT with an attack. Grappling and shoving don't hit, but they are still attacks, because the book specifically calls them attacks.

[Unoriginal]

I hate to break it to you, but you already have other attacks that might not be affected by Sanctuary. A dragon breathing on you is clearly attacking you, but it doesn't count as an attack, because there's no attack roll, so Sanctuary doesn't protect you.

Just because the MM text says beholders "can attack without fear of closing to melee range" doesn't mean that their gaze attacks count as attacks for purposes of Sanctuary/invisibility/etc. It doesn't matter how many times you quote "can attack without fear of closing to melee range", or how vehemently you claim that the beholder text is "more specific" than the definitions in the PHB--you're still wrong, and beholder gaze attacks don't count as attacks.

The beholder's rays are NEVER described, defined or categorized as attacks, and the neither is the dragon's breath.

The verb "attack" is used to describe something the beholder can do in its lair ("A beholder's central lair is typically a large, spacious cavern with high ceilings, where it can attack without fear of closing to melee range"), but the action itself is never described as an attack in the rules.

Contrarily to Grapple and Shove, who are explicitly descibed, defined and categorized, as well as called, attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Doesn't that seem unnecessarily convoluted to you?

Why would it be taxonomically an attack but not count as an attack? How does that make any sense?

Because the PHB writers were kind of lazy and like to pretend they're writing in natural English, even when they slip bits of jargon in there. At least in this case they gave us a definition to rely on though, which is good since "attack" is a colloquial English word and easily misunderstood, as per this thread. Clearly a dragon who breathes fire on you is attacking you--but that's not what the rules text of Sanctuary is referring to.

I am not defending the PHB writer's style. It's sloppy in a number of ways--definitions are scattered all over the book, and critical terms such as "charmed" are not only given only a purely game-mechanical definition instead of a role-playing one, but that definition also occurs in the worst possible place: at the back of the book, after the average reader has already read most of the book and formed a bunch of false impressions based on an incorrect definition which was probably inferred from previous editions. (Just look at Create Thrall.)

If the PHB writers had just done the right thing and bolded every usage of a jargon term, we wouldn't even be having this debate. If I'm right, the grapple text would then say, "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," whereas if you are right, it would say, "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." In both cases, at least readers would be alerted to the fact that a new technical term "grapple" is being defined here, and that they should look elsewhere in the text for the definition of the other terms.

[Unoriginal]

If the PHB writers had just done the right thing and bolded every usage of a jargon term, we wouldn't even be having this debate. If I'm right, the grapple text would then say, "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," whereas if you are right, it would say, "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." In both cases, at least readers would be alerted to the fact that a new technical term "grapple" is being defined here, and that they should look elsewhere in the text for the definition of the other terms.

...so you think that something called an attack is not an attack because it wasn't bolded?

[MaxWilson]

Since they are *more* specific, then their rules beat the standard rules on what is an attack, and so *they count as attacks*.

It's like saying "this creature is categorized as an humanoid, but since it doesn't follow the structure of an humanoid it doesn't count as an humanoid."

It's more like if they said, "If there's ever any question whether something counts as a humanoid, the test is simple: if its stat block has the 'humanoid' tag, it's a humanoid." Then you point to a fluff section whether giants as described as "oversized humanoids," and repeated cite that they are "oversized humanoids" (!!!!!) and that that is more specific than the rule that requires them to have the "humanoid" tag, while other posters claim that not having the humanoid tag doesn't mean it's not a humanoid.

If giants were intended to count as humanoid for purposes of Hold Person, they would have the "humanoid" tag. They don't, and they're not, despite being humanoid.

[MaxWilson]

...so you think that something called an attack is not an attack because it wasn't bolded?

Um, no?

I think that bolding jargon text is good practice because it calls the reader's attention to when keywords are in use. I think that it was lazy of the 5E writers to pretend to write in natural English while actually using a lot of specific jargon that many people don't realize is there until much later. It produces unnecessary confusion.

[BurgerBeast]

Edited for clarity. I re-arranged the text.

-- If it is a banana, it is yellow. Lemons are yellow, but are not bananas.
(colours added)

You're absolutely right, here. Now:

Is a buttercup yellow?

Is a watermelon yellow?

Edit: because this is the same as:

-- If it involves an attack roll, it is an attack. Some things are attacks, but do not involve attack rolls.

Is dragon breath an attack?

Is magic missile an attack?

Edit: We don't know in any of these cases without further knowledge because the definition, as provided, is not exhaustive.

-- If it is a shark, it has a fin. Dolphins have fins, but are not sharks.
The descriptive line you so adamantly cling to is not comprehensive.

And cheetahs do not have fins, and are not sharks.

So, "If there is ever any question about whether an animal has fins: If it is a shark, it has fins."

Hmmm... doesn't really answer the question at all, does it?

[smcmike]

Because the PHB writers were kind of lazy and like to pretend they're writing in natural English, even when they slip bits of jargon in there.

You are arguing against the text while discussing RAW. Why would you do that? Just say "the RAW is a bit weird," and explain what you think works better.

If the PHB writers had just done the right thing and bolded every usage of a jargon term, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

That would be hideous. I'm so glad they did not do that.

[DivisibleByZero]

Ignoring what the PHB says.
Ignoring what the Rules Guru says.
Ignoring what the playerbase says.
Have fun living in your own little bubble.

[MaxWilson]

You are arguing against the text while discussing RAW. Why would you do that? Just say "the RAW is a bit weird," and explain what you think works better.

Textual clarity is only ever relevant when discussing RAW. If you're talking about house rules and RAI and things that are better than RAW, the text doesn't even come into it--it's all about the DM's judgment and what makes sense/plays well/is fair to players.

In a "rulings" thread, we wouldn't be discussing whether grappling meets the "attack test" or what kind of "specific" beats what kind of "general." We'd be talking about the style of games we like to run, whether Sanctuary ever even gets cast, whether offense is better than defense, what "appropriate difficulty" means in the first place, whether Combat As War is better than Combat As Sport, whether Gygaxian Naturalism is a positive or negative trait for a game system, etc. There would probably be just as much arguing as a RAW thread, but on a wider range of subjects.

Because this is a RAW thread, instead we've basically just got a bunch of people repeatedly asserting the same opinion with slightly different wording each time.

[MaxWilson]

Ignoring what the PHB says.
Ignoring what the Rules Guru says.
Ignoring what the playerbase says.
Have fun living in your own little bubble.

I would take it as a personal favor if you would please put me on Ignore and never again respond to anything I post. Thank you.