What is technically considered an attack?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but you're going beyond p194. Nothing on p194 says that grappling cannot be attacks. You'd have to use other pages of the PHB to reach that conclusion.

Even if it is questionable that an "attack" is an "attack", p194 doesn't help.

I specifically said that grappling is an attack. Not because of p194, but because of the explicit exception made in the "grappling" section on p195. It doesn't meet the general definition, but since specific beats general, and it specifically is called an attack...it's an attack.

I know I'm long-winded, but this was explicitly said in my post.

[bid]

Not because of p194,

So why are you arguing with me then?

[Zalabim]

I think the question of what is considered magical is a similar, but cleaner, proposition. An ability or effect is magical if something says it's magical, and there's little preconceptions that would suggest anything else is magical.

Shadow Jump grants advantage on your next "melee attack". Not "melee attack roll", because by PHB rules those are the same thing, so writing "next melee attack roll" would be redundant. Now that you've invented a class of "attacks" with ability checks instead of attack rolls, what do you plan to do with that advantage? Does it become advantage on the Athletics check for the grapple? Why does Shadow Jumping give advantage on that check, but being hidden does not?

Clearly there is a question here: do I get advantage or not? Answer: no, there is no attack roll, so you don't get advantage because it's not an attack. The PHB is clear on this.

The advantage given by Shadow Step doesn't have anything to do with the advantage from being Hidden anyway. Shadow Step is completely uncaring about whether you're hidden or not.

Now, Shadow Step probably says melee attacks instead of attack rolls so it doesn't benefit ranged weapons. It doesn't say attack rolls with melee weapons because monks are often not using a weapon. It doesn't say melee attack rolls because that sounds weird. It says melee attacks, so Nightcrawler also gets the benefit when he BAMFs around pushing, tripping, and pulling people into non-lethal takedowns. I'd guess the teleportation gives some sort of momentum.

Let's imagine that the MM was organized by type. Let's further imagine that under the "humanoid" heading, they included a section describing humanoids in general, and included a clause stating "If there is ever a doubt whether a creature is a humanoid, if it is human sized and shaped, it's a humanoid." (I'm aware this is not an accurate test in reality).

Let's further imagine that, within the SAME SECTION, the rules talked about "special large humanoids," and consistently referred to these as humanoids, despite the fact that they were not human sized.

(This seems like a better parallel).

I think the better parallel here is this: Aarakocra are humanoid, because that is their type, even though they are not human-shaped, because they have wings as well as arms and legs.

[Unoriginal]

I think the better parallel here is this: Aarakocra are humanoid, because that is their type, even though they are not human-shaped, because they have wings as well as arms and legs.

Lycanthropes are considered humanoid no matter if they are in beast form or not, as the text says "its statistics, other than its size, are the same in each form".

[Tanarii]

What I want to know is, when did MaxWilson's logon get stolen by my evil twin? Twinsie just loves to argue in the face of having almost everyone telling him he's crazy.

Yep.

TRUE: all attack rolls are attacks
TRUE: all non-attacks are non-attack-rolls
UNKNOWN: All attacks are attack rolls
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks

So, it is possible that a certain attack does not use an attack roll, we can't know this from p194 generic rule.

So why are you arguing with me then?

His point was that :
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
becomes
FALSE : All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
once you include additional data beyond p194. In other words, the proof under grapple/shove.

(Edit: But yeah, it took me a sec to wonder where the dispute with your point was coming from. Because it seems like an accurate interpretation of a strict reading of the p194 statement, before any other data is considered.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I want to know is, when did MaxWilson's logon get stolen by my evil twin? Twinsie just loves to argue in the face of having almost everyone telling him he's crazy.



His point was that :
UNKNOWN: All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
becomes
FALSE : All non-attack-rolls are non-attacks
once you include additional data beyond p194. In other words, the proof under grapple/shove.

(Edit: But yeah, it took me a sec to wonder where the dispute with your point was coming from. Because it seems like an accurate interpretation of a strict reading of the p194 statement, before any other data is considered.)

Right. I was trying to show that if you include the whole context, there are no unknowns. There's only a general rule and a few specific rules that override it in individual (and limited) cases. Apologies for not making that clear.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It was clear.

[Rebonack]

I think it would help if we knew why each feature or spell interacts with attacks. Ex: invisibility - why does this break upon attacking or casting a spell? If we knew, we could say what else might break invisibility.

An example of a trick that probably ought not work. A warlock casts Eyebite, then has a friend cast invisibility on him. The warlock can now perform three different Save or Bad Thing effects against foes, one each round. Unless the foes can find him while he's invisible, there's little they can do.

This technically works, to my knowledge. The warlock isn't casting a spell or attacking, just using an already-cast spell to do something hostile. The same could be done with many other spells.

And there are also the breath weapon and limited wand abilities above.

Invisibility doesn't say it breaks if you do something hostile; that's too vague, and would negate setting up traps which is probably an intended valid use. But as written, it enables a variety of hostile actions that it probably ought not.

And that's just one example. Coincidentally, sanctuary wouldn't block eyebite either, even though it arguably should.

You can do something similar with Spirit Guardians and a pal casting Invisibility on you. Then it's a question of how long it takes a group of mooks to figure out that there's a person in the middle of the radiant damage buzz-saw that's ripping them a new one. Basically any spell with a cast-then-concentration effect would fit into this loop-hole.

One of my big gripes with 5e is that there are quite a few things where we're told the mechanical impact without telling us what's physically happening in the game world. Just to grab Hex as an example. It deals 1d6 damage when you hit with an attack. But what's actually going on here? The best I can come up with is that it's a cursed-wound sort of deal. Every time the warlock hurts the hexed target the wound festers a bit, dealing that extra necrotic damage. But that doesn't really work, since it only triggers on attacks, not on damage. So somehow and for some reason the spell is distinguishing between the harm caused by an Eldritch Blast and a Magic Missile because one can be thwarted by nimbleness and armor while the other homes in on the target?

If we knew what the Hex spell is actually doing it might make more sense.

[MaxWilson]

You can do something similar with Spirit Guardians and a pal casting Invisibility on you. Then it's a question of how long it takes a group of mooks to figure out that there's a person in the middle of the radiant damage buzz-saw that's ripping them a new one. Basically any spell with a cast-then-concentration effect would fit into this loop-hole.

One of my big gripes with 5e is that there are quite a few things where we're told the mechanical impact without telling us what's physically happening in the game world. Just to grab Hex as an example. It deals 1d6 damage when you hit with an attack. But what's actually going on here? The best I can come up with is that it's a cursed-wound sort of deal. Every time the warlock hurts the hexed target the wound festers a bit, dealing that extra necrotic damage. But that doesn't really work, since it only triggers on attacks, not on damage. So somehow and for some reason the spell is distinguishing between the harm caused by an Eldritch Blast and a Magic Missile because one can be thwarted by nimbleness and armor while the other homes in on the target?

If we knew what the Hex spell is actually doing it might make more sense.

+1. Yes, this, x100. It's the single worst thing about 5E besides its initiative system.

Another example: saves vs. ability checks. For many abilities you can kind of pretend that ability checks are mostly for active things and saves are mostly for passive defense, but Con is always passive, which is why there's little guidance on the difference between Con saves and Con checks, and what there is contradicts itself. IIRC, going without food and water is ruled as requiring a Con check in one chapter in the PHB and a Con save in a different chapter.

Furthermore, when a spell like Fireball calls for a Dex save, it's unclear what is physically happening there. Is that to see if you can quickly fling yourself flat and avoid the worst of the blast? But then, why doesn't it make you prone, or cost movement to get up from being prone? (Reverse Gravity is one of the very, very few spells that actually calls out what its Dex save is doing and therefore under what circumstances no save would apply.)

What's a Strength saving throw doing? Why is a paralyzed 40-ton dragon automatically pushed 15' per round by a Gust of Wind spell from a 3rd level wizard but a 30-lb. halfling fighter with Strength 16 is not? What is the halfling physically doing that is more effective at anchoring him than weighing 80,000 lb.? (Don't tell me he's "grabbing a tree limb" unless you're prepared to argue that the tree's roots anchor it more securely than a 40-ton dragon.)

[smcmike]

+1. Yes, this, x100. It's the single worst thing about 5E besides its initiative system.

Another example: saves vs. ability checks. For many abilities you can kind of pretend that ability checks are mostly for active things and saves are mostly for passive defense, but Con is always passive, which is why there's little guidance on the difference between Con saves and Con checks, and what there is contradicts itself. IIRC, going without food and water is ruled as requiring a Con check in one chapter in the PHB and a Con save in a different chapter.

Furthermore, when a spell like Fireball calls for a Dex save, it's unclear what is physically happening there. Is that to see if you can quickly fling yourself flat and avoid the worst of the blast? But then, why doesn't it make you prone, or cost movement to get up from being prone? (Reverse Gravity is one of the very, very few spells that actually calls out what its Dex save is doing and therefore under what circumstances no save would apply.)

What's a Strength saving throw doing? Why is a paralyzed 40-ton dragon automatically pushed 15' per round by a Gust of Wind spell from a 3rd level wizard but a 30-lb. halfling fighter with Strength 16 is not? What is the halfling physically doing that is more effective at anchoring him than weighing 80,000 lb.? (Don't tell me he's "grabbing a tree limb" unless you're prepared to argue that the tree's roots anchor it more securely than a 40-ton dragon.)

Because it's just a game, man.

[Rebonack]

Because it's just a game, man.

It is just a game. But if the game told us what was physically going on in the game world and THEN told us what the mechanical consequences of those goings on are, then it would be much easier for DMs to rule on these weird edge cases. Would make describing the scenario easier, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

+1. Yes, this, x100. It's the single worst thing about 5E besides its initiative system.

Another example: saves vs. ability checks. For many abilities you can kind of pretend that ability checks are mostly for active things and saves are mostly for passive defense, but Con is always passive, which is why there's little guidance on the difference between Con saves and Con checks, and what there is contradicts itself. IIRC, going without food and water is ruled as requiring a Con check in one chapter in the PHB and a Con save in a different chapter.

As a general rule, saves are a defense against active aggressive actions (as in, there's another actor involved). They're the inverse of an attack roll--the defender must roll against a target to prevent a bad thing. Checks are more general--they are all the miscellaneous interactions with the world at large.

Spoiler: Interaction Types

Show

	Initiator rolls	Initiator static (DC)
Defender rolls	Opposed ability check	Saving Throw
Defender Static	Attack Roll	No Randomization (eg magic missile)

Interactions with yourself playing both rolls (that still need to be randomized) are always checks.

Thus if a CON roll is mandated against an active aggressor (which can include spells, poisons, etc), it will be a save against a fixed DC. If it's an environmental effect without an active agent causing it (so no spells involved) or if you're causing the it'll be a check.

The CON checks listed are

• Hold your breath
• March or labor for hours without rest
• Survive without food or water
• Quaff an entire stein of ale in one go

These are all PC vs environment or PC vs self (the need to breathe, for example).

Furthermore, when a spell like Fireball calls for a Dex save, it's unclear what is physically happening there. Is that to see if you can quickly fling yourself flat and avoid the worst of the blast? But then, why doesn't it make you prone, or cost movement to get up from being prone? (Reverse Gravity is one of the very, very few spells that actually calls out what its Dex save is doing and therefore under what circumstances no save would apply.)

What's a Strength saving throw doing? Why is a paralyzed 40-ton dragon automatically pushed 15' per round by a Gust of Wind spell from a 3rd level wizard but a 30-lb. halfling fighter with Strength 16 is not? What is the halfling physically doing that is more effective at anchoring him than weighing 80,000 lb.? (Don't tell me he's "grabbing a tree limb" unless you're prepared to argue that the tree's roots anchor it more securely than a 40-ton dragon.)

Spells do exactly what they say and nothing more (or less). How they accomplish it is left up to the table/imagination to decide. Remember, rules are to make the game playable. They do not specify how the underlying world works. They exist solely for game purposes. Specifically, they give guidance on resolving interactions between characters and between the characters and their environment in a way that is both systematic and fun. If you expect them to reflect the underlying universe, you're asking them to do way more than they're designed to do, and you'll tie them strongly to a single setting (or limit the range of things the rules can cover. It's an essential trade-off. Variety vs specificity.

Edit:

It is just a game. But if the game told us what was physically going on in the game world and THEN told us what the mechanical consequences of those goings on are, then it would be much easier for DMs to rule on these weird edge cases. Would make describing the scenario easier, too.

That runs into the variety vs specificity trade-off again. My world's fireball may be very different than your world's fireball. The rules only give game guidance for that very reason. Not only that, the amount of material needed for such things would substantially increase the book size. DMs can use their brains perfectly well and make decisions that way.

[Tanarii]

Another example: saves vs. ability checks. For many abilities you can kind of pretend that ability checks are mostly for active things and saves are mostly for passive defense, but Con is always passive, which is why there's little guidance on the difference between Con saves and Con checks, and what there is contradicts itself. IIRC, going without food and water is ruled as requiring a Con check in one chapter in the PHB and a Con save in a different chapter.

It's got nothing to do with active vs passive. It's if you're being assaulted or not. Although IIRC they used the wrong one somewhere.
Edit: found it. The PHB incorrectly calls for a DC 15 con save to resist the effects of lack of water. Still hasn't been fixed by errata yet either.

[coolAlias]

It's got nothing to do with active vs passive. It's if you're being assaulted or not. Although IIRC they used the wrong one somewhere.
Edit: found it. The PHB incorrectly calls for a DC 15 con save to resist the effects of lack of water. Still hasn't been fixed by errata yet either.

He's using 'active' as in 'something the PC chose to do' and 'passive' as 'something that has affected the player.'

Perhaps there are better terms, but it seemed pretty clear to me what he meant by them.

I think 5e may have been better off having just 'ability checks' and no saves, but if they did that the system wouldn't have been nuanced enough for skills, saves, etc.

[Tanarii]

He's using 'active' as in 'something the PC chose to do' and 'passive' as 'something that has affected the player.'

Perhaps there are better terms, but it seemed pretty clear to me what he meant by them.

Edit: I know. And that's not correct.

The difference between an ability check and a save isn't "PC does" vs "something affected PC".

It's "PC does, active or passively" vs "something has assaulted a PC".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Edit: I know. And that's not correct.

I like the terminology "Aggressor" and "Defender" for the purpose of explaining antagonistic interactions. If the parties aren't antagonistic (and here I include charm-type spells as antagonistic actions) then it will almost always be an ability check instead. Saves and attacks are inverses involving a d20+MOD roll vs a fixed DC; some effects don't take a roll (e.g. magic missile, summoning) and some require rolls from both parties (e.g. grappling/shoving) and are resolved with opposed ability checks.

Edit: and it's not always just PCs, it's characters in general. That's pure pedantry though

[MaxWilson]

The CON checks listed are...

These are all PC vs environment or PC vs self (the need to breathe, for example).

And yet in the Environment chapter, we're told the exact opposite: going without water is a saving throw. "A character who drinks only half that much water must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion at the end of the day." This is the contradiction that I mentioned--even the PHB writers are not clear on the difference between ability checks and saves.

Edit: I know. And that's not correct.

The difference between an ability check and a save isn't "PC does" vs "something affected PC".

It's "PC does, active or passively" vs "something has assaulted a PC".

It's kind of strange for you to insist on "correctness" for a distinction which, as I mentioned, is only a kinda-sorta thing in first place. Some ability checks and some saves violate the active/passive distinction I mentioned; some violate the "PC does"/"something affected PC" distinction you mention. It doesn't matter which one you choose--neither one precisely fits. They're both "incorrect" definitions--or rather, they are both correct only as heuristics.

Examples off the top of my head of the incorrectness of your "PC does"/"something affected PC" definition: being grappled is the result of someone else assaulting you, and yet it is resisted with a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, not a save. Being grabbed by a mage's Telekinesis is an external assault, and yet it is resisted with a Strength check. Thirst is... well, it's not an external assault, yet according to at least part of the PHB it's resisted with a Con save, not a check. Otto's Irresistible Dance has no initial save, but when you try to stop it, you use your action to make a Wisdom save, not a Wisdom check. (Contrast this with e.g. Wrathful Smite, where you use your action to make a Wisdom check, not a Wisdom save.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

And yet in the Environment chapter, we're told the exact opposite: going without water is a saving throw. "A character who drinks only half that much water must succeed on a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion at the end of the day." This is the contradiction that I mentioned--even the PHB writers are not clear on the difference between ability checks and saves.

Agreed (in that one, limited instance). It's the only such error I've found and they're consistent throughout the rest of the text so I'm inclined to chalk it up to a missed editorial change or other such editing error. They're remarkably consistent about saves vs checks vs attack rolls throughout the rest of the book and are specific even in UA about calling out things as "special attacks, using X instead of an attack roll" (CF the gunsmith artificer's thunder cannon special abilities). Making that one minor error out as "not being clear on the difference" is a bit overblown in my opinion.

[MaxWilson]

Agreed (in that one, limited instance). It's the only such error I've found and they're consistent throughout the rest of the text so I'm inclined to chalk it up to a missed editorial change or other such editing error. They're remarkably consistent about saves vs checks vs attack rolls throughout the rest of the book and are specific even in UA about calling out things as "special attacks, using X instead of an attack roll" (CF the gunsmith artificer's thunder cannon special abilities). Making that one minor error out as "not being clear on the difference" is a bit overblown in my opinion.

You're missing a number of other discrepancies. I listed a few off the top of my head in an edit to the previous post.

[Tanarii]

Examples off the top of my head of the incorrectness of your "PC does"/"something affected PC" definition:

Active/passive is what you claimed. Not me. So it's your definition. I just recast the terms to match the previous poster.

I'm fully aware your definition is not correct.

[FabulousFizban]

Ultimately? Whatever the DM says is an attack. Rule Zero.

[MaxWilson]

Active/passive is what you claimed. Not me. So it's your definition. I just recast the terms to match the previous poster.

I'm fully aware your definition is not correct.

Are you fully aware that your definition is also not correct, or do we need to go over all those examples again?

[bid]

Right. I was trying to show that if you include the whole context, there are no unknowns. There's only a general rule and a few specific rules that override it in individual (and limited) cases. Apologies for not making that clear.

Oh, ok that make sense. So you were "enriching" rather than "disagreeing". Sorry for the confusion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's kind of strange for you to insist on "correctness" for a distinction which, as I mentioned, is only a kinda-sorta thing in first place. Some ability checks and some saves violate the active/passive distinction I mentioned; some violate the "PC does"/"something affected PC" distinction you mention. It doesn't matter which one you choose--neither one precisely fits. They're both "incorrect" definitions--or rather, they are both correct only as heuristics.

Examples off the top of my head of the incorrectness of your "PC does"/"something affected PC" definition: being grappled is the result of someone else assaulting you, and yet it is resisted with a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, not a save. Being grabbed by a mage's Telekinesis is an external assault, and yet it is resisted with a Strength check. Thirst is... well, it's not an external assault, yet according to at least part of the PHB it's resisted with a Con save, not a check. Otto's Irresistible Dance has no initial save, but when you try to stop it, you use your action to make a Wisdom save, not a Wisdom check. (Contrast this with e.g. Wrathful Smite, where you use your action to make a Wisdom check, not a Wisdom save.)

+Grappling: "active" defender + "active" assailant. Both roll (opposed check).
+Telekinesis: same as grappling--both are "active". Both roll (opposed check).
+Otto's: Auto-effect (no roll) + defender "active" against ongoing effect. Saving throw to end.
+Wrathful: This one's weird, I'll admit. I would expect a save, but it's a check.

So that's 2 discrepancies, both in minor cases--one in a part of the rules rarely used at most tables (going without water) and one on a paladin-only spell. Meh. Still NBD. The general pattern is still pretty clear (at least to me).

Note that absolute consistency is unnecessary since specific beats general--the decision to make Wrathful Smite a check (doesn't add proficiency) and Otto's a save (which can possibly add proficiency) may also have been done for balance reasons (to make Wrathful Smite harder to break and thus more useful or to make Otto's less powerful, since it's a stronger effect). That's speculation on my part though. It could just be an oversight or outright error.

[MaxWilson]

+Grappling: "active" defender + "active" assailant. Both roll (opposed check).
+Telekinesis: same as grappling--both are "active". Both roll (opposed check).
+Otto's: Auto-effect (no roll) + defender "active" against ongoing effect. Saving throw to end.
+Wrathful: This one's weird, I'll admit. I would expect a save, but it's a check.

So that's 2 discrepancies, both in minor cases--one in a part of the rules rarely used at most tables (going without water) and one on a paladin-only spell. Meh. Still NBD. The general pattern is still pretty clear (at least to me).

I'm surprised at your conclusions. If the defender against Telekinesis is "active" and therefore a check makes sense to why, why isn't the defender against Evard's Black Tentacles or Fireball also "active" and therefore a check? Are you thinking of a grappling tentacle (saving throw initially) as somehow fundamentally different from a grappling goblin (opposed ability check) or grappling octopus (no opposed roll, just AC)? Why do you consider it appropriate for the "active" resistance in Otto's to be a saving throw instead of a check?

You're clearly discounting three of the four discrepancies there, but for Otto's I can't understand why you're discounting it, and your logic for discounting grappling and especially Telekinesis actually creates more discrepancies, since it implies that a large number of things that are saving throws ought to be "active" ability checks.

Note that absolute consistency is unnecessary since specific beats general--the decision to make Wrathful Smite a check (doesn't add proficiency) and Otto's a save (which can possibly add proficiency) may also have been done for balance reasons (to make Wrathful Smite harder to break and thus more useful or to make Otto's less powerful, since it's a stronger effect). That's speculation on my part though. It could just be an oversight or outright error.

Do you see now why I take issue with the claim that the 5E designers have been remarkably consistent in how they interpret ability checks vs. saves? They've been moderately consistent, which makes the discrepancies all the more glaring and puzzling.

[coolAlias]

Edit: I know. And that's not correct.

The difference between an ability check and a save isn't "PC does" vs "something affected PC".

It's "PC does, active or passively" vs "something has assaulted a PC".

My definition had nothing to do with active vs. passive, and your rewording of "a PC has been affected by something [hostile]" to "something has assaulted a PC" doesn't change the meaning.

And yes, I realize there are exceptions to that definition such as grappling, Telekinesis, etc., but as a general rule, it stands.

[Tanarii]

Are you fully aware that your definition is also not correct, or do we need to go over all those examples again?

Since your examples, per what you quoted, not being how I define it, you'll have to start over again. You might want to start by rereading what I posted, since you quoted what isn't my definition, then claimed it was my definition.

[MaxWilson]

Since your examples, per what you quoted, not being how I define it, you'll have to start over again. You might want to start by rereading what I posted, since you quoted what isn't my definition, then claimed it was my definition.

Your definition: 'It's "PC does, active or passively" vs "something has assaulted a PC".' It's funny how you don't recognize your own definition though when other people use it.

Examples of things that show your definition is incorrect:

Examples off the top of my head of the incorrectness of your "PC does"/"something affected PC" definition: being grappled is the result of someone else assaulting you, and yet it is resisted with a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, not a save. Being grabbed by a mage's Telekinesis is an external assault, and yet it is resisted with a Strength check. Thirst is... well, it's not an external assault, yet according to at least part of the PHB it's resisted with a Con save, not a check. Otto's Irresistible Dance has no initial save, but when you try to stop it, you use your action to make a Wisdom save, not a Wisdom check. (Contrast this with e.g. Wrathful Smite, where you use your action to make a Wisdom check, not a Wisdom save.)

For your convenience I've bolded the parts which directly conflict with the definition you gave in your own words.

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast, first and foremost,
humans are not logical creatures and neither is human language. Ambiguity and implications abound. Idiom and non-literal utterances are probably more common than literal utterances.

Sorry, but this argument fails, miserably. Nobody is denying that language contains nuance, idioms, etc. But this does not mean that language is not logical. You can understand what someone says precisely because it is logical, and this includes the nuances and idioms, etc.

Implicature is the term for understanding what is implied by a statement. Since we do not speak (or write) according to the axioms of formal logic (and thus invoking logical fallacies is not dispositive), there is much more implied than is entailed by the words we use. Thus we need to use implicature to understand natural language.

The rough meaning of "implicature" is pretty obvious from what you've said, but you still don't get to use the word to perform magic. We use logic to determine what is implied by a sentence. There is a meaning. We use that meaning.

What you do not get to do is say: Sorry, Burgerbeast, human language is not logical, so this sentence is not logical, so it says what I say it means... because: implicature.

Sorry, that's not how it works.

Formal logic (and statements about propositions, truth values, etc) is only useful when the preconditions are met. Definitions (like are found in the rules) are tautological in nature--they either (depending on your point of view) have no truth value (which is not the same as being false) or are always true.

Cat [kat] (n): a lizard. <- that is a false definition

Proof by counterexample.

You have to use different rules for understanding informal writing (such as game rules) than for understanding formal statements. Natural language cannot be analyzed using the mechanisms of formal logic--if it could, it would be trivial to implement a formal grammar for english (and thus make it possible for computers to understand and translate natural language without error, a thing that is known to be impossible).

No. You're totally wrong, here. You use the exact same rules. You just consider that the meaning may not be literal. That's all.

Natural language can be and is analyzed using logic. The only way to analyze anything is by using logic - that's what analysis is. It doesn't mean you will get consistent results. But that's because the results are inconsistent - it's not because logic doesn't work.

The reason it is not trivial to implement a formal grammar for English is because (1) English usage predates the grammatical analysis of English and (2) any attempt to introduce stringent guidelines into English grammar comes at a cost which is not desirable: it costs us in terms of expressive ability. In other words, if a computer could read and understand plain English, then English wouldn't be a very desirable language.

Reading strictly by the words written and ignoring implications leads to absurd results. It is the cause of most of the dysfunctions of previous editions and is a tradition that should be abandoned. The rules were never intended or written to be read in that fashion. Nothing in the PHB or DMG (or MM for that matter) would survive such a reading intact. So don't. Take the common face meaning and go with it, making rulings as needed. RAW should really be RACU (Rules as Commonly Understood). Everyone would be better off and there would be much less fighting about trivialities.

I'm not ignoring the implications. I just refuse to invent implications that are not there.

What you, and others are doing, is introducing an implication (attack -> attack roll) which is absent from the passage. You don't get to create meaning nor add words where they are not, and using "implicature" as a reason does not help.

We should apply heuristics similar to those used in the legal system, called canons of construction. Game canons are necessarily different than the legal canons, but will have strong similarities. One of those canons is "the words mean what they say they mean, not more and not less." This includes abilities and spells--they do what they say they do. Importing "real world logic" or other such things makes a mess. Don't do it (please?).

I'm not doing it. I am following it. What you, and others, are doing, is breaking it. You are adding more, when there is supposed to be no more.

So, would you please honour your own request, and stop doing it?

Another would be "the simplest explanation that makes things playable is probably the right one."

No. It has to be simple and correct. No matter how simple and playable it is, it still has to be what the book says.

Yet another is "Hard cases make bad law," (meaning don't make the rules based on the exceptions. Exceptions are exceptional, after all. Handle them separately instead of trying to shove them into the general case).

Oddly, again, here it is you that is guilty of the named crime. I am only considering the general case. I am leaving room for exceptions. You, and others, are trying to justify using the general rule to eliminate the possibility of (non-explicit) exceptions where RAW those exceptions may exist.

From the spoiler:

As a side note, the "but it doesn't say it isn't" excuse (which is what you're pulling here) would not fly in a court of law. Logic or no logic. There are no magic words--courts (and DMs) rule based on what "reasonable people" (a term of art in the legal world) understand the words to mean. The antics of a RPG rules lawyer would get that person sanctioned by the court and would result in their client losing the case, probably on summary judgement.

No, this is not the excuse I am pulling here. You are misunderstanding my argument if you think this.

When someone invents a rule that does not exist, the appropriate response is: "But the rules don't say that."

This is not in any way the same thing as saying that my character can fly and ignore magical effects because "the rules don't say he can't."

You're clearly not understanding my point, at all.

...

We don't need to apply formal logic, though--the general rule covers everything.

GENERAL: Attacks have a) targets, b) modifiers, c) attack rolls (PHB 194). Note the first sentence of the subsection titled "Attack Rolls":

...

Combined with the preceding subsection, this is a general definition for the term "attack". The presence of an attack roll is necessary and sufficient to indicate an attack. No other general rule for attacks is present anywhere in the text. Thus, this is the general rule and applies everywhere except for explicit exceptions.

This is not a definition. It doesn't not tell us what an attack is. It tells us how attacks are usually resolved. It's a prescription. It is useful when the DM comes across an ability that is described as an attack. It tells the DM how to resolve attacks. What it does not do is tell the DM how to identify an attack. A definition would do that.

For example, if I tell you how to use a hammer to hammer a nail, that does not help you identify a hammer. It only tells you how to use a hammer once you've identified one. It's a prescription - not a definition.

SPECIFIC 1: Grappling. As pointed out elsewhere, PHB 195 calls this out as an attack. Since specific beats general, it's an attack despite not using an attack roll for resolution. Note the statement (same page): "you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll." This is a specific replacement for this instance only.

SPECIFIC 2: Shoving. "Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check..." Same considerations apply. Also an attack that uses the contested ability check instead of an attack roll. Still an attack.

Others may exist, but they have to be specifically called out as exceptions, otherwise the general rule applies.

No. These examples describe how to grapple and how to shove. They are not exceptions to the definition of attacks (because attacks are not defined). They are exceptions to the prescribed resolution method of attacks.

That goes for every rule in the book. Exceptions are exceptional and must be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise the general rule applies. Any other understanding makes the game harder to run and only advantages munchkins looking to break things.

Again, you are misunderstanding my point, because I agree with this. The only place we disagree is on what the general rule is. You are adding meaning to the general rule that does not actually exist.

[smcmike]

The rough meaning of "implicature" is pretty obvious from what you've said, but you still don't get to use the word to perform magic.
....
I'm not ignoring the implications. I just refuse to invent implications that are not there.

What you, and others are doing, is introducing an implication (attack -> attack roll) which is absent from the passage. You don't get to create meaning nor add words where they are not, and using "implicature" as a reason does not help.

Perhaps what Phoenix calls "implicature" fits roughly with what you refer to as "the general human tendency to read beyond what is written as the natural process of internalizing knowledge," at least when that tendency operates in a fairly predictable manner.

Here, for example, almost everyone who has read the passage reads it as implying the negative case. Even you, on reading my reformulation of the test, read it as implying the negative. There is a there there.

I'm not arguing that the rules explicitly state that actions not involving attack roles are not attacks. We are in agreement on this point, I think. It's the next step where we seem to diverge. I think your own arguments have actually made it pretty clear that a careful, logical reading of what the rules explicitly state is insufficient to determine how to play the game.

While I agree that the next step is to "use our brains," we are not handed a blank slate. The structure and language of the rules strongly imply that failure to meet the positive test for an Attack means that something is not an attack.