Results 31 to 60 of 528
-
2017-07-18, 04:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Sometime people really *want* to make something simple to be complicated.
The Sanctury spell makes very clear that there is a difference between an attack and a spell with an harmful effect.
Note that by RAW it means that Sanctuary protects from all spells with harmful effects, like Imprisonment.
-
2017-07-18, 04:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Granted the wording is awkward either way, but since the sentence in question is obviously meant to clarify, I believe the most reasonable way to read it is to say, "to clarify what an attack is, this is what it is [and generally only this]". This makes sense from a rules writing perspective, and kinda works.
The alternative reading, "to clarify what an attack is, here's one thing that definitely is an attack, and there may be other things that qualify on a general level, but I'm sure as **** not going to tell you", does not make much sense as a piece of rules writing.
Now, whether this cannot rise to the level of RAW because of some threshold of ambiguity is a meta-rule question, but if you're asking me what the book is communicating the general rule is, I'm pretty sure what I believe.
(I'd be shocked, shocked to learn there are people on this board who think the people behind 5E are some kind of gibbering mouthers whose communications correlate with reality only by coincidence.)
Yes. I'm assuming the word "technically" in the thread title means we're not concerned with the second, or what is or isn't a reasonable special adjudication.Ur-member and coffee caterer of the fan club.
I wish people would stop using phrases such as "in my humble opinion", "just my two cents", and "we're out of coffee".
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for they are out drinking coffee and, like, whatever.
-
2017-07-18, 04:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
-
2017-07-18, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
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?Trollbait extraordinaire
-
2017-07-18, 04:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Gender
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
There's plain English meanings of words and there are the technical rules meanings of words. If they don't have a technical meaning of a word explicitly defined somewhere in the rules, it's reasonable to just use the plain English meaning of it.
I just don't want to second guess the rules designers too much. A lot of these rules are about balance. For instance, they clearly did not intend for Hex to work with Magic Missile. They clearly did not intend for Cutting Words or the assist action to break the Invisibility spell. Some effects are intended to have a certain amount of power but not more, or they're intended to work for some things but not others. If you just decide "I don't like that definition. It doesn't make any sense!" that's fine, I guess, particularly in a homebrew game vs. say an AL game.
It's not unheard of for me to do the same thing. However, I am very reluctant and cautious in such things because I do think it sways the power dynamic in possibly unpredictable and undesirable ways. The context is important. This thread started because someone asked the question in the RAW thread. That's why the title specifies "technically" as opposed to "What do you think attacking means in plain English?"If you cast Dispel Magic on my Gust of Wind, does that mean you're disgusting?
In real estate, they say it's all about location, location, location. In D&D I say it's about action economy, action economy, action economy.
Crystal Mage -- a homebrewed arcane tradition
-
2017-07-18, 04:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
-
2017-07-18, 04:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, when you're looking at Loremaster or Divine wizards, Mystics in general or the overall power of the revised ranger and their ability to trivialize exploration, is defining what an attack is, that skews away from RAW really that unbalancing?
Last edited by Theodoxus; 2017-07-18 at 04:38 PM.
Trollbait extraordinaire
-
2017-07-18, 04:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
No.
In the first case the cleric loses Sanctuary because "if the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends", and in the second case the caster loses Invisibility because "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell".
That is not the question of the thread, and balance was not the concern of anyone here. I don't see what unbalanced UA options (or options that can be considered unbalanced by some) have to do in this discussion, either.
Unless you're talking about the comment on how interpreting anything harmful as an attack would make Uncanny Dodge very powerful, but that'd be a very confusing way of addressing it.Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-07-18 at 04:46 PM.
-
2017-07-18, 04:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
-
2017-07-18, 04:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
This is exactly why the idea of an attack needs to be mechanically clear. I'm fine with defining attacks as anything that makes an attack roll. But people have to be willing to accept the consequences of that mechanic, and not change their minds on a case by case basis.
I'm looking at you, Crawford.
-
2017-07-18, 04:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
-
2017-07-18, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
ATTACK
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
MAKING AN ATTACK
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a
spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's
range: a creature, an object, ar a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether
the target has cover and whether you have advantage
ar disadvantage against the target. In addition, spel1s,
special abilities. and other effects can apply penalties as bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause
special effects in addition to ar instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
ATTACK ROLLS
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended
target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier +your proficiency bonus.
Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a
ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9)
-
2017-07-18, 04:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
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.
-
2017-07-18, 04:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- SoCal
- Gender
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
-
2017-07-18, 05:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
-
2017-07-18, 05:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
-
2017-07-18, 05:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
They're labeled 'Actions', not 'Attacks'. And only include things that require an action, non-actions, including damaging effects like Aura, are before that in an uncatgorized section. I double checked, because the very first thing I was gonna post is 'the MM tells you what's an attack and what isn't'. While that's technically true, it only includes things with attack rolls in each given actions line that it applies to. So spell like abilities, which aren't a defined thing in 5e, exist in a grey space. Check out the Dretch's Fetid Cloud, or Dretch's Scare or even Invisibility, as examples. They're not explicitly spells. Contrast with the Lich's Spellcasting ability (spells) and Paralyzingly Touch. The last is melee spell attack, so definitely an attack, but debatably not a spell despite the type of attack.
Yup. Definitely something that would need to fall under the same ruling, one way or the other.
-
2017-07-18, 05:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
The Dragonborn's breath is neither a spell nor an attack, per RAW.
Same can be said of the Turn (Undead or otherwise) option for Channel Divinity of the Cleric and Paladin (as well as a few others Channel options), the Draconic Presence of the Sorcerer, the Fey Presence, Dark Delirium, and Create Thrall of the Warlock, and probably others I've not seen.
Ergo, by RAW, all of this would work even if under a "no attack, no spell" effect.
If the DM decides to do otherwise, it's their prerogative.
-
2017-07-18, 05:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
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.Using the alignment system is an evil act.
-
2017-07-18, 05:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
It's not a grey area.
5e does categorize magic features that are not spell-based,as "magical effects". If it's not described as a spell (Innate Spellcasting or otherwise), then it's a magical effect, and so not a spell. And only the Actions that requires an attack roll are attacks, per definition (some effects only trigger if an attack/a hit happens, so they would be blocked too).
-
2017-07-18, 05:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-07-18 at 05:54 PM.
-
2017-07-18, 05:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
- Location
- Paris, France
- Gender
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
-
2017-07-18, 06:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
-
2017-07-18, 06:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
There is no page with the definition of "magical effects", but the book makes clear that it includes both spells and other magic instance that are not spells.
"At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects. Vou start with two such effects: Turn Undead and an effect determined by your domain" PHB p.58
"WHAT IS A SPELL?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression." p. 201
"Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can't protrude into it" p. 213
"For the duration, each friendly creature in the area (including you) has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects." p. 222
"You change the way the target appears to spells and magical effects that detect creature types, such as apaladin's Divine Sense or the trigger of a symbol spell." p. 263
"The quasit has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects" (PHB) p. 309
Arguing about the rules' interpretation is also something that can happen with any game.Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-07-18 at 06:38 PM.
-
2017-07-18, 06:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
I'm talking about Dalebert, who very specifically questioned balance (ie sways the power dynamic). Since I was replying directly under him at the time, I didn't think to reference his post. Once I posted, I was AFK and couldn't rectify. Perhaps this makes it clearer? But I get the fun of finding the guy with the dissenting opinion and ganging up. It's cool - and the general consensus seems to be what I said in the first place, so there's that.
Trollbait extraordinaire
-
2017-07-18, 06:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
-
2017-07-18, 08:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Gender
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
The whole "if there's ever a question..." can be defeated by never asking the question argument is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
But there is still a major problem in the literal words that people relentlessly overlook. I've colour coded it here to make the analogy crystal clear.
If you are a mammal, you are an animal. This does not mean that if you are an animal, you are a mammal. Therefore some things that are not mammals can be animals.
If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack. This does not mean that if you are making an attack, you are making an attack roll. Therefore some things that do not involve attack rolls can be attacks. [edited]
So, RAW, there is room for things that do not involve attack rolls to be attacks. There is nothing in the RAW that explicitly forbids anything that does not involve an attack roll from being an attack.
Obviously, JC is telling us that they meant for this to be the rule, but it is not. There was clearly an intention for the game-term Attack to denote an instance in which an attack roll is made. However, this never occurs in the RAW.
People have misread this, or made logical errors around it, for a long, long, time.Last edited by BurgerBeast; 2017-07-18 at 08:16 PM.
-
2017-07-18, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Yes, I'm aware that the term is used many times. The problem is it's not defined, nor are many things clear led labeled as being such, with the clear exception of spells being a part of it. I thought from your post you were aware of somewhere it was defined explicitly.
I guess my stance is that Sanctuary really should break on using harmful magical effects, or at least ones that require an action. Not sure about things like an aura. Likewise Invisibility should break on using a magical effect.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's RAW. I'm saying I think it should have been, or something along those lines.
-
2017-07-18, 08:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2015
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
Agreed. Shoves or grabs, for example, are explicitly described as attacks, but do not involve attack rolls.
It's a two part test.
1. Does the text call it an attack?
2. Does it involve an attack roll?
Meet one of these conditions, and you've got yourself an attack.
-
2017-07-18, 08:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Gender
Re: What is technically considered an attack?
This is what is intended. It is decidedly not what is written. If we are talking about RAW, this is not how it is determined. (edit: 2 fails as per my argument above)
Edit: yes thank you. If it is explicitly called an attack, it is an attack, regardless of whether it involves an attack roll. But that is a separate point.
Last edited by BurgerBeast; 2017-07-18 at 08:30 PM.