What is technically considered an attack?

[Unoriginal]

Is there is anything in the book that states "what is not called a spell is not a spell" ?

[Arial Black]

Is there is anything in the book that states "what is not called a spell is not a spell" ?

Of course not!

The rule book tells us what the rules are. They do not tell us what the rules aren't! Nor should we expect them to.

Spells, attacks, whatever, when the rules choose to define something, then because the rules are permissive (you can't do something unless you have rules permission to do it) in the parts they choose to define then things that are not defined as that thing are definitely not that thing, unless they specify that they are (specific beats general).

[BurgerBeast]

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.

Thank you for bringing this up. I think you are right to say that he (and perhaps some others) think these are equivalent, and I accept blame for that. They are not equivalent.

When I said "the general human tendency to read beyond what is written," I meant when they read beyond what is written in an illogical way. I was talking about the common misconception (that happens to be reinforced by false positives) that is prevalent in society and rears its head here (more below). When I said "as the natural process of internalizing knowledge," I was referring to the natural process of learning wherein people often use a rough and imprecise rule to understand something until they eventually work out the precision. It's a tendency to induce when induction is invalid. It's why the first time a child learns the word "horse," the child calls everything with four legs and fur a horse until the child eventually learns to be more precise. This mode of thinking and behaving is wrong but can be useful.

So, there are two things happening here:

(1) Humans make illogical errors all the time, such as jumping to conclusions, affirming the consequent, causation in place of correlation, etc (my point).

(2) Humans speak using idioms and figurative language and intonation and inflection to convey meanings that differ from the literal words (his point).

I think everyone agrees that both are true. The problem is that you can still think about, analyze, and understand idioms, intonations, inflections, etc. in a logical way. You can still make sense of them.

What you cannot do is wave your hands and say: "Hold it, guys. There is an idiom involved here, which means we throw logic out the window and accept that the speaker could mean anything" No, idioms (etc) have meaning that we can discern. They are not meaningless.

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.

Yes, but I am saying this is an error. There is no nuance or idiom or implication that justifies reading it in that way.

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.

I'm glad you said this, because many people think this, but in my view that are mistaken. I'll explain here and below.

My stance is that: not only is my way of reading it sufficient to determine the rules (insofar as you are willing to accept that the DM has leeway to make decisions about the rules), but it is the intended design of the game to write it in such a way.

D&D has always used the notion that the rules "say what they say, no more and no less," however, D&D has never used the principle: "the only things that are X are the things that the rulebook declares are X." These are totally different.

Part of this is because the rules are not generally definitions. They are methods of resolution. Look what happens when you apply this logic to definitions:

The definitions define what they say they define, no more and no less. So when the book says that a grapple is an attack, it says no more and no less. It does not say that magic missile is an attack (more) nor that magic missile is not an attack (more) nor that grappling is not an attack (less).

This is the same for the rules prescription about how to resolve an attack. They tell us how to resolve an attack. They do not define an attack (more).

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.

This is again the logical error.

Is there is anything in the book that states "what is not called a spell is not a spell" ?

I'm glad you said this. You are absolutely right about this. However, your reasons are incorrect.

What is not called a spell is not a spell. That's true. But it's not because anything that is not listed as a spell is not a spell (it happens to be true that what is not listed as a spell is not generally a spell, though). It's because of what we know about spells. They are particular things and they are very rare. So when someone asks if an X is a "spell," we use our brains in conjunction with all the rules we can find on the matter and on similar matters.

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a spell -> use your brain

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a spell -> assume nothing is a spell unless specifically stated

This (your view) seems logical and seems to match the idea that "the rules only state what they state- nothing more and nothing less" - but it does not.

The real problem comes when you apply this faulty logic to other things:

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> assume nothing is a creature unless specifically stated

Here your logic would be wrong. We can use our brains to determine if something is a creature.

Or:

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a weapon -> use your brain

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a weapon -> assume nothing is a weapon unless specifically stated

Here there is an additional detail. Here the rules have done more. Here there is a general rule for handling "improvised weapons" that actually is a general rule. Here a general rule exists for resolving attacks with all other things that are not listed on the weapons list. So we do not actually need to make assumptions nor use our brains beyond what is stated in the book. The "improvised weapons" rule covers all possibilities with a general rule. They exhaust all possibilities.

This is a decidedly different case. In the context of attacks and spells, this (exhaustive rules) is not done.

Of course not!

The rule book tells us what the rules are. They do not tell us what the rules aren't! Nor should we expect them to.

Spells, attacks, whatever, when the rules choose to define something, then because the rules are permissive (you can't do something unless you have rules permission to do it) in the parts they choose to define then things that are not defined as that thing are definitely not that thing, unless they specify that they are (specific beats general).

Except that D&D is not that type of game, and the rules traditionally go to pains to explain that. It is a part of the design intent of D&D that the players will try to have their characters do things that are not covered in the rules and that the DM will improvise. This is very different from other games, such as board games, where the assumption is the exact opposite.

This is the misconception that I am trying to combat: "things that are not defined as that thing are definitely not that thing, unless they specify that they are (specific beats general)."

This is a misapplication of the idea of specific beats general. Specific beats general is applied to a procedural rule that tells the DM how to do something in the game. It is not generally meant to apply to definitions (although it can) and, perhaps more importantly, it is not meant to imply that there is always a fully explained general rule. In many cases, the writers of the game intentionally leave terms undefined or specifically call out that the DM is free to make determinations about what is and is not X. In any case, there is no RAW definition for attack.

As a simple counterexample (and the reason I originally brought skunks into the discussion), it would be obviously wrong to say that, by the rules of D&D, the creatures found in the core books are the only creatures that exist in all of D&D. Anything that is not listed is not a creature.

Sparrow? Platipus? Dugong? Not creatures. You can put them in your game but RAW they are not creatures? -- Yeah... no.

What about trees? They do not specifically mention Douglas Fir tress, so you can use Douglas Fir trees in your games... but RAW they are not trees, so, for example, RAW you can't cut them down and use them as wood because by the rules you can only do that with trees, which is a specific game-term (for example).

So: No. This is not how the rules in D&D work nor how they are intended to work.

[Unoriginal]

What is not called a spell is not a spell. That's true.

Can you prove it?

Sure, the books might give this impression, but is it stated anywhere that, say, a Cleric's Channel Divinity is not a spell?

The real problem comes when you apply this faulty logic to other things:

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> assume nothing is a creature unless specifically stated

Here your logic would be wrong. We can use our brains to determine if something is a creature.

Actually, it's

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain, but don't take into account what can be inferred from the rules without it being literally stated.

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain, but take into account what can be inferred from the rules without it being literally stated. The rules described the creatures have X characteristics, therefore what has X characteristics is most likely a creature if there is nothing contradicting it.


OR:

Question: Is a being with the upper body of a woman and the lower body of a squid an humanoid

Your logic: Rules are silent about it -> use your brain.

My logic. Rules are silent about it, but they classifies most of the beings who are a mix-match of human and animal parts as Monstrosities, like the Centaur -> use your brain

[MaxWilson]

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.

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.

The fundamental error you are committing is that you are applying the logic of the material conditional (which originates in formal logic as the implication operator, -->, but is sometimes expressed in natural language as "if... then") instead of the indicative conditional (which originates in natural language, has no stipulated definition, and can be empirically shown to follow different rules than the material conditional for about 50% of humanity) to a text written in natural language, not formal logic.

Your argument is therefore unsound (but not necessarily invalid).

Psychology and indicative conditionals

Most behavioral experiments on conditionals in the psychology of reasoning have been carried out with indicative conditionals, causal conditionals, and counterfactual conditionals. People readily make the modus ponens inference, that is, given if A then B, and given A, they conclude B, but only about half of participants in experiments make the modus tollens inference, that is, given if A then B, and given not-B, only about half of participants conclude not-A, the remainder say that nothing follows (Evans et al., 1993). When participants are given counterfactual conditionals, they make both the modus ponens and the modus tollens inferences (Byrne, 2005).

Since humanity is split about 50/50 on the applicability of modus tollens to the indicative conditional, it's not surprising that you are fully persuaded of your own correctness, but it's also not surprising that others disagree. You can expect about 3.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this planet to agree with your conclusion.

[Unoriginal]

You can expect about 3.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this planet to agree with your conclusion.

Talk about 3.5 mentality being applied to 5e.

[bid]

Since humanity is split about 50/50 on the applicability of modus tollens to the indicative conditional,.

If I understand correctly, it's believing that "if A, then B" has the same meaning as "B is because A". It's statements such as "If fighter can make 4 attacks, then wizard can cast spells" where some will say "FALSE!" while others will say "True, but unrelated".

[smcmike]

Thank you for bringing this up. I think you are right to say that he (and perhaps some others) think these are equivalent, and I accept blame for that. They are not equivalent.

I did not mean to characterize Phoenix's view of the terms, only to make what I thought might be a useful comparison. Perhaps it was not useful for the purpose of convincing you. I'll try again, I suppose.

It's why the first time a child learns the word "horse," the child calls everything with four legs and fur a horse until the child eventually learns to be more precise.

This hasn't been my experience. Even assuming that the first furry quadruped that a child learns to name is a horse, by the time this language develops, they've probably been exposed to dozens of variations on the theme.

Also, every furry quadruped is a Voof. Everyone knows that.

This mode of thinking and behaving is wrong but can be useful.

If it's useful, in what sense is it wrong?

So, there are two things happening here:

(1) Humans make illogical errors all the time, such as jumping to conclusions, affirming the consequent, causation in place of correlation, etc (my point).

(2) Humans speak using idioms and figurative language and intonation and inflection to convey meanings that differ from the literal words (his point).

I think everyone agrees that both are true. The problem is that you can still think about, analyze, and understand idioms, intonations, inflections, etc. in a logical way. You can still make sense of them.

What you cannot do is wave your hands and say: "Hold it, guys. There is an idiom involved here, which means we throw logic out the window and accept that the speaker could mean anything" No, idioms (etc) have meaning that we can discern. They are not meaningless.

Yes, but I am saying this is an error. There is no nuance or idiom or implication that justifies reading it in that way.

One man's idiom can be another man's error. "I could care less," for example. It is very common in English to imply a negative case by stating the positive conditional. You can argue until the cows come home that this is an error, but that is just as meaningless as saying "Hold what?"

My stance is that: not only is my way of reading it sufficient to determine the rules (insofar as you are willing to accept that the DM has leeway to make decisions about the rules), but it is the intended design of the game to write it in such a way.

Is Fireball an attack? If your method does not provide a clear answer, it is insufficient to run a game.

The real problem comes when you apply this faulty logic to other things:

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> assume nothing is a creature unless specifically stated

"Use your brain" is not a step. It's the absence of a step, a sort of abdication of reason.

My logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. It looks like rule B implies X=Y, though, and this fits with the structure of spells a, b, and c, as well as ability T. Also, Designer D said Y.

Your logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. Use your brain.

My logic: Um, I did?

Except that D&D is not that type of game, and the rules traditionally go to pains to explain that. It is a part of the design intent of D&D that the players will try to have their characters do things that are not covered in the rules and that the DM will improvise. This is very different from other games, such as board games, where the assumption is the exact opposite.

This is the misconception that I am trying to combat: "things that are not defined as that thing are definitely not that thing, unless they specify that they are (specific beats general)."

This is a fair point, but I don't think the rule being espoused here gets in the way of it.

This is a misapplication of the idea of specific beats general. Specific beats general is applied to a procedural rule that tells the DM how to do something in the game. It is not generally meant to apply to definitions (although it can) and, perhaps more importantly, it is not meant to imply that there is always a fully explained general rule. In many cases, the writers of the game intentionally leave terms undefined or specifically call out that the DM is free to make determinations about what is and is not X. In any case, there is no RAW definition for attack.

They don't give us a definition, but they give a list of examples, a structure for resolving attacks, and a test to determine if other actions are attacks. That's a pretty good starting point! It seems like a pretty solid assumption that things that aren't on the list, don't fit the structure, and fail the test probably aren't attacks!

As a simple counterexample (and the reason I originally brought skunks into the discussion), it would be obviously wrong to say that, by the rules of D&D, the creatures found in the core books are the only creatures that exist in all of D&D. Anything that is not listed is not a creature.

Sparrow? Platipus? Dugong? Not creatures. You can put them in your game but RAW they are not creatures? -- Yeah... no.

What about trees? They do not specifically mention Douglas Fir tress, so you can use Douglas Fir trees in your games... but RAW they are not trees, so, for example, RAW you can't cut them down and use them as wood because by the rules you can only do that with trees, which is a specific game-term (for example).

So: No. This is not how the rules in D&D work nor how they are intended to work.

I don't think that it's necessarily true that the rules for classifying actions work in a similar fashion as the rules for classifying creatures.

[bid]

That's not modus tollens. Modus tollens is concluding that "if A then B" entails that B is true only when A is true.

Indicative conditional.

You refered to an indicative conditional experiment that divides the world in 50/50. Could you give an example of this?

Because the only conclusion I can reach is that half the people don't have the boolean expertise to derive the modus tollens. Surely there's more to it than that.

[Unoriginal]

Is Fireball an attack? If your method does not provide a clear answer, it is insufficient to run a game.

"Use your brain" is not a step. It's the absence of a step, a sort of abdication of reason.

My logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. It looks like rule B implies X=Y, though, and this fits with the structure of spells a, b, and c, as well as ability T. Also, Designer D said Y.

Your logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. Use your brain.

My logic: Um, I did?

True.

The question is *how* to use one's brain, after admitting there is no literal rule about X.

They don't give us a definition, but they give a list of examples, a structure for resolving attacks, and a test to determine if other actions are attacks. That's a pretty good starting point! It seems like a pretty solid assumption that things that aren't on the list, don't fit the structure, and fail the test probably aren't attacks!

Indeed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

TL;DR: Even if formal logic applies, it doesn't say what you think it says. There is no evidence in logic, the text, or normal understandings of words that supports your point. Play it however you wish, but as a matter of rules you're wrong.

BurgerBeast, let's consider an unambiguous definition here and apply what I understand your approach to be.

Let x be the set of all positive odd numbers. Odd numbers are numbers such that when divided by two, the remainder is equal to 1. Positive numbers are those numbers that are larger than zero.

Do we agree that this is a) a definition for x and b) unambiguous and c) does not define what is not in x? Now a question. Is the number 4 in the set x? By your reasoning, we can't tell. 4 might be in x, but there's not enough information. Is that a correct application of your belief to this definition?

From both a mathematical perspective and basic common sense, definitions are exclusive. Things that are not covered by the definition are excluded by default. Thus, since 4 is not an odd number, it is excluded from the set x by definition. This exclusion principle is also a legal principle:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius:
A principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded

This also accords with normal understanding of language. If I say "We have coffee, tea, and milk," you can infer that we don't have soda. Another basic principle of textual interpretation is that unqualified statements about categories of things (especially definitions) apply to all things belonging to that category. "Cats normally have four legs" is a general (albeit partial) definition. There can be exceptions, but the general rule is that normal cats have four legs. A creature with eight legs is probably not a cat (there might be something further in the definition that applies, but unless there is, that critter ain't no cat).

Same things go for the rules. The rules express two categories of things: general resolution methods and specific exceptions.

Specific Beats General
Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

Quoting the PHB, page 192: "See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks." Not "some of the rules," not "a few rules that," but "the rules that govern attacks." This is tells us two things--where we find the rules and that that section is the general rules for attacks.

Turning to that section, starting at the bottom of page 193:

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].

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target[2]. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll[3].
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll[4]. On a hit[5], 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[6], the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll you're making an attack.[7]

Discussion (numbers match points above):

1. The specification of types of things that can be part of an attack excludes anything else by exclusio alterius. Thus, only those types of things can be attacks by the general rules. The next phrase "an attack has a simple structure" implies that all attacks have this structure (in general). Otherwise it would have had to have been qualified with "some" or "many" or something like that.
2. The one making the "attack" can only have advantage or disadvantage if you're making an attack roll. Otherwise this sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
3. This phrase specifically calls out attack rolls.
4. This sentence requires that you make an attack roll. Otherwise you're not following the simple structure for attacks and everything falls apart.
5. Spells and abilities that require saving throws are not described as being "hit." That's reserved for attacks against AC. Saving throws determine if (and how much) you are affected, but you're always hit.
6. This is a rhetorical statement. In any case, the fact that there is this thread indicates that the status of attacks is in question. Moving on.
7. The rule is: attack roll -> attack. Points 1-7 also imply that the converse is also true. It can't be inferred from this point alone, but the rest of the text (and all the remaining text throughout) makes it clear.

Thus the general rule is that to resolve an attack you roll an attack roll. This is the same as the statement: If you're making an attack, you resolve it with an attack roll (unless a more specific rule applies) AND the converse: If you resolve something with an attack roll, you're making an attack. The alternative is thus rejected and the set of attacks is closed except under specific exception.

Spoiler: Formal Logic

Show

Now onto formal logic:

Let P be defined as "You are making an attack."
Let Q be defined as "You make an attack roll unless overridden by a more specific rule." The second phrase comes from specific beating general.

I claim, using the framework above and the simple test, that the rules say P -> Q. By modus tollens and transposition, ~Q -> ~P. Thus, if you're not making an attack roll (and no more specific rule applies), you're not making an attack.

It's an error to imply (without further information) that Q -> P (making an attack roll implies making an attack). Here, we have the further information: the paragraph below the list makes it clear that Q -> P. Thus it is clear to me that P <=> Q and the implication goes both ways. Otherwise the numbered list in the text is complete nonsense at best.

But ~Q -> ~P is totally valid if P -> Q. And (to me at least), the rules are crystal clear. See point 4 in the discussion above.The general rule requires that attacks involve an attack roll. Specifics can override this, but there is no room (logically or under any reasonable reading) for any non-attack-roll ability to be an attack unless it specifically states that it is an attack.

[BurgerBeast]

Can you prove it?

Sure, the books might give this impression, but is it stated anywhere that, say, a Cleric's Channel Divinity is not a spell?

No, I can't prove it. That's been my point all along. I have to go with what I know about spells in general (outside the context of the game). A spell is a particular sort of magical effect. If something is a spell, the rules ought to tell me.

This is a difference in the sort of thing that a spell is and the sort of thing that an attack is. Since those are two of the things that factor into the debate, I've been trying to use independent examples.

Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature? The answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes). How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D?

Because platypuses are creatures. That's why.

By your logic, I cannot do this. A platypus is not specifically defined as a creature in the rules, and there is no stat block nor mention of platypuses in the rules, so platypuses are not creatures. The rules were never designed to work this way. They weren't even meant to be thought of in this way.

Actually, it's

Your logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain, but don't take into account what can be inferred from the rules without it being literally stated.

My logic: Rules are silent about what is a creature -> use your brain, but take into account what can be inferred from the rules without it being literally stated. The rules described the creatures have X characteristics, therefore what has X characteristics is most likely a creature if there is nothing contradicting it.

No, that's not my logic. I think that any fair reading of my arguments would indicate that we both choose method two, here. The point of contention is very simply over whether the inference (attack roll -> attack) exists. I say it does not. That's really all we're arguing.

OR:

Question: Is a being with the upper body of a woman and the lower body of a squid an humanoid

Your logic: Rules are silent about it -> use your brain.

My logic. Rules are silent about it, but they classifies most of the beings who are a mix-match of human and animal parts as Monstrosities, like the Centaur -> use your brain

Also incorrect for the same reasons. I would also rule that the creature is a monstrosity.

The fundamental error you are committing is that you are applying the logic of the material conditional (which originates in formal logic as the implication operator, -->, but is sometimes expressed in natural language as "if... then") instead of the indicative conditional (which originates in natural language, has no stipulated definition, and can be empirically shown to follow different rules than the material conditional for about 50% of humanity) to a text written in natural language, not formal logic.

No, that's not the error I'm committing. In fact the wikipedia article misses the point a little bit as well.

The indicative conditional conditional can best be understood like this: "If it rains tomorrow, I will take my umbrella." In common understanding, people tend to assume that this means you will not take your umbrella if it does not rain. But this is not true. It doesn't matter if half the population mistakenly thinks it's true. It's not true. The fact of the matter is that if it does not rain and the person does take his umbrella, he has not violated the initial promise. It's still true (or at the very least it is not false). Many people will say "well, we still don't know because it has't rained yet." (Which is a better answer.)

Your argument is therefore unsound (but not necessarily invalid).

I'm not sure how you figure this.

Since humanity is split about 50/50 on the applicability of modus tollens to the indicative conditional, it's not surprising that you are fully persuaded of your own correctness, but it's also not surprising that others disagree. You can expect about 3.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this planet to agree with your conclusion.

The truth is not determined by consensus.

This hasn't been my experience. Even assuming that the first furry quadruped that a child learns to name is a horse, by the time this language develops, they've probably been exposed to dozens of variations on the theme.

Also, every furry quadruped is a Voof. Everyone knows that.

The point is that children (all humans) generalize the specific. It's the basis for essentially all stereotypes. "Horse" is not relevant to the example. Whatever the child first identifies as a "voof" (or "horse" or "doggy" or X), the child will see voofs in many places where they are not. This is because the child has not learned the subtle distinctions between the types of four-legged creatures.

If it's useful, in what sense is it wrong?

It's not 100% useful. It works most of the time. It becomes a problem when people think that since it usually works, it always works. See religion, stereotypes, traditional remedies, gambling strategies, and to a lesser extent astrology and psychics, for examples of things that work but are wrong.

One man's idiom can be another man's error. "I could care less," for example. It is very common in English to imply a negative case by stating the positive conditional. You can argue until the cows come home that this is an error, but that is just as meaningless as saying "Hold what?"

Nitpick: It's "I couldn't care less," not "I could care less," despite the fact that very many people do say "I could care less." Just think about what it means.

"Hold what?" Does not make sense. But, when there is context, it can make sense. The thing is: we can point to the context.

What is happening in this argument is that people are saying that the rule gives context, but there is no context at which to point.

Is Fireball an attack? If your method does not provide a clear answer, it is insufficient to run a game.

It is sufficient to run D&D, because in D&D the DM is expected to make such decisions. (Fireball is not even necessarily one of the harder ones.)

"Use your brain" is not a step. It's the absence of a step, a sort of abdication of reason.

A fair criticism. I should say: use your out-of-game understanding, carefully considering all relevant factors, to make a determination.

My logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. It looks like rule B implies X=Y, though, and this fits with the structure of spells a, b, and c, as well as ability T. Also, Designer D said Y.

Your logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. Use your brain.

My logic: Um, I did?

How about this: if someone was actually capable of casting the spell fireball in real life, and they cast it, aimed at you, would you consider them to be attacking you?

You then have to think about particular situations, because in a strict game terms sense, fireball is a spell and not an attack. However, in the case of the question (even in-game) "is the magic user attacking the fighter?" the answer is yes.

My personal ruling (no RAW justification but still permissible by the RAW): fireball does not necessarily count as an attack, but for the purposes of breaking effects that are designed to break when the target of the effect attacks, fireball counts as an attack.

This is a fair point, but I don't think the rule being espoused here gets in the way of it.

The rule does not. Your interpretation does. Your interpretation uses the opposite assumption as a basis for you stance. In other words, you are making the assumption that "D&D is a game in which you can only do what the rules say you can do" and this has an effect on how you decide whether the rules about attacking are complete or not. It's on the basis that "D&D is a game in which you can only do what the rules say you can do" that you conclude that everything else is therefore not an attack.

They don't give us a definition, but they give a list of examples, a structure for resolving attacks, and a test to determine if other actions are attacks. That's a pretty good starting point! It seems like a pretty solid assumption that things that aren't on the list, don't fit the structure, and fail the test probably aren't attacks!

It's not a solid assumption. You could read the text without any assumptions, and you'd do fine.

I don't think that it's necessarily true that the rules for classifying actions work in a similar fashion as the rules for classifying creatures.

And this is just a cop-out. Why argue at all, then? You can make completely inconsistent decisions in each context by just playing this (totally unjustified) card. Well, I say the rules work this way for spells, but this way for attacks, but this other way for creatures... yeah... no thanks.

The fact of the matter is that the rules for classifying work like this: the DM classifies things based on what he thinks they are. The rules try to do this in as many possible cases as they can, but it is understood that they cannot cover all possibilities. The rules tell the DM how these classifications (the ones that are made) mechanically interact with the world as often as they can, but they are not exhaustive. When the rules are silent, the DM must use his judgment (and there a variety of tricks to help with this, such as considering other related situations or examples).

BurgerBeast, let's consider an unambiguous definition here and apply what I understand your approach to be.

Let x be the set of all positive odd numbers. Odd numbers are numbers such that when divided by two, the remainder is equal to 1. Positive numbers are those numbers that are larger than zero.

Do we agree that this is a) a definition for x and b) unambiguous and c) does not define what is not in x? Now a question. Is the number 4 in the set x? By your reasoning, we can't tell. 4 might be in x, but there's not enough information. Is that a correct application of your belief to this definition?

There are a number of problems here, but the most straightforward response is: the rules do not say this, nor do they say anything analogous to it.

Aside from that, this is a poor choice of example because the subsets of real numbers are finite and clearly defined. The range of possible character actions is not clearly defined.

From both a mathematical perspective and basic common sense, definitions are exclusive. Things that are not covered by the definition are excluded by default. Thus, since 4 is not an odd number, it is excluded from the set x by definition.

Good definitions are exclusive, yes. But what you see in the PHB is not a definition. It is a prescription.

"If there's ever any doubt about whether or not it's a chair, then if it has four legs and a back and can be sat on comfortably - it's a chair."

Question: is a log a chair? Well, if it had four legs and a back and could be sat on comfortable, then it would definitely be a chair. Since it does not have four legs and a back, and debatably can be sat on comfortably, we do not know if it is a chair. We absolutely can not rule out the possibility that it is a chair.

Now consider this:

chair (n): an object that has four legs and a back and is use for the purpose of sitting.

Question: is a log, turned on it's side, a chair? No, it is not. It doesn't fit the definition. The reasons are (1) it doesn't have four legs and (2) it doesn't have a back.

When you write a definition, you are doing something very different than when you are describing how to do something (see my previous hammer example).

This exclusion principle is also a legal principle:

You're misunderstanding this principle. I think you're also misunderstanding what it means when it says "excluded."

Example: Dogs and cats are mammals.

This excludes everything except dogs and cats. But what does it mean to exclude rabbits? I'll tell you: it means this sentence does not declare that rabbits are mammals. It does not mean that rabbits are not mammals. It just means they are excluded from this list. Exclusion does not assert the negative.

This also accords with normal understanding of language. If I say "We have coffee, tea, and milk," you can infer that we don't have soda.

No, you can't. By this I mean, if someone said: "do you have soda?" No one would become indignant, as if it was an idiotic question. That's because it's still a possibility.

But just to run with this... imagine the PHB or DMG gave rules for what happens when you drink a beverage:

Beverages
milk
coffee
tea

When a character consumes a beverage, they can ignore the mechanical effects of dehydration for 1 day.

Now, do you conclude that RAW, water and beer are not beverages?

As a separate example: If I tell you that Ron, Rico, and Rebecca were at the party, do you then conclude that no one else was at the party? Of course not. You use context.

Quoting the PHB, page 192: "See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks." Not "some of the rules," not "a few rules that," but "the rules that govern attacks." This is tells us two things--where we find the rules and that that section is the general rules for attacks.

You've finally got it right! They are the rules that govern attacks. They are not the definition of attacks.

Discussion (numbers match points above):

I've already pointed out that you've missed the point, here. The test you quoted begins with "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."

This is the structure of an attack when you do one of those three things. No more and no less.

What happens if you are not doing now of those three things? The entirety of the text does not apply. (Hint: this is where your legal exclusion principle applies.)

Thus the general rule is that to resolve an attack you roll an attack roll.

No, the general rule is that when "you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell," you make an attack roll.

So, even the general rule (the most general rule in the PHB for attacking) is specific to three cases. That's as general as it gets.

This is the same as the statement: If you're making an attack, you resolve it with an attack roll (unless a more specific rule applies) AND the converse: If you resolve something with an attack roll, you're making an attack. The alternative is thus rejected and the set of attacks is closed except under specific exception.

It's not even close to the same thing. You have completely altered the context from "in these three specific cases" to "in all cases." It's totally unjustified.

[Unoriginal]

Just to be clear, and sicne I can't respond to your argument in depth right now, are you saying that for you, "the structure of an attack is like that" is not enough to conclude "what lacks this structure is not an attack" ?

[PhoenixPhyre]

BurgerBeast, I give up (like I should have a long time ago). You're completely impervious, locked in your shell of motivated reasoning. I leave you with this, which sums up how I feel about the whole thread and its pedantry:

The famous scene from Billy Madison

[smcmike]

Nitpick: It's "I couldn't care less," not "I could care less," despite the fact that very many people do say "I could care less." Just think about what it means.

I'm sorry. I'd love to respond to your substantive points, and probably will, but I do need to pause and laugh a little. This is the most stereotypical BurgerBeast response I can imagine.

[BurgerBeast]

Just to be clear, and sicne I can't respond to your argument in depth right now, are you saying that for you, "the structure of an attack is like that" is not enough to conclude "what lacks this structure is not an attack" ?

Sort of, but not quite. It does not say say the structure of an attack is like that. In says when you attack in one of these three ways, the structure is like that.

BurgerBeast, I give up (like I should have a long time ago). You're completely impervious, locked in your shell of motivated reasoning. I leave you with this, which sums up how I feel about the whole thread and its pedantry:

The famous scene from Billy Madison

Funny. I'm still here engaging what you've said. You've resorted to ad hominem.

Edit: Denial and anger are the first two stages of grief cognitive dissonance.

I'm sorry. I'd love to respond to your substantive points, and probably will, but I do need to pause and laugh a little. This is the most stereotypical BurgerBeast response I can imagine.

It may be. It also happens to be correct. Imagine that. ;)

[qube]

Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature? The answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes). How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D?

Because platypuses are creatures. That's why.

wait ... what. platypuses are creatures because platypuses are creatures?
No, they are creatures because your DM decided to homebrew them into your campagin as creatures just like, if he introduces oni, he's not forced to use the oni of japanese folklore - but whatever he wants.

Consider, why would Platypuses be animals, and not, for instance, monstrocities (in the DM's setting Platypuses might be miniature chimeras originally made by a mad wizard)?


You are confusing the ability to use Rule 0 with the rules of the game.

> > My logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. It looks like rule B implies X=Y, though, and this fits with the structure of spells a, b, and c, as well as ability T. Also, Designer D said Y.

> > Your logic: The rules aren't explicit about X. Use your brain.

> > My logic: Um, I did?

How about this: if someone was actually capable of casting the spell fireball in real life, and they cast it, aimed at you, would you consider them to be attacking you?

but that's not a real answer, now is it?

The brain is used, and came to a very different conclusion that you did.

You have to admit he's right, because otherwise, you reduced your own argument now to "if the rules aren't explicit, use your brain" to "if the rules aren't explicit, it's what I say that goes"

Use your brain, again, falls under the perview of Rule 0 - not RAW.

[Unoriginal]

Sort of, but not quite. It does not say say the structure of an attack is like that. In says when you attack in one of these three ways, the structure is like that.

So, according to you, what are the other ways to make an attack aside from those three?

[Cybren]

wait ... what. platypuses are creatures because platypuses are creatures?
No, they are creatures because your DM decided to homebrew them into your campagin as creatures just like, if he introduces oni, he's not forced to use the oni of japanese folklore - but whatever he wants.

Consider, why would Platypuses be animals, and not, for instance, monstrocities (in the DM's setting Platypuses might be miniature chimeras originally made by a mad wizard)?


You are confusing the ability to use Rule 0 with the rules of the game.

but that's not a real answer, now is it?

The brain is used, and came to a very different conclusion that you did.

You have to admit he's right, because otherwise, you reduced your own argument now to "if the rules aren't explicit, use your brain" to "if the rules aren't explicit, it's what I say that goes"

Use your brain, again, falls under the perview of Rule 0 - not RAW.

Wait, are you saying if you introduced a platypus to a game it might be a class feature or an ability score?

[Millstone85]

If I say "We have coffee, tea, and milk," you can infer that we don't have soda.

No, you can't. By this I mean, if someone said: "do you have soda?" No one would become indignant, as if it was an idiotic question. That's because it's still a possibility.

Eh, there are different ways this could play out.

Oliver: So we have coffee... tea... and milk.
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: Er... Yup! There is a can left.

Oliver: Alright, we have coffee, tea, and milk.
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: No.
Jeffrey: Do you have beer?
Oliver: No.
Jeffrey: Do you have chocolate milk?
Oliver: Stop being an idiot, Jeffrey.

And after reading this thread, I could even imagine this.

Oliver: We have coffee, tea, and milk.
Jeffrey: Why are you telling me this?
Oliver: Well, do you want some?
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: N... Actually, there is a can left. Here you go!
Jeffrey: I never said I wanted soda.
Oliver: ...

[qube]

Wait, are you saying if you introduced a platypus to a game it might be a class feature or an ability score?

a new ability score seems a bit odd to introduce (although, things like sanity, honor and such ...). Maybe a class feature of a shapechanger class who does partial shapechanges, or a racial subtype for the Shifter race, or who knows what else.

It's an obvious example of bad logic.

Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature? The answer is yes (there is room to nitpick here but mostly those reasons lead to rabbit-holes). How do I know? How can I say that a platypus is a creature in D&D?

Because platypuses are creatures. That's why.

The question "Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?" answers itself: the platypus is a creature, not because it's a creature IRL, but because the subject we're talking about is the animal that appears in the game.

X can litterly be anything here: If the animal was called "computerscreen", it would still be a creature, because the DM decided that that was the name of the animal you encountered. (dispite computerscreens not being creature IRL (I hope))

Likewise, if there was something else was called "platypus" (like a feat), it sure as heck wouldn't be an animal.

[Cybren]

That seems like a really dishonest way to interpret what a platypus is.

[Unoriginal]

Eh, there are different ways this could play out.

Oliver: So we have coffee... tea... and milk.
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: Er... Yup! There is a can left.

Oliver: Alright, we have coffee, tea, and milk.
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: No.
Jeffrey: Do you have beer?
Oliver: No.
Jeffrey: Do you have chocolate milk?
Oliver: Stop being an idiot, Jeffrey.

And after reading this thread, I could even imagine this.

Oliver: We have coffee, tea, and milk.
Jeffrey: Why are you telling me this?
Oliver: Well, do you want some?
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: N... Actually, there is a can left. Here you go!
Jeffrey: I never said I wanted soda.
Oliver: ...

I giggled, but the thing is that the point of contention of this thread is

Oliver: Do you want coffee, tea, or milk ?
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: No, I have what I've offered you.
Jeffrey: Do you have beer?
Oliver: Not unless it's coffee, tea or milk, Jeffrey. I told you what I had.

vs

Oliver: Do you want coffee, tea, or milk ?
Jeffrey: Do you have soda?
Oliver: Sure.
Jeffrey: Why didn't you list it before, then?
Oliver: Because it wasn't coffee, tea, or milk, duh.

That seems like a really dishonest way to interpret what a platypus is.

How is that dishonest?

Are animals creatures in DnD? Answer: yes

Is the platypus an animal in the real world? Answer: yes

Would the platypus be an animal if the DnD MM decided to classify it as a Monstrosity (maybe as a tongue-in-cheek reference to how people perceived the first reports of platypus) ? No, it would be a Monstrosity, because that is what the rules say.

Would the platypus be an animal if the DM decided to homebrew a statblock and classify it as a Monstrosity? No, because the DM decided they were not.

Would the platypus be an animal if the DM decided there the platypus doesn't exist in their setting? No, because the DM defined they didn't exist.


Would the platypus be an animal if the DM decided that they were actually intelligent fae spirits that sometime appeared in the world? No, because the DM defined them as Fay.


Anyway, this whole thread is basically going like that, now:

[qube]

That seems like a really dishonest way to interpret what a platypus is.

I agree. it's even more visible in:

Question 1: "Lets take the platipus. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"

Question 2: "Lets take the platipus. Is a feat by that name, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"

Question 3: "Lets take the pencil. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"

1. is obviously yes
2. is obviously no (as you can see, that a platipus is a RL creature, doesn't matter.)
3. Here, the dishonesty becomes quite clear, in the way it feels contorted to refer to a pencil as "that animal". That's because the question itself implies that the subject we're talking about an animal (and thus a creature) - not something else.

[Cybren]

I agree. it's even more visible in:

Question 1: "Lets take the platipus. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"

Question 2: "Lets take the platipus. Is a feat by that name, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"

Question 3: "Lets take the pencil. Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"

1. is obviously yes
2. is obviously no (as you can see, that a platipus is a RL creature, doesn't matter.)
3. Here, the dishonesty becomes quite clear, in the way it feels contorted to refer to a pencil as "that animal". That's because the question itself implies that the subject we're talking about an animal (and thus a creature) - not something else.

I mean, think it's pretty dishonest to assume that when someone asks if a platypus is an animal in d&d and going off into metaphysics as to what they could mean by a platypus.

[qube]

I mean, think it's pretty dishonest to assume that when someone asks if a platypus is an animal in d&d and going off into metaphysics as to what they could mean by a platypus.

if the problem was that if a platypus (as is IRL), would be an animal/creature in d&d?, then I would agree with you. The thing is though - that that isn't the problem at hand. You will note

• "Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D, a creature?"
• "Yes, Because platypuses are creatures. "

The problem dealt with isn't "if a platypus is an animal in d&d", but "why would a platypus be an animal/creature in d&d".


The only reason it would be is, because the question is set up that way. As Unoriginal pointed out, even within the same context it could be a monstrosity or a fey. With different context, it could even be a feat*, or even a type of movement ! **

---
*: the reason I jumped to feat, and not monstrocity/fey is that BurgerBeast reasoned it would be a creature, and monstrocity/fey are still creatures. While it might seem more strange, more metaphysical as you say -- it's the same reasoning: a homebrew of the DM is a homebrew of the DM.

** : in black, BurgerBeast's reaonsing; in blue, me applying that logic: "Pick any example of an animal, X, that is not explicitly defined in the D&D rules. (OK, ... lets pick .... the common and wellknown annoying animal: the fly) Is that animal, were it to appear in D&D (oh look, fly appears in D&D! right there: under Dragon. I knew I made a good pick!), a creature ? The answer is yes (wait, say what now? no, it's not an animal. it's a type of movement) How do I know? ( because you presume you speak about the animal only to conclude you speak about an animal, a.k.a. circular logic.)

[smcmike]

It may be. It also happens to be correct. Imagine that. ;)

Yeah, man, you took my example of "one man's idiom is another man's error" and "corrected" it.

Since I don't think I can come up with a more perfect encapsulation of your ability to completely miss the point, I'll stop trying.

[qube]

Spoiler: if you could care less, history lesson

Show

factoid: in known literature, "couldn't care less" was first used for something the person cared much about, and failed to care less, while "could care less" about a something that the person didn't care much for. It is a relative term: noting one has or hasn't reached a minimum of caring (which in both senarios was not, zero).


As, on a forum, one cared to responded, so there is an amount of caring, so one (possibly) could care less.
I could give zero ducks, but I give one duck to still respond, so, I could care less

Likewise, if one couldn't care less, one simply denotes that this is the lowest amount of caring one can willingly push him/herself back to.
trying to be strong, he felt very sad, but he wasn't able to care less, after something bad happend to my GF.

[Unoriginal]

One man's idiom can be another man's error. "I could care less," for example. It is very common in English to imply a negative case by stating the positive conditional. You can argue until the cows come home that this is an error, but that is just as meaningless as saying "Hold what?"

Nitpick: It's "I couldn't care less," not "I could care less," despite the fact that very many people do say "I could care less." Just think about what it means.

I'm sorry. I'd love to respond to your substantive points, and probably will, but I do need to pause and laugh a little. This is the most stereotypical BurgerBeast response I can imagine.

It may be. It also happens to be correct. Imagine that. ;)

Not sure what to add to that...

[Zalabim]

Not sure what to add to that...

I would just add that of course it's been questioned and researched and answers have been written online about the meaning and origin of the phrase, with my preferred answer being "It's sarcastic."

Other explanations are of course that I could care less, so quit while you're ahead, or that I couldn't care less is obviously not true since I am still talking about it, and that would mean I'm giving more than the minimum level of caring about the subject (i.e. none at all).