Distract drop invisibility?

[Oofta]

I don't feel any need to argue about your interpretation of attack, obviously if you read it in as a hostile action, then a dragon's breath would be an attack. (I don't really understand why frightful presence would be ambiguous, nor why it depends on the dragon picking targets. It doesn't select targets when it breaths. What if it breathed fire in an area it thought was unoccupied, but actually there was a creature hiding there?)

But I would be happy to understand why you think interpreting it broadly is better than interpreting it narrowly. It is clear that you understand how the narrow interpretation works.

It goes back to how 5E is written. The devs have explained many times that the intent was to use more casual, relaxed terminology. They specifically tried to not write the book in gamer speak.

Imagine for a moment you had never played D&D. Someone asks you one of the following

• Would you consider a dragon trying to kill you by breathing fire at you an attack?
• Do you think someone is attacking you if they throw a live grenade in your general vicinity with the intent of blowing you up?
• You are confronted by some bullies. One of them throws sand in your eyes blinding you momentarily while the other punches you. Did both bullies attack or just the one that punched you?

I don't care what the book says unless it overrides common sense or the common definition of a word. Despite what you claim the book never says "it is only considered an attack if you roll an attack roll". Therefore I use the standard real-world dictionary definition of "attack". That does mean some DMs will rule differently in some cases.

It's not about which ruling is "better". It's about how the rules only apply when and if they override basic logic or common usage definitions of words.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My rule of thumb is that if you help someone do a thing, then you are also doing that thing. This also help simplify situations where there's a negative outcome to the core action, like picking a lock coated in undetected contact poison. If you help, you're also exposed to the poison.

 

[Bacon Bits]

My rule of thumb is that if you help someone do a thing, then you are also doing that thing. This also help simplify situations where there's a negative outcome to the core action, like picking a lock coated in undetected contact poison. If you help, you're also exposed to the poison.

That's and extremely reasonable interpretation. I believe I'm going to steal that. Although, in this example, it would be one of the reasons that I wouldn't allow the Help action to benefit a player trying to pick a lock. It's really a one-person job.

It doesn't hurt that the only time I've seen players use Help in combat is when one player is unable or unlikely to do any damage to the opponent or the other party member has such significantly higher damage output.

 

[jaelis]

It goes back to how 5E is written. The devs have explained many times that the intent was to use more casual, relaxed terminology. They specifically tried to not write the book in gamer speak.

Imagine for a moment you had never played D&D. Someone asks you one of the following

• Would you consider a dragon trying to kill you by breathing fire at you an attack?
• Do you think someone is attacking you if they throw a live grenade in your general vicinity with the intent of blowing you up?
• You are confronted by some bullies. One of them throws sand in your eyes blinding you momentarily while the other punches you. Did both bullies attack or just the one that punched you?

I don't care what the book says unless it overrides common sense or the common definition of a word. Despite what you claim the book never says "it is only considered an attack if you roll an attack roll". Therefore I use the standard real-world dictionary definition of "attack". That does mean some DMs will rule differently in some cases.

It's not about which ruling is "better". It's about how the rules only apply when and if they override basic logic or common usage definitions of words.

So basically your reasoning is that you feel using natural definitions is intrinsically better, so you prefer to use them when possible?

BTW, I have not claimed that "it is only considered an attack if you roll an attack roll." Several actions are called out as attacks that don't involve attack rolls. To me the line I quoted simply means that "attack" should be interpreted as a special game term like AC or saving throw, not as a natural term like "hidden."

The game uses lots of specific terminology, and I'm sure you are fine with that. I doubt you would let a level 5 fighter make one attack and then use the help action because helping is an attack and they have Extra Attack. Both you and I know how to interpret some terms naturally and some terms mechanically. From my point of view you are refusing to acknowledge the game's advice to treat "attack" as a mechanical term.

Can you say why you feel that way about "attack" and not about other terms? Does it bother you that the ability to use an item on your turn (outside of your action) doesn't let you use a magic item? That doesn't make much sense in terms of natural language. Would you interpret "casting a spell" narrowly in terms of actually casting an actual spell, or more naturally in terms of activating any kind of magical ability?

 

[Oofta]

So basically your reasoning is that you feel using natural definitions is intrinsically better, so you prefer to use them when possible?

BTW, I have not claimed that "it is only considered an attack if you roll an attack roll." Several actions are called out as attacks that don't involve attack rolls. To me the line I quoted simply means that "attack" should be interpreted as a special game term like AC or saving throw, not as a natural term like "hidden."

The verbiage in the PHB is clear, they do not redefine the word "attack". They clarify that if you are in doubt about whether an action is an attack then you can apply further criteria. Since I don't doubt that a dragon using it's breath weapon to try to kill someone is attacking, I don't need to apply the further criteria.

But you didn't answer my questions. Would you consider my examples (dragon, grenade, being ganged up on by bullies) as attacks if you had no knowledge of the game rules?

Can you point to anywhere in the book that would override those answers?

 

[jaelis]

But you didn't answer my questions. Would you consider my examples (dragon, grenade, being ganged up on by bullies) as attacks if you had no knowledge of the game rules?

Of course.

Can you point to anywhere in the book that would override those answers?

I already did

To reflect the question, would you consider chain mail as granting AC 16 if you had no knowledge of the rules? I suppose not. But I bet that doesn't mean you don't play chain mail as granting AC 16. Is there a specific place in the rules that says "chain mail" is a game specific term? If my character wrapped himself up in a chain would you grant him AC 16? I know that is facetious. The point is that you demonstrate a bias to interpreting this word attack via natural language, which I'm pretty sure you don't apply to other terms in the game. Which is your privilege, it is just odd to me and I would be happy to understand better.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Got me this here flamethrower.

Just gonna fire off a few lengthy bursts over there. And here. Some more there.

Not tryin' ta attack you good folks! Just firin' me flamethrower. Still invisible!

Yup!

Gonna toss me some grenades in a moment as well. All nice and casual like.

Lose a limb or two? A friend. All good!

Still invisible.

Yup!

 

[MaximusArael020]

Admittedly, I did not read through all 5 pages of this post. However, in my game, I would first ask what an invisible person is doing to distract an enemy in such a way as to grant advantage to another player. Because they are invisible, simply occupying space near the enemy would not be distracting, in my opinion. So depending what the invisible player was doing to distract, I would probably rule that it ends the invisibility, unless they were waving a fan in front of their face or something. Any type of physical interaction with the enemy to grant advantage I would rule as an attack, and thus would rule that invisibility would be lost.

 

[Oofta]

Of course.

So we agree that if one bully assists another in an attack on you, both bullies are attacking even if only one punches you.

I already did

Are you referring to this?

No but it does say "If there's ever any questions 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." If I wrote that sentence, I would mean that if you aren't sure whether something is an attack, you should use the presence of an attack roll to decide.

Because I agree. I know that if a dragon is trying to kill my PC by breathing fire on it, it is attacking. Therefore there isn't any question whether the dragon is making an attack.

I know both bullies are attacking me even though only one threw a punch.

To reflect the question, would you consider chain mail as granting AC 16 if you had no knowledge of the rules? I suppose not. But I bet that doesn't mean you don't play chain mail as granting AC 16. Is there a specific place in the rules that says "chain mail" is a game specific term? If my character wrapped himself up in a chain would you grant him AC 16? I know that is facetious. The point is that you demonstrate a bias to interpreting this word attack via natural language, which I'm pretty sure you don't apply to other terms in the game. Which is your privilege, it is just odd to me and I would be happy to understand better.

Outside of gaming, "AC" has no meaning. Ask someone the term "hit points" means that has never played a game that uses it. You'll get a blank stare. Outside of the context of gaming, it has no meaning. Ask them what the word "attack" means and they can tell you.

The common usage definition of "attack" does not override the term found in the rules, the rules tell us how some attacks (weapon attacks, grapple, shove, etc) are implemented. It's never stated that those implementations of attack listed include all possible attacks. There's no sentence that says "for game purposes, an action is only considered an attack if it meets the following criteria..."

You can't have it both ways. Either there's something in the rules that changes the fundamental definition of the word "attack" or they are simply add rules as to how to implement specific types of attacks in game while not redefining the word.

 

[jaelis]

So would it be correct to say your view is that if a word or phrase in the rules has a common meaning outside the rules, that common meaning has priority over a game-specific definition? So "attack" defaults to the common use, regardless of how it might be defined in another context?

I guess that can't quite be right though. For instance, a "melee attack" is a well-defined thing outside the game. If you are in melee with an opponent and do something aggressive to distract them, I think conventionally you would call that a melee attack. But I guess you would not allow someone to use the aid action as an opportunity attack, even though an OA lets you make a melee attack?

Or is it that you just feel 'attack' in particular is not a game-defined term and so we should treat it as common language. Whereas maybe 'melee attack' is a game-defined term?