Distract drop invisibility?

[nswanson27]

I'm trying not to lose my patience, but what point is there for continuing this conversation? It has nothing to do with game balance or how powerful the invisibility spell is. However, the devs have repeatedly stated that the game was designed to use natural language whenever possible.

In my opinion describing how to resolve certain types of attacks in game terms does not redefine the word "attack". We have to define certain terms like AC (or Mage Armor or Hit Points) because they have no inherent meaning. I don't see a reason to ignore the generally accepted meaning of the word "attack". When you DM feel free to make a different ruling.

Have you thought about posting on sage advice to see what JC would say specifically about this?

 

[billd91]

So you agree that the 'guy helping the bully' argument is as non-sensical and hyperbolic as I take it be?

Wow. Is that really your interpretation? Because that would be a really wrong one. I'd be breaking the invisibility of the bully throwing sand in the target's face for clearly attacking the target regardless of whether or not it helps the other bully's attack and whether or not is requires a to hit roll. The idea that an attack only occurs when a to hit die is rolled when there are so many other ways to do so strikes me as entirely ridiculous.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Wow. Is that really your interpretation? Because that would be a really wrong one. I'd be breaking the invisibility of the bully throwing sand in the target's face for clearly attacking the target regardless of whether or not it helps the other bully's attack and whether or not is requires a to hit roll. The idea that an attack only occurs when a to hit die is rolled when there are so many other ways to do so strikes me as entirely ridiculous.

Yes, that's my interpretation. Is the guy throwing the sand actually doing anything mechanically that resembles an attack - damage, grappling, blinding, etc? No. It's a narrative description of how a character is using the Help action to provide Advantage to another who is making an attack.

 

[Oofta]

Have you thought about posting on sage advice to see what JC would say specifically about this?

Why would I? I don't see an issue with my ruling. My players don't have a problem with my interpretation. The only people who want to redefine what the word "attack" means are anonymous people on the internet.

If someone ruled differently at a table I was playing at I would disagree and might discuss it with them after the game. If the DM wants to say a dragon trying to reduce me to ash is not attacking, so be it.

 

[nswanson27]

Why would I? I don't see an issue with my ruling. My players don't have a problem with my interpretation. The only people who want to redefine what the word "attack" means are anonymous people on the internet.

If someone ruled differently at a table I was playing at I would disagree and might discuss it with them after the game. If the DM wants to say a dragon trying to reduce me to ash is not attacking, so be it.

I don't have any problem with this as it pertains to a DM ruling, and I don't think that anyone that I can tell has a problem with it either if that's all that this is. The issue that you go further to say how "common usage" of words permits yours as the valid interpretation of the rules (RAW or RAI) - one that's beyond simply a DM houseruling. There's an objective truth that's claimed there. THAT'S what I and others disagree with, and something I'm suggesting that you try to validate with JC.

If you don't want to that's perfectly fine, but to be frank that leaves me with an impression that you really don't want to talk about the objective aspect of this on a level playing field, which leads me to conclude this really is your personal preference as a DM and nothing more. If something is objective in nature, then it can be either be verified or falsified in some way. Otherwise, it's simply subjective through and through, and the whole business of trying to discuss as if it were something objective as it relates to the rules, or the proper way to read or interpret the rules, is pointless.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm just trying to separate out the issues, and to call a spade a spade.

 

[jaelis]

I'm trying not to lose my patience, but what point is there for continuing this conversation? It has nothing to do with game balance or how powerful the invisibility spell is. However, the devs have repeatedly stated that the game was designed to use natural language whenever possible.

OK, is it fair then to explain your position as that you think RAI is to interpret language naturally where possible, and it is possible to interpret it naturally here so you do?

But I doubt you really care about the developers' intentions, so maybe that is just your own preference, regardless?

Maybe that is annoying and you think I'm splitting hairs? But to me there is a big difference between: "I prefer to use natural language for interpretation" and "The only reasonable interpretation here is the natural one." In the first case that's cool there's nothing to argue about. But the second is closer to what you think, then I still don't understand why.

 

[Oofta]

I don't have any problem with this as it pertains to a DM ruling, and I don't think that anyone that I can tell has a problem with it either if that's all that this is. The issue that you go further to say how "common usage" of words permits yours as a valid interpretation of the rules (RAW or RAI) - one that's beyond simply a DM houseruling. There's an objective truth that's stated there. THAT'S what I and others disagree with, and something I'm suggesting that you try to validate with JC.

If you don't want to that's perfectly fine, but to be frank that leaves me with an impression that you really don't want to talk about the objective aspect of this on a level playing field, which leads me to conclude this really is your personal preference as a DM and nothing more. If something is objective in nature, then it can be either be verified or falsified in some way. Otherwise, it's simply subjective through and through, and the whole business of trying to discuss as if it were something objective as it relates to the rules, or the proper way to read or interpret the rules, is pointless.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm just trying to separate out the issues, and to call a spade a spade.

There were several podcasts and articles explaining this when 5E was released. I don't have to confirm something that was repeated by the devs multiple times. For example: Mike Mearls 2012 interview.

If a dragon uses it's fire breath to try to kill someone and I read the sentence "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." I don't have to read anything after ""If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack..." because the dragon is attacking. Full stop.

The only "spade" here is that you disagree with my ruling and won't accept that it is simply a ruling. No matter how often it's repeated, the book never says "you are making an attack if and only if you roll to attack".

 

[nswanson27]

There were several podcasts and articles explaining this when 5E was released. I don't have to confirm something that was repeated by the devs multiple times. For example: Mike Mearls 2012 interview.

If a dragon uses it's fire breath to try to kill someone and I read the sentence "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." I don't have to read anything after ""If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack..." because the dragon is attacking. Full stop.

The only "spade" here is that you disagree with my ruling and won't accept that it is simply a ruling. No matter how often it's repeated, the book never says "you are making an attack if and only if you roll to attack".

No, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with your ruling. I'm claiming that the way in which you are reading the rules isn't the one the designers intended. If you don't care, then that fine, but let's stop with bringing the podcasts and articles, and other such references pointing to RAI, into the discussion, because that's not what this is really about.
However, if you are claiming that your ruling is RAI, then I am claiming you are not hearing their intent correctly in those podcasts.
Don't agree? Put it on sage advice and settle this like it ought to be.
Don't want to? Fine, but then I call shenanigans on your apparent unwillingness to discuss this properly, because that's what this is all implying then.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with your ruling. I'm claiming that the way in which you are reading the rules isn't the one the designers intended. If you don't care, then that fine, but let's stop with bringing the podcasts and articles, and other such references pointing to RAI, into the discussion, because that's not what this is really about.
However, if you are claiming that your ruling is RAI, then I am claiming you are not hearing their intent correctly in those podcasts.
Don't agree? Put it on sage advice and settle this like it ought to be.
Don't want to? Fine, but then I call shenanigans on your apparent unwillingness to discuss this properly, because that's what this is all implying then.

First, I've never hit this issue at a real game table. Honestly, I'm quite amazed that people are claiming a dragon is not attacking when they breath fire in an attempt to kill someone.

Second, I'm sorry you disagree with me, but so what? We disagree. Not the end of the world.

Third, neither one of us wrote the rules. I don't claim to divine their intent, I've merely shared my interpretations. I don't really care about RAI/RAW/RAH/MAH/MAHI-MAHI/RARR/ROAR*. I just want to run the game the best I can which in part means using standard English when possible. I pointed you to an interview with Mike Mearls where he explains how they consciously tried to avoid technical game terminology when they can avoid it. Apparently you can't be bothered to read it.

Last, I don't do twitter and that seems to be the only way to get a question to JC now. If you do, feel free to post the question.

*OK, I may have made up a couple of those. Sue me. This thread could use a little levity.

 

[nswanson27]

First, I've never hit this issue at a real game table. Honestly, I'm quite amazed that people are claiming a dragon is not attacking when they breath fire in an attempt to kill someone.

Second, I'm sorry you disagree with me, but so what? We disagree. Not the end of the world.

Third, neither one of us wrote the rules. I don't claim to divine their intent, I've merely shared my interpretations. I don't really care about RAI/RAW/RAH/MAH/MAHI-MAHI/RARR/ROAR*. I just want to run the game the best I can which in part means using standard English when possible. I pointed you to an interview with Mike Mearls where he explains how they consciously tried to avoid technical game terminology when they can avoid it. Apparently you can't be bothered to read it.

Last, I don't do twitter and that seems to be the only way to get a question to JC now. If you do, feel free to post the question.

*OK, I may have made up a couple of those. Sue me. This thread could use a little levity.

Very true, it is not the end of the world. And I already know about the designer's intent on 5e - both what you stated, "rulings over rules", and the like... though I still think that with those in mind it doesn't imply they meant the help action to be constituted as an attack (that's RAI again mind you, nothing wrong with you ruling otherwise as a DM). And your post does clarify your intent, as I genuinely didn't know if you were fighting for a RAI argument or not.