D&D 5E Uncanny Dodge (Rogue)

[Celtavian]

Page 194 of the PHB, under Making an Attack: "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."

That couldn't be any clearer. Attacks require attack rolls. It's that simple.

You're right, breath weapons don't break invisibility. They aren't attacks.

So if I use a fireball or something similar, it doesn't count as an attack? I can fire those and maintain invisibility? Pretty sweet.

I can live with Uncanny Dodge not working against things without an attack roll, if I can maintain invisibility using spells that don't require an attack roll.

 

[BigVanVader]

I say let the Rogue go ahead and Matrix everything. There is no spoon.

 

[pepticburrito]

So if I use a fireball or something similar, it doesn't count as an attack? I can fire those and maintain invisibility? Pretty sweet.

invisibility specifically says that casting a spell breaks invisibility.

 

[Mistwell]

Page 194 of the PHB, under Making an Attack: "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."

That couldn't be any clearer. Attacks require attack rolls. It's that simple.

You're right, breath weapons don't break invisibility. They aren't attacks.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, so I will assume you are serious.

It couldn't be any clearer, but you are ignoring half the clear portion of that statement. It is not saying attack rolls require an attack. It is saying that only IF there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, THEN you can use that rule of thumb.

It's not saying that's the exhaustive list of things that count as an attack. There isn't a question that a breath weapon is an attack, so you don't need the finer detail rule to make a judgement call for you. If your invisible dragonborn uses their breath weapon in an attempt to fry an opponent, they become visible because there isn't a question that you're attacking.

 

[pepticburrito]

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, so I will assume you are serious.

It couldn't be any clearer, but you are ignoring half the clear portion of that statement. It is not saying attack rolls require an attack. It is saying that only IF there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, THEN you can use that rule of thumb. It's not saying that's the exclusive list of things that count as an attack. There isn't a question that a breath weapon is an attack, so you don't need the finer detail rule to make a judgement call for you.

There actually IS a question if a breath weapon counts as an Attack. That's what this thread is about.

If it did, then Uncanny Dodge does what it's not supposed to do, act in a similar way to Evasion. 5e isn't the first D&D game with "Uncanny Dodge". It never did anything useful against breath weapon attacks, which made the question arise at my table about using it against a Half Dragon breath weapon.

Do as you will at your table, but that text couldn't be any more clear. To answer the question "Is XXXXXX and attack?" Is laid out quite plainly. Breath weapons aren't attacks.

 

[Mistwell]

There actually IS a question if a breath weapon counts as an Attack. That's what this thread is about.

Only because D&D fans on message boards will argue about anything. If I breath fire on you intentionally, it's an attack. We all know that. You don't need rules to tell you that, because there isn't any real question about it. That rule you cited tells you that you only need to check it if there is a question about it - and there isn't.

I would suggest we ask both Mearls and Crawford - I bet they both answer of course breathing fire on someone is an attack for purposes of invisibility.

 

[pepticburrito]

Only because D&D fans on message boards will argue about anything. If I breath fire on you intentionally, it's an attack. We all know that. You don't need rules to tell you that, because there isn't any real question about it. That rule you cited tells you that you only need to check it if there is a question about it - and there isn't.

I would suggest we ask both Mearls and Crawford - I bet they both answer of course breathing fire on someone is an attack for purposes of invisibility.

Half damage on all save based damage is well beyond the intent and use of Uncanny Dodge. That's what Evasion is for. Taking half damage on a save based attack is something Uncanny Dodge just never does, which is why it's only useful against attacks. Which is why the text quoted says you answer the question in a specific way.

You DO need a rule to understand what an attack is because Of Uncanny Dodge. As I said, the text couldn't be any more clear. You answer the question "is XXXX an attack" by using one criteria.

 

[Mistwell]

Half damage on all save based damage is well beyond the intent and use of Uncanny Dodge. That's what Evasion is for. Taking half damage on a save based attack is something Uncanny Dodge just never does, which is why it's only useful against attacks. Which is why the text quoted says you answer the question in a specific way.

You DO need a rule to understand what an attack is because Of Uncanny Dodge. As I said, the text couldn't be any more clear. You answer the question "is XXXX an attack" by using one criteria.

I'm talking about invisibility and the broader theme of this version of the game with ruling over rules. You keep pretending the first part of the section doesn't exist, but it does. It says first if there is an obvious ruling then make that ruling, and then only if there is no obvious ruling do you turn to the second part. In this case, everyone knows if in real life I intentionally take a flame thrower to someone I am attacking them. I would know I am attacking them, and the person being flamed would know they are being attacked. There is no doubt about the ruling in that case - so by the text of that section we don't go to the second part - we make the ruling, not the rule, when it's obvious like that.

 

[ranger69]

To me Uncanny Dodge is used to reduce the damage from an attack when the attacker rolls an attack to hit.
All other forms of attack that require saving throws for instance, come under Evasion.
Hope that makes sense.

 

[pepticburrito]

I'm talking about invisibility and the broader theme of this version of the game with ruling over rules. You keep pretending the first part of the section doesn't exist, but it does. It says first if there is an obvious ruling then make that ruling, and then only if there is no obvious ruling do you turn to the second part. In this case, everyone knows if in real life I intentionally take a flame thrower to someone I am attacking them. I would know I am attacking them, and the person being flamed would know they are being attacked. There is no doubt about the ruling in that case - so by the text of that section we don't go to the second part - we make the ruling, not the rule, when it's obvious like that.

Im not ignoring anything. By the very fact the question is posed, there is a question. That question is answered by using that very text. Allowing a Dragon born to breath a breath weapon while invisible is no big deal. If the GM uses it with impunity against his players, they will leave his table. The balance you want to impose against the intent and spirit of the rules is already found in the social contract of the table.