CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[Hypersmurf]

2)Accept that every power is an attack. Note that every power includes one of the five attack types detailed under "Attack Type and Range", beginning on page 56.

Interestingly, while Personal appears in that section, the text at the start of that section still refers to "The four attack types", melee, ranged, close and area.

However, it also contains a line I'd missed before:
"Even though these terms are called 'attack types', they apply to utility powers as well as attack powers."

So either an attack power or a utility power can have an attack type, which we knew; from the beginning, though, I haven't been trying to determine what is an attack power and what is a utility power (since those categories are clear for every power), but rather what is an attack and what is not an attack.

CustServ's response to me is that any attack power is an attack, and any utility power is not an attack.

Then there's the technically correct argument that I'm too ashamed to make in public, so it's inside the spoiler block. Feel free to ignore it, but I feel it should be present for the sake of completeness.

Throughout the PHB, whenever a power name appears in normal text, it is italicized. The phrase wall of fog on page 271 is not italicized, so even if you insist that the phrase indicates the relevant wall of fog is an attack, it does not necessarily mean the wizard power Wall of Fog is an attack.

Indeed - that's why the very first question to CustServ, in the OP, was "Does this example refer to the Wizard spell, Wall of Fog?"

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

I miss the old glossary. They needs one.

That said...

Attack is what comes after the Attack: line on powers.

How do we know it's an attack?

It's the Attack: line.

What are the consequences of the attack?

Hit: or Miss:

What isn't?

Everything else.

It's not hard. Read the power. It'll -tell- you what the attack is.


But, you say, Utilities have 'Attack Types!'

Well, under 'Attack Types' it says... literally...

Even though these terms are called "attack types" they apply to utility powers as well as attack powers.

So 'Attack Type' isn't the indication of whether or not is an attack.

Under Attack:

Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll. The “Attack” entry specifies the kind of attack you make and which of the target’s defenses you check against. If you have a modifier to your attack roll, that’s mentioned here as well. Example entries are given above.

Right here. 'Kind of attack you make.'

And there are only six kinds of attacks. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intellegence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Those are the six possible attacks you can make.

So then what is an 'attack'?

An attack is whenever you roll an attack roll.

Attack Types are not definitively attacks.
Attack Powers are not definitively attacks.
Attack rolls -are- definitively attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Attack Powers are not definitively attacks.

Though that's not what Cody from CustServ told me.

-Hyp.

 

[theNater]

I've rearranged the quotes from your post a little, for narrative purposes.

So either an attack power or a utility power can have an attack type, which we knew; from the beginning, though, I haven't been trying to determine what is an attack power and what is a utility power (since those categories are clear for every power), but rather what is an attack and what is not an attack.

CustServ's response to me is that any attack power is an attack, and any utility power is not an attack.

This is what I was referring to in my first response(post #4). Some people use the word "attack" to refer to "attack powers". I believe this has confused some of the responders, which is why you got the answer you did. Yes, I am suggesting the responder was wrong.

Indeed - that's why the very first question to CustServ, in the OP, was "Does this example refer to the Wizard spell, Wall of Fog?"

Indeed it was. I had forgotten that part of the post. Sorry.

Interestingly, while Personal appears in that section, the text at the start of that section still refers to "The four attack types", melee, ranged, close and area.

However, it also contains a line I'd missed before:
"Even though these terms are called 'attack types', they apply to utility powers as well as attack powers."

Looks like I'm not the only one who's having trouble with quotes. Check the second quote block in post #7. The one from page 56 of the PHB.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, I am suggesting the responder was wrong.

Which is why I'm trying to be careful to say "According to the response I received" a lot, rather than stating anything as fact

Looks like I'm not the only one who's having trouble with quotes. Check the second quote block in post #7. The one from page 56 of the PHB.

Yup - I managed to notice you'd quoted me, but not that you'd quoted the book as well!

-Hyp.

 

[zgrose]

The question you really want the answer to is: If I pick up the target and drop it in lava, would he die?

Stop mucking around with this "attack" stuff and get to the meat.

 

[Caliban]

Though that's not what Cody from CustServ told me.

-Hyp.

Do you believe everything CustServ tells you?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you believe everything CustServ tells you?

You know me better than that.

-Hyp.

 

[Joshua Randall]

This wouldn't be the first time an example was flat-out wrong.

Didn't 3.0 or 3.5 have an example with heighten spell vs. globe of invulnerability that was simply WRONG?

I'm inclined to ignore the nonsensical example, but to reiterate my call for better examples.

 

[Tripgnosis]

All salmon are fish but not all fish are salmon

BUT, some fish are gold fish, does that mean that since all salmon are fish and some fish are goldfish, that some salmon are goldfish? perhaps it should read that some non-salmon fish are goldfish. Are some gold fish salmon?