Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 156091" data-attributes="member: 1118">My God...you and your players are too wrapped up in a literal reading of the rules (Character vs Player) coupled with the fact that you believe that certain charts are wrong (though they weren't errata'ed).Yes, it is confusing that an attack isn't necessarily an attack action but that's the way it is.  One is an English definition while the other is a rule definition.Also, page 121 of the PHB pretty much says it in black and white:"Usually, you don't elect to take a partial action; the condition you are in or a decision you have made (usually the ready action)mandates its use"....No where does it distinguish between the player and character there, and yes, the character is surprised (not the player) but the character is not deciding to take a ready action, the player is.  I also notice that they use the pronoun "you" as in "you the reader, who is a player" and not the term "your character" in this passage.So, I don't understand why you have doubt as to the fact that you can't choose to take a partial action.If you are happy with the house rules you are using that's fine, but if it were me, I'd get some more reasonable players.  It's a freaking set of game rules not a legal contract to wrangle for hours over a word.  Also, as for the definition of attack, according to my glossary, an attack causes harm, but it also requires an attack roll.  A CdG does cause harm but it doesn't require an attack roll, thus it's not an attack but something else (another point that agrees with that chart that your players believe is in error).And, no, a fireball is not an attack action either because it also doesn't require an attack roll.  The invisiblity spell goes through the trouble of defining an "attack" in the context of that spell in the spell description, so it's an exception to the general rule of what an attack is.  I do agree that the Santurary spell should have defined what an attack spell is, but I've always played it as any spell that caused damage (I'll give you that you could say that it must cause damage and make an attack roll, but that's strictly a ruleslawyer definition that I'd not allow.  The intent is a spell that is used in an offensive manner).Anyway, if you have to go through all these mental hoops just to prove to your players that you're DMing within the rules I'd just remind them that the DM is the judge and as long as you are fair and consistent that's all that matters.  If they want to continue arguing with you over the rules I'd get new players.IceBear</blockquote>

Verification