Liquidsabre said:
Down boy. Note, that your obvious lack of civility can be awfully debilitating to your arguments.
Only in the case of a reader who doesn't rely on logic.
Is it so hard to understand that the same spell is defined as an attack or not depending upon it's effect??
It's very hard to understand when it results in absurdity.
"All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, OR that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."
That's not the entire rule.
"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."
The Hypersmurf Interpretation -- which is demonstrably absurd, but with which you seem to agree -- relies upon reading the passages beginning with 'Attempts to turn ... ' as
further definition of "attacking." If, instead, they are simply read as (not exhaustive)
examples of attacking, it is possible, as I showed, to read and interpret the rule in a consistent way that doesn't lead to absurdities. That is, an attack is an "offensive combat action" -- it depends upon "intent."
Note that this dovetails with actual physical attacks, in which one does not have to harm or hamper an opponent in order for it to be considered an attack ... one only has to
intend to do so.) In other words, if you're invisible and you swing (intent to injure) and miss (no effect of injury or hampering), you still have attacked, and you are no longer invisible. Note that this is an "offensive combat action."
Also note that the last sentence of the rule is
clearly an example, not "further definition." I contend that the sentences beyond the
definition of "attacking" are also examples of what might constitute an attack or not, and not definitions.
I just thought of an even greater absurdity under the Hypersmurf Interpretation:
Under that reading of a the rule, if a wizard casts a spell upon a creature with Spell Resistance, and doesn't pass the SR, that creature
does not resist with a saving throw ... and the wizard has not "attacked"!
For that matter, a wizard can cast
any spell at all -- except an [electricity] spell or
rusting grasp -- against an iron golem, and, because the golem is immune to magic, and doesn't "resist with a saving throw," the wizard has not "attacked" the golem!
Clearly, "all spells that an opponent resists with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hinder" has a different meaning than you and Hypersmurf seem to believe. It is clearly based upon
intent, rather than on
effect. (Note that this matches what the Sage has said regarding casting
fireball. It also matches the text of the
invisibility spell, which specifically says that an attack is dependent upon the invisible character's perceptions ... i.e., upon his
intent.)
The rule is worded ambiguously. That is why you have to consider each possible interpretation in light of the results arising from that interpretation. If the results of one interpretation are absurd -- as they are from Hypersmurf's -- you move to the next.
