D&D 5E Uncanny Dodge vs FIREBALL

[Eric V]

It does not matter whether fireball is an attack or not. It _does not hit_.

For Uncanny Dodge, I tend to think you are right. GMforPowergamers is right in that "attack" isn't well-defined. Over on the Wizards boards, this came up and people focused on what an attack is; going by the definition of an attack requiring an attack roll, an invisible dragon does -not- lose invisibility when using its breath weapon.

Does that seem right to you?

 

[keterys]

It would be a strange world indeed if fireball did not count as an attack in general (separate from the uncanny dodge discussion), but hurling a wadded napkin (ranged attack with an improvised weapon!) did

 

[Eric V]

It would be a strange world indeed if fireball did not count as an attack in general (separate from the uncanny dodge discussion), but hurling a wadded napkin (ranged attack with an improvised weapon!) did

For sure! I guess people want to know why it should be separate from the uncanny dodge discussion.

It would have been great if they had been a bit more specific in their definitions in this case, as well as a few others. :/

 

[keterys]

For sure! I guess people want to know why it should be separate from the uncanny dodge discussion.

Easy - because the first post asks how Uncanny Dodge works, and within a couple posts there's another post that "attack" is ill defined so who knows. Which may be a pertinent bit of information in any situation _except_ when discussing Uncanny Dodge, which is quite clear that it applies to hits, so never applies to fireballs.

If people want to take a stand and rail against a lack of definition, do it around invisibility. Uncanny Dodge is pretty darn clear - at least up to the point where people try to confuse the issue

 

[Ravenheart87]

so if I throw a fireball at your PC, I'm not attacking him???

Nope, you are casting a spell on him.

 

[Eric V]

From a common sense approach, which I gather "rulings not rules" is supposed to enhance, it strains to say casting fireball on someone is not an attack.

Bard returns to the party, clothes charred, bewildered expression.

Rest of the party: So, how did the negotiations go with the wizard?

Bard: Not well, that I can see.

Rest of the party: Did he attack you?

Bard: No, no, merely cast disintegrate upon me.

Rest of the party: ...

 

[Ravenheart87]

From a common sense approach, which I gather "rulings not rules" is supposed to enhance, it strains to say casting fireball on someone is not an attack.

You can call something an attack by common sense, but that doesn't mean it counts as an attack ruleswise. The first is the fluff part, the second is the crunch. They are different things, they serve different purpose.

 

[tragicjones]

so if I throw a fireball at your PC, I'm not attacking him???

You are in a literal sense, just as pushing a rock off a cliff onto an opponent or springing an ambush are both attacks. But in terms of the system, you’re casting a spell with a PC in its area of effect, not making an attack.

GMforPowergamers is right in that "attack" isn't well-defined. Over on the Wizards boards, this came up and people focused on what an attack is; going by the definition of an attack requiring an attack roll, an invisible dragon does -not- lose invisibility when using its breath weapon.

Does that seem right to you?

If we assume the intent of the rules is for breath weapons to end invisibility (which I would agree with), this is an issue with the spell’s text, rather than the definition of an attack.

 

[Eric V]

You are in a literal sense, just as pushing a rock off a cliff onto an opponent or springing an ambush are both attacks. But in terms of the system, you’re casting a spell with a PC in its area of effect, not making an attack.


If we assume the intent of the rules is for breath weapons to end invisibility (which I would agree with), this is an issue with the spell’s text, rather than the definition of an attack.

I am surprised the literal sense doesn't match up with the rules-sense, but yeah, I see it for sure; p.194 in the PHB clearly states that an attack requires an attack roll.

And yeah, maybe (definitely?) invisibility needs tightening up in its text.

 

[Eric V]

Having said that, it's not just invisibility that is problematic. Hide, too.

E.g. Shadow Dragons can hide as a bonus action; does a shadow dragon that was successfully hidden reveal its location when using its breath weapon?

I think the dragon's location should be revealed, but when I look at the rules I don't know why. :/