D&D 5E Uncanny Dodge vs FIREBALL

[keterys]

Well, on the plus side, this is clearly the first edition of D&D, these issues have never come up before, so the system can be excused

 

[guachi]

in this edition the word attack is not clearly defined. that means it is a DMs judgment call... I keep being told that's a feature

It's pretty clear. If you are making an attack roll, you are attacking. Fireball induces a save, so it's not an attack.

 

[Unwise]

The issue I find with 'attacking' in invisibility is that it has some interesting edge cases. What about the rogue that goes invis, sneaks up, lights some explosives and leaves them in the enemy camp? What if he just threw the grenade without delay? What about putting people to sleep with a gas, what if that was mustard gas instead? Putting poison in a drink, as opposed to splashing a contact poison in their face? Lobbing a snake at somebody as opposed to throwing a stone? Is it the physicality of the action? If so, why would pulling a crossbow trigger end it.

<edit> That is not to say that I really find this stuff an issue as the DM, it is just interesting. In my games magic is always wild and unpredictable, so my players don't expect any great consistency about magical rulings. Sometimes I even openly just roll a dice or flip a coin. 90% of the time it just works if it is a subtle trick, fails if it is a way of doing a normal or repeatable 'attack' without consequence.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's pretty clear. If you are making an attack roll, you are attacking. Fireball induces a save, so it's not an attack.

that falls apart as soon as you look at everything else that revolves around attacks... invisiability, hidden, or just about anything...

yea, the rule is weird, and in no way intuitive. It is cludgy and in now way works

 

[Saeviomagy]

...and was a massive issue in the previous system, but apparently professional designers don't have to worry about that sort of thing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

...and was a massive issue in the previous system, but apparently professional designers don't have to worry about that sort of thing.

yea, at the end of the day the devs forgot a lot of what we learned from 4e

 

[dd.stevenson]

...and was a massive issue in the previous system, but apparently professional designers don't have to worry about that sort of thing.

I think your definition of "massive issue", and my definition, are very different.

 

[Tormyr]

A dragon's breath attack has both a visual and aural component to it. It gives away its position which ends stealth based hiding. While the invisibility spell does not specifically cover breath attacks, it covers both attacks and casting a spell as things that break invisibility. This indicates to me that attempting to directly do damage is one of the things that would break invisibility, and breath attacks would fall under that. Another way to look at it would be the difference between when a creature "attacks" (invisibility spell text) versus hit with an attack (requiring a hit with a d20, Uncanny Dodge text). A breath weapon or just about any of the attack oriented actions in the Monster Manual could cover breaking invisibility or hiding.

 

[Celtavian]

We had this discussion a while back.

The Sage clarified that Uncanny Dodge only works against attacks that require an attack roll. It does not work against AoE attacks unless they require an attack roll.

Pretty lame given how many AoE attacks and breath weapons are Con saves. I guess you can't dodge out of the way of cold attacks, which doesn't make much sense.

 

[Ravenheart87]

Pretty lame given how many AoE attacks and breath weapons are Con saves. I guess you can't dodge out of the way of cold attacks, which doesn't make much sense.

There's evasion for that. They had to come up with a different name for a different ability.