Yeah, if they meant the Attack action, they would have capitalized it, but they didn't mean the Attack action, so they didn't capitalize it. Then again, if they meant attack (technical game term), they wouldn't have capitalized it, because attack (technical game term) isn't capitalized in the rules despite being a technical game term. The lowercase technical game term attack means something involving an attack roll and a damage roll, as detailed in the Making an Attack section of the rules. Not all attacks are because of Attack, thanks to spells and other things. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure all Attacks involve attacks, though Bladesingers can swap one of two attacks out for a non-attack and Sun Soul Monks can swap out their weapon attacks for spell attacks.
It's a bit of a mess.
Anyways, since we're reading the rules and we see the name of a technical game term, we should really assume that it means the technical game term, because otherwise what's even the point of having rules/technical game terms. So yeah, familiars can "attack" people in any way that doesn't involve an attack roll, including using dragon's breath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So yeah, familiars can "attack" people in any way that doesn't involve an attack roll, including using dragon's breath.
It should be clear that we're not going to reach agreement here =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
There’s a difference between the common language definition of an attack and a game mechanics definition of an attack.
You think that's the difference, but it's not.
This is the difference: You are looking for a loophole. I'm not.
You want attack to mean the Attack Action. But that's not the case. This is just attack. A familiar cannot attack. At all. It cannot use the Attack Action - but it also cannot perform any other form of attack. If they meant Attack Action, they would have written Attack Action. You'll notice they wrote attack. Lower case first letter and everything.
What it literally says in the description is that the familiar cannot make any sort of attack what so ever.
Then they go on to specify how it can deliver spells for you, ruining everything and making something of a statement regarding their overall cognitive abilities. But that's another matter, and another discussion entirely.
No I don’t mean “the Attack action.” If I had meant “the Attack action” I would have written “the Attack action.” I meant “an attack” as defined by the rules. That includes spell attacks (small “a”) as they also “require an attack roll” which is what I used to define what an “attack” (again small “a”) is because that’s what the rules actually say. The rules are very clear about what does or doesn’t qualify as “an attack” (still a small “a”) is. An “attack” (look at that small “a” there) is anything that requires an attack roll with special caveats for making a Grapple or a Shove. I’ll again recommend actually reading those rules. Here I’ll make it easy for you.
Things that force saving throws are covered by an entirely different section of the rules. I also recommend you read that section and I’ll make that easy for you too.
Another way you can tell that forcing a creature to make a saving throw is not considered “an attack” (one more small “a” there) is because the rules that explain what counts as “an attack” (still small “a”) are in chapter 9 while the rules that explain saving throws are way back in chapter 7. If they were at all related to each other they would at least be in the same chapter of the book. They’re not.
You also misquoted the rules for find familiar. They don’t “literally [say] in the description is that the familiar ‘cannot make any sort of attack what so ever.’” (By the way whatsoever is all one word not three words.) What it literally says is “A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.” Any action that forces another creature to make a saving throw like the special action granted by the dragon’s breath spell would be one of those “other actions” the rules mentioned which the familiar can take “as normal.” Again I strongly urge you to read the rules for the find familiar spell too and I’ll also make that easy for you.
Every argument you have made has had no basis in the 5e rules. They have been entirely based on what you personally feel should count as an attack. Guess what. This is the “rules & game mechanics” forum. You know what actually matters here? The rules. You know what doesn’t matter here? Your feelings. Your feelings about what the rules should say don’t matter here at all unless they are backed up by what the rules do say. So if you have some argument you can back up with an actual quote from the 5e rules or a link to them then please actually include those quotes or links. Otherwise you’re not arguing in good faith.
So yeah, familiars can "attack" people in any way that doesn't involve an attack roll, including using dragon's breath.
It should be clear that we're not going to reach agreement here =)
Well, that fact wasn't particularly clear when you had a misconception about the opposing argument that I thought I could clarify for you, but I suppose it's fairly clear now that you've given up arguing. :\
To add a couple more things that won't change your mind, for the heck of it I suppose:
Uncanny Dodge only works against attacks. It's pretty much universally accepted (as well as confirmed by the SAC) that this means it only works against things that involve attack rolls, but under your idea that technical game terms written in the rules should be defined solely by the Oxford English Dictionary, it works against just about anything and becomes a much more powerful feature. I mean, it would let you take half psychic damage from an Intelligence saving throw! Who's finding loopholes now? Me, I am, but I'm finding them in your name with your ideas so they're yours.
Hex only works against attacks. Again, this is universally accepted (as well as confirmed by the SAC) to mean that it only works against things that involve attack rolls. But what is a Fireball if not an "attack" that "hits" its target? Why would the extra damage not apply there?
So basically, we've got one loophole and you've got two, plus many more that I didn't feel like searching for but most certainly exist. Unless, of course, Find Familiar is for some reason distinct from all other spells and features in its definition of lowercase a attack, which is an argument I doubt you'll make but I'd be very entertained to read nonetheless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Well, that fact wasn't particularly clear when you had a misconception about the opposing argument that I thought I could clarify for you, but I suppose it's fairly clear now that you've given up arguing. :\
Yea. Look, you thinking you're right doesn't make it so. Exactly as me thinking I'm right I'm right doesn't make it so.
You aren't going to accept my arguments. I'm not going to accept yours. And thus, I think it's fair enough to agree to disagree. I've not given up arguing - we have established that there is no common ground to stand on.
And we don't have to agree. We aren't playing at the same table. So there's room for this disagreement to exist in the world, without friction. I shall park it there, indefinitely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Just to note and make it simple for everyone else who may come and read this, for those who want to know the RAW and why Acromos' interpretation isn't RAW:
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
Resolve the attack.You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.
-
This is the terms based on the phrase "an attack". Regardless of upper or lower case A/a or whatever. It is extremely and abundantly clear in all forms of valid English language interpretation. There is absolutely no ambiguity.
Dragon's Breath is not an attack roll and doesn't require an attack action. As per the PHB it is not an attack.
Even Jeremy Crawford, lead rules designer at WotC, confirms Dragon's Breath is not an attack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Well, that fact wasn't particularly clear when you had a misconception about the opposing argument that I thought I could clarify for you, but I suppose it's fairly clear now that you've given up arguing. :\
Yea. Look, you thinking you're right doesn't make it so. Exactly as me thinking I'm right I'm right doesn't make it so.
For someone whose signature warns of it, you could really use some more dogmatism.
You aren't going to accept my arguments. I'm not going to accept yours. And thus, I think it's fair enough to agree to disagree. I've not given up arguing - we have established that there is no common ground to stand on.
How would we know that I'm not going to accept any arguments? The only ones that you've made have been about the Attack action, something which nobody was actually talking about. You haven't made any actual arguments.
You also definitely have given up on arguing, considering you're currently... well, I don't know how to say it besides giving up on arguing. Refraining from further attempts at persuasion?
And we don't have to agree. We aren't playing at the same table. So there's room for this disagreement to exist in the world, without friction. I shall park it there, indefinitely.
Okie dokie.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, if they meant the Attack action, they would have capitalized it, but they didn't mean the Attack action, so they didn't capitalize it. Then again, if they meant attack (technical game term), they wouldn't have capitalized it, because attack (technical game term) isn't capitalized in the rules despite being a technical game term. The lowercase technical game term attack means something involving an attack roll and a damage roll, as detailed in the Making an Attack section of the rules. Not all attacks are because of Attack, thanks to spells and other things. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure all Attacks involve attacks, though Bladesingers can swap one of two attacks out for a non-attack and Sun Soul Monks can swap out their weapon attacks for spell attacks.
It's a bit of a mess.
Anyways, since we're reading the rules and we see the name of a technical game term, we should really assume that it means the technical game term, because otherwise what's even the point of having rules/technical game terms. So yeah, familiars can "attack" people in any way that doesn't involve an attack roll, including using dragon's breath.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It should be clear that we're not going to reach agreement here =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
No I don’t mean “the Attack action.” If I had meant “the Attack action” I would have written “the Attack action.” I meant “an attack” as defined by the rules. That includes spell attacks (small “a”) as they also “require an attack roll” which is what I used to define what an “attack” (again small “a”) is because that’s what the rules actually say. The rules are very clear about what does or doesn’t qualify as “an attack” (still a small “a”) is. An “attack” (look at that small “a” there) is anything that requires an attack roll with special caveats for making a Grapple or a Shove. I’ll again recommend actually reading those rules. Here I’ll make it easy for you.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MakinganAttack
Things that force saving throws are covered by an entirely different section of the rules. I also recommend you read that section and I’ll make that easy for you too.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#SavingThrows
Another way you can tell that forcing a creature to make a saving throw is not considered “an attack” (one more small “a” there) is because the rules that explain what counts as “an attack” (still small “a”) are in chapter 9 while the rules that explain saving throws are way back in chapter 7. If they were at all related to each other they would at least be in the same chapter of the book. They’re not.
You also misquoted the rules for find familiar. They don’t “literally [say] in the description is that the familiar ‘cannot make any sort of attack what so ever.’” (By the way whatsoever is all one word not three words.) What it literally says is “A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.” Any action that forces another creature to make a saving throw like the special action granted by the dragon’s breath spell would be one of those “other actions” the rules mentioned which the familiar can take “as normal.” Again I strongly urge you to read the rules for the find familiar spell too and I’ll also make that easy for you.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/find-familiar
Every argument you have made has had no basis in the 5e rules. They have been entirely based on what you personally feel should count as an attack. Guess what. This is the “rules & game mechanics” forum. You know what actually matters here? The rules. You know what doesn’t matter here? Your feelings. Your feelings about what the rules should say don’t matter here at all unless they are backed up by what the rules do say. So if you have some argument you can back up with an actual quote from the 5e rules or a link to them then please actually include those quotes or links. Otherwise you’re not arguing in good faith.
Well, that fact wasn't particularly clear when you had a misconception about the opposing argument that I thought I could clarify for you, but I suppose it's fairly clear now that you've given up arguing. :\
To add a couple more things that won't change your mind, for the heck of it I suppose:
Uncanny Dodge only works against attacks. It's pretty much universally accepted (as well as confirmed by the SAC) that this means it only works against things that involve attack rolls, but under your idea that technical game terms written in the rules should be defined solely by the Oxford English Dictionary, it works against just about anything and becomes a much more powerful feature. I mean, it would let you take half psychic damage from an Intelligence saving throw! Who's finding loopholes now?
Me, I am, but I'm finding them in your name with your ideas so they're yours.
Hex only works against attacks. Again, this is universally accepted (as well as confirmed by the SAC) to mean that it only works against things that involve attack rolls. But what is a Fireball if not an "attack" that "hits" its target? Why would the extra damage not apply there?
So basically, we've got one loophole and you've got two, plus many more that I didn't feel like searching for but most certainly exist. Unless, of course, Find Familiar is for some reason distinct from all other spells and features in its definition of lowercase a attack, which is an argument I doubt you'll make but I'd be very entertained to read nonetheless.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yea. Look, you thinking you're right doesn't make it so. Exactly as me thinking I'm right I'm right doesn't make it so.
You aren't going to accept my arguments. I'm not going to accept yours. And thus, I think it's fair enough to agree to disagree. I've not given up arguing - we have established that there is no common ground to stand on.
And we don't have to agree. We aren't playing at the same table. So there's room for this disagreement to exist in the world, without friction. I shall park it there, indefinitely.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Just to note and make it simple for everyone else who may come and read this, for those who want to know the RAW and why Acromos' interpretation isn't RAW:
Basic Rules / Player's Handbook > Chapter 9: Combat > Making An Attack
BR Link: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MakinganAttack
PHB Link: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#MakinganAttack
Making an Attack
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.
-
This is the terms based on the phrase "an attack". Regardless of upper or lower case A/a or whatever. It is extremely and abundantly clear in all forms of valid English language interpretation. There is absolutely no ambiguity.
Dragon's Breath is not an attack roll and doesn't require an attack action. As per the PHB it is not an attack.
Even Jeremy Crawford, lead rules designer at WotC, confirms Dragon's Breath is not an attack
Link: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/943256832969019393
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
For someone whose signature warns of it, you could really use some more dogmatism.
How would we know that I'm not going to accept any arguments? The only ones that you've made have been about the Attack action, something which nobody was actually talking about. You haven't made any actual arguments.
You also definitely have given up on arguing, considering you're currently... well, I don't know how to say it besides giving up on arguing. Refraining from further attempts at persuasion?
Okie dokie.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)