As WolfOfTheBees stated, an attack as defined by the rules requires an attack roll to be made:
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.
That is inclusive wording, not exclusive wording. That says that if you are doing an attack roll, then you for sure are doing an attack. It doesn't say that only that is an attack. Besides, it shouldn't even be a question that launching darts of energy that hits someone is... an attack.
In a common parlance, I would also say that throwing a ball of fire at a group of people is an attack, but fireball is not commonly considered to trigger hex.
That is inclusive wording, not exclusive wording. That says that if you are doing an attack roll, then you for sure are doing an attack. It doesn't say that only that is an attack. Besides, it shouldn't even be a question that launching darts of energy that hits someone is... an attack.
It's a hostile action that is not, game mechanically, an attack. While 5e often tries to use natural language (with mixed results), it does not do consistently.
There is a whole rules section on what constitutes making an attack, if you are lost. In 5E, attacks involve attack rolls. I have a feeling that this line of discussion wasn’t initiated in order to further rules understanding, but please, let’s everyone try to stick to the rules on this one.
Translation, in this game supposedly written in 'plain English' there are still massive amounts of semantic pedantry. (Not a criticism of you, Wolf, just a lament regarding the game. What you are saying is, RAW, correct).
The reason technical vocabularies get invented is because plain language is inherently vague. The moment you start trying to make it clear what you're actually talking about, you have to start defining your terms.
Right, but the problem is that they seem to have been trying to simultaneously achieve both and to me, the net result is more rules lawyering and less immersion.
It's because 'natural language' is good marketing but bad actual game design.
Right, but the problem is that they seem to have been trying to simultaneously achieve both and to me, the net result is more rules lawyering and less immersion.
It's because 'natural language' is good marketing but bad actual game design.
Natural language isn't bad game design, it's just not suited to a game based on a tactical simulation of combat.
Natural language isn't bad game design, it's just not suited to a game based on a tactical simulation of combat.
It's not suited to any game that actually has rules, because if it's ambiguous it's not a rule, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. Even far more freeform games than D&D wind up slipping into formalist language when they're talking about rules.
Natural language is fine for people who understand it and can come to an agreement. People active on this subsection of the forums may not see it all that clearly, but I'd imagine most games work on reading the rules like a human (rather than a machine) and making a ruling as the designers wanted. It seems fairly simple: if something is defined, use the definition; otherwise use the English.
Natural language is fine for people who understand it and can come to an agreement.
i.e. natural language turns a rule into a negotiation. Natural language is fine when it can be made unambiguous (or the ambiguity is irrelevant or even a feature), but at a certain point you just have to start exactly what certain terms mean, or you don't have an actual rule.
Natural language is fine for people who understand it and can come to an agreement.
i.e. natural language turns a rule into a negotiation. Natural language is fine when it can be made unambiguous (or the ambiguity is irrelevant or even a feature), but at a certain point you just have to start exactly what certain terms mean, or you don't have an actual rule.
And when 5e wants actual rules, it defines things. When it doesn't matter, it uses rulings not rules. Whatever. We all know what an attack is because it is actually defined, so this particular argument is moot to the current post.
And that is a matter of opinion that doesn't really contribute to the current discussion. Again, 5e directly defines an attack, so saying that the colloquial definition should be relied upon provides nothing to this post. And arguing on that point continues to provide nothing. Sometimes arguably less.
Natural language isn't bad game design, it's just not suited to a game based on a tactical simulation of combat.
It's not suited to any game that actually has rules, because if it's ambiguous it's not a rule, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. Even far more freeform games than D&D wind up slipping into formalist language when they're talking about rules.
Games with less emphasis on tactics and more emphasis on narrative tend to have rules that are intentionally ambiguous, allowing the table to treat it in the way that makes sense to them. Using natural language when you intend ambiguity isn't bad game design. Using natural language in a more structured and binary system like D&D on the other hand, is bad design.
Games with less emphasis on tactics and more emphasis on narrative tend to have rules that are intentionally ambiguous, allowing the table to treat it in the way that makes sense to them.
My experience is that they have explicit cutouts, not vague rules. For example, in FATE, what an aspect can be, and when it can be used, is totally open, but that doesn't there isn't a clear formal language for what they are and how they're used.
Are we somehow still talking about magic missile? The 3 DMs I play with use the 1d4 for all darts method. I do too when I DM. It only seems to matter if there’s an evocation wizard and we’ve never actually had anyone play that type of wizard before.
While multi-target spells' damage are rolled once for simplicity, i prefer rolling more dice when it comes to seperate missiles and always rolled Magic Missiles d4's seperatly since the 90's. Old habbits are hard to get rid of loll
Just wondering, is it possible to make a homebrew version of the 'roll multiple' version of Magic Missile that automatically rolls for the individual bolts (including spell slot scaling)?
It says you create 3 separate missles. Then it says “A” missle does 1d4+1. To me, that means each missle does 1d4+1 so you roll for each die. On the same target, that would be 3d4+3, but different targets would be 1d4+1 for each dart on that target. All can still be rolled at once as long as you designated dice before rolling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In a common parlance, I would also say that throwing a ball of fire at a group of people is an attack, but fireball is not commonly considered to trigger hex.
It's a hostile action that is not, game mechanically, an attack. While 5e often tries to use natural language (with mixed results), it does not do consistently.
There is a whole rules section on what constitutes making an attack, if you are lost. In 5E, attacks involve attack rolls. I have a feeling that this line of discussion wasn’t initiated in order to further rules understanding, but please, let’s everyone try to stick to the rules on this one.
The reason technical vocabularies get invented is because plain language is inherently vague. The moment you start trying to make it clear what you're actually talking about, you have to start defining your terms.
hex does not work with MM, but hexblades curse does...
It's because 'natural language' is good marketing but bad actual game design.
Natural language isn't bad game design, it's just not suited to a game based on a tactical simulation of combat.
It's not suited to any game that actually has rules, because if it's ambiguous it's not a rule, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. Even far more freeform games than D&D wind up slipping into formalist language when they're talking about rules.
Natural language is fine for people who understand it and can come to an agreement. People active on this subsection of the forums may not see it all that clearly, but I'd imagine most games work on reading the rules like a human (rather than a machine) and making a ruling as the designers wanted. It seems fairly simple: if something is defined, use the definition; otherwise use the English.
i.e. natural language turns a rule into a negotiation. Natural language is fine when it can be made unambiguous (or the ambiguity is irrelevant or even a feature), but at a certain point you just have to start exactly what certain terms mean, or you don't have an actual rule.
And when 5e wants actual rules, it defines things. When it doesn't matter, it uses rulings not rules. Whatever. We all know what an attack is because it is actually defined, so this particular argument is moot to the current post.
And that is a matter of opinion that doesn't really contribute to the current discussion. Again, 5e directly defines an attack, so saying that the colloquial definition should be relied upon provides nothing to this post. And arguing on that point continues to provide nothing. Sometimes arguably less.
Games with less emphasis on tactics and more emphasis on narrative tend to have rules that are intentionally ambiguous, allowing the table to treat it in the way that makes sense to them. Using natural language when you intend ambiguity isn't bad game design. Using natural language in a more structured and binary system like D&D on the other hand, is bad design.
My experience is that they have explicit cutouts, not vague rules. For example, in FATE, what an aspect can be, and when it can be used, is totally open, but that doesn't there isn't a clear formal language for what they are and how they're used.
Are we somehow still talking about magic missile? The 3 DMs I play with use the 1d4 for all darts method. I do too when I DM. It only seems to matter if there’s an evocation wizard and we’ve never actually had anyone play that type of wizard before.
While multi-target spells' damage are rolled once for simplicity, i prefer rolling more dice when it comes to seperate missiles and always rolled Magic Missiles d4's seperatly since the 90's. Old habbits are hard to get rid of loll
Just wondering, is it possible to make a homebrew version of the 'roll multiple' version of Magic Missile that automatically rolls for the individual bolts (including spell slot scaling)?
Can Cutting Words reduce the damage of the entire spell to nothing if you use the single roll method?
Far as I can tell from the power description, yes.
It says you create 3 separate missles. Then it says “A” missle does 1d4+1. To me, that means each missle does 1d4+1 so you roll for each die. On the same target, that would be 3d4+3, but different targets would be 1d4+1 for each dart on that target. All can still be rolled at once as long as you designated dice before rolling.