I've personally not come to any satisfying conclusion on this matter yet. Let's see if maybe another spin will help.
Coming back to it after writing everything, I had way too much to say.
There are some conundrums in it that I'm very excited to get your POV on. Hopefully my assertions didn't come out too confusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
1) An unwanted or presumably unwanted touching of a creature is an attack.
2) Re objects, an attack would be an effort to damage that requires some skill to execute…? Something like that
Though I would call those attacks, some would resolve by ability contests, like Grapple and Shove already do.
|
So far so good. I forgot that Grapple and Shove are actually attacks, which makes things a lot easier actually. In that case both of my acid examples are pretty clear-cut and would break invisibility.
The point where we disagree comes later. I'm shifty about counting putting a torch to a book as an attack. I'm feeling pretty firm about putting an axe to a door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
As you’re see further below, I think I differ from you so far in that 1) I treat creatures and objects differently because objects can’t resist contact; and 2) anything past immediate consequences are irrelevant to me when judging whether there’s an attack.
|
1) Considering that I believe cutting a rope with a knife shouldn't necessarily count as an attack, I'm inclined to agree that there's a difference to be made somewhere. However, I'm really not clear about that at all. There's nothing in the rules to differentiate attacks against creatures from attacks against objects. What about this example? Does slitting a creature's throat in their sleep count as an attack and break invisibility? I'm really not sure if I should rule yes or no given what we've been talking about so far. It seems that either way, the same should probably apply to a rope given that the interaction would be the same and there's no official difference between objects and creatures in this case, AFAIK.
2) I'm inclined to agree that an interaction's consequences should be highly related to determining whether it was an attack. I'm not perfectly sure though how far I would necessitate immediacy. I'll try to work out my thoughts below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
Well, I was assuming that the bard would burn the library by starting with the books, but no, I wouldn't call holding a torch to any object an attack. If we're talking about a solid, quality wall, I also wouldn't give the torch any immediate effect, with or without an attack.
|
What I was considering with this example is the exact weakness that you've mentioned before about AC. About holding a torch to a wooden wall, how does the GM determine how quickly it catches fire? Of course they could just wing it and fully disregarded letting it fall on the dice, but if you'd want to hash it out mechanically, there are plenty of tangential rules we could use. My initial idea was to make the torch overcome the wall's AC and then roll enough fire damage past a certain threshold which would signal when it catches fire. But what I'm thinking now is that maybe letting the wall roll some kind of abstracted CON save would do the job better.
Either way, this also goes back to the question of whether holding a torch to something is an attack. If I understood correctly, you've decided that generally touching an unwilling creature could be resolved through an attack roll, which could be applied to the example of touching someone with a torch. Going back to the Heart Sight example, I can see how simply touching a docile creature wouldn't necessarily break invisibility, whereas a creature aware of the sprite could possibly (very construed) attempt to contest getting touched and having their emotions read. In this case, it seems like trying to touch the defiant creature would result in something like a Grapple attempt and thus count as an attack which breaks invisibility. In this example, opposition would make the difference between what is an attack and not, which I think is what you have concluded before.
Which brings us back to an attack being made against some opposing force. We have also said that an attack is basically a contest against some sort of abstracted armour class (thick hide, nimbleness, etc.). And therein lies my problem. The character is trying to cause as much arson as they can before they are apprehended, which could put them in front of the challenge of setting a wooden wall on fire as fast as possible (if they are stupid enough to start with the walls). In that case, if we interpreted the wall's natural resistance against getting lit on fire as their AC, then we'd suddenly have a character trying to attack the wall. If that adjudication was proper, then the same should apply even if the wall was a book because it follows the same principle. On the other hand, if we interpret the wall's natural resistance as its constitution and then let it save against the arson attempt, it wouldn't count as an attack.
You can see that this is really not concrete at all, especially since there's nothing telling us how to exactly adjudicate putting a torch to something. You've stated before that you could see an attack being an
"effort to damage that requires some skill". I'm getting a bit stuck on that, because skill (I know you didn't say Skill, but still) is represented through ability modifiers and proficiencies. How difficult it is to attack shouldn't matter whether it counts as an attack. So even if the damage from putting a torch to something flammable results trivially, there was still an intent from the character to cause immediate harm/destruction through taking action, which very much sounds like the character made a successful attack.
Which leads us back to neither the wall nor the book actively opposing the character as they are trying to cause harm. If we count the fire damage as something that happens through proximity with no fault to the character holding the torch, and then resisting the fire is an intrinsic/passive interaction of the wall/book, I could see how it doesn't count as the character's attack. But again, I think that seems like a pretty arbitrary resolution because after all fully static objects can have an AC and overcoming it in whatever way still counts as an attack, which I haven't ruled out is what's happening with a torch in this case.
For argument's sake though, let's say that holding a torch to an object is not an attack. Even then I'm still not sure that setting the library on flames shouldn't break invisibility. I came across
this question where it's debated whether holding a tentacle rod which does attacks for you should break invisibility or not. The accepted answer says it doesn't, but I'm much more inclined to agree with the second answer which claims the reverse. In the case of an invisible mount and its invisible rider, I am very firm that one attack from either breaks invisibility for both. The same should count for the tentacle rod in my opinion. Now the torch I'm unsure about. I still think that there is an argument to be made that even if we determine that the character isn't attacking the wall, the torch or at least its fire is attacking the wall. We know though that an attack isn't defined by an attack animation. Let's take a dhampir's bite ability, which is an attack, and if we let the dhampir bite a plant creature (which seems fully legit mechanically), where do we put the difference if the dhampir instead bites a normal tree (is that a creature or object?) instead? The teeth sinking into the unopposing bark appears to me as an attack, as would the torch's fire licking and burning into the wall. Or neither one is an attack and nothing makes sense. I'm still fairly split on all of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
Not only; there are attacks on objects. An attempt to instantly smash an idol with a warhammer would be an attack for me. I don't think I would ever call holding a torch to an object an attack.
|
I agree about smashing an idol being an attack. Which is curious, because you don't want to say the same for axing a door. I don't see the difference.
Mind you, I do see quite the difference to the torch example, but I already went into that above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
Via this discussion, I think I'm decided that the question is whether some skill (not Skill) is required. In the warhammer/idol example, the skillfulness of the swing determines whether it can be significantly damaged in one shot, i.e. in limited time. Given unlimited time, I wouldn't require rolls to break a stone idol with a hammer or to chop down a door with an axe, so neither of those would break invisibility. If the character wanted to smash the door with one swing of an axe, then I would call it an attack on that object.
|
I think that I'll have to disagree with this. I don't see how the quality of an interaction's result determines whether the interaction has been an attack or not. In either case we have an object that's getting struck while having its HP reduced through damage. We're not making the attack and damage rolls because it's a foregone conclusion that eventually the object will be sufficiently destroyed for the character to lose their motivation to attack further, but I don't see how forfeiting those rolls makes the actions to demolition these objects not an attack.
This is a similar concern for the example that I mentioned above. I haven't heard your reply to it yet, but how will you resolve if a character successfully approaches an unaware and sleeping enemy and puts a knife to their throat? Personally, I'm inclined to allow them to cut the enemy's throat and then the creature will perish unless there is some circumstances (like a magic item or a healer running into the room) which could save their life. This interaction would fully resolve without any attack rolls, because there is no challenge against any opposition and a dagger attack couldn't mechanically describe the damage of a slit throat and the complete loss of the creature's HP in a single stroke anyways, yet we all know that even the mightiest warrior should die with a slit throat. Is it impossible in DnD to kill a sleeping creature by slitting its throat? That would be an oversight to me. Anyways, back to why I'm bringing this up. Is slitting the sleeping enemy's throat not an attack because we didn't use an attack roll? I'm very disinclined to accept that reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
To rant about AC some more, consider how the attack on the door should work: 1) extremely high chance of making contact with some appreciable power; 2) damage roll; 3) X (set resistance value for the material) damage subtracted from the hit; 4) anything over that reduces HP. Attacks would make much more sense based on three factors: 1) DEX/aim/dodging/skill; 2) armor/resistance, the amount of damage that is ignored; and 3) HP.
|
I'm sure that someone has considered this resolution in the past. That one extra step plus all the tables required to memorize material damage resistances was probably just too time-consuming to adjudicate which is why I understand why it isn't done like that. It would also force any GM to adjust an attack's resolution when the player says "I'm not attacking the knight where he has metal armour, I'm only swinging for his head". Well, at least targetted attacks would finally exist with that kind of adjudication and I imagine one could determine an abstracted resistance value for a "knight in armour" instead of allowing targetted attacks.
Either way, all of this introduces a lot of complexity and I'm not sure that it would improve the game flow, even though it handling attacks like this would be closer to physics. It also sounds like a hassle to balance in terms of how much damage particular attacks/interactions deal against particular materials/resistances. I wouldn't want to design that system either, and playing it would probably end up unsatisfying too.
I'm not sure if you ever played Shadowrun. It's a really great game with an exciting flavour and really in-depth mechanics that follow a similar 'sensible' approach to what you proposed for AC. Unfortunately, it's also not that great to play because dealing with all the rules is a real slog unless you've got everything fully memorized. I really want to like Shadowrun, but I still haven't bothered playing the system in a good while because it's just too much work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
Yes. What if he lights a mile-long fuse - does he turn visible? What if he presses a button that causes someone on another plane to die? What if he tells someone else to press the button? Pays someone to commit a murder in 10 years?
|
As I said before, whether something should be counted as an attack should certainly be determined based on how separated the character is from the harmful effect, or in your words how immediate the consequences of the action are. But there we already run into the first problem too. Setting off C4 via a remote detonator seems pretty immediate but probably doesn't fall under making an attack either.
Either way, let me just go through your examples to clarify where I'm currently at.
Before, I proposed that the character should lose invisibility once the harmful effect which they've initiated is applied through the damage roll. I don't think just lighting a fuse counts as an attack, as it is essentially the same as lighting a candle. But I don't agree that this logic should apply to bombs, no matter how long the fuse. But I'm explaining more about that below.
Similar to the C4, the extraplanar murder button doesn't seem like it should break invisibility because the damage is two steps removed from anything happening on the character's person. The button/detonator sends a signal which does something indeterminate for the purposes of whether the interaction of pressing it should count as an attack. What happens on the other end of that signal doesn't matter.
The last two examples are probably just hyperbole, but obviously talking to another creature and harmlessly handing over items aren't attacks. Still, I'm not sure if I'm inclined to say the same about the examples I brought up before with the bombs and black powder barrels. It still puts us into that uncomfortable place though where I must argue that something without an attack roll can be considered an attack. As I said before, I don't believe the act of lighting a fuse is an attack, to me that's more like loading a crossbowbolt. But it's also not the same for me as pressing a button or pulling a lever. I would say pulling a lever which opens a trapdoor and lets a creature fall into an acid pit should not be considered an attack. But readying a bomb and placing it to detonate seems like it should be, as to me that seems just the necessary process of directly operating the weapon.
Let's bring this to a few examples that are maybe a bit more relatable. Picking up a loaded crossbow and firing it is an attack, right? What about going to a loaded ballista and firing it, directly killing a creature? What about a catapult where the projectile maybe flies several turns before killing a creature? What about a catapult that shoots a volley of contact explosives? I think the delay of the effect and the exact interaction necessary to operate the weapon shouldn't decide whether it's an attack made with the weapon, and neither whether the resulting effect has an area of effect. Throwing the readied bomb into a crowd appears to me like an attack, though I don't think that's determined by the throw. I still feel like a dhampir biting a tree is an attack, so to me lighting the bomb and putting it on the ground without much exertion could be counted as an attack too. The same applies to the powder barrel. Ultimately, even if the fuse would be put out midway the character's invisibility would already be broken because the success of an attack doesn't determine whether the attempt to harm was made.
Now, obviously there's an issue where placing bombs, lighting powder barrels, or pulling the lever on a siege weapon doesn't resolve with any attack rolls, especially if the character wasn't even involved with orienting and aiming the siege weapon. What about fixing a crossbow to the wall, putting a rope to the trigger, and then pulling it when someone walks through the door? Attack or not? I'm pretty sure most GMs would resolve the crossbow trap by making an attack roll. Was the invisible character not who fired it because they didn't aim it and only pulled a rope? That's not mere rhetoric, I really wonder about that example for the sake of invisibility. But going back to what I was talking about before, I think firing a siege weapon and pulling the lever to a trapdoor are different, because only in the first instance the character operates a weapon which results in an attack roll of some sort at least. The character is directly involved in causing damage, while the trapdoor relies on gravity or acid to do its work, both of which are unrelated to the character.
Even in the case of bombs which will likely resolve without any attack rolls at all, I'm inclined to consider them as attacks. Let's take the item acid for example. It can be used as an action to make a ranged attack roll to cause something harmful, but it's technically a Use Object interaction which thief rogues could do as a bonus action. I'm not sure how you would resolve throwing a bomb at a person on the other side of the street, but I think most GMs would use a ranged attack. Even if you let it come down to an ability/skill check and then use that to determine some kind of deviancy of the flight path or landing position of the explosion, does that change that the character directly caused an explosion with their weapon of choice and was this not an attack? What if you develop a crossbow bolt which explodes on impact? Is firing a crossbow with such a bolt not an attack? Is utilising the bomb not an attack because there was no need to throw because the lit bomb was set on the ground instead? And finally, I wonder how you would handle a giff monster. Would the giff lose its invisibility after using its action to detonate someone with its special ability? It doesn't use any attack roll. Neither does a dragonborn's breathweapon, though those have been intentionally worded to replace attacks, I think. The giff's bomb lacks that sort of language in the rules, but I'm inclined to believe that such harmful actions follow the same intent and should be considered attacks. Leading me back to the bombs and barrels, I really feel like blowing them up should break invisibility. The problem is, the RAW certainly doesn't seem to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretID
Sorry! That wasn't at all my intent. IMO, we showed in that prior discussions that we have a different approach to resolving some rules questions. I thought we were running into that here. I don't want to spend much time in a debate that ultimately turns on that difference, but I don't have bad feelings about it.
Herein, I think, lies that difference in approach. ( : I’m only interested in rectifying ambiguities and oversights.
|
Thanks for the clarification. I think we never agreed on what the point of difference was at the end of that other discussion? Going with the quote above, I think we're drawing the line differently in determining what's an ambiguity or an oversight. If I understood correctly, this means that you've decided that the rules clearly separate creatures and objects and that because of that the interaction of grappling a drowning super-heavyweight is not a bug but a feature. I've finally found the words to claim that I do not care about realism, but I am willing to say that I draw the line and will consider anything as an ambiguity/oversight if the application of the rules ends up breaking immersion. Storm would have probably drowned on my watch.
Either way, I'm totally cool to break off any discussion that we recognize as ambiguous as to whether it's a situation of a rules oversight. There'll be moments when the RAW application of the rules will break immersion, and that's when I'll usually step in. I don't think that's necessarily our current discussion though, I think about all of that attacking stuff is very technical without much concern for how much either of us values immersion. Though maybe I'm evaluating it wrong.
Just as an update about the ogre situation ruling thing, I've been still thinking about it in the background. I'm pretty clear that I would rule against Tolan rescuing Storm from the bottom of the sea, but I'm not fully committed to adjudicating the ogre with disadvantage on the shove. The Shove rules are as you have said in the past pretty clear about what they want to be shoved. Giving the task added difficulty because a character has too little STR is pretty strict, and might come unexpectedly to a player who doesn't expect a creature's weight to count as a situational modifier. While I maintain that applying the situational modifier is not uncalled for and legitimized by the rules, I can't say that I necessarily want to do it in the future. Being too strict was in the end what I believe lost me most of the HoD players, so I am disinclined to create a repeat over something which is basically just a
namely an ogre with a howdha on top of it not being easily pushed aroundminor point of flavour.
Jan 10th, 2023, 04:47 PM
