Definition of "Attack"

[swoosh]

Contradictory insofar as that one ability can simultaneously be an attack and not be an attack at the same moment and determining which version Paizo intends you to use with any given ability is unclear because the wording is similar or identical.

[CBDunkerson]

swoosh wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Good. You SHOULD have multiple definitions.

I think it's pretty absurd to argue that it's a good thing that people can't figure out how an ability works because a game term has multiple contradictory definitions.

That isn't what I was saying.

Rather, the word attack is NOT a 'game term' with a single definition. It is a common English word with multiple definitions... and even more variations within the game itself.

Whether that is 'good' or not is irrelevant to it being reality. Pretending otherwise, such as insisting on a single definition for all uses of the word 'attack' in all Pathfinder materials, is self-defeating. Instead, it is "good" to recognize the reality that the meaning varies from instance to instance so that you can at least attempt to decipher the intent of any given instance.

[Rysky]

swoosh wrote:

Contradictory insofar as that one ability can simultaneously be an attack and not be an attack at the same moment and determining which version Paizo intends you to use with any given ability is unclear because the wording is similar or identical.

It can be an attack and not be an attack at the same time depending on which version is called for, as I have illustrated in my previous posts in this thread.

[CBDunkerson]

swoosh wrote:

It's absolutely not self defeating to insist for some degree of consistency in wording and your insistence that it's somehow impossible to write rules that aren't confusing and inconsistent is absurd.

Again, I did not say that.

I'm saying that Paizo didn't write the rules that way. If you believe that every single use of the word 'attack' in Pathfinder materials has the same definition then you are quite simply wrong.

Insist that reality should be different all you like. Seems a waste of time to me, but whatever floats your boat. I'm merely saying that the situation we actually have is books where individual words can have multiple meanings. Standard English communication.

Quote:

we're not playing chess. You're grasping at straws now.

You're really not getting this 'one word with multiple meanings' bit at all, are you?

[Chess Pwn]

Rysky wrote:

swoosh wrote:

Contradictory insofar as that one ability can simultaneously be an attack and not be an attack at the same moment and determining which version Paizo intends you to use with any given ability is unclear because the wording is similar or identical.

It can be an attack and not be an attack at the same time depending on which version is called for, as I have illustrated in my previous posts in this thread.

Right, but you have no more support to say it is not for invis and is for BoG then you have support against not for BoG is for invis for magic missile.

[Rysky]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Rysky wrote:

swoosh wrote:

Contradictory insofar as that one ability can simultaneously be an attack and not be an attack at the same moment and determining which version Paizo intends you to use with any given ability is unclear because the wording is similar or identical.

It can be an attack and not be an attack at the same time depending on which version is called for, as I have illustrated in my previous posts in this thread.

Right, but you have no more support to say it is not for invis and is for BoG then you have support against not for BoG is for invis for magic missile.

Yes I have, and I've stated previously in this thread.

[Tarantula]

Just because you took damage, doesn't mean you were attacked. If someone poisons you, is the damage from the poison halved because you took damage? No. It wasn't an attack, it was an effect of the poison.

If they bull rush you off a ledge and you fall and take damage, were you attacked? Yes, the bull rush is an attack. Did the attack cause damage? No, you took damage from falling, which was a result of being pushed off the ledge.

Same thing with acid cloud. Is the spell itself an attack? No. It creates acid in an area. You are taking damage because you are in a space with acid. If there was a pool of actual acid the wizard had placed, and you step into it and take acid damage, it would not be an attack either, for the same reasons.

[swoosh]

Rysky wrote:

]It can be an attack and not be an attack at the same time depending on which version is called for, as I have illustrated in my previous posts in this thread.

And there's no way to tell at any given moment which definition you're supposed to use.

CBDunkerson wrote:

If you believe that every single use of the word 'attack' in Pathfinder materials has the same definition then you are quite simply wrong.

I said the opposite. I said that they have radically different meanings and that that's a problem, because you can have two sentences with the same text that end up behaving in entirely different ways because you're intended to use definition A in one place and definition B in another place with no way to tell which definition is appropriate based on the sentence itself.

Quote:

You're really not getting this 'one word with multiple meanings' bit at all, are you?

The trouble with your examples are that they are all uses of the word in entirely different situations and scenarios, which makes them sort of irrelevant to discuss here. Yes, the word can have different meanings in different contexts. And? That doesn't change the fact that ambiguity in rules is bad or is somehow unavoidable.

Honestly CB I'm not sure what you get out of being so condescending just because people have different opinions than you. Or why you seem so opposed to the idea of rules having some degree of consistency to them.

[Rysky]

Tarantula wrote:

Just because you took damage, doesn't mean you were attacked.

Yes you were.

Tarantula wrote:

If someone poisons you, is the damage from the poison halved because you took damage?

No, not because it's not an attack, but because Bastion of Good only applies against HP damage. Actually this would be a legitimate question as it doesn't specify HP/ability damage. It probably wasn't intended to 1/2 Ability damage but I'd allow it.

Tarantula wrote:

No. It wasn't an attack, it was an effect of the poison.

Which is an attack.

Tarantula wrote:

If they bull rush you off a ledge and you fall and take damage, were you attacked? Yes, the bull rush is an attack. Did the attack cause damage? No, you took damage from falling, which was a result of being pushed off the ledge.

Same thing with acid cloud. Is the spell itself an attack?

Yes.

Tarantula wrote:

No. It creates acid in an area.

Which damages you, which is an attack.

Tarantula wrote:

You are taking damage because you are in a space with acid. If there was a pool of actual acid the wizard had placed, and you step into it and take acid damage, it would not be an attack either, for the same reasons.

No, that's a natural hazard, that's different from a wizard conjuring acid onto you.

[Rysky]

swoosh wrote:

Rysky wrote:

It can be an attack and not be an attack at the same time depending on which version is called for, as I have illustrated in my previous posts in this thread.

And there's no way to tell at any given moment which definition you're supposed to use.

Yes there is. Look at Invisibility's description. Look at Bastion of Good's description, they tell you.

[Tarantula]

Rysky wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

Just because you took damage, doesn't mean you were attacked.

Yes you were.

Show me where the rules say taking damage means you were attacked.

Rysky wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

If someone poisons you, is the damage from the poison halved because you took damage?

No, not because it's not an attack, but because Bastion of Good only applies against HP damage. Actually this would be a legitimate question as it doesn't specify HP/ability damage. It probably wasn't intended to 1/2 Ability damage but I'd allow it.

Not all poisons deal ability damage. Sassone leaf residue deals HP damage. Do you think BOG halves ability damage too? What if the wizard put the poison on a doorknob, which the PC then touched, is that an attack?

Rysky wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

No. It wasn't an attack, it was an effect of the poison.

Which is an attack.

Again, please show me where the rules define an attack as taking hp damage.

Rysky wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

If they bull rush you off a ledge and you fall and take damage, were you attacked? Yes, the bull rush is an attack. Did the attack cause damage? No, you took damage from falling, which was a result of being pushed off the ledge.

Same thing with acid cloud. Is the spell itself an attack?

Yes.

So you think it reduces damage from falling?

Rysky wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

No. It creates acid in an area.

Which damages you, which is an attack.

Tarantula wrote:

You are taking damage because you are in a space with acid. If there was a pool of actual acid the wizard had placed, and you step into it and take acid damage, it would not be an attack either, for the same reasons.

No, that's a natural hazard, that's different from a wizard conjuring acid onto you.

Its doing HP damage. The wizard placed it there. By your definition of attack meaning "any time you take damage" the wizard attacked you with the pool of acid.

[Tarantula]

Rysky wrote:

swoosh wrote:

Rysky wrote:

It can be an attack and not be an attack at the same time depending on which version is called for, as I have illustrated in my previous posts in this thread.

And there's no way to tell at any given moment which definition you're supposed to use.

Yes there is. Look at Invisibility's description. Look at Bastion of Good's description, they tell you.

Right. You use invisibility's description of attack for invisibility. The Special Spell Effects definition for spells which refer to attacks. And for bastion of good you use the base book description, which is an attack roll.

[CBDunkerson]

swoosh wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

If you believe that every single use of the word 'attack' in Pathfinder materials has the same definition then you are quite simply wrong.

I said the opposite.

So... why get on my case for saying that Rysky was correct to use different definitions of the word for different instances?

Quote:

Honestly CB I'm not sure what you get out of being so condescending just because people have different opinions than you. Or why you seem so opposed to the idea of rules having some degree of consistency to them.

Maybe you could try to understand what I am saying rather than going out of your way to misrepresent me? Case in point... I haven't said ANYTHING about being "opposed to the idea of rules having some degree of consistency". That's something you keep trying to PUT on me that has NOTHING to do with what I have actually been writing.

You seem to want to talk about how the rules SHOULD BE written. That's fine, but a completely different issue than my comments about how the rules ARE written.

[Kazaan]

Attack is established in a few different ways within the Pathfinder system.

It can be used as an abreviation for anything that involves an attack roll.

PRD wrote:

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
------------
Damage
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
note: this is the first time in the Combat section that the term "attack" is used on its own; it is not independently defined prior to this point.

Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
...
- Ability Damage: Certain creatures and magical effects can cause temporary or permanent ability damage (a reduction to an ability score).

In the Damage section, it states, "if your attack succeeds, you deal damage," but it doesn't explicitly state what, exactly, an "attack" is. It also goes on to list Ability Damage as a sub-topic of Damage, meaning that an "Attack" (whatever that is) is considered to deal HP damage by default, but an "Attack" that deals Ability Damage is considered a variant of such; it still can result from an Attack. All of this is immediately after the section covering Attack Rolls.

Later, other sections also cover "making attacks", "if you have multiple attacks", etc. All these rules reference making attacks, but it hasn't been explicitly defined as of yet.

Then we have the idea of the Attack action. This is a specific Standard action with the name "Attack". Just as you have specific Standard actions called "Cast a Spell", "Light a torch with a tindertwig", "Feint", etc. this is a specific action with a specific purpose. The purpose of Attack (the action) is to make an attack. But, just as all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs, you can't say that the Attack action is the only form of attack there is. Even Full-Attack is its own distinct action and rules elements that reference a reliance on using the Attack action (eg. Vital Strike) don't apply when making a Full-Attack. Other actions can also result in attacks (eg. Cleave, Charge, etc.).

Lastly, we have the statement in the Magic section that calls out spells that refer to "attacks" and goes on to clarify that "attacks" carries a broader meaning than might be implied in the Combat section where "attack" is implicitly linked to making attack rolls and resolving damage rolls (either HP by default or to ability score, as non-lethal damage, or causing status effects in exceptional circumstances). But spells consider "attacks" to be any offensive ability, whether or not it involves an attack roll or causes damage. Hold Person, for instance, would be considered an "attack" for a spell that states you cannot make any attack. And, while it explicitly calls out "spells", later in the Magic section, it goes on to explain Special Abilities:

PRD wrote:

A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.

Supernatural Abilities, along with Spell-Like, Extraordinary, and the catch-all Natural, fall under this heading. So it stands to reason that a magical Supernatural ability would operate under the same understanding of an attack as a magical Spell, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. I see no such clear evidence; only hair-splitting pedantry focusing on "Attack" in reference to the Attack action (and the Full-Attack action which, as stated above, isn't even the Attack action).

The rules are written with a certain degree of "plain language", but it is still a system. We need not split hairs and argue pedantry, but also need not over-generalize and generate procedural errors and artifacts. The ability is meant to protect against "attacks" as some spells already do. There is already an applicable rule for how spells define "attacks" and Special Abilities (including Supernatural abilities) are called out to function like spells. There's no clear evidence to declare that this would be an incorrect application, so the default position would be that "attacks" for BoG carries an equivalent meaning to "attacks" in a spell like Sanctuary. If the BoG ability requires an errata for additional clarity, indicating it was improperly written, that's one thing. But, as it's written, this is the proper conclusion to arrive at.

[Chess Pwn]

My ruling is that BoG blocks any attacks with attacks being anything that you could substitute a trip attempt for, since trip attempts can be made in place of an attack or any "weapon like" spell effects like ray of frost or acid splash.

[Tarantula]

Kazaan wrote:

PRD wrote:

A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.

Supernatural Abilities, along with Spell-Like, Extraordinary, and the catch-all Natural, fall under this heading. So it stands to reason that a magical Supernatural ability would operate under the same understanding of an attack as a magical Spell, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. I see no such clear evidence; only hair-splitting pedantry focusing on "Attack" in reference to the Attack action (and the Full-Attack action which, as stated above, isn't even the Attack action).

The part you quoted is the overall header for special abilities. It goes on to break them down to Spell-like, Supernatural, Extraordinary and Natural.

Bastion of Good is a Supernatural ability.

Quote:

Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.

Supernatural abilities pretty clearly do not function as spells. They ignore spell resistance, counterspells and dispel magic.

Your argument hinges on Bastion of Good being a Supernatural ability functioning like a spell, but it is clear Su abilities do not. The header you quoted is a general description of all Special Abilities, and the part "many of which function like spells" refers to the ones which function like spells, Spell like abilities.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a long series of back-and-forth bickering and locking, as this discussion does not appear to be on a trajectory to be productive at this point.