I will take a small issue with one thing you said; D&D provides no limits on what you can do - it inherently a system about rulings by the DM informed by the rules; the primacy is specifically given to the DM (in consultation with the group).
Logic truth tables, dude: this is an if-then statement. If the premise is false, the statement still stands whether the conclusion is true or false. ie "if you are not making an attack roll, you are not making an attack" and "if you are not making an attack roll, you are still making an attack" could both be true...
in other words, it's unclear. This rule only tells you when you can prove something is an attack. It does not prove when something isn't an attack. You're probably right on intent, but it's written differently.
No, but to quote you "D&D does not cover what you can "NOT" do. It only covers what you CAN do." The danger is if you think that way then players and DMs will limit themselves to what the rules allow - not use their imagination and then see what rules they can make applicable.
No, it doesn't. Because the very first rule of D&D is that it's a co-written story between the players and DM. That's Rule Zero. If the DM says so, and the player's agree, it's legal. You can have lightsabers if you want, so long as everybody agrees.
This forum, and the books, are for rulings, not hypothetical homebrews. Unless somebody is asking for house rules, then we answer questions very literally from the book.
Yes, you are correct. RAW in the context of these forums, is to provide people with concrete answers to questions that may arise during rule lawyering scenarios. When you have multiple players arguing, a forum like this can be arbitrated.
So, here we have a general rule Attack Roll -> Attack
In formal logic this does not mean NO Attack Roll -> NO Attack but in common English usage it does and in the semantics of that whole section of the book that is the clear intent.
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.
OK. Uncanny Dodge could be house ruled to give some bonus to save vs area effect spells, but that'd fall square into house rule land. Kinda outside the question.
Also, there are specific places where there is an attack without an attack roll: Shoving and Grappling - uncanny dodge would work there and I can see why
"If you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack" aids with the understanding of the integral pieces of an attack. On its own, it's rather lacking. You'll really want to walk a person through it showing them that the general rule shows you have an attack roll. Then show grappling as an example of a specific that would break the general.
Not every attack deals damage. You can shove a target out a window. You clearly attacked it, but didn't hurt it. The sudden stop at the bottom will though.
Anyway, was going to say, a distinct answer might point out what Uncanny Dodge doesn't do, but damn it's pretty all-encompassing. So its limitations have to be defined by what defines attack.
Maybe there's something around 5th level that does something analogous with similar restriction, but that'd be more of a book dive than I'd care to do. Wouldn't add a whole lot to the understanding either, but might be convincing to the recalcitrant
@LinoFrankCiaralli have the word in square brackets, followed by the link in parentheses.
@NanbanJim I'm no moderator, but I remind you that everything you write on this site is public domain and google searchable. It would be considerate to refrain from "bad words", thank you.
