attacking without attacking

[Nytmare]

Tactics that involve using attack powers on empty squares so that you can get the secondary effects have always reeked of the same rules twisting that was shot down by the "insulting your ally as a free action does not allow him to consider you to be an enemy so that he can hit you with a power that targets enemies so that he can get the secondary effect" rule.

There should be a difference between playing the rules, and playing by the rules.

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Zinovia

Doesn't allowing the use of Dual Lightning Strike as a "teleport whenever you feel like it 1/encounter" spell rather invalidate the level 6 utility Armathor's Step, which is also an encounter power? To me it indicates that the lower level attack power is intended to be more situational (used in an attack) than the higher level utility (used whenever you like). Disallowing free use of DLS by attacking the darkness (an empty square) seems to be a reasonable interpretation supported by the very existence of that level 6 utility spell, among other arguments which have been already stated here.

We can argue all day long about the letter of the rules, but I've seen enough to decide how I'm ruling it in my own game. I'm grateful that my players, while they have some of their own unique foibles, are not rules lawyers. Hallelujah.

Armathor's Step (Swordmage Utility 6) is better than Dual Lightning Strike (used without the attacks).

AS is a move action, teleports you 5 squares, and gives you +2 damage to your next attack if you end adjacent to an enemy (which we'll ignore since we're ignoring the attacks for DLS).

DLS is a standard action, teleports you 5 squares, and (if there's nothing to attack) that's it!

AS costs a lesser action and moves you the same distance as DLS.

I'm sure you've noticed, but level 7 encounter powers aren't much more powerful than level 3 encounter powers (powers scale slowly during heroic tier). I think a shift from standard to move action is a perfectly acceptable improvement for an increase of a mere 3 heroic levels.

Though I do agree, I enjoy the fact that my players don't rules lawyer as well. That doesn't mean that I don't desire an as-close-to-perfect understanding of the rules as possible, when I DM for them.

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Nytmare

Tactics that involve using attack powers on empty squares so that you can get the secondary effects have always reeked of the same rules twisting that was shot down by the "insulting your ally as a free action does not allow him to consider you to be an enemy so that he can hit you with a power that targets enemies so that he can get the secondary effect" rule.

There should be a difference between playing the rules, and playing by the rules.

As far as I can tell, what I and a few others have been explaining is playing by the rules. I'm strongly of the belief that PH page 272 is for the purpose of allowing attack powers to be used outside of combat (when applicable).

I don't believe that I'm twisting the rules to my advantage, because this only applies when I run a game. When another DM runs a game, I abide by his ruling even if I think it is wrong.

So, please, don't insult those who believe this to be the correct ruling by implying that they are trying to twist the rules to their advantage. I, at the very least, can achieve no benefit from it for myself (I don't even DMPC). I simply believe that it is correct and balanced.

[Nytmare]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

As far as I can tell, what I and a few others have been explaining is playing by the rules.

You don't see a contradiction between:

You can not pretend that an ally is an enemy for a round so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

You can attack empty space so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Nytmare

You don't see a contradiction between:

You can not pretend that an ally is an enemy for a round so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

You can attack empty space so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

Could you please give me a page reference so I can see where it says that for myself?

The closest thing I can find is DMG page 40 (Legitimate Targets). However, that text specifically refers to "an effect that occurs upon hitting a target-or reducing a target to 0 hp". I agree, you shouldn't allow hit or "kill" requirements to be satisfied by bags of rats or surly allies.

However, that rule never refers to Effect lines, and I believe the omission to be intentional.

Hit and "kill" are both much stricter requirements than effect, and therefore require the "restriction" from DMG page 40. Effect only requires that a given power be used, a rather easily met requirement, and therefore doesn't require such restrictions.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by Nytmare

You don't see a contradiction between:

You can not pretend that an ally is an enemy for a round so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

You can attack empty space so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

Both of these are irrelevant because you don't need to attack to get the benefit of the "Effect" entry of a power. [EDIT: Which is the reason why utility powers and powers such as healing word have "Effect" entries. ] Attacking a target is only necessary if you want the benefit of the "Hit" entry of a power, and yes, when you want to benefit from the "Hit" entry of a power, the target has to be a legitimate enemy.

Consider the 1st-level cleric encounter power divine glow, for example. It targets enemies in a Close blast 3 and deals radiant damage. However, it also has an "Effect" that allies in the blast gain a +2 power bonus to attack rolls until the end of your next turn. Would you allow a cleric to include only allies in the blast (say if he is fighting enemies resistant to radiant energy so he might as well maximize the number of allies that benefit from the Effect) or would you require that there must be at least one enemy in the blast?

[DracoSuave]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

Could you please give me a page reference so I can see where it says that for myself?

The closest thing I can find is DMG page 40 (Legitimate Targets). However, that text specifically refers to "an effect that occurs upon hitting a target-or reducing a target to 0 hp". I agree, you shouldn't allow hit or "kill" requirements to be satisfied by bags of rats or surly allies.

However, that rule never refers to Effect lines, and I believe the omission to be intentional

You need to read the entire section if you think Effect lines were never meant to be included in the -section- about doing things that break the rules to get an advantage. It then goes on to describe an Effect used to do just that.


Regardless, you're fixating on the Effect line. It's irrelevant. Powers with targets need targets. Period. Done. No target, no power. No power, no effect.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by DracoSuave

You need to read the entire section if you think Effect lines were never meant to be included in the -section- about doing things that break the rules to get an advantage. It then goes on to describe an Effect used to do just that.

Sorry, I'm away from my book at the moment. Which example was that?

Regardless, you're fixating on the Effect line. It's irrelevant. Powers with targets need targets. Period. Done. No target, no power. No power, no effect.

It really depends on whether you view the "Target" entry as informational or prescriptive.

In other words, whether you take "Target: One creatre" to mean that you may attack one creature, and if you hit, you get the benefit of the "Hit" entry (and you get the benefit of the Effect entry whether or not you hit, or indeed, whether or not you even attack), or that you must attack one creature in order to gain the benefit of the "Effect" entry. I would tend to go with the former (informational) based on my reading of page 218 of PH2 since it defines the "Target" entry as specifying whom and what the power affects directly. Many powers also have indirect effects (see divine glow above for an example).

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by DracoSuave

You need to read the entire section if you think Effect lines were never meant to be included in the -section- about doing things that break the rules to get an advantage. It then goes on to describe an Effect used to do just that.

I think you're using a rather liberal interpretation of that part. It refers to the power's effect (as in what happens when you use a power in question), not an effect line in a power. The example given shows what you're saying to be false (it talks about not letting a warlord power buff an entire army, as it is only intended to buff a party).

Originally Posted by DracoSuave

Regardless, you're fixating on the Effect line. It's irrelevant. Powers with targets need targets. Period. Done. No target, no power. No power, no effect.

Except that page 272 clearly states that targeting a square is legal.

Regardless, Firelance has already demonstrated that this is false. Nowhere do the rules say that you need a target to use a power, and every indication is that you don't.

To quote Firelance:

...the "Target" entry is informational, not prescriptive. The "Target" entry tells you what the power affects directly; it is not a requirement for using the power.

If you can find a rule that supports your claim that "powers with targets need targets", please provide the page number. All of the rules provided so far suggest otherwise.

[Jhaelen]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

As far as I can tell, what I and a few others have been explaining is playing by the rules.

I don't think so. Even if you were playing it correctly by RAW it would still be wrong by RAI, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

I'm strongly of the belief that PH page 272 is for the purpose of allowing attack powers to be used outside of combat (when applicable).

I, however, strongly believe you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

I don't believe that I'm twisting the rules to my advantage, because this only applies when I run a game. When another DM runs a game, I abide by his ruling even if I think it is wrong.

Good!

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

So, please, don't insult those who believe this to be the correct ruling by implying that they are trying to twist the rules to their advantage. I, at the very least, can achieve no benefit from it for myself (I don't even DMPC). I simply believe that it is correct and balanced.

And I believe it's neither balanced nor correct. Now, what?

How about simply agreeing to disagree?

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Jhaelen

How about simply agreeing to disagree?

I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree. I thought it was rather obviously implied when I said:

When another DM runs a game, I abide by his ruling even if I think it is wrong.

You are free to run your campaign however you like. For the record, I agree to disagree with you.

However, if someone posts an (IMO) incorrect interpretation of a rule in the rules forum, then (assuming I feel like getting involved in the first place) I'll attempt to refute his stance by stating my own interpretation, offering whatever evidence I have to support my claim.

I'm pretty sure that's how this rules forum thing works, anyway...

[Zinovia]

And of course every time I post my opinion on the internet, naturally everyone is overwhelmed by my brilliant logic and impeccable references, and immediately comes around to my point of view. That's how the internet works, isn't it?

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Zinovia

And of course every time I post my opinion on the internet, naturally everyone is overwhelmed by my brilliant logic and impeccable references, and immediately comes around to my point of view. That's how the internet works, isn't it?

Nah, you're probably just that awesome!

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by Zinovia

And of course every time I post my opinion on the internet, naturally everyone is overwhelmed by my brilliant logic and impeccable references, and immediately comes around to my point of view. That's how the internet works, isn't it?

Well you do wrap your opinions in nice poetry alot perhaps we are all hypnotised... ;-)

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

I think you're using a rather liberal interpretation of that part. It refers to the power's effect (as in what happens when you use a power in question), not an effect line in a power. The example given shows what you're saying to be false (it talks about not letting a warlord power buff an entire army, as it is only intended to buff a party).

As I mentioned before, the idea behind the entire paragraph is "Despite what the rules say, don't let players get benefits from powers when used outside of a 'normal' combat". It basically says, don't let them heal by hitting a rat despite the fact that it is legal in the rules, because a rat isn't a threat. Don't let a power affect 100 people despite the fact that the rules allow them to, because all the powers were written assuming a group of 4-6 players against a group of similar level enemies.

It may not say it in as many words, but I think a similar philosophy applies to powers that have an affect and are meant to be used in combat (obviously....they wouldn't have attack, damage and target lines if they weren't).

You don't find the slightest bit of irony in the fact that you are looking in a paragraph that says "Don't always follow the rules to the letter when it's clear there are times they shouldn't apply exactly as written" and saying "It mentions effects that happens on a hit, but fails to mention effect lines....we must follow the paragraph exactly as written"?

And then in the same post point at the rules for targeting empty squares in order to find invisible enemies and say "It says we can target empty squares. We must follow those rules exactly as written."

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

Except that page 272 clearly states that targeting a square is legal.

A rat is a legal creature. You can clearly target it. Clearly you should get benefit for hitting it. Except the section that says not to give benefits out in situations they weren't designed for(which it gives 2 examples of: Hit effects and affecting too many creatures).

I'm wondering why preventing people from using powers that have an effect on hit was considered abusive enough to write a section on it but powers that have an effect line are not abusive? I mean, why does the ability to heal someone on hit as an encounter power need to be restricted while another power that heals people as an effect on top of the attack not need to be restricted somehow?

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

Regardless, Firelance has already demonstrated that this is false. Nowhere do the rules say that you need a target to use a power, and every indication is that you don't.

Hey, I can play this game too.

I have already demonstrated that this is true. Nowhere do the rules say that you don't need a target to use a power, and every indication is that you do.

Considering there is about as much evidence one way as there is another. I haven't seen any indication that you don't. I think the entire fact that there IS a target line, a section in the DMG saying that it can't just be any legal target(that the DM should reserve the right to say NO, not THAT target), and another section saying that you can only target objects with powers that target creatures with the DM's permission is extremely strong evidence that you need a target.

Originally Posted by FireLance

In fact, the description of "Effect" on page 219 of PH2 states:

Anything that appears in an "Effect" entry occurs when you use the power, whether or not you hit with it, if it is an attack power.

That's correctly. If you hit or miss with the power, the effect goes off. If you don't attack at all because there is no target, then you neither hit nor not hit with it. So no effect happens.

My main argument against the effect line to happen with no legal target is that the goal of 4e was to "silo" in combat powers away from out of combat powers. They did this by dividing powers into Attack and Utility.

A bunch of the articles before 4e come out explain that the goal was to prevent players from ever having to make a choice between in combat utility and out of combat utility. They didn't want someone to have to decide between, say, Disguise Self and Magic Missile.

If you allow people to use Attack Powers when you are not in a legitimate combat, then you are once again forcing people to choose. There is a difference in utility between a power that does 2[w] damage and then lets you teleport 5 squares only in combat and one that does the same thing but also lets you teleport 5 out of combat.

Likewise, there is a difference between a 2[w] with an effect of all enemies adjacent to you grant combat advantage and a 2[w] with the effect of teleport 5 squares if you allow the effect line to work out of combat. When you choose between the two powers, you are now forced to choose between in combat and out of combat utility. Is the ability to have enemies grant combat advantage to you while in combat equal to the ability to have tactical movement in combat AND teleport essentially at will outside of combat? The same thing happens when one power has an hit effect while another has an effect. You can't use one outside of combat, you can use the other.

I just think it's unfair to make people choose. It's especially unfair to tell one player: "Sorry, all of you powers have on hit effects or effects which don't matter out of combat. When you are out of combat, your options are limited to your utility powers. You can choose to do one of those 3 things there. But, lucky you, all of your powers have effect lines. You get to choose from 6 different things to do outside of combat."

[Fanaelialae]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

snip

I'm a bit busy atm, so I can't respond point for point, but tell me this...

At least one or two people who disagree with my POV on effects have said that they'd allow an effect from an AoE to be used outside of combat. Given that, why is it reasonable to allow "utility" for AoE effects, but not melee or ranged effects?

I consider the combat/utility divide to be largely illusory. It isn't that it is a bad idea (even if you take all non-combat utilities, you'll be effective nonetheless thanks to the silo method), but rather that there are a plethora of utility powers that have virtually no application outside of combat (Shield of Faith, for example). Since there are a bevy of "attack"-utility powers, I don't see an issue with allowing a few "utility"-attack powers.

In all fairness, I encourage stunting with attack powers. (For example, a spider-themed character once wanted to use a druid power, that creates difficult terrain but had been reflavored as a web, to bridge a gap she couldn't jump. I set an appropriate DC for her attack roll and she was able to create a bridge to cross the gap.) So I may default allow to allowing more utility from attack powers than a typical DM.

[DracoSuave]

Originally Posted by Fanaelialae

I'm a bit busy atm, so I can't respond point for point, but tell me this...

At least one or two people who disagree with my POV on effects have said that they'd allow an effect from an AoE to be used outside of combat. Given that, why is it reasonable to allow "utility" for AoE effects, but not melee or ranged effects?

It's not Area/Close vs Ranged/Melee. It's a matter of the Target line.

Because you still make the attack with an AoE against all legal targets. The Area attack itself tells you 'All Creatures in Area' or what have you.

The thing is, you can have 'All creatures' describe zero creatures successfully and it does not fail. However, if the target line says 'One creature' then you cannot use it on zero creatures, for the exact same reason you cannot use an attack that says 'Two creatures' on only one creature. Attacks that allow you to do less -say- less. 'One or Two creatures' or 'one, two, or three creatures.'

Some close powers also use the 'One creature in burst' template and those follow the same rule.

All creatures -can- be zero. One creature -cannot be zero-.

I consider the combat/utility divide to be largely illusory. It isn't that it is a bad idea (even if you take all non-combat utilities, you'll be effective nonetheless thanks to the silo method), but rather that there are a plethora of utility powers that have virtually no application outside of combat (Shield of Faith, for example). Since there are a bevy of utility-"attack" powers, I don't see an issue with allowing a few "utility"-attack powers.

In all fairness, I encourage stunting with attack powers. (For example, a spider-themed character once wanted to use a druid power, that creates difficult terrain but had been reflavored as a web, to bridge a gap she couldn't jump. I set an appropriate DC for her attack roll and she was able to create a bridge to cross the gap.) So I may default allow to allowing more utility from attack powers than a typical DM.

There is nothing wrong with allowing some utility from attack powers outside the rulesset. I actually agree with you that it is okay to do this. Please don't take the rules-stance as any attack against that. But what the rules say and what you are comfortable allowing are two different ideas. And having the -DM- in charge of the rules allows you to take control should a rules lawyer try to use this to finaggle his way into a power-game benefit.

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by DracoSuave

You are caught up on the effect aspect, however you are ignoring one -simple- fact. You require the target to be satisfied to resolve the power in the first place. No target, no power You've already assumed you can use the power, but you -can't- because the -target- line occurs -before the effect- and therefore -must be satisfied first.- Once you've satisfied enough of the power to start resolving it, the rest can go as it comes, but you never get to the -effect- part because you've stopped at -target- which precludes any resolution to the power at all.

I'm a dazed Rogue with a rapier.

-------
|.....|
|.@..o|
|.....|   ####
|.....+####
-------

Can I use Deft Strike to attack the orc?

-Hyp.

[FireLance]

Responding to the points out of order for better flow.

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

That's correctly. If you hit or miss with the power, the effect goes off. If you don't attack at all because there is no target, then you neither hit nor not hit with it. So no effect happens.

Except that the rules don't say that the effect occurs when you hit or miss with the power. The rules say that the effect occurs when you use the power, whether or not you hit with it. If you don't attack anything, it's still not a hit. To my mind, the emphasis on hitting is to distinguish "Effect" entries from "Hit" entries: you get the benefit of "Hit" entries only when you hit a legitimate target, whereas you get the benefit of "Effect" entries simply by using the power.

I'm wondering why preventing people from using powers that have an effect on hit was considered abusive enough to write a section on it but powers that have an effect line are not abusive? I mean, why does the ability to heal someone on hit as an encounter power need to be restricted while another power that heals people as an effect on top of the attack not need to be restricted somehow?

To me, it's a matter of balance. "Effect" benefits are usually less useful than "Hit" benefits. Powers with Effects are thus less risky since they don't depend on you hitting, but have a lower payoff. "Hit" entries need to be specially called out to prevent players from enjoying them too easily or in conditions of minimal risk. "Effect" entries can already be enjoyed easily and without risk. So, I would generally have no problems with allowing the players to take advantage of Effects without needing to make an attack roll (individual powers may be problematic, but that's a problem with the individual power).

My main argument against the effect line to happen with no legal target is that the goal of 4e was to "silo" in combat powers away from out of combat powers. They did this by dividing powers into Attack and Utility.

A bunch of the articles before 4e come out explain that the goal was to prevent players from ever having to make a choice between in combat utility and out of combat utility. They didn't want someone to have to decide between, say, Disguise Self and Magic Missile.

I'd say that the distinction between Attack power and Utility power is not very stark since many Utility powers can be used in combat. So, I would not have a problem if a small number of Attack powers have out-of-combat applications. I think the key philosophy behind that design decision was to ensure that all characters had at least some Attack powers, not to ensure that all characters had fixed proportions of combat and out-of-combat abilities (after all, they could select Utility powers that have mostly combat applications).

If you allow people to use Attack Powers when you are not in a legitimate combat, then you are once again forcing people to choose. There is a difference in utility between a power that does 2[w] damage and then lets you teleport 5 squares only in combat and one that does the same thing but also lets you teleport 5 out of combat.

Likewise, there is a difference between a 2[w] with an effect of all enemies adjacent to you grant combat advantage and a 2[w] with the effect of teleport 5 squares if you allow the effect line to work out of combat. When you choose between the two powers, you are now forced to choose between in combat and out of combat utility. Is the ability to have enemies grant combat advantage to you while in combat equal to the ability to have tactical movement in combat AND teleport essentially at will outside of combat? The same thing happens when one power has an hit effect while another has an effect. You can't use one outside of combat, you can use the other.

I just think it's unfair to make people choose. It's especially unfair to tell one player: "Sorry, all of you powers have on hit effects or effects which don't matter out of combat. When you are out of combat, your options are limited to your utility powers. You can choose to do one of those 3 things there. But, lucky you, all of your powers have effect lines. You get to choose from 6 different things to do outside of combat."

And my view is that as long as you can still contribute to both combat and out-of-combat situations, it doesn't really matter if you select Attack powers that can be used in out-of-combat situations, or Utility powers that can be used in combat situations. I think that too much siloing would shift the game too far towards characters that are too homogenous.

[FireLance]

Incidentally, this discussion has given me some insight into why the 1st-level Paladin daily paladin's judgment might have been worded as follows:

Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and one ally within 5 squares of you can spend a healing surge.
Miss: One ally within 5 squares of you can spend a healing surge.

In this case, your ally gets to spend a healing surge whether you hit or miss, but you still must make an attack roll. Unlike an Effect, you can't get the benefit without attacking.