attacking without attacking

[DracoSuave]

I don't think there's any such powers. All ranged and melee powers (which are traditionally the ones that target an individual) are explicitly allowed to target a square instead of the stated target in the power description (not the air, but a square in games mechanics terms). (pg 272, PHB)

When attacking an enemy you cannot see. If you're not doing that (and madly swinging paranoid doesn't count) then this doesn't exactly apply? Using the rules that are there for when you're fighting stealth'd enemies doesn't apply to non-stealth situations, like 'I wanna get on the other side of these bars.'

Also, the bag of rats rule doesn't even apply, because it specifically calls out effects that occur on a hit or when reducing the target to 0 hitpoints. Effects that function regardless of a hit or miss apparently don't need a meaningful threat as a target. (pg 40, DMG)

You can't go 'technically the bag o' rats rule doesn't apply.' Bag o' rats is the 'You don't get to "technically" do abusive stuff' rule. It sort of protects itself that way. In fact, it goes on to mention other situations where you might decide where technically the players can do something, but you don't have to allow rediculousness.

Regardless, even then, Rule 0. You need to have the DM rule 0 your ability to teleport using an attack power, period. If the DM doesn't like it, then that's that.

If its a melee or ranged power, then you can specify a square as the secondary target you teleport adjacent to and attack. No breach of rules there that I can tell.

Only if you're guessing that a specific enemy happens to have chosen that square. No enemy, no guessing which square that enemy is in. You don't get to use 'How to target an unseen foe' to mean 'you can target nothing with impunity.' That's -not- what the rules says, nor does it even intend to be used in that manner.


However, one thing to notice- Rule 0 -does- allow the DM to allow it if it's cool. So if you're using it to teleport across a ravine to even terrain, sure, go for it. If you're using it to teleport across iron bars, that -same- DM can go 'No, the bars will ground out the lightning.'

It doesn't matter if the rules -technically- would allow both or forbid both. This is -why- you have a DM, so he can make judgement calls like this in case you want to 'bend the rules.'

But first, you must recognize you're bending those rules, because you are -not- entitled to do this, and the DM has -every- reason to say No, without depriving you of what the 'rules allow you.'

 

[Diirk]

When attacking an enemy you cannot see. If you're not doing that (and madly swinging paranoid doesn't count) then this doesn't exactly apply? Using the rules that are there for when you're fighting stealth'd enemies doesn't apply to non-stealth situations, like 'I wanna get on the other side of these bars.'

Did you even look the rule up? Its not the rule for fighting stealthed enemies, its the rule for choosing targets fullstop.

"Choosing Targets
...
When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy."

It doesn't come under a header "Fighting targets you can't see", it doesn't say "When using a melee or ranged attack against a creature you can't see". It DOES say that you can target a square with a melee or ranged attack, and then it gives an example of an occasion this might be useful. Obviously if there's no creature there, you can't hit, but you can still target.

You can't go 'technically the bag o' rats rule doesn't apply.' Bag o' rats is the 'You don't get to "technically" do abusive stuff' rule. It sort of protects itself that way. In fact, it goes on to mention other situations where you might decide where technically the players can do something, but you don't have to allow rediculousness.

It doesn't actually mention anything of the sort. The actual rule is 'Legitimate targets' and it says (in summary) in the first paragraph that effects that only occur when you hit a target or reduce it to 0 hp only function if its a meaningful threat. The second paragraph then goes on to state that powers that buff allies don't buff entire armies and are balanced around your 'allies' being a squad sized group.

There is no mention whatsoever of powers that work regardless of hit or miss, and none of the things in this section actually apply to the powers under discussion. Sure you can rule 0, but you can rule 0 anything. That goes beyond the scope of rules discussions.

It doesn't matter if the rules -technically- would allow both or forbid both. This is -why- you have a DM, so he can make judgement calls like this in case you want to 'bend the rules.'

But first, you must recognize you're bending those rules, because you are -not- entitled to do this, and the DM has -every- reason to say No, without depriving you of what the 'rules allow you.'

I disagree; the rules make every suggestion that you can use the powers under discussion in this way, and while the DM is certainly allowed to say 'no I don't like that in this game', I think it would be him bending the rules in this case, not the player.

Says who?

Pg 40 of the DMG. Read it carefully. The so called 'Bag o' rats' rule doesn't apply to 'effect' powers, only to 'hit:' or 'trigger: when you reduce an opponent to 0 hp' (or presumably bloody, etc) powers.

 

[Jhaelen]

Pg 40 of the DMG. Read it carefully. The so called 'Bag o' rats' rule doesn't apply to 'effect' powers, only to 'hit:' or 'trigger: when you reduce an opponent to 0 hp' (or presumably bloody, etc) powers.

My question wasn't about what _is_ written in the DMG, my question was about your extrapolation about what it is supposed to say about what _isn't_ written in the DMG.

IOW, of course the DMG doesn't state every single instance in which something akin to a 'bag of rats' rule would be recommended.

Your default assumption seems to be: everything that isn't disallowed is allowed. Imho, that's a flawed assumption.

 

[FurryFighter]

Pg 40 of the DMG. Read it carefully. The so called 'Bag o' rats' rule doesn't apply to 'effect' powers, only to 'hit:' or 'trigger: when you reduce an opponent to 0 hp' (or presumably bloody, etc) powers.

The DMG wants you to extrapolate "reasonableness" on your own. Bag of Rats isnt even a rule, its a guideline to stop gameplay from being degraded by using a power in a way that it isnt meant to be used. Using powers in new ways is good and imaginative - as long as it has a degree of reasonableness.

Using an attack power to simply teleport does not seem reasonable. If that class wanted you to be able to teleport around on your whim, they'd give you a teleportation power equivalent that just required a clear space as the only requisite.

I ask, how is thievery play, athletics, acrobatics, and other such gameplay devices, that are meant to increase the enjoyment of the game, improved at all by having a shortcut easily accessible like this one?

Possible ways for a DM to discourage uses like this: have a set of "smackdown" traps, triggers, and other assortments saved for exactly this type of thing. Allow a player to teleport, and then they get face arrowed, attacked by 10 swarms of rats, release a pressure plate that kills the rest of the party, etc etc. Negative reinforcement works well to stop a person doing something. I like players having free reign. If they work within a framework of "reasonable" actions, even if it destroys the chance of an encounter that had been diligently created, or causes the campaign to require some shifting, or even just a little area in that campaign, its a good thing to allow. This other business is unnecessary and takes from the other components of the game.

 

[Nichwee]

I ask, how is thievery play, athletics, acrobatics, and other such gameplay devices, that are meant to increase the enjoyment of the game, improved at all by having a shortcut easily accessible like this one?

They already exist. Fey Step being the first to come to mind.

Do any At-Will attacks allow long teleports? If not, then I don't see it as unreasonable to have the player go thru a 'Katta' of their known fighting style to get the effect* once every five minutes, and you can drop an encounter on them in that time whereby they are down an attack power so they don't do this simply because they can - they think about it and weigh the options = good RP to me.
This way of doing things can even add nice chances to RP to the game, in that the flashy Swordmage does his Attack Power to teleport and the locals see it and tell the guards (as an attack power breaks stealth, so it isn't going to be subtle). This may lead to possible arrests or just a long debate explaining that the Swordmage wasn't looking to hurt anyone, or do anything wrong - he just has a weird way of moving about at times.

Btw, simply having no line-of-sight stops a teleport screwing up Thievery issues. So stick what they want to get in a room they can't see into.



*I mean they must have done this at some stage to learn how to do this trick (or do characters suddenly wake up knowing a new trick completely?)

 

[Diirk]

My question wasn't about what _is_ written in the DMG, my question was about your extrapolation about what it is supposed to say about what _isn't_ written in the DMG.

IOW, of course the DMG doesn't state every single instance in which something akin to a 'bag of rats' rule would be recommended.

Your default assumption seems to be: everything that isn't disallowed is allowed. Imho, that's a flawed assumption.

Well look, there's a rule that says 'you can't use your powers under the existing rules if <these conditions>'. <these conditions> don't apply to the effect: teleport power under question, so barring any other rule disallowing it, the only reasonable interpretation is that you can use your power.

The closest thing to rules disallowing it is the targetting issue, but thats covered under a seperate rule and is also allowed.

So unless you can come up with a rule that says you can't use a power, the default assumption is that you can use the power.

Otherwise you could just make up stuff like:

Player: "I heal my friend for healing surge + 7 damage"
DM: "Sorry that doesn't work. There's no rule that says you can use healing word when there's a full moon."

Now obviously thats an exaggeration, but the same sort of reasoning applies. Given that there's alot of low level teleportation already in the game, using an encounter attack power to teleport instead of a utility really doesn't effect much, and as such I don't see any reason to disallow it, particularly when the rules don't seem to be against it.

If it doesn't make enough sense to allow it in your game thats fine, but I don't think see the issue with it (eg sword kata suggestion earlier) and thus don't have an issue with it.

 

[eamon]

Fundamentally, the burden of proof in this kind of matter should lie with the DM. A PC can choose his own actions. Only if there is a due cause to forbid a PC from using his powers should you do so.

Bag-of-rats is a specific case hereof. It says that when powers or other effects grant PC's benefits for harming a foe, the power implicitly assumes that foe is a legitimate target.

Clearly, miss: or effect: lines don't require hitting a legitimate target. Is the DMG then suggesting that most effect: or miss: powers require at least the belief that you're confronting a legitimate target?

That's a DM call. But as a basic principle, the starting point should be the assumption that the power represents a PC's capability, not some reflection of the belief in a foe. Perhaps some specific powers really are about the heroes' inner turmoil and not about their technique and arcane abilities.

Fundamentally, it's a flavor thing. For me, I think that the baseline should be that a power represents a PC's ability, and is not dependent on any opponent. Only in exceptional cases should this be otherwise.

 

[FurryFighter]

Fundamentally, its a mechanic thing. The teleport is tied to a creature and damaging a creature. Its just a poorly designed power, like many others. fluff it however you like, the idea behind the power is that you get a special ability like teleport to get to the target hit it.

by the way, the burden of proof is on the players, in order to do it. There is a general agreement that if players want to do something that stretches even "fantasy reality and common sense", they better be describing it and figuring out how it will work, otherwise its no go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is no burden of proof. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules. He interprets them for his game, and changes them if he bloodly well feels like it. He has nothing to prove. The player, is free to 'prove' something if he likes, but if the DM doesn't care for it, he can still disallow it. Call it a 'house rule' if you're feeling petulant about it.

That's why 'rules lawyer' is not a complement.

All this 'rules don't say I can't' vs 'rules don't say you can' crap is just that, crap. The rules say what your powers, skills, feats and so forth can and can't do, explicitly. Anything the rules are silent or vague on is up to the DM.

Especially in 4e, since you can't extrapolate or reason by analogy in an exception-based system. Each bit of an exception based system does exactly what it says it does, no more or less. If it doesn't say, the rules offer no guide whatesoever. It's the DMs job to make a ruling in those cases.

Can you use a combat power in a non-combat situation when the power calls for a target and there is none available? Can you manufacture a hypothetical target? Attack an object? Attack an ally? Maybe. Depends on your DM. The DMG seems to advise against it, but that's just advice your DM can ignore if he feels doing so will make his game better.


FREX:

The players are stymied by a skill challenge the DM thought would be easy, stuck on one side of a chasm, with means to cross it available on the other side. Finally, in desperation, the Swordmage player says - I slam my sword into the post of the broken bridge in frustration, and activate my attack power that lets me teleport to the other side. DM: OK, now you can get the others across. Five minutes later, the Cleric decides to cast Astral Seal on a stump, and systematically heal everyone up to full while they chop at it. DM: No, you can't use a power like that out of combat. Cleric: But you let the Swordmage do it! DM: Yeah, that was an exception, welcome to 4e.

 

[Jhaelen]

There is no burden of proof. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules. He interprets them for his game, and changes them if he bloodly well feels like it. He has nothing to prove. The player, is free to 'prove' something if he likes, but if the DM doesn't care for it, he can still disallow it. Call it a 'house rule' if you're feeling petulant about it.

Exactly!

The players are stymied by a skill challenge the DM thought would be easy, stuck on one side of a chasm, with means to cross it available on the other side. Finally, in desperation, the Swordmage player says - I slam my sword into the post of the broken bridge in frustration, and activate my attack power that lets me teleport to the other side. DM: OK, now you can get the others across. Five minutes later, the Cleric decides to cast Astral Seal on a stump, and systematically heal everyone up to full while they chop at it. DM: No, you can't use a power like that out of combat. Cleric: But you let the Swordmage do it! DM: Yeah, that was an exception, welcome to 4e.

And that's an example that could have come right out of one of my games

While I'm generally trying to use consistent ruling, there are situations in which it would be cooler if something that normally doesn't work, _does_ work, and vice versa. I think someone on these boards actually called it his 'rule of cool'.

This is in a way just an extension of DM tools like fudging dice rolls or adjusting encounters on the fly. If using these methods improve the game for everyone, by all means, do so!