attacking without attacking

[DracoSuave]

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'.

Here you go.

Bearing in mind, what is cool is also genre-specific. So what is cool in GRR Martin would not be cool in David+Leigh Eddings.

 

[Diirk]

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.

Well actually the rules do say that you can in this case. If the DM wants to disallow it, then fine, its his game. But the rules do allow it.

I've covered the attacking a square thing a few times, that's explicitly allowed whenever you feel like it. The "Bag o' rats" rule doesn't apply, as its not an effect thats dependant on a hit, so we have to use the normal rules about powers with "Effect:" lines:

"Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required."

So regardless of whether our attack rule is a success (and attacking a square if you know nothing is in it is sure to be a failure), the teleport works.

This particular case I can see why some people would want to disallow it. But by the rules as far as I can tell, its perfectly legitimate.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well actually the rules do say that you can in this case. If the DM wants to disallow it, then fine, its his game. But the rules do allow it.

I've covered the attacking a square thing a few times, that's explicitly allowed whenever you feel like it.

Pick a Square and Attack: Choose a square to attack, using whatever information you’ve gleaned so far about the target’s location. Roll the attack normally (taking the –5 penalty for attacking a creature that has total concealment). If you pick the wrong square, your attack automatically misses, but only the DM knows whether you guessed the wrong square or your attack just missed.

You need a target in order to start guessing the square it is in. No target, no information gleaned, no clue at all there's a creature present, no targetting a square.

The "Bag o' rats" rule doesn't apply, as its not an effect thats dependant on a hit, so we have to use the normal rules about powers with "Effect:" lines:

"Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required."

Who cares?

You still require a target in order to attack a square. And you require a target to teleport adjacent to. The effect requires that target. And 'attacking a square' is -not- allowed in the rules unless you're chasing down a creature you can't see. See above. You need a target before you can start guessing where it is, and you need information about it before you can guess where it is.

Bag 'o rats -doesn't- allow you to use rules for targetting invisible creatures to just willynilly attack nothing. The DM -can- put the kybosh on that -if- he feels it's not right.

So regardless of whether our attack rule is a success (and attacking a square if you know nothing is in it is sure to be a failure), the teleport works.

If you know nothing is in that square, then you cannot guess that square as you have no information showing a target could be in that square. See above section I just quoted.

Don't be making -up- rules now.

This particular case I can see why some people would want to disallow it. But by the rules as far as I can tell, its perfectly legitimate.

Except for the not using 'Attacking What you Cannot See' to mean 'Attacking WHat You Know Does Not Exist.' That part's a lot of a violation and -that- can be bag-of-rats or whatever you want to call that section of the DMG that allows a DM to go 'No, even if you could technically do that, that's against the intent and spirit of how that rule works.'

 

[Iron Dog]

Seems to be a lot of discussion here, now to throw my lot into the mix.

I had a like-wise thing pop up a while back and thought to ask the question to the wizards customer support.

The question I posed was this:

I attack the darkness... seriously.
As per the update to the players handbook for page 57.
Target [Addition]
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential target.”

Would it then be feasible (DM’s discretion provided) to use a power targeted to a space/ground (or passing fly for that matter) that is within reach? Or would this cause to much abuse to the rules?

Say for example. A Warlord uses the power Wolf Pack Tactics. The Warlord allows an adjacent ally to shift then waves his sword about at nothing in particular.

Response:

The rules say nothing about allowing that, so it'd be entirely up to the DM's discretion to do or not. It's an odd sort of scenario, but does make sense. In the end though, it's his decision.

My decision concerning this to my home game:

There is no problem attacking nothing to achieve an effect, provided that the effect is not designated to affect the nothing. After all in the above example the warlord is forgoing possibly inflecting damage to an acceptable target to simply not have the need to target a target, and that seem as a good trade off concerning the economy of actions and damage per round output.

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually, that's a case where I'd disallow it. He's giving free movement to another player. That's not the same case as using a standard action to give yourself movement... if the Warlord wants the benefit of such a power, he should be in combat where his abilities function, unless he can give a valid narrative on how his attack allows an opening where his friend can close around the air.

However, if you allow it, that's also your decision to make. If I were a player at your table, I wouldn't mind, and I'd use it as an opportunity to do cool things. And if you didn't allow it, I'd use other opportunities and still do cool things.

The onus is on the DM to decide, but he doesn't have to by default. The -player- needs to make a case.

'You may, if the DM allows it, attack objects' doesn't mean 'You may attack the air.'

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, and that's solely the DM's decision to make. And when you sit at a DM's table you accept that when you seek to bend the rules, he has -every right- to say 'No.'

He's not denying you -anything.- He's simply not allowing you to go against the rules.

 

[eamon]

You persist in misrepresenting the rules to suggest that the DM could override the rules to permit something unreasonable. That's

He's not denying you -anything.- He's simply not allowing you to go against the rules.

The player isn't going against any rules by attacking an empty square. At worst he's using the rules in an unintended - but not unbalanced - fashion. There are rules permitting a player to attack a square but the DM may, at his disgression, override those rules since they were likely not intended for that use. Alternatively, the DM might permit the PC to attack an object, again at his disgression.

The onus is on the DM to decide, but he doesn't have to by default. The -player- needs to make a case.

Whether or not the player makes the case, the DM will need to decide.

'You may, if the DM allows it, attack objects' doesn't mean 'You may attack the air.'

It certainly could mean that - and the player could also simply target the square rather than any single object.


You admit the obvious: a DM is the final arbiter. However, you also suggest that the clear default choice is for the DM to deny the player the option of attacking an empty square to be able to trigger effects without attacking an opponent. That position is not supported by the game.

The simple matter is that there is a rule permitting attacking empty squares, but that using it to attack a square that is known empty doesn't seem to have been it's original purpose - so the DM can reasonably say it's a no go.

 

[Iron Dog]

I completely agree, the onus is on the DM to decide, as echoed by the sentiment of customer support in the example above, I also try to say "Yes" to the players when making such decisions after all 4th ed was all about trying to say yes to the players and just have fun, unless I guess if you're playing for sheep stations or attempting to run a simulation, or even trying to impose competitive play amongst the players (I killed more things/did more damage/did whatever than that you did, yadda yadda), all of which I consider to be somewhat unfun in my book, but that’s just me.

The above question that I sent to customer support was only done so as I had a really painful rules lawyer playing the warlord who even tho accepted my ruling when it popped up, wanted to know who/what/when/where/why and how I made such a ruling, (even tho it was in the players benefit, to which btw I also rule "if players can, so can monsters".), this slowed the game to a stop and spoiled all the fun for everyone else. To which I told him to just take it for now and I'll send him the details of which later, hence the customer support question.

It is also now the reason that I impose this following house rule to all my games:

THE DM ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT, BUT HE IS THE ONE THAT ALWAYS DECIDES WHAT RIGHT IS.
(Disclaimer: This rule is not set in stone, and if certain situations occur, may seem to be subjected to acts of hypocrisy, so there, meh )

So giving up a potential damage from an attack to give a free shift to another player of which you can get to give away anyway if you where to make the attack, whether it hit or not, to me isn’t really a big quibble.

, but then again that could just be me.

 

[DracoSuave]

It certainly could mean that - and the player could also simply target the square rather than any single object.

Provided the player has information that could allow him to reasonably guess a target is in that square, during the process of attacking said target, yes he could.

Again, the rule is not 'You may attack any square' and it doesn't say that, and has never said that. It is 'You may guess a square that the target is in based on information.' followed by 'If you guess wrong, you miss the target, but you are not informed if it is because the target was not in the square or if you failed the roll.' Guessing a target's is not the same as hitting any square you want ever. And the attacking the square specificly mentions a miss.

Missing a target can have an effect--so a Swordmage, for example, should -not- be allowed to use his Reliable power that has the effect of expanding his critical range on the air just to get the Crit Range for free every time he goes travelling.

And stop pretending it is this way.


And it doesn't mean 'Attack the air.' It means 'Attack the air, if and only if the DM considers the air an object, and if, and only if, the DM allows it.' Totally different scenario.

 

[eamon]

The rules minutiae regarding attacking empty squares distract from the actual question here:

Why should a DM permit or forbid this action?

Pros:

1. If a power sometimes triggers and sometimes does not when used on an empty square - depending on whether the PC believes an invisible enemy is there - you've got a consistency problem.
2. The effect of the power is not contingent on a hit, merely on an attack. If the attack doesn't matter for the effect, there's an argument that forgoing the attack shouldn't affect the effect. There a related (though imperfect) precedent: The Player's Handbook 2 FAQ states that you can forgo the secondary attack of the sorcerer power chaos bolt if the only valid targets would be allies.
3. Saying no may encourage the truly ridiculous -- say, if the swordmage sheaths his sword, takes a run action, and then attacks the party member with the highest defense score (who's a total defense action), there's likely to bevirtually no risk of hitting, providing a valid almost risk-free (if ludicrous) target for the power.
4. Allowing the player to forgo the attack does not cause direct balance issues. This being the case, it's generally nice to say yes.

Cons:

1. Attacking nothing is ridiculous, and undermines the ambiance you're aiming for.
2. Though there is a rule that seems to apply, it is written to apply in a different scenario. If you permit forgoing the attack now, then for consistency, you may be pressed into permitting all other attacks without valid enemies, and that risks being imbalanced.

For me, the pro's outweigh the cons: in particular the consistency argument (1) and the why-not(4) argument hold much weight for me. Due to counter argument (1), I would require the player to flavor his teleport appropriately - no pretending the air is your mortal enemy.

 

[eamon]

Provided the player has information that could allow him to reasonably guess a target is in that square, during the process of attacking said target, yes he could.

Again, the rule is not 'You may attack any square' and it doesn't say that, and has never said that.

PHB 272 (emphasis mine):

When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment and you have to guess its location.
​

Useful - not necessarily limited to. The segment on targeting what you can't see (p. 281, and updated on the last page of PHB2) does not contradict this section, although it does provide mechanics to pinpoint squares of unseen targets, should you choose to do so.

Again, I don't think this is the core issue here. The core issue is whether you want to permit this.