CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[Hypersmurf]

Under Area Attack, p271 says "A ball of fire that streaks across the battlefield and explodes is an example of an area attack. A magical wall of fog that springs from the ground to obscure a dungeon corridor is another example."

Does this second example refer to the Wizard spell, Wall of Fog?

Yes, it does. There are other area attacks and other walls as well, of course.

Let me know if you have any further questions!

Cody
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

So given that Wall of Fog - a Utility power without the Attack, Hit, or Miss keywords - is given as an example of an Area Attack, does that mean that the only thing necessary to define a power as an Area Attack is the Area keyword? For example, Blade Barrier (Cleric Attack 9), Astral Defenders (Cleric Attack 9), Hunger of Hadar (Warlock Attack 5), Wall of Fire (Wizard Attack 9), and Wall of Ice (Wizard Attack 15) are all Area Attacks, despite not having the Attack, Hit, or Miss keywords and not requiring an attack roll?

Can we extend this to say that any power possessing the Melee, Ranged, or Close keywords is thus a Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, or Close Attack respectively? For example, Stand Tough (Warlock Utility 6) is a Utility power (like Wall of Fog) and lacks the Attack, Hit, and Miss keywords (like Wall of Fog), but it has the Close keyword; is it therefore defined as a Close Attack in the same way that Wall of Fog is defined as an Area Attack?

If so, then since p270 describes melee, ranged, close, and area as "the four attack types", is it correct to characterise any power carrying the Melee, Ranged, Close, or Area keyword as "an attack"?

What is the underlying question you are driving at? What is it you would ultimately like to know?

Cody

If Wall of Fog is an area attack, which is one of the types of attack, then what is it that determines whether or not a power is "an attack"?

Since several powers reference 'any attack' or 'other attacks', knowing what is or is not an attack is important... and Wall of Fog's inclusion suggests a definition like 'must involve an attack roll' is incomplete or entirely inaccurate.

A power is an attack if in the upper right hand corner of the power's description in the colored bar, it says [class] Attack [level]. Other powers will say Utility or [class] Feature. Wall of Fog is a utility power, so it does not count as an attack.

Cody

Okay. So Wall of Fog is an example of an Area Attack, but it isn't an attack.

Wall of Fire, on the other hand, is a Wizard Attack 9, so it is an attack; someone affected by a Seal of Binding, therefore, takes no damage from a Wall of Fire while the Seal of Binding lasts?

That is correct. Wall of fire is an attack; anyone who is the target of Seal of Binding is protected against all other attacks, including Wall of Fire.

Good gaming!

Cody

It doesn't really address the question of whether or not Wall of Fog is an attack to my satisfaction, since the answer seems to be "It's an area attack, but it's not an attack".

On the other hand, it seems to give the opposite answer to a previous CustServ response someone received on Seal of Binding, wherein the target was only immune to powers requiring attack rolls.

-Hyp.

 

[SadisticFishing]

I love you

But why does it matter if it is an attack? It is an attack, by all definitions. But it is not an attack roll.

Any particular examples?

 

[Sanzuo]

- does this second example refer to the wizard spell, wall of fog?
yes, it does. There are other area attacks and other walls as well, of course.
...
wall of fog is a utility power, so it does not count as an attack.

wtf

 

[theNater]

Some people have been using the word "attack" to indicate an "attack power". This is causing a great deal of confusion to a great many people, and based on what you have shown, the CustServ responders do not seem immune.

In the description of attack types(PHB pages 270-272), it refers to all effects as if they were attacks. But non-attack effects still follow the same space and targeting rules. Healing Word, for example, is not an attack, but functions as a close burst attack for purposes of targeting and provoking opportunity attacks.

An attack is anything that requires an attack roll. That's how you can tell.

Ray of Frost(wizard 1) is an attack power that consists entirely of one attack.

Wall of Fog(wizard 6) is a utility power that does not involve an attack.

Wall of Fire(wizard 9) is an attack power that does not involve an attack.

Icy Rays(wizard 3) is an attack power that consists of either one or two attacks.

Stinking Cloud(wizard 5) is an attack power that includes an attack and another effect, which is not an attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the description of attack types(PHB pages 270-272), it refers to all effects as if they were attacks.

One might think that effects-which-are-not-attacks would not be covered by the description of attack types, and that powers which are described as an example of an area attack are attacks, and thus not effects-which-are-not-attacks.

An attack is anything that requires an attack roll.

... or Wall of Fog, per p271.

-Hyp.

 

[IanB]

Are custserv people empowered to decide that printed examples (like Wall of Fog) are just wrong if they're not in errata, or do they have to kind of do the same Talmudic scholar reading of things that we do?

I would not at all be surprised to see that Wall of Fog thing disappear in errata some time; it seems to muddy up the attack rules completely.

 

[theNater]

One might think that effects-which-are-not-attacks would not be covered by the description of attack types, and that powers which are described as an example of an area attack are attacks, and thus not effects-which-are-not-attacks.

Even though these terms are called "attack types," they apply to utility powers as well as attack powers.

Just because something has an attack type for targeting doesn't make it an attack.

... or Wall of Fog, per p271.

Wall of Fog uses the attack type of "area". That doesn't make it an attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just because something has an attack type for targeting doesn't make it an attack.

Given that the attack type defines something as one of the four types of attack, under the section headed 'Attacks', I'm not sure I can agree.

Wall of Fog is given as an example of an area attack. It doesn't seem correct to say that it is, rather, an example of something that isn't an area attack, but which uses the same targeting rules as area attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[theNater]

Given that the attack type defines something as one of the four types of attack, under the section headed 'Attacks', I'm not sure I can agree.

Well, we've got two options:

1)Accept that the attack type targeting rules work for things that are not attacks.
2)Accept that every power is an attack. Note that every power includes one of the five attack types detailed under "Attack Type and Range", beginning on page 56.

Take your pick.

Wall of Fog is given as an example of an area attack. It doesn't seem correct to say that it is, rather, an example of something that isn't an area attack, but which uses the same targeting rules as area attacks.

If some things that use the area attack type are not attacks, it is reasonable to say that Wall of Fog is being given as an example of something with the area attack type. It is under the area attack type description and given as "another example", rather than "another such attack" or similar wording.

Then there's the technically correct argument that I'm too ashamed to make in public, so it's inside the spoiler block. Feel free to ignore it, but I feel it should be present for the sake of completeness.
[sblock]Throughout the PHB, whenever a power name appears in normal text, it is italicized. The phrase wall of fog on page 271 is not italicized, so even if you insist that the phrase indicates the relevant wall of fog is an attack, it does not necessarily mean the wizard power Wall of Fog is an attack.[/sblock]

 

[DemonLord57]

CustServ makes me laugh
If you ask them about anything controversial (this isn't an example, just saying) enough times, you'll eventually get the response you want. They really don't have any more insight into the text than normal people who can actually read rules text. (and sometimes decidely less)

Honestly, I think you should ignore the text on page 271, because they often have stupid text like that outside of the rules text.