Why are single target powers stated as Close Burst?

[Prestidigitalis]

They could have avoided all the complexity by adding one more keyword.

"Safe": A safe power does not provoke OAs.

 

[Dausuul]

I think a lot of power descriptions could stand to be more explicit, rather than relying on the player having comprehensive knowledge of all the technical terms of the 4e ruleset.

And I say this as a computer programmer who digs that kind of stuff.

I must spread some more XP around before giving it to Dungeoneer again.

Ranged 5, does not provoke OAs is very different from Close Burst 5, targets one creature in burst.

You'll appreciate the difference the next time your PC is Blinded yet still wants to attack.

That's not what I'd call "very different." That's what I call "different in a handful of corner cases, which do not come up enough to have an appreciable impact on game balance."

 

[Joshua Randall]

That's not what I'd call "very different." That's what I call "different in a handful of corner cases, which do not come up enough to have an appreciable impact on game balance."

I only listed one case.

Close bursts treat cover differently than ranged, in a way that makes sense. Trace from origin of burst (makes sense), and ignore creatures-as-cover (makes sense because the burst "goes around" the creature whereas an arrow or "spell ray" would not).

You can also burst a creature around a corner that you don't have direct LOS/LOE to, if the burst is big enough. (Also makes sense -- you know the guy went down the left corridor, you can't see him, but you can drop a fireball at the intersection.)

Ranged is affected by concealment; burst is not. Also makes sense -- you need to see a creature clearly to target it with ranged (else -2 penalty for conceal), but for a burst you just need to know "it's in the fog somewhere".

All of these create interesting tactical decisions. They are "corner cases", yes, but the entire game is corner cases.

 

[Dausuul]

I only listed one case.

Close bursts treat cover differently than ranged, in a way that makes sense. Trace from origin of burst (makes sense), and ignore creatures-as-cover (makes sense because the burst "goes around" the creature whereas an arrow or "spell ray" would not).

The creatures-as-cover rule is the only difference here. It's a close burst; you are the origin of the burst, so tracing line of sight from the origin gives exactly the same result as line of sight for a ranged attack.

You can also burst a creature around a corner that you don't have direct LOS/LOE to, if the burst is big enough. (Also makes sense -- you know the guy went down the left corridor, you can't see him, but you can drop a fireball at the intersection.)

See above. This only makes a difference with area bursts, where the point of origin is different from the creator of the effect. We're talking strictly about close bursts.

Ranged is affected by concealment; burst is not. Also makes sense -- you need to see a creature clearly to target it with ranged (else -2 penalty for conceal), but for a burst you just need to know "it's in the fog somewhere".

This is true. However, I still think the number of cases where this is a concern is too small to have a notable effect on game balance. There's seldom any particular reason why these situations ought to be resolved in the "close burst" way rather than the "ranged attack" way, or for that matter the "melee reach X" way.

Moreover, most of these powers are things like "Healing Word," with no attack roll involved. In that situation, normal cover and concealment are irrelevant, and total cover applies regardless. Only in cases of total concealment is there a difference.

 

[willf]

I agree that a different keyword would have been preferable.

However, I believe that close bursts operate on line of effect rather than line of sight, so indeed you can heal the ally around the corner.

To make things even more double negative, some close bursts have the following target line:
target: one ally you can see

 

[MrMyth]

Ranged 5, does not provoke OAs is very different from Close Burst 5, targets one creature in burst.

You'll appreciate the difference the next time your PC is Blinded yet still wants to attack.

Yes. The problem is, I don't think that is an intended benefit of these powers. Some of them, sure - often ones that might say something like, "1 or 2 targets within burst". Or ones described as a burst that might only hurt one enemy, but provide a benefit to allies in the area. Those are clear cases where the intent is to have a burst like power that only hits one enemy, and should have all the benefits and penalties thereof.

But many others clearly are intended to be no different from other single target attack powers... except the designers didn't want the powers to provoke, and thus used the shortcut of making the power 1 target within a burst. Which might be an elegant way to make that work in the system, but is overall just lazy design.

Why does my "Ray of Reprisal" - a ray, a beam, a ranged attack by any other name - ignore concealment and go around targets in the way?

 

[Dausuul]

I agree that a different keyword would have been preferable.

However, I believe that close bursts operate on line of effect rather than line of sight, so indeed you can heal the ally around the corner.

You don't have line of sight or line of effect to somebody around the corner. The only case where LoS and LoE are different is when there's no physical obstacle between you and the target, but your vision is obscured (by fog, darkness, blindness, etc.). Edit: Or when there is a physical obstacle, but it's transparent, like a glazed window or a force field.

To make things even more double negative, some close bursts have the following target line:
target: one ally you can see

In which case, assuming no attack roll is involved, we're back to having no difference at all between "close burst" and "ranged non-provoking."

 

[willf]

You don't have line of sight or line of effect to somebody around the corner. The only case where LoS and LoE are different is when there's no physical obstacle between you and the target, but your vision is obscured (by fog, darkness, blindness, etc.). Edit: Or when there is a physical obstacle, but it's transparent, like a glazed window or a force field."

I believe LOS and LOE are quite different. LOE does not require LOS, so a caster would have LOE around the corner. This is what allows healing word to be applied around a corner and spirit companions to appear in the next room (if the door is opened). The PHB and DMB both say that the key for LOE is that there is an unblocked path from the origin (the caster of a close burst) and the target space. They do describe tracing a "line". I can see some ambiguity in that word, because perhaps "line" implies "straight line", but they do not use the word "straight", and they do use the word "path", so the context does not suggest adding the word "straight" to the interpretation (unless there is some other ruling somehwere else that uses the word "straight" with LOE).

 

[Dausuul]

I believe LOS and LOE are quite different. LOE does not require LOS, so a caster would have LOE around the corner. This is what allows healing word to be applied around a corner and spirit companions to appear in the next room (if the door is opened). The PHB and DMB both say that the key for LOE is that there is an unblocked path from the origin (the caster of a close burst) and the target space. They do describe tracing a "line". I can see some ambiguity in that word, because perhaps "line" implies "straight line", but they do not use the word "straight", and they do use the word "path", so the context does not suggest adding the word "straight" to the interpretation (unless there is some other ruling somehwere else that uses the word "straight" with LOE).

You're really reaching, there.

The obvious intent of "line" is "straight line." Otherwise this snippet from the melee cover rules:

Defender’s Burden: The target of a melee attack has to prove that it has cover. That proof consists of a line between the attacker and the defender that is blocked by a solid object.

...means that everyone has cover at all times from all melee attacks ever, since no range limit is specified and you can always draw a line that sweeps out to tag a solid object before coming back to the target. On the other hand, no one ever has cover from ranged attacks unless they're in a hermetically sealed bubble:

The attacker chooses one corner of a square he occupies, and draws imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the defender occupies. If none of those lines are blocked by a solid object or an enemy creature, the attacker has a clear shot. The defender doesn’t have cover. (A line that runs parallel right along a wall isn’t blocked.)

 

[Mirtek]

I believe LOS and LOE are quite different.

They are

LOE does not require LOS

That's also correct.

, so a caster would have LOE around the corner.

That's not. A corner blocks both LoS and LoE