Why are single target powers stated as Close Burst?

[willf]

Thanks for your opinions. I had thought the intention was pretty clear to allow close burst to reach around corners, and the wording of the RAW also allows close burst to reach around corners, so now it is interesting to hear that some readers have read it differently.

I suppose it is possible to explain why sound waves, energy waves, or psychic waves would suddenly stop when they left the field of view of the caster, but intuitively it seems quite clear to me that such waves would continue around corners, through opened doorways, and along other similar pathways. The examples offered in PHB and DMB of LOE continuing through non-physical obstacles appears to support this intuition.

Do you have anything definitive to support those positions you stated? If so, it would help to resolve this issue.

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks for your opinions. I had thought the intention was pretty clear to allow close burst to reach around corners, and the wording of the RAW also allows close burst to reach around corners, so now it is interesting to hear that some readers have read it differently.

I suppose it is possible to explain why sound waves, energy waves, or psychic waves would suddenly stop when they left the field of view of the caster, but intuitively it seems quite clear to me that such waves would continue around corners, through opened doorways, and along other similar pathways.

So, you believe it is possible to shoot arrows around corners then? You only need line of effect for a ranged attack, so if you're willing to take the -5 for shooting blind, this would mean you can shoot around obstacles.

 

[fanboy2000]

So, you believe it is possible to shoot arrows around corners then?

Hey, if it's good enough for Morgan Freeman.

 

[Thraug]

Do you have anything definitive to support those positions you stated? If so, it would help to resolve this issue.

Line of Effect
When there is a line from one point to another in an encounter, there is line of effect. Unless otherwise noted, there must be line of effect between the origin square of an effect and its intended target for that target to be effected. If every imaginary line traced from the origin square to the target passes through or touches blocking terrain, there is no line of effect between the two.

That page also shows a nice picture of this.

 

[Gortle]

The don't do burst and blasts for Ranged and Melee attack-type powers because those powers have their own baggage when it comes to targetting multiple individuals, and as well, there are bonuses to Melee powers you do not want assigned to Close powers. There's also things that key off of close and area powers but not ranged and melee, and things that key off of ranged and area but not close nor melee.

It's just easier, plus, areas are not restricted to bursts or blasts, but also include walls and even singular squares.

How to get it all straight:

Close powers are not melee powers.
Area powers are not ranged powers.
'How do bursts and blasts work with...' is not the way you should be thinking about power interractions with the exception of a handful of feats that work with those ranges.
Personal powers are none of the above.

So, as for why close burst powers exist with a single target: Opportunity attacks, and possible line of sight/effect problems.

Yes but what does it get wrong. Have you every had to work out if a Paladins Divine Challenge does extra damage to a swarm?

In play the GM just called it but later the players never agreed how it should have been played.

WotC would have been better off defining another attack type for this type of utility power.

 

[Balesir]

I think using "Close Burst (one creature in burst)" is elegant and precise for these. The problem with adding new keywords because it "doesn't make sense in normal speech" is "where do you stop?" It seems to me that you could add dozens of keywords based on this criterion - and then the rules would bloat with keywork definitions and the aim of simplification would be lost.

There are two binary switches, here - intended for engaged creatures/not intended for engaged creatures and direct connection to target/indirect connection to target. 2x2 = 4 classes/keywords; that's all you need and all you should define, in my view. Does it take a moment's thought to parse "Close Burst X (one creature in burst)" - sure it does, but it's unambiguous and does not need to elongate the keywords list, advantages that outweigh a moment spent in thought, to me.

 

[Dausuul]

There are two binary switches, here - intended for engaged creatures/not intended for engaged creatures and direct connection to target/indirect connection to target. 2x2 = 4 classes/keywords; that's all you need and all you should define, in my view. Does it take a moment's thought to parse "Close Burst X (one creature in burst)" - sure it does, but it's unambiguous and does not need to elongate the keywords list, advantages that outweigh a moment spent in thought, to me.

Two problems with this.

First, the way these powers are currently formatted, the "you or one ally in the burst" part is not on the same line as "close burst 5" and therefore easy to miss. If you don't see it, you won't parse it. I have had players who thought Healing Word affected everyone within 5 squares, because they saw that the power said "close burst 5" and didn't notice the place in the "target" line where it specifies only one creature.

Fortunately, I've played leader-types and know how their healing powers tend to operate, so I was able to nip that in the bud... but if it had been a different power, I wouldn't know until they started breaking encounters with it. As seems to be the case with most 4E DMs, I don't understand how all the PCs' powers and class abilities work; I rely on my players to handle them properly, only stepping in to say "Hey, are you sure it works like that?" when something seems grossly overpowered.

It's a weakness of exception-based design. In a system with heavy EBD on the player side, rules text needs to be clear enough that all players can understand it and apply it correctly, not just the rules lawyers at the table... because there are just too many rules for the lawyers to remember them all.

Second problem, closely related to the first: People are not computers. It is bad practice to take a concept designed to do one thing and kludge it into something totally different--it undermines the whole concept in the player's head and leads to confusion.

When players see "burst," they are trained to expect an area effect which works on every legitimate target within the area. Trying to use "burst" as a backdoor way of producing a ranged effect that does not provoke is just asking for confusion. If you can have "close burst (one target)," why not instead say "ranged (does not provoke)?" No new keywords required and far less counterintuitive.

 

[willf]

So, you believe it is possible to shoot arrows around corners then? You only need line of effect for a ranged attack, so if you're willing to take the -5 for shooting blind, this would mean you can shoot around obstacles.

So, this is interesting. You are interpreting LOE in terms of projectiles, whereas I am interpreting LOE in terms of area bursts. D&D uses the same term to explain both phenomena. It doesn't make sense for arrows to go around corners, but it also doesn't make sense for sound waves or explosions (or other similar phenomena) to stop at corners or at open doorways. Right now I have access only to the online rules compendium, which does not address all issues, so I will respond more from home.

For a target to be affected by an area attack, there needs to be line of effect from the origin square to the target.

 

[willf]

Thraug -- thanks for the rules quote. Unfortunately, that is precisely the passage that is ambiguous. It is ambiguous because (i) it does not use the word straight, which would have been clear; (ii) in the PHB and the DMB, the same passage also refers to tracing a "path", and the word "path" is rarely taken to mean a "straight path"; and (iii) line of effect is supposed to describe the movement of sounds, explosions, and the like, none of which require straight lines.

I would like to know if Wizards has ever ruled that their intention was for all lines to be straight lines, which would mean that sounds do not go around corners, and would thus possibly change the ruling I make at my table.

I just find it hard to believe that a warlord's ally around the corner can't hear him shout to get moving, just because he can't see him.

 

[Dausuul]

Thraug -- thanks for the rules quote. Unfortunately, that is precisely the passage that is ambiguous. It is ambiguous because (i) it does not use the word straight, which would have been clear; (ii) in the PHB and the DMB, the same passage also refers to tracing a "path", and the word "path" is rarely taken to mean a "straight path"; and (iii) line of effect is supposed to describe the movement of sounds, explosions, and the like, none of which require straight lines.

The "path" part is no longer relevant since the Compendium supersedes the PHB and DMG. As for the rest, the exact same "tracing a line" text is used for a) line of sight, b) cover, and c) concealment. Allowing the lines in question to be non-straight makes all three concepts absurd. I think the intent is obvious.

Now, if you want to house-rule that bursts go around corners, that seems entirely workable to me. In fact, it's got a bit of old-school flavor that I quite like, allowing players to do clever tricky things with area effects by taking advantage of terrain. But it is a house-rule.