Why are single target powers stated as Close Burst?

[willf]

I had a chance to do some reading of the various book last night. It is now clear that wizards tried to accomplish two jobs with the LOE rules: (i) describe the straight lines of projectiles such as arrows; and (ii) describe the spread of waves, such as sound and force waves, which do not go in straight lines. Obviously, the same rules cannot adequately describe both phenomena, because arrows cannot go around corners, but sounds clearly do go around corners. It may in fact be the ambiguity in the word "line" that allowed the two different readings in the two different contexts, and thus allowed the inconsistency to go unnoticed.

Unless we get a specific ruling, I'm going to decide that LOE's are straight in ranged attacks and that they are not straight in bursts and blasts. I'm not saying that you neccessarily should do it this way, and in fact you're free to houserule that LOE's are straight in bursts and blasts. Ideally, I would like an official ruling on this.

Returning to the OP: it may be that another reason for the use of close burst for these powers, rather than something like "ranged (does not provoke)", was in fact to allow these powers to follow wave physics rather than projectile physics, i.e., to allow them to go around corners.

FYI: DMB = Dungeon Master's Book, not Dungeon Master's Guide. The DMB is contemporaneous with the Rules Compendium.

 

[Dausuul]

I had a chance to do some reading of the various book last night. It is now clear that wizards tried to accomplish two jobs with the LOE rules: (i) describe the straight lines of projectiles such as arrows; and (ii) describe the spread of waves, such as sound and force waves, which do not go in straight lines. Obviously, the same rules cannot adequately describe both phenomena, because arrows cannot go around corners, but sounds clearly do go around corners. It may in fact be the ambiguity in the word "line" that allowed the two different readings in the two different contexts, and thus allowed the inconsistency to go unnoticed.

Maybe it depends on what the definition of "is" is?

Come on, dude. You're tying yourself in knots trying to avoid a very simple truth: Line of effect is obviously supposed to mean a straight line. 4E is not a physics simulator, bursts are not meant to accurately reproduce the behavior of waves, and there is not a shred of evidence anywhere to suggest otherwise. The ambiguity here is all in your head.

I will point out one additional reference: In 3.5E, an area-effect spell could produce either a "burst" or a "spread*." The sole difference between the two was that spreads could turn corners and bursts could not. If they had chosen to carry the concept of a corner-turning AoE forward into 4th Edition, why would they pick the term that specifically meant it couldn't turn corners? I think it's pretty clear that WotC considered this, decided that it was more important to preserve the "burst" behavior than the "spread" behavior and not worth preserving both, and discarded the latter.

[size=-2]*Or an "emanation," which was just a burst with non-instantaneous duration.[/size]

 

[MrMyth]

Willf, I'm pretty confindently that LoE is straight in both blasts and ranged attacks - it may not perfectly mirror real world physics, but in this case, 4E has valued simplicity over simulation. You are certainly free to houserule otherwise, but it definitely is a house rule.

Here's the compendium entry on Blocking Terrain:

"A type of terrain that blocks squares, often by filling them. Examples: Walls, doors, and large pillars. Blocking terrain provides cover, interferes with movement around it, and blocks line of effect. It also blocks line of sight, unless it’s transparent."

Line of effec and line of sight are blocked. Under blasts and bursts:

"A blast affects a target only if the target is in the blast’s area and if there is line of effect from the origin square to the target."

"A burst affects a target only if there is line of effect from the burst’s origin square to the target."

Note that line of effect has to originate from the origin square. Not from some other square in the area - you can't draw a line out to the edge of the burst and then draw it down a hallway. It requires a line from the origin square.

It may be true that the words "straight line" are never specified in the rules - but every example and description indicates that this is implied. Look under every rule for explaining cover - if lines other than straight were allowed, cover wouldn't function at all. And there is certainly no reason to assume that straight line would apply for ranged attacks but not for burst attacks using the same rules.

Now, I get why you disagree and why you think you should rule otherwise. And, honestly, I don't think the game will break down if you allow blasts and bursts to spread around corners. But I think it is worthwhile to recognize that it is a house rule, and that the decision may ripple to effect other elements of the game in unexpected ways. As long as you are ok with that - by all means, it is your game, run it the way that feels right! As long as you let the players know and everyone is fine with it, the more power to you!

 

[WalterKovacs]

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."

Except of course:

(a) The powers that do use attack rolls are already using close burst instead of ranged non-provoking, so invoking the latter is being inconsistent with other existing powers

(b) Close burst already exists. Ranged non-provoking is an exception. Creating something knew and wordy, just for the sake of being exactly the same as something that already exists, seems like a bit of a waste.

Also, even powers like healing word which does't require any attack roll, there are feats (or potential for feats) which can increase the size of bursts (but don't increase ranges of ranged powers) similarly there are powers that increase range but not size of bursts (there are implements for both that I know of). Similarly there are feats for some things that modify stuff so, for example "one other ally in burst", or something to that effect getting a modifier.

Players should be looking to see which creatures get targetted anyway. Even if there was no "one target in burst" confussion, they'd still have to see "you or one ally" vs. "one ally". They'd have to see with other burst powers whether it's "all creatures" or "all enemies". Clearing up confusion in one case wouldn't prevent confusion is other cases. In the big picture, players reading the target line, as well as the attack type, is the most universal solution.

EDIT:

The Line of Effect rules do mean that, in the case of area attacks, since their origin square is the center of the burst, not the caster, so it's possible to attack a target that cannot be seen by the caster (around a corner), so long as there is LoE from the center of the burst. With close bursts, that won't come into play ... but there is stuff like Arcane Reach which allows you to change the origin square for close attack powers, etc.

 

[erleni]

As for "www. tsr. com", I'm a fan of it still being around simply due to being the quickest address you need to type to get to the D&D webpage.

+1

Back on topic. I personally like the current set-up of close and ranged attacks. It's easy to remember and neat.

 

[Balesir]

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.

snippage

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.

Except that, for many/most bursts, you need to check the "Target" line to see whether it affects enemies, allies or creatures at the very least. It seems to me that if players are not reading their own powers completely there is likely to be problems in many areas; it's just a skill that is part of being a D&D player - comprehensive reading for clear comprehension

People are not computers, sure - but this is an unusually, perhaps uniquely, mind-based game/hobby. Not taking time to clearly grasp the details of the (entirely imaginary) action going on is pretty much a debar to successful play. You might say it's a "core value" in roleplaying. None of the subject "world" being built and manipulated is real - it's in the players' minds. Spending the time and effort needed to clearly "see" the imaginary structure being played with is pretty fundamental.

 

[KarinsDad]

Unless we get a specific ruling, I'm going to decide that LOE's are straight in ranged attacks and that they are not straight in bursts and blasts. I'm not saying that you neccessarily should do it this way, and in fact you're free to houserule that LOE's are straight in bursts and blasts. Ideally, I would like an official ruling on this.

Both line of sight and line of effect in the Rules Compendium start with:

"A clear line from one point to another point"

I think you are confusing the movement rules that do not have to be a straight line with the line of sight and line of effect rules that are pretty crystal clear.

Your game, your house rules. But, this is not ambigous and other people who play it as intended are not houseruling it.

 

[Mapache]

Except that, for many/most bursts, you need to check the "Target" line to see whether it affects enemies, allies or creatures at the very least. It seems to me that if players are not reading their own powers completely there is likely to be problems in many areas; it's just a skill that is part of being a D&D player - comprehensive reading for clear comprehension

Given that you can't understand how the power works without both the Range and Target entries, and given how many people manage to miss one when reading over powers, I think the current way of writing it is a clear failure of presentation. They should be combined into a single string, that way people will naturally read all of it. They should be presented as:

One Ally in Close Burst 5
All Creatures in Area Burst 1
One Enemy in Range 10

 

[DracoSuave]

Of course people are having trouble understanding it: They're not using the right language.

The word 'burst' has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and is not what defines why the power works as it does. The word you want to use is 'Close' which is actually meaningful in relation to opportunity actions and cover and concealment and all that stuff that matter to this situation.

Who cares what bursts do or do not do--it's not even important to how the power functions. You see Close, you see 'One target in burst' and it's not hard to understand what's going on.

There's very few things that care about whether something is a burst in this game.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I fall into the 'people are not computers' category on this argument. As delightful as it is to have pre-defined turns like 'burst' and 'close' that have specific technical meanings within the rules, it is confusing to many non-DMs.

Is it elegant? Yes. But clarity trumps elegance. If a rule confuses people, no matter how elegant it is, it needs to be expanded on and clarified. We can argue in circles where the line is, but I take a practical view - does 'close burst single target in burst' suggest a ranged attack that does not provoke OA to people who haven't memorized the burst section? No. So it could be clearer, and should be written that way.

I'm not saying that every possible implication of every rule needs to be written into every power. Obviously you need the pre-defined technical terms to keep each At-Will power block from turning into a ten-page explanation. But there are many, many instances where the 'intended effect' of a power is buried in technical, rules-specific terms. I think it wouldn't kill them to write out the main point of a power: "This power is a ranged attack that does not provoke OAs." Is that so bad?

When I'm writing code in a computer language, every statement has one and only one possible meaning. If a statement is ambiguous, even a little, the code will not compile. There's something to be said for writing a statement as concisely as possible, since it will always be unambiguous to the computer.

Natural language does not work like this.

In natural language, every sentence, every phrase, every word is loaded with conceptual baggage and possible alternative meanings. As noted philosopher Bill Clinton once pondered, "That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." Treating natural language like a computer language (or vice versa) is, IMHO, a mistake, since they are intended for fundamentally different purposes.

Although it would appear that there are plenty of people on these forums that think otherwise, the truth is that you cannot write a sentence in English that is completely unambiguous, i.e. it has one and only one possible meaning. Everything you read, you interpret, at some level or other. You see the term RAW, Rules As Written, bandied about as if there were some way to parse the rules free of bias and interpretation. I'm sorry, but you can't, because you're a human and you're reading rules written by other humans.

That doesn't means we should throw our hands up and start making up rules willy nilly. My life depends every day on my ability to correctly interpret natural language instructions like 'STOP' and 'DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE'. There are general, common sense understandings of these statements that most people will agree on most of the time. They have a certain clarity and simplicity about them which helps.

Game rules should work the same way: Simplicity and clarity should be favored over technical and obtuse; When possible be explicit, don't imply things; Remember that humans are not computers and that natural language is inherently ambiguous; Don't try to be elegant or clever, just say what you mean.

We'll never get away from having arguments over 'corner cases' like lines going around corners. That just stems from our use of natural language. But I think the focus of a rule should be on making clear the most common application of the rule (ie to not provoke OAs). That's entirely feasible. 4e could certainly do it better.