CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[On Puget Sound]

"Attack" is the new "Level"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

 

[KarinsDad]

So your ruling on the Divine Challenge scenario - where the enemy takes damage if he makes an attack that does not target the paladin - is that if the enemy casts Wall of Fire, even if he casts it to pass through the paladin's square, he takes the damage? He's 'made an attack', if we consider any attack power to be an attack, but he hasn't made an attack that targets the paladin.

No.

Wall of Fire is an attack (a Wizard Attack Level 9 to be precise). If it targets the Paladin, the enemy is ok. If it does not, he take Divine Challenge damage.

The Paladin is included as a target if he is placed into the Area of Effect of the Attack. Page 271:

An area attack's area of effect sets the shape of the attack and the targets it affects.

Any attack that has an area that includes the Paladin is an attack that targets him and nullifies the damage of Divine Challenge.

This seems crystal clear. Is there a rule that would imply that it works differently?


The enemy could also cast Wall of Fog, with or without the Paladin being in the area, and would not take the Divine Challenge damage since Wall of Fog is not an attack (regardless of the "Attack Type" terminology).

And the Elemental Maw / Righteous Inferno vs Evasion question? If the initial roll misses, the character takes no damage from the Effect?

Yup, Evasion currently reads that it negates the damage of the Effect portion of an attack because it negates the damage of a missed Attack.


Having said that this is what is written, I do not think that this was the intent. It might have been, but I think it is just bad editing.

I think RAI here is that the character takes no damage from the Miss part of the Attack. He still takes damage from the Effect part of the attack.

I view Hit as "only hit targets take this portion", Miss as "only missed targets take this portion", and Effect as "everyone takes this portion".

Now, the designers might come out and state that Evasion does indeed do that (i.e. they mean the entire Attack as opposed to just the Miss portion). If they meant it that way, they should have stated it more clear and should clarify it in the FAQ or errata.

If they meant it like I think they did, they should have stated "the damage portion of the Miss part of the attack is negated" or some such, and again should clarify it in the FAQ or errata.


In any case, Evasion currently reads that it negates the damage of the Effect because it negates the damage of the attack. So, that is the rule until WotC clarifies differently.

Turns out, actually, I think he was spot-on... Wall of Fog is an area attack (it has an Attack Type of Area), but it is not an attack, nor is it an attack power.

The phrase Attack Type of Area is semantical silliness. The designers goofed here.

Sure, the book literally states Attack Type Area. The designers did not realize that they accidentally opened a can of worms with this because the following sentence is not enough to convince everyone:

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

This sentence is enough to show designer intent. Attack Type is just a term and a poor one at that and does not have anything to do with whether a power is an attack, nor does it turn utility powers into attack powers.

The term "Attack Type" should have never been used. It should have been called "Primary Action Type" or something else since not all "Attack Types" are attacks. Many of them are, but since all of them are not, the term is inferior and misleading. If the designers would have called it "Primary Action Type" (or something) instead of "Attack Type", we would not be having this portion of this discussion right now.


Yes, the CustServ guy was literally correct that Wall of Fog is "an Attack Type Area" power. But, it is not an attack (as you say).

And in the case of calling CustServ, I suspect we are wanting a RAI answer, not a RAW one.

What good is a RAW answer from CustServ. We can literally misinterpret RAW for ourselves.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wall of Fire is an attack (a Wizard Attack Level 9 to be precise). If it targets the Paladin, the enemy is ok. If it does not, he take Divine Challenge damage.

The Paladin is included as a target if he is placed into the Area of Effect of the Attack. Page 271:
An area attack's area of effect sets the shape of the attack and the targets it affects.

Any attack that has an area that includes the Paladin is an attack that targets him and nullifies the damage of Divine Challenge.

This seems crystal clear. Is there a rule that would imply that it works differently?

Yup - Target, p57. "If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a 'Target' or 'Targets' entry."

Consider Fireball. Area: burst 3 within 20 squares. Target: Each creature in burst.

Now consider Wall of Fire. Area: wall 8 within 10 squares. Target... oops, no target entry.

The area determines which targets the attack effects, but Wall of Fire doesn't affect targets at all.

And indeed, if I cast Wall of Fire so that the paladin's square is affected by the wall, nothing happens to him on my turn. And if someone shifts him two squares away before his turn, nothing happens to him on his turn either. He was never a target of the power, because the power doesn't have targets.

It's true that an area attack's area of effect will determine which targets it affects, but that's only meaningful if the power has targets.

After all, consider p56: "An area power creates an area of effect that can originate in a distant square and hits multiple targets or creates an obstacle."

Fireball hits multiple targets. Wall of Fire creates an obstacle. Fireball has targets, Wall of Fire doesn't.

-Hyp.

 

[ryryguy]

Now consider Wall of Fire. Area: wall 8 within 10 squares. Target... oops, no target entry.

The area determines which targets the attack effects, but Wall of Fire doesn't affect targets at all.

And indeed, if I cast Wall of Fire so that the paladin's square is affected by the wall, nothing happens to him on my turn. And if someone shifts him two squares away before his turn, nothing happens to him on his turn either. He was never a target of the power, because the power doesn't have targets.

<snip>

Fireball hits multiple targets. Wall of Fire creates an obstacle. Fireball has targets, Wall of Fire doesn't.

-Hyp.

Bah. I had not actually looked at Wall of Fire. That does seem to mean that you could get around taking damage from a Divine Challenge, or avoid blowing your invisibility, by using Wall of Fire... and still effectively target somebody by dropping the wall on top of them.

That doesn't sit too well with me. I guess you could make a house rule that if an enemy is in the area of the spell when you cast it, it counts as an attack for these purposes, but I'm not sure that would be wise either. And for Wall of Fire, you'll catch people who are adjacent to it, too.

Bah.

 

[ShaggySpellsword]

Ultimately, we need the following question answered:

"When a power, feat, class ability, or other rule refers to an "attack," is it talking about an Attack Power as defined in the power's heading, or is it referring to an attack roll which includes a hit and sometimes a miss entry?"

Can we just ask that?

 

[KarinsDad]

Yup - Target, p57. "If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a 'Target' or 'Targets' entry."

Consider Fireball. Area: burst 3 within 20 squares. Target: Each creature in burst.

Now consider Wall of Fire. Area: wall 8 within 10 squares. Target... oops, no target entry.

The area determines which targets the attack effects, but Wall of Fire doesn't affect targets at all.

And indeed, if I cast Wall of Fire so that the paladin's square is affected by the wall, nothing happens to him on my turn. And if someone shifts him two squares away before his turn, nothing happens to him on his turn either. He was never a target of the power, because the power doesn't have targets.

It's true that an area attack's area of effect will determine which targets it affects, but that's only meaningful if the power has targets.

After all, consider p56: "An area power creates an area of effect that can originate in a distant square and hits multiple targets or creates an obstacle."

Fireball hits multiple targets. Wall of Fire creates an obstacle. Fireball has targets, Wall of Fire doesn't.

Good point.

Read the Choosing Targets paragraph:

If you want to use a power against an enemy, the enemy must be within the range of your power, and you have to be able to target the enemy. Many powers allow you to target multiple enemies. Each of these enemies must be an eligible target.

According to your "an Attack power must have the Target keyword in order to target an enemy" definition, then Wall of Fire is not a power that can EVER be used against an enemy.

At all.

According to your Targeting definition, it's not just that it cannot Target a Paladin, it can NEVER be used against anyone.

An area attack's area of effect sets the shape of the attack and the targets it affects.

This does not say and/or. It says and. Without the target keyword, areas affect ZERO targets. I don't think so. They don't necessarily affect them immediately like most attack powers, but Wall of Fire still burns.


There are only 3 Wall spells in the PHB that this applies to (that I could find).

So given these slight discrepencies, I would just add the Target keyword to Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, and Blade Barrier and let it go at that. These 3 powers then affect Divine Challenge.

I consider this a typo.

Otherwise, we have rules discrepencies and arguments forever as to which rule trumps which rule, etc.

Meh.


The alternative is to state that all Effects still target foes.

Six of one, half a dozen of another. There are a bunch of rules (like the Range rules) that talk about Targets which become invalidated or screwed up if Area Effects do not always Target foes (or even allies for that matter).

The word target is used all over the place, just because it is a standard English word to talk about a foe or enemy or ally. I'm not convinced that every single use of it in the PHB means page 57 Targeted.

 

[The Little Raven]

"What is an attack?"

A d20 check which targets a Defense.

An "Attack Power" is not the same as an "attack roll," which is the actual attack in question. Attack Powers is simply a label for the type of power it is, for the purpose of determining how many powers of what type you possess.

Wall of Fire is an Attack Power, but as it does not have a d20 check which targets a defense, it does not feature an attack roll, and therefore is not an attack.

A power's Effect box is completely unrelated to any of it's possible attack rolls, and therefore is not affected by abilities that springboard from a hit or a miss.

Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll. The “Attack” entry specifies the kind of attack you make and which of the target’s defenses you check against.

Most attack powers require an attack roll, but not all. If it doesn't have an Attack entry, then the power is not making an attack (despite the label of Attack Power, which is there for character management purposes).

 

[Regicide]

If you want to ask CustServ questions and get proper answers, you have to give them all of the details you have and let them make an informed decision.

Asking piecemeal gets you piecemeal conflicting answers.

Custserv are not allowed to make decisions. Their job is to answer questions. If they can't answer a general question, then they're useless. I feel sympathy for them since 4E has made their job much more difficult.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, my "Talmudic scholar" interpretation is that page 271 is illustrating what it means for something to be an area; fireball and wall of fog are indisputably both area effects. While a literal reading of the text does imply that wall of fog is an attack, I don't think that was the intention.

As for what constitutes an attack, I would argue that the definition ought to be based off an attack roll, simply because that definition applies to both PCs and monsters. Monster powers do not specify "Attack" or "Utility," and the question actually comes up with monsters more than it does with PCs, since the monsters are the usual targets of divine challenge and the like.

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, my "Talmudic scholar" interpretation is that page 271 is illustrating what it means for something to be an area; fireball and wall of fog are indisputably both area effects.

271 specifically deals with Area Attacks.

272 deals with Area of Effect (burst, blast, wall), which is not necessarily an attack.

So, Wall of Fog is definitely an area of effect, but it isn't necessarily an area attack.