Forked Thread: Are Targets defined by intent or the effect?

[Slander]

Forked from: "Can't finish its action..."

As I was debating this thread, I realized I needed an answer to a more fundamental question before I could continue. Is the Target(s) of an attack decided before the attack is resolved, or decided based on the actual resolution (effect/hit) of the attack? An important factor to consider when making your case are the variety of interrupts in the game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think intent comes into it.

Consider a character facing two invisible opponents, one of whom has marked him. He says "I'll try to hit the guy who marked me - I'll attack into this square."

If the square he chooses contains an invisible opponent, he takes a penalty for total concealment on his attack roll. If the opponent is not the one who marked him, he takes a -2 penalty in addition, despite his intent to attack the marking opponent. Why? Because his attack, in the end, was against an opponent other than the one who marked him.

-Hyp.

 

[ac_noj]

I'd say that the target is choosen when an attack roll is made, but before it is determined if that attack hit or not.
Could you give an example of where this is relivant?

 

[Maxim Machinery]

I don't think intent comes into it.

Consider a character facing two invisible opponents, one of whom has marked him. He says "I'll try to hit the guy who marked me - I'll attack into this square."

If the square he chooses contains an invisible opponent, he takes a penalty for total concealment on his attack roll. If the opponent is not the one who marked him, he takes a -2 penalty in addition, despite his intent to attack the marking opponent. Why? Because his attack, in the end, was against an opponent other than the one who marked him.

-Hyp.

This seems logical, but only because the person making the attack has no idea who they're actually attacking. If I - a Paladin - have marked a foe, who then decides to ignore my challenge and AoE a group of my allies, the following happens:

1. The enemy places his AoE, with me outside it.
2. All creatures in the AoE become targets of the attack.
3. Divine Challenge procs, because the creature made an attack without me as a target.
4. I decide to use the power 'Strike Me Instead' which triggers after an attack targets an ally within 5 of me - causing the attack to automatically miss all my allies it targets and to automatically hit me, even though I wasn't an original target.
5. I take the full effects of a 'hit' and my allies who were targetted take the effects of a 'miss,' if any.
6. A stream of expletives issues forth from the mouth of my adversary.

Point of note: the order of steps 3, 4 & 5 can be debated; does DC proc when the attack's initial targets are declared, or when the attack roll is made? I would rule the former, personally, but without the book on hand I can't check the exact wording - though I feel I have captured the intent.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Point of note: the order of steps 3, 4 & 5 can be debated; does DC proc when the attack's initial targets are declared, or when the attack roll is made?

As always, this depends on what exactly constitutes 'an attack' in this context. Is the Ranger's Twin Strike 'an attack', or is the individual swing of longsword 'an attack' separate from his swing of dagger?

In either case, however, it doesn't matter for your particular example - the paladin is hit by the attack, but interestingly is not designated a target of the attack, so Divine Challenge will trigger whether it is checked before or after the Strike Me Instead interrupt.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's some text from "Seeing and Targeting":
If you hurl a fireball into a pitch-black room, you don't have to see your enemies for the fireball to hit them. In contrast, you can see through a transparent wall of magical force, but you don't have line of effect through it. You can see the snarling demon on the other side, but the wall blocks attacks.

Let's say our friend the eladrin paladin has laid his Divine Challenge on me, stuck me with his sword, and then Fey Stepped behind a transparent wall of magical force. I don't know the transparent wall of magical force is there, so I don't realise I don't have line of effect to the paladin's square.

I cast Fireball, with the point of origin declared as the paladin's square.

What happens?

Obviously, what doesn't happen is a globe of flame exploding at the paladin's feet.

Presumably, it never explodes at all, because there's no line of effect from me to the origin square.

1. Have I expended my daily power?
2. Have I made an attack that includes the paladin as a target?
3. Have I made an attack that does not include the paladin as a target?

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

Here's some text from "Seeing and Targeting":
If you hurl a fireball into a pitch-black room, you don't have to see your enemies for the fireball to hit them. In contrast, you can see through a transparent wall of magical force, but you don't have line of effect through it. You can see the snarling demon on the other side, but the wall blocks attacks.

Let's say our friend the eladrin paladin has laid his Divine Challenge on me, stuck me with his sword, and then Fey Stepped behind a transparent wall of magical force. I don't know the transparent wall of magical force is there, so I don't realise I don't have line of effect to the paladin's square.

I cast Fireball, with the point of origin declared as the paladin's square.

What happens?

Obviously, what doesn't happen is a globe of flame exploding at the paladin's feet.

Presumably, it never explodes at all, because there's no line of effect from me to the origin square.

1. Have I expended my daily power?
2. Have I made an attack that includes the paladin as a target?
3. Have I made an attack that does not include the paladin as a target?

-Hyp.

I see this as pretty clear. Note: ".... the wall blocks attacks" (not prevents attacks).

1. You have expended your daily power. You made an attack and it was blocked by the invisible wall of force. The same would be true of a character who used, for example, a ranged weapon attack power on the target.
2/3. You have made an attack that includes the paladin as a target. The fact that the attack missed is no more relevant than it would be if you shot at the paladin with an arrow and the arrow bounced off of some cover between you and the paladin. In both cases, something between you and the paladin prevented a hit.


That said, a side of me is tempted to consider a house rule that would result in a firecube exploding where a line between the caster and the target square intercepted the wall of force (with all of the unintended consequences that would entail). But that would definately be a house rule and one I would feel obligated to discuss with my players before implementing.

But as I read the RAW, the result is as above - a failed attack on the paladin.

The real question (and I'm not sure if the RAW address this or not) is: "Do you always know whether or not you have line of effect. In other words, do you somehow know that there is an invisible wall of force there before you cast the spell, or is it unknown until such a time as the spell fails. And when the spell fails, do you know why it failed? This sounds like a case for the Arcana skill, but I haven't given it a lot of thought as of yet. And it may depend on the origin of this hypothetical wall of force (conjuration or zone versus ritual effect versus magical effect, for example).

Carl

 

[icarusfallz]

As a side note, I hate the "invisible marker" thing that a lot of people seem to favor.

It's like saying "Here I am, come get some!" then chickening out. It's a challenge. In my games, should a player do this, I would say that invisibility breaks the mark. If A foe can't see the marker, then he is no longer marked by them. (Just my house rule. I like heroic games and dislike all the "coward" builds I've seen)

 

[Runestar]

It's like saying "Here I am, come get some!" then chickening out. It's a challenge. In my games, should a player do this, I would say that invisibility breaks the mark. If A foe can't see the marker, then he is no longer marked by them. (Just my house rule. I like heroic games and dislike all the "coward" builds I've seen)

It really depends on how you choose to interpret divine challenge. It is not impossible to reflavour it to accommodate paladin archetypes who have a more trickster bent (such as halflings or elves) or would not normally want to stand toe to toe with their foes. Heck, you could reword it as some sort of taunt and it would interact seamlessly with invisibility.

 

[firesnakearies]

As always, this depends on what exactly constitutes 'an attack' in this context. Is the Ranger's Twin Strike 'an attack', or is the individual swing of longsword 'an attack' separate from his swing of dagger?

I answered this question over on the WoTC forums with what everyone seemed to think was a compelling argument. The specific question was about whether a fighter who had marked a ranger could then attack him if the ranger used one of his Twin Strike hits on the marking fighter, and the other one on a different ally.

It is definitely two different attacks, and each of them is resolved separately, even though they are both granted by one standard action use of a power.

Consider this illuminating passage (PHB, pg. 268):

"An immediate reaction might interrupt other
actions a combatant takes after its triggering action.
For example, if a power lets you attack as an immediate
reaction when an attack hits you, your action
happens before the monster that hit you can take
any other action. If a monster has a power that lets
it make two attack rolls against you as a standard
action, and the first one hits, you can use an immediate
reaction before the next attack roll."

This clearly indicates that two attacks as part of one power are, in fact, separate and distinct. They do not occur at the same time, as you're allowed here to take an immediate action in between them. The fact that an immediate reaction is the example given, rather than an immediate interrupt, is especially significant.

(From the same page):

"Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in
response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction, except that you can interrupt
a creature’s movement. If a creature triggers your
immediate reaction while moving (by coming into
range, for example), you take your action before the
creature finishes moving but after it has moved at
least 1 square."

The point is specifically made here that an immediate reaction may only occur after a triggering action is completely resolved. Thus, any series of rolls which were, in fact, all part of one "attack" or "action" would not be interruptible in the middle by an immediate reaction. However, the first quoted paragraph above states that you can, in situations where there are actually two separate attacks combined into one action.

This would clearly apply to Twin Strike, even if Combat Challenge granted only an immediate reaction. As it grants an immediate interrupt, it is even less in question that the fighter's interrupting attack can occur in between the separate attack rolls of a multiple-attack power, such as Twin Strike. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the use of close or area attacks, as in those cases, the attack rolls are actually occuring simultaneously against each target in the affected squares.

Two attacks, separate and able to be split even by an immediate reaction, which normally only happens after an action is "completely resolved". In order to avoid provoking the Combat Challenge interrupt of the fighter, both of the two separate melee swings would need to "include" him, which in this case would mean targetting only him. The moment you use one of those two distinct attacks against a different target, the fighter may make his immediate interrupt, regardless of whether or not you used your other attack against him.

The fact that the two separate attacks are both granted by a single standard action use of a power is irrelevant, as the quoted text about immediate actions clearly shows that multiple attacks within one power are not simultaneous and do not constitute one unified action, but rather a chained series of distinct actions which may be broken into at any point if a triggering condition is met.