attacking without attacking

[Diirk]

I don't know how you get 'This tactic is good for blah, see page blah' and take that to mean 'regardless of purpose' And the rules for how to target a square and what you do with it are on that page. And mention you have to be targetting a creature.

Out of context=bad.

Well, it says "This tactic is useful when...", not "This tactic can only be used when...". I would have thought the difference is pretty clear. The prior has no restrictive wording, so one can only assume its an example. The latter does have restrictive wording, and thus would be a rule.

And the rules for targetting are indeed on that page:

"If you want to use a power against an enemy, it must be within range and you must be able to target it."
Ok, only enemy creatures.
"When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy."
This modifies the previous sentence, and changes the context. Its not out of context at all. The first tells us that we have to target an enemy, then the second tells us that we can also target a square instead of an enemy.

No, it's expllicity used when you're trying to hit an invisible creature.

It's not explicit at all, it gives an example of when you want to target a square. There is no restrictive wording.

You're going beyond what the rules say, to what they imply. Deciding that is your DM's job.

I have to disagree with you, but I don't think this argument will really get any further unless you can explain why you feel the rules don't mean what I think they mean. Btw I do DM alot of my games, and I'm answering this from a DMs point of view rather than a players.

As has been said before, while its not necessarily the behaviour I would have expected, the players are still expending a resource and it doesn't necessarily have to not make sense, so I'm pretty ok with it.

 

[Turtlejay]

I don't understand the confusion. It is one of those situations where I can't even *see* where the other side is coming from.

For the record, I think Dracosuave has it.

Attempting to use the rules for attacking invisible creatures to justify attacking no creature makes zero sense to me. Attack powers require a target, and if you can't target something, bag of rats.

The whole bit about DM's making exceptions is amusing to me too, since that is what DM's *do*. This is of little use to folks who play in the RPGA...

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

The whole bit about DM's making exceptions is amusing to me too, since that is what DM's *do*. This is of little use to folks who play in the RPGA...

Jay

RPGA rules enforcement -is- DMs do what they feel is right. Heralds should know that, they -are- told it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't understand the confusion. It is one of those situations where I can't even *see* where the other side is coming from.

For the record, I think Dracosuave has it.

Attempting to use the rules for attacking invisible creatures to justify attacking no creature makes zero sense to me. Attack powers require a target, and if you can't target something, bag of rats.

The whole bit about DM's making exceptions is amusing to me too, since that is what DM's *do*. This is of little use to folks who play in the RPGA...

Jay

Honestly meaning no offense, but I don't understand your confusion.

Unsurprisingly, I still agree with those who believe that the RAI/RAW support Effects being used outside of combat (without an enemy target).

In the PHB on page 272, it says that you can choose to target a square instead of an enemy. It goes further to state that "this tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment". Either the paragraph is poorly phrased, or the intent is clearly that you can target squares instead of creatures if you so desire, including when a creature has concealment. The sentence is inclusive, not exclusive.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that using an Area of Effect attack (which targets squares rather than creatures to begin with) on empty squares to gain the effect is illegal. It seems clear to me that if that is legal, then melee and ranged effects are also intended to be legally usable outside of combat. Why should AoEs be so much better than single target attacks, after all?

Yes, there are a few powers (like the Swordmage's Vorpal Doom) that can be abused under these circumstances, but a broken power does not make for a broken rule. (For example, imagine there was a encounter power that, due to it's phrasing, allowed party members to make melee basic attacks when an enemy experiences forced movement even though that clearly wasn't the intent; in this case it's clearly not the rules for forced movement that are to blame, but rather the poorly phrased power). The vast majority of effect powers don't break the game even if you allow them to be used outside of combat. The few that do break are easily fixed (usually by changing effect to hit).

So what if the Swordmage can expend his Dual Lightning Strike to teleport across the chasm? The Warlock could use Ethereal Stride to do it too, and a level sooner no less. The rest of the party still has to find a way across (you can't normally teleport other characters). Additionally, if you don't want the PCs teleporting across the chasm, make it 6 or more squares wide. Problem solved!

I can understand those who think this is rules-lawyering. IMO, it isn't, but I can appreciate the viewpoint. FWIW, I'm a DM myself. It seems to me the argument is rather clear though.

 

[Turtlejay]

What I don't understand is how folks think it is *useful* to take the rules for attacking invisible creatures out of context. Yes, the paragraph could be read to support your position, but it is under the rules for invisible creatures, and context matters. I am not going to bring rules for polo to the game table and try to use them to pass of my position. I know where you are coming from, I just really don't get how you can legitimately use that argument. Draco has pointed it out numerous times, I don't feel the need to do it again, but the reference for the paragraph you are using is in this very thread. You are using it wrong.

And I see no problem using this particular example out of combat, as a teleport is a teleport is a teleport, but if you argue for a looser rules interpretation (one not supported by RAW) you open doors to player abuse. Folks trot out the two ends of the spectrum, Effects that apply on a miss, or Effects that are mostly harmless and obtainable by regular Utility powers, but there is a spectrum of grey that should be watched for.

Jay

 

[Fanaelialae]

What I don't understand is how folks think it is *useful* to take the rules for attacking invisible creatures out of context. Yes, the paragraph could be read to support your position, but it is under the rules for invisible creatures, and context matters. I am not going to bring rules for polo to the game table and try to use them to pass of my position. I know where you are coming from, I just really don't get how you can legitimately use that argument. Draco has pointed it out numerous times, I don't feel the need to do it again, but the reference for the paragraph you are using is in this very thread. You are using it wrong.

And I see no problem using this particular example out of combat, as a teleport is a teleport is a teleport, but if you argue for a looser rules interpretation (one not supported by RAW) you open doors to player abuse. Folks trot out the two ends of the spectrum, Effects that apply on a miss, or Effects that are mostly harmless and obtainable by regular Utility powers, but there is a spectrum of grey that should be watched for.

Jay

The thing is, it isn't part of the rules for attacking invisible opponents (except tangentially). The rules for attacking invisible opponents merely refer back to the rule that allows you to target a square instead of a creature.

Open you PHB to page 272.

Look to the bottom of the page and you'll see the header, "Choosing Targets".

Below that, the first paragraph explains that enemies must be eligible targets, and it explains what that entails (must be in range and must be able to be targeted).

The next paragraph goes on to state that you can target a square instead of an enemy, and follows that up by mentioning that that is a useful tactic if a target has total concealment.

In that entire section the only time invisibility is mentioned, is as a situation in which you might find it useful to use that particular rule of targeting (targeting a square).

The subsequent sub-headings (Range and Seeing and Targeting), on page 273, go far beyond the rules for attacking invisible opponents as well.

Pages 272-273 are not a section devoted to the rules of targeting invisible creatures. The rules for targeting invisible creatures obviously refer back to the rules of general targeting when necessary because they are all rules for targeting creatures. If the header was "Targeting Invisible Creatures" I'd concede the point. However, the header is quite clearly "Choosing Targets" and unsurprisingly includes a rather involved overview of the general rules for targeting.

What you are probably referring to is "Targeting What You Can't See" at the bottom of page 281. It does mention choosing a square to attack. However, it seems pretty clear to me that this is simply a collection of the relevant rules for attacking invisible creatures. Rule X being needed for scenario Y doesn't exclude scenario Z from also using rule X. Invisibility is a relatively common and potentially confusing scenario so they created a sidebar specifically to explain each of the steps.

I am not taking the rules out of context in any way that I can see. The rules for targeting invisible opponents may refer to targeting a square, but the rule for targeting a square came first.

 

[DracoSuave]

What you are probably referring to is "Targeting What You Can't See" at the bottom of page 281. It does mention choosing a square to attack.

Except there -exists- no 'rule' for how to target a square outside that context. No rule for hit/miss resolution.

Which means, resolving hit and miss for an attack involving targetting a square -must- use that section. If not, how do you determine this?

And it says, clearly, you need a target creature before you target the square you think it's in. And that you hit or miss -that- creature.

No creature, no hit or miss, no attack.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Except there -exists- no 'rule' for how to target a square outside that context. No rule for hit/miss resolution.

Which means, resolving hit and miss for an attack involving targetting a square -must- use that section. If not, how do you determine this?

And it says, clearly, you need a target creature before you target the square you think it's in. And that you hit or miss -that- creature.

No creature, no hit or miss, no attack.

The rules for hit/miss are spelled out on pages 218-219 of the PHB2 (Hit and Miss). In short, a hit occurs on a hit; a miss occurs on a miss. Both a hit and miss are defined as requiring a target, "...describes what happens to each target...".

Page 219 of the PHB2 also states that an Effect "occurs when you use the power, whether or not you hit" (hitting doesn't matter). Note that nowhere is effect defined as requiring a target.

Hit/miss is irrelevant in regard to effect. If the wizard casts Cloud of Daggers, then the "zone" effect occurs regardless of whether there were 1 or 0 creatures within the area because neither hitting nor missing matters. If there were no creatures, you simply ignore the hit/miss parts of the power and they are therefore "wasted". Only the effect occurs.

Similarly, if the swordmage casts Dual Lightning Strike and targets an empty square, the hit/miss is wasted but the effect still occurs. As previously mentioned, he can target that empty square with melee and ranged attacks because that's what it says on PHB page 272.

IMO, it's pretty clear that the sidebar on PHB page 281 is nothing more than a collection of rules for your convenience, rather than a rule that supercedes PHB page 272.

 

[DracoSuave]

Hit/miss is irrelevant in regard to effect. If the wizard casts Cloud of Daggers, then the "zone" effect occurs regardless of whether there were 1 or 0 creatures within the area because neither hitting nor missing matters. If there were no creatures, you simply ignore the hit/miss parts of the power and they are therefore "wasted". Only the effect occurs.

And this is where we differ. Effects might require a target in order to function. Some effects are affected by the hit/miss of the attack itself. Every utility that -has- a target is an example of effects that require targets.

The catch is, this has nothing to do with the fact that a target is required to -use the power-. It has nothing to do with Hit or Miss or Effect or Special or Attack... it simply is that you need a target for powers that call for a target. You resolve the power in the order it is written. The Target comes before the Effect on most powers, and if that is not satisfied, the power's requirements for use are not satisfied.

If you can't use the power, you can't bloody well use the effect now can you?

 

[ColdHeart]

Draco, define "target". If I am in a room with an enemy, who gulps a potion of invisibility and vanishes from site. The next round I see the door open so I run down the corridor and into another room I think he went (but have no real clue). I see nothing in the room, but I start swinging my sword. At once stage I decide to attack 2 squares at once with DLS, teleporting in the middle.

For all I know, the enemy maybe in the room, in the first room or has actually left he dungeon by now. But I had a target at some stage so by your logic I can use this attack power with effect. The only difference between the character's actions/thinking between this and attacking nothing is my mental state of "I knew there was an enemy around" and "I know there is no enemy around". Is this the only difference between a characters ability to perform an action that at some point requires an attack?

To me this is very ambigous reason to deny an effect which is not reliant on the outcome of an attack.

As for using attack powers out of combat. Well I have a character who uses utility powers in combat all the time and doing so to damage the enemy. Faelocks get a nice set of teleport utilities and a paragon path which damages enemies when you teleport. So utilities can be used in and out of combat.

They also have at least one attack power which requires no attack rolls to be made which can have a host of uses out of combat. Minions of Malbolge is a Daily Attack power which has effect: Gain 25 temp HPs. All enemies who move next to you take X damage, this lasts until you lose all temp HPs. If I am in an out of combat situation but see a source of damage I want to negate (wall of fire/blades, deep hole, dart trap, etc), I should be able to use this Attack power to gain temp HPs before taking the damage. But by some peoples opinions I shouldn't be able to purely because I am trying to use an attack power as a utility power.

Otherworld Stride is another Warlock Attack power that has an effect not directly tied to attacking a creature. The area is Burst 1 and I attack each creature in burst. If there is no creature in the burst, I attack 0 creatures. I then move onto the effect which is teleport. At no point have I seen a rule whereby I must attack at least 1 creature in an area attack for me to be allowed to use said attack.

And reading Dual Lighting Strike entry, it reads the same way. I make an attack against one creature. Regardless of outcome of that attack, I teleport and make a secondary attack. The main arguement here is the first target must be a valid threat (or at least the square you are swinging through is believed to potentially contain a valid threat) to allow the teleport and attack effect. Which would also disallow a character making a move action to get close to an enemy, then using DLS to teleport the final 5 squares and attacking them (witht he first attack "wasted" on a square). And then what happens when a creature uses an ability to move out of the square you were attacking in the first swing? Does that then negate the teleport as your first attack no longer swings through a square with an enemy?

Please disect away ;-)