attacking without attacking

[Nytmare]

Tactics that involve using attack powers on empty squares so that you can get the secondary effects have always reeked of the same rules twisting that was shot down by the "insulting your ally as a free action does not allow him to consider you to be an enemy so that he can hit you with a power that targets enemies so that he can get the secondary effect" rule.

There should be a difference between playing the rules, and playing by the rules.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Doesn't allowing the use of Dual Lightning Strike as a "teleport whenever you feel like it 1/encounter" spell rather invalidate the level 6 utility Armathor's Step, which is also an encounter power? To me it indicates that the lower level attack power is intended to be more situational (used in an attack) than the higher level utility (used whenever you like). Disallowing free use of DLS by attacking the darkness (an empty square) seems to be a reasonable interpretation supported by the very existence of that level 6 utility spell, among other arguments which have been already stated here.

We can argue all day long about the letter of the rules, but I've seen enough to decide how I'm ruling it in my own game. I'm grateful that my players, while they have some of their own unique foibles, are not rules lawyers. Hallelujah.

Armathor's Step (Swordmage Utility 6) is better than Dual Lightning Strike (used without the attacks).

AS is a move action, teleports you 5 squares, and gives you +2 damage to your next attack if you end adjacent to an enemy (which we'll ignore since we're ignoring the attacks for DLS).

DLS is a standard action, teleports you 5 squares, and (if there's nothing to attack) that's it!

AS costs a lesser action and moves you the same distance as DLS.

I'm sure you've noticed, but level 7 encounter powers aren't much more powerful than level 3 encounter powers (powers scale slowly during heroic tier). I think a shift from standard to move action is a perfectly acceptable improvement for an increase of a mere 3 heroic levels.

Though I do agree, I enjoy the fact that my players don't rules lawyer as well. That doesn't mean that I don't desire an as-close-to-perfect understanding of the rules as possible, when I DM for them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Tactics that involve using attack powers on empty squares so that you can get the secondary effects have always reeked of the same rules twisting that was shot down by the "insulting your ally as a free action does not allow him to consider you to be an enemy so that he can hit you with a power that targets enemies so that he can get the secondary effect" rule.

There should be a difference between playing the rules, and playing by the rules.

As far as I can tell, what I and a few others have been explaining is playing by the rules. I'm strongly of the belief that PH page 272 is for the purpose of allowing attack powers to be used outside of combat (when applicable).

I don't believe that I'm twisting the rules to my advantage, because this only applies when I run a game. When another DM runs a game, I abide by his ruling even if I think it is wrong.

So, please, don't insult those who believe this to be the correct ruling by implying that they are trying to twist the rules to their advantage. I, at the very least, can achieve no benefit from it for myself (I don't even DMPC). I simply believe that it is correct and balanced.

 

[Nytmare]

As far as I can tell, what I and a few others have been explaining is playing by the rules.

You don't see a contradiction between:

You can not pretend that an ally is an enemy for a round so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

You can attack empty space so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You don't see a contradiction between:

You can not pretend that an ally is an enemy for a round so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

You can attack empty space so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

Could you please give me a page reference so I can see where it says that for myself?

The closest thing I can find is DMG page 40 (Legitimate Targets). However, that text specifically refers to "an effect that occurs upon hitting a target-or reducing a target to 0 hp". I agree, you shouldn't allow hit or "kill" requirements to be satisfied by bags of rats or surly allies.

However, that rule never refers to Effect lines, and I believe the omission to be intentional.

Hit and "kill" are both much stricter requirements than effect, and therefore require the "restriction" from DMG page 40. Effect only requires that a given power be used, a rather easily met requirement, and therefore doesn't require such restrictions.

 

[FireLance]

You don't see a contradiction between:

You can not pretend that an ally is an enemy for a round so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

You can attack empty space so that you can take advantage of the effect line of Dual Lightning Strike.

Both of these are irrelevant because you don't need to attack to get the benefit of the "Effect" entry of a power. [EDIT: Which is the reason why utility powers and powers such as healing word have "Effect" entries. ] Attacking a target is only necessary if you want the benefit of the "Hit" entry of a power, and yes, when you want to benefit from the "Hit" entry of a power, the target has to be a legitimate enemy.

Consider the 1st-level cleric encounter power divine glow, for example. It targets enemies in a Close blast 3 and deals radiant damage. However, it also has an "Effect" that allies in the blast gain a +2 power bonus to attack rolls until the end of your next turn. Would you allow a cleric to include only allies in the blast (say if he is fighting enemies resistant to radiant energy so he might as well maximize the number of allies that benefit from the Effect) or would you require that there must be at least one enemy in the blast?

 

[DracoSuave]

Could you please give me a page reference so I can see where it says that for myself?

The closest thing I can find is DMG page 40 (Legitimate Targets). However, that text specifically refers to "an effect that occurs upon hitting a target-or reducing a target to 0 hp". I agree, you shouldn't allow hit or "kill" requirements to be satisfied by bags of rats or surly allies.

However, that rule never refers to Effect lines, and I believe the omission to be intentional

You need to read the entire section if you think Effect lines were never meant to be included in the -section- about doing things that break the rules to get an advantage. It then goes on to describe an Effect used to do just that.


Regardless, you're fixating on the Effect line. It's irrelevant. Powers with targets need targets. Period. Done. No target, no power. No power, no effect.

 

[FireLance]

You need to read the entire section if you think Effect lines were never meant to be included in the -section- about doing things that break the rules to get an advantage. It then goes on to describe an Effect used to do just that.

Sorry, I'm away from my book at the moment. Which example was that?

Regardless, you're fixating on the Effect line. It's irrelevant. Powers with targets need targets. Period. Done. No target, no power. No power, no effect.

It really depends on whether you view the "Target" entry as informational or prescriptive.

In other words, whether you take "Target: One creatre" to mean that you may attack one creature, and if you hit, you get the benefit of the "Hit" entry (and you get the benefit of the Effect entry whether or not you hit, or indeed, whether or not you even attack), or that you must attack one creature in order to gain the benefit of the "Effect" entry. I would tend to go with the former (informational) based on my reading of page 218 of PH2 since it defines the "Target" entry as specifying whom and what the power affects directly. Many powers also have indirect effects (see divine glow above for an example).

 

[Fanaelialae]

You need to read the entire section if you think Effect lines were never meant to be included in the -section- about doing things that break the rules to get an advantage. It then goes on to describe an Effect used to do just that.

I think you're using a rather liberal interpretation of that part. It refers to the power's effect (as in what happens when you use a power in question), not an effect line in a power. The example given shows what you're saying to be false (it talks about not letting a warlord power buff an entire army, as it is only intended to buff a party).

Regardless, you're fixating on the Effect line. It's irrelevant. Powers with targets need targets. Period. Done. No target, no power. No power, no effect.

Except that page 272 clearly states that targeting a square is legal.

Regardless, Firelance has already demonstrated that this is false. Nowhere do the rules say that you need a target to use a power, and every indication is that you don't.

To quote Firelance:

...the "Target" entry is informational, not prescriptive. The "Target" entry tells you what the power affects directly; it is not a requirement for using the power.

If you can find a rule that supports your claim that "powers with targets need targets", please provide the page number. All of the rules provided so far suggest otherwise.

 

[Jhaelen]

As far as I can tell, what I and a few others have been explaining is playing by the rules.

I don't think so. Even if you were playing it correctly by RAW it would still be wrong by RAI, as far as I can tell.

I'm strongly of the belief that PH page 272 is for the purpose of allowing attack powers to be used outside of combat (when applicable).

I, however, strongly believe you're wrong.

I don't believe that I'm twisting the rules to my advantage, because this only applies when I run a game. When another DM runs a game, I abide by his ruling even if I think it is wrong.

Good!

So, please, don't insult those who believe this to be the correct ruling by implying that they are trying to twist the rules to their advantage. I, at the very least, can achieve no benefit from it for myself (I don't even DMPC). I simply believe that it is correct and balanced.

And I believe it's neither balanced nor correct. Now, what?

How about simply agreeing to disagree?