Not that I've been a part of this discussion, but Hype always has an interesting point, so I'm going to bite. I don't see why you couldn't attack, so I would answer yes. I don't see any rule that prevents you from attacking.
attacking without attacking
- Thread starter Flipguarder
- Start date
Not that I've been a part of this discussion, but Hype always has an interesting point, so I'm going to bite. I don't see why you couldn't attack, so I would answer yes. I don't see any rule that prevents you from attacking.
DracoSuave
First Post
Given that Deft Strike tells you that you can shift before the attack, then yes you can. That's what Special: lines get to do.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
So I can activate the power and begin to resolve it even though I do not satisfy the Target requirements of the power when I start to do so?
-Hyp.
Fanaelialae
Legend
I get it! Clever point Hypersmurf!
What he's saying is that Deft Strike moves you before you make the (melee) attack.
1. Activate Deft Strike
2. Move into melee range with orc
3. Attack orc with Deft Strike
That suggests that Draco may be mistaken when he states that you have to check target before you activate a power (because when you activate it, you're still out of range to consider the orc a legal target).
Fanaelialae
Legend
Except that page 272 still says that "you can target a square instead of an enemy".
So instead of targeting -zero- creatures, I target -one- square.
FireLance
Legend
Actually, this goes back to the question of whether "Target: One creature" means that you can target (only) one creature or that you must target (exactly) one creature.
Further discussion why I think using DLS and other similar powers is not against the rules but very much within the wording of the rules.
The main point Draco likes to make is "Target: One Creature" must be a creature you can think of which could be within the vacinity of where you are. Now firstly, if this was the case where are the rules or guidelines indicating what creatures are considered valid for this? The DMG covers bags of rats and "allies <> army", but I've not seen or heard of anything about "a creature you met 2 days ago and threatened to kill you is not a valid target of a power so you may attack an empty square". And to me, this is the first indication he maybe wrong.
Futhermore, what is "One creature"? Well, if a power hits "all creatures in AoE" it will affect all Enemies and all Allies. So A Creature can be An Enemy or An Ally.
Now PHB272 specifically states instead of targetting an enemy, you can target a square. Instead is a key-word here and means you can substitute an enemy with a square. And being as "an enemy" counts as "one creature" then the requisite of targetting "one creature" can be met by targetting "one square". Also this is a complete substitution. At no point does it imply that you still need a threat who you believe to be in the square.
Now for people who say "targetting a square is only a means of targetting an invisible enemy". Where does it specifically and explicitly state this? The closest clue would be the next line which states targetting a square is useful for attacking invisible targets. However it does not state "can only be used for", so it is an example of when you would want to do this.
I will now point out 2 further examples where this tactic is useful:
A ranger walks into an empty room. He senses something is wrong with the room, but is unsure what. He uses a power that lets him fire his bow at multiple targets (Target: 1, 2 or 3 creatures). He targets 3 corners of the room (3 squares) and fires his arrow. 2 of the arrows burst into flame before they hit the target, indicating the room is not as safe as it looked.
Imagine a room with this monster layout:
-----
-x---
---x-
-x---
-----
and an attack power which goes something like this:
Range 10
Target: One Creature
Attack: Int vs Reflex
Hit: 2D6 + Int damage
Make secondary attacks against all creatures adjacent to the primary target.
Attack: Int vs Reflex
Hit: 1D6 + Int damage
Now, going by the rule "a square = one creature" I can target the centre square with the primary attack, hit nothing, then make secondary attacks against all 3 enemy. Going by the alternative rule, I could only make a primary attack against a single target and get no secondary attacks.
So the wording indicates, to me at least, that any attack targetting at "one creature" can happily target "a square" without any further requirements. Any power with a hit/miss effect has no further effect unless there is an actual target in that area. However any further effects of the power continue to happen.
The main point Draco likes to make is "Target: One Creature" must be a creature you can think of which could be within the vacinity of where you are. Now firstly, if this was the case where are the rules or guidelines indicating what creatures are considered valid for this? The DMG covers bags of rats and "allies <> army", but I've not seen or heard of anything about "a creature you met 2 days ago and threatened to kill you is not a valid target of a power so you may attack an empty square". And to me, this is the first indication he maybe wrong.
Futhermore, what is "One creature"? Well, if a power hits "all creatures in AoE" it will affect all Enemies and all Allies. So A Creature can be An Enemy or An Ally.
Now PHB272 specifically states instead of targetting an enemy, you can target a square. Instead is a key-word here and means you can substitute an enemy with a square. And being as "an enemy" counts as "one creature" then the requisite of targetting "one creature" can be met by targetting "one square". Also this is a complete substitution. At no point does it imply that you still need a threat who you believe to be in the square.
Now for people who say "targetting a square is only a means of targetting an invisible enemy". Where does it specifically and explicitly state this? The closest clue would be the next line which states targetting a square is useful for attacking invisible targets. However it does not state "can only be used for", so it is an example of when you would want to do this.
I will now point out 2 further examples where this tactic is useful:
A ranger walks into an empty room. He senses something is wrong with the room, but is unsure what. He uses a power that lets him fire his bow at multiple targets (Target: 1, 2 or 3 creatures). He targets 3 corners of the room (3 squares) and fires his arrow. 2 of the arrows burst into flame before they hit the target, indicating the room is not as safe as it looked.
Imagine a room with this monster layout:
-----
-x---
---x-
-x---
-----
and an attack power which goes something like this:
Range 10
Target: One Creature
Attack: Int vs Reflex
Hit: 2D6 + Int damage
Make secondary attacks against all creatures adjacent to the primary target.
Attack: Int vs Reflex
Hit: 1D6 + Int damage
Now, going by the rule "a square = one creature" I can target the centre square with the primary attack, hit nothing, then make secondary attacks against all 3 enemy. Going by the alternative rule, I could only make a primary attack against a single target and get no secondary attacks.
So the wording indicates, to me at least, that any attack targetting at "one creature" can happily target "a square" without any further requirements. Any power with a hit/miss effect has no further effect unless there is an actual target in that area. However any further effects of the power continue to happen.
DracoSuave
First Post
The abandonment of common sense will cause any rules system for a roleplaying game to fall. This doesn't mean the rules don't work, it means that one should not abandon common sense.
Not strictly relevent, but...
STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM
No one breaks the law on my watch!
See, yes. You -can- target a square. At which point you see the rules that tell you how to do so... and BAM you're targetting a creature as a part of that very system! The -rules for targetting a square- inform you that you are -in fact- targetting a creature as you do so.
Unless you're refering to some other rules for targetting a square that I haven't seen yet. Could you point those out?
Because don't confuse 'You may target a square' with 'This is how you target a square.' One tells you that you may do something, the other tells you -how to do just that.-
No one is claiming you can't target a square, they're just saying to do so you have to be targeting a creature you're trying to find as part of -the rules for targetting a square instead of a creature.-
So where are these square targetting rules that don't say you do that?
The funny thing about Special lines is that they permit you to break the rules. Hense why it's a Special: that tells you to move before the attack, rather than an effect which occurs post-targetting.
You already know that, so don't try to use it as a strawman here.
FireLance
Legend
A more interesting case to consider would be the 1st-level wizard daily spell acid arrow, which targets one creature and which, on a hit, makes a secondary attack on each creature adjacent to the primary target. (The 1st-level wizard encounter spell force orb works in a similar fashion but muddies the issue slightly by having a Target of "one creature or object").
Suppose you have four enemies standing in a square, each of which is 2 squares away from the other, like so:
x-x
---
x-x
Targeting any one of the enemies means that the wizard will be unable to affect any of the other enemies with the secondary attack. On the other hand, if he targets the square in the middle which is adjacent to all four enemies and hits, he can affect them all with the secondary attack. Given that the primary target of acid arrow takes 2d8+Intelligence modifier acid damage and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends) and the secondary targets of acid arrow take 1d8+Intelligence modifier acid damage and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends), it is not difficult to see why a wizard might want to affect all four enemies with his spell if he can.
Now, I am not going to disupte any DM's right to disallow targeting the middle square on the basis that the wizard must attack one creature with his spell (and I am sure that said DM will have a good reason that does not abandon common sense for doing so). However, I will point out that attacking the empty middle square in order to splash all the enemies with acid is really no different from attacking nothing but gaining the benefit of a power's Effect.
Suppose you have four enemies standing in a square, each of which is 2 squares away from the other, like so:
x-x
---
x-x
Targeting any one of the enemies means that the wizard will be unable to affect any of the other enemies with the secondary attack. On the other hand, if he targets the square in the middle which is adjacent to all four enemies and hits, he can affect them all with the secondary attack. Given that the primary target of acid arrow takes 2d8+Intelligence modifier acid damage and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends) and the secondary targets of acid arrow take 1d8+Intelligence modifier acid damage and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends), it is not difficult to see why a wizard might want to affect all four enemies with his spell if he can.
Now, I am not going to disupte any DM's right to disallow targeting the middle square on the basis that the wizard must attack one creature with his spell (and I am sure that said DM will have a good reason that does not abandon common sense for doing so). However, I will point out that attacking the empty middle square in order to splash all the enemies with acid is really no different from attacking nothing but gaining the benefit of a power's Effect.
It's just as well DnD world isn't prolific.
William Tell wouldn't have been able to aim at the apple with his crossbow (as a RBA requires a creature).
Ditto Robin Hood and his archery contest.
Say goodbye to Legalas shooting the cord holding up the seige ladder in LotR 2.
The Shining would be missing its "Here's Johnny" moment, as axeing the door is out.
Indy never cuts the bridge in Temple Of Doom.
The signal flare would never have been invented.
And a plethora of other funky moments.
And all because we mustn't abandon common sense. Which obviously says aiming at living things is the only way to go.
If only we could aim at things/objects too. Then we could put all this stuff back in. And as an unrelated side issues, the ground is an object. So we could aim at it, or a patch of it (maybe a square patch).
William Tell wouldn't have been able to aim at the apple with his crossbow (as a RBA requires a creature).
Ditto Robin Hood and his archery contest.
Say goodbye to Legalas shooting the cord holding up the seige ladder in LotR 2.
The Shining would be missing its "Here's Johnny" moment, as axeing the door is out.
Indy never cuts the bridge in Temple Of Doom.
The signal flare would never have been invented.
And a plethora of other funky moments.
And all because we mustn't abandon common sense. Which obviously says aiming at living things is the only way to go.
If only we could aim at things/objects too. Then we could put all this stuff back in. And as an unrelated side issues, the ground is an object. So we could aim at it, or a patch of it (maybe a square patch).
