Can you miss on purpose?

[Mort_Q]

... stuff...

Just to be sure I understand your point correctly.

You are saying that the you, in the text "whenever you hit or miss a bloodied enemy and deal damage to it" specifically has to be you, the Cleric PC?

You are saying a summoned or conjured entity, summoned or conjured by your Attack Power or item doesn't count as you attacking?

Or in my example above, a companion animal wouldn't count either?

What about zones?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The RAW reading of "whenever you hit or miss a bloodied enemy and deal damage to it, you are stunned until the end of your next turn" is open to debate, but the RAI... this all reminds me of 3.x Vow of Poverty cheese.

What cheese?

The vast majority of people who ever actually played with Vow of Poverty found it to actually be terribly underpowered (not to mention incredibly limiting; you don't truly miss the plethora of cheap one shot magic items until they're gone) at the table. Even with Druid, which is the best class for VoP, I definitely found that power-wise, I would have been better off with items.

 

[Incendax]

Really, all Pacifist Healer says is "when you deal damage". If I'm using a power to conjure a sword which stabs my enemy, I am "dealing damage". By means of a sword I conjured. Do weapon-users also get to avoid "dealing damage" by arguing that it's really their weapon that deals the damage? If a Halfling hits you in the head with a rock, would be believe him if he says "I didn't deal damage, I'm not even touching you!"

From a roleplay perspective you might feel justifiably responsible for setting loose a conjuration that begins to bash skulls on your behalf, but there is no mechanical penalty. Weapon-users do not get to argue that it's really their weapon that deals the damage unless the weapon is a conjuration that makes it's own attack rolls. Believing whether or not a Halfling threw a rock is a roleplaying concern, not a mechanical one.

Just to be sure I understand your point correctly.

You are saying that the you, in the text "whenever you hit or miss a bloodied enemy and deal damage to it" specifically has to be you, the Cleric PC?

Yes. Poor wording on the part of Pacifist Healer.

You are saying a summoned or conjured entity, summoned or conjured by your Attack Power or item doesn't count as you attacking?

A conjured entity is not you generating the attack roll.

Or in my example above, a companion animal wouldn't count either?

You and your beast companion are treated as separate creatures, ergo attacks made by your companion alone are not counted as attacks made by you.

What about zones?

The zone keyword gives no indication that it generates a separate attack roll, so a zone would not qualify. Keep in mind that many zones do not make attack rolls at all, so they may not trigger Pacifist Healer anyway.

 

[Mort_Q]

What cheese?

All the ways people tried to argue their way around what counts and what doesn't... is a Holy Symbol carved into his chest worth gold... cheese...

Saw some interesting concepts though.

From a roleplay perspective you might feel justifiably responsible for setting loose a conjuration that begins to bash skulls on your behalf, but there is no mechanical penalty.

I concede that that is what the rules say. Doesn't sit well though. Get off my lawn.

 

[LightPhoenix]

By RAW, you have to make the attack roll. Others have suggested ways of lowering it, but if you hit, you hit.

RAI, the reason spiritual weapon grants CA is because it's attacking the creature. My ruling would be that deliberately missing the attack prevents it from granting CA.

On the pacifist healer side, again RAW has been argued. Personally, I think that's heavily bending RAI; if you conjure something to kill someone, that's not pacifist. I'd rule conjurations under your control still count for the feat.

Also, I would take the player aside after the game and ask if they wanted to swap out the power or feat (losing faith in pacifism is a cool story IMO). Whenever I make a ruling that isn't RAW, I always leave that option open for the player.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Rocks don't kill people, Halflings kill people!

...Harlton Cheston, President, National Rock Association

 

[Incendax]

I concede that that is what the rules say. Doesn't sit well though. Get off my lawn.

I hope we can still be friends!

Regarding the Original Post. It is my humble opinion that you should be able to Hit an enemy and optionally deal no damage to them. Too many powers in this game require you to inflict damage, and that severely limits their use out of combat. One of the chief complaints about 4E is that there are very few out-of-combat powers! I believe allowing a power to optionally deal no damage really expands the options of the character outside of combat.

Naturally this would still require the player to actually hit to deliver his desired effect, and the player should NEVER be able to pick and choose which targets he wishes to deal damage to. It should either be completely damaging or completely non-damaging.

 

[DracoSuave]

You are wrong. Page 59 of Player's Handbook states "A conjuration uses your ability scores and defenses to determine the outcome of attacks it makes and attacks against it (if such attacks are possible)."

Show me where in that line of text it states that 'it doesn't make any attacks, you do'.

PHB3, page 216. Right side of the page.

Attacking with a Conjuration: Normally. a conjuration cannot attack. If your conjuration can attack, you make the attack. You determine line of sight normally. but you determine line of effect from the conjuration. as if you were in its space.

Conjurations that make attacks are, by the keyword's definition, you making the attack.

Fireballs are not Conjurations.

The Player's Handbook clearly contradicts you.

The PHB does not say you are not making attacks through conjurations. You're mistaking 'Something not mentioned as true or false' as a contradiction, which is actually not a contradiction, but merely the absense of evidence for or against.

However, the conjuration keyword's been cleaned up and explained in the two or so years since then, and it's the most recent definitions that we go by.

The power does not need to attack to provide its combat advantage no more than a flanker has to have attacked the flankee in order to, well flank. It just has to be there, harassing enough that it provides that bonus.

Lastly, Incindex---


Could you explain the possible benefit of granting combat advantage outside of combat? While I understand (and the DMG suggests agreement with) your rhetoric in general, it's not really appropriate to this particular power.

 

[Alex319]

Lastly, Incindex---


Could you explain the possible benefit of granting combat advantage outside of combat? While I understand (and the DMG suggests agreement with) your rhetoric in general, it's not really appropriate to this particular power.

He's not talking about this particular power. I think he's referring to other places where you could use powers' secondary effects creatively, but having them cause damage might cause problems.

For example, let's say I'm in a tavern and I want to use Thunderwave to knock over a table or something to create a distraction, but I don't want to potentially do lethal damage to any bystanders in the area.

For other examples of this type of power use, see:

At Will » Blog Archive » Off the Grid: Using your powers in roleplaying situations.

 

[Runestar]

All the ways people tried to argue their way around what counts and what doesn't... is a Holy Symbol carved into his chest worth gold... cheese...

Saw some interesting concepts though.

I don't really see that as a fault. What you are allowed to own is fairly vague in the VOP description and some just flat out cripple entire classes (a wizard cannot have a spellbook, not can a cleric have a holy symbol, yet a fighter can own a heavy crossbow?).

The designers probably had a very clear picture of the intent of the feat, but the problem was that it was communicated so poorly to the players that everyone essentially had a different understanding of what exactly is allowed.

There are even some DMs who would make you fall for administering a healing potion to your ally!