Magic Missile

[Aulirophile]

Again, you are looking far too literally at the interpretation as written. With a such a mindset, it would be possible to twist anything WotC could put out into something that is not at all what they intended. By the definition you have gleaned the Dragonborn's breath power no longer counts as an attack, and this is obviously not RAW, let alone RAI.

The description of the Warden's Form attacks explicitly calls them attacks. Without, as far as I can find, exception. Just because something targets an ally does not make it an attack; this is sheer silliness. I couldn't find a single Warlord non-utility power that targets an ally anyway (didn't go through the MPs, admittedly). There are a grand total of two Monk movement techniques that include enemies as targets, which yes could potentially lead to some wonkiness if not properly adjudicated by the DM.

And therein in lies the rub. There's simply too much to 4e at this point that any single problem can be simply solved by a few lines in a FAQ or an errata. There will be no simple one sentence definition for the word "attack" that will properly work for everything that should rightfully be considered an attack and leave out everything that rightfully shouldn't. Cling too hard to the semantics, and dig too deep into the rules, and inevitably something will be "broken." These problems will inevitably have to be fixed at the table. For the sake of every gamer at every table, I should hope that common sense will always triumph.

Direct the Strike. And yes, that is what that FAQ ruling means. That is the RAW. Just like the MM change, they didn't consider the implications it would have on their own ruleset.

And who said it had to target enemies? The FAQ says "has a target line or an attack line, and is an attack power > attack."

it has to read: that target enemies i guess...

and the wardens form attacks have their own attack power description, so no problem here i guess...

most easy way: all powers that negatively and directly affect an enemy are attacks.

Warden Forms formatted in the books are all one power. That is just the RAW now, shifting into the Form is an attack, using the Form's attack power isn't.

And your definition breaks Divine Challenge (and about a hundred other things).

 

[Gradine]

This demonstrates my point more effectively than I could have ever spelled it out myself.

If that is the way you wish to interpret the rules, by all means. But you will never be satisfied. That beast is too huge to capture. I guess I shouldn't assume this isn't how you'd prefer it.

Semantics is the death of understanding.

 

[Aulirophile]

This demonstrates my point more effectively than I could have ever spelled it out myself.

If that is the way you wish to interpret the rules, by all means. But you will never be satisfied. That beast is too huge to capture. I guess I shouldn't assume this isn't how'd you want it.

Semantics is the death of understanding.

As an actual professional semantician, I disagree. I'm not interpreting anything, that is effect of how the FAQ is phrased. Further, I disagree that a definition that doesn't result in anything patently ridiculous like this can't be achieved. I could think of a few off-hand that I believe would satisfy, though I didn't think the original definition of "has an attack roll and targets a defense" was insufficient in any way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Direct the Strike. And yes, that is what that FAQ ruling means. That is the RAW. Just like the MM change, they didn't consider the implications it would have on their own ruleset.

And who said it had to target enemies? The FAQ says "has a target line or an attack line, and is an attack power > attack." Warden Forms formatted in the books are all one power. That is just the RAW now, shifting into the Form is an attack, using the Form's attack power isn't.

And your definition breaks Divine Challenge (and about a hundred other things).

god damnit, just have anything that is an attack state that its an attack for those people that can´t make good judgements...

it is usually quite obvious what is an attack and what not... really...

so i go with: "an attack is what is intended as an attack", nice circular logic, but it should work for most groups...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

*feels UngeheuerLich's pain*

I'm an attorney. One thing I've noticed about laws and codes & other rule systems is that, even if there is a section of definitions that purports to define all the possible terms of linguistic contention or confusion, eventually, something will pop up that doesn't fit the stated definitions. Someone will use a defined term in a way that is not included in the definition.

Which is a good part of why I'm not a RAW guy- in RPGS OR the practice of Law. You always have to consider things like context, common sense and drafter's intent and so forth in order to figure out the intent of the rule or definition.

IOW, RAW is just the beginning.

So...yeah- MM is an attack.

 

[Allaric]

RE: Changes to Magic Missile

There is a really easy explanation as to why Magic Missile was changed.

In the new Essential rules they are trying to play to some nostalgic themes of old school. They wanted Magic Missile to be auto-hit like in days of old. Problem: This spell has the same name as the currently available and balanced 4E Magic Missile spell of the pre-essentials generic Wizard class and the Character Builder will not be able to handle having two descriptions for the same named power without serious re-programing. Solution? To hell with the established wizard power. Essentials demands Magic Missile works this way so it is changed for all versions of Wizards so Character Builder will work.

 

[Camelot]

There is a really easy explanation as to why Magic Missile was changed.

In the new Essential rules they are trying to play to some nostalgic themes of old school. They wanted Magic Missile to be auto-hit like in days of old. Problem: This spell has the same name as the currently available and balanced 4E Magic Missile spell of the pre-essentials generic Wizard class and the Character Builder will not be able to handle having two descriptions for the same named power without serious re-programing. Solution? To hell with the established wizard power. Essentials demands Magic Missile works this way so it is changed for all versions of Wizards so Character Builder will work.

This is a possibility that crossed my mind, and probably occured to others too. However, if true, it means that the beach mages might not care enough about the rules they've established to continue with a single game. In a sense, this is good; it is what allowed them to move on from 3e to 4e and change things that didn't work in the old system. It also allows them to change things that don't work in the 4e system, of course. But if they take it too far, it could result in the 4e rules changing too much. This would cause a lot of confusion among the game's players (let's face it, anything can potentially cause mass confusion, even if it was meant to solve it).

However, I don't think this is how it is. I think that magic missile is a rare occurance, and the 4e rules as a whole are not going to be so easily overturned. At least I hope.

 

[LostSoul]

god damnit, just have anything that is an attack state that its an attack for those people that can´t make good judgements...

it is usually quite obvious what is an attack and what not... really...

so i go with: "an attack is what is intended as an attack", nice circular logic, but it should work for most groups...

This is why there is a DM in the group. If no judgement calls were needed to be made, there'd be no need for a DM.

 

[Gradine]

As an actual professional semantician, I disagree. I'm not interpreting anything, that is effect of how the FAQ is phrased. Further, I disagree that a definition that doesn't result in anything patently ridiculous like this can't be achieved. I could think of a few off-hand that I believe would satisfy, though I didn't think the original definition of "has an attack roll and targets a defense" was insufficient in any way.

You are making a lot of assumptions though, and those assumptions make up your interpretation. Those assumptions (namely, that what is stated in the FAQ for Magic Missile is the be-all end-all of attacks) clearly conflict with what is obviously intended by the authors (ie, Dragon's Breath, Warden's Fury, etc. are attacks), which means you're purposefully aligning yourself with an interpretation that is absolutely wrong according to RAI (far more important, IMO, than the RAW*) for the sole purpose of arguing semantics.

*Why do I believe that RAI supercedes RAW? That's simple; the whole purpose of errata (our infamous thread topic notwithstanding) is to bring the RAW in line with RAI. RAI is the ideal; it's what we strive for; and therefore it has to be more important than RAW. I'm sure this argument has been done to death on this board long ago; just dropping my two cents in the bucket.

I don't wish to unduly disparage your chosen profession, (as a teacher and a playwright I get plenty enough on both fronts) it's just that I have never once had a positive experience once arguments turn to semantics. As an educator (particularly when educating about difficult or contentious topics), I have seen countless rational and educational discussions and lessons completely derailed by students who insist on bogging things down in semantic arguments. As a playwright, I have seen my words interpreted in so many different ways that I would have never dreamed. I don't believe in such a thing as a common vocabulary, in practically anything, and attempting to create one is an absolute fool's errand. I have only seen it work with the most simple of frameworks. I've seen people argue rules in card games; something as complex as D&D doesn't stand a chance.

Oh sure, there's got to be some frameworks established... and vocabulary in general is handy. But attempting to establish something all-inclusive in such a large system will always lead to more confusion and contention; our friends at Wizards proved that in their provided logic for why MM is an attack. Such a definition would necessarily have to include the exceptions, which defeats the purpose of having such a definition in the first place. Is the "initial use" clause absolutely necessary to defining an attack? If so, it isn't possible to reconcile that with the obviously intended encounter weapon attacks of the Warden Forms, without each and every Warden Form
being retrofitted into some gaudy, cumbersome power-within-a-power format. Even at best, it would at least require including some ludicrous line (again, inserted into every power) that states: "These attacks count as attacks." Does that really have to be necessary? At some point it becomes no longer worthwhile to bend over backwards to appease the rules lawyers, and we will then be required to make the reasonable judgments on our own.

Obviously if people had a better grasp on semantics this wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, which I can only assume is where you're coming from. If that is the case I can completely empathize with you. I did feel the need to expand upon my general contempt for the concept though. No offense intended.

 

[DracoSuave]

Direct the Strike. And yes, that is what that FAQ ruling means. That is the RAW. Just like the MM change, they didn't consider the implications it would have on their own ruleset.

And who said it had to target enemies? The FAQ says "has a target line or an attack line, and is an attack power > attack." Warden Forms formatted in the books are all one power. That is just the RAW now, shifting into the Form is an attack, using the Form's attack power isn't.

And your definition breaks Divine Challenge (and about a hundred other things).

So... let's see.

You've taken a faq entry saying that an attack power is making an attack if it has a target line, or an attack line....

And interpretted it to mean that a guardian form power being used is an attack despite the fact that while being used it does not have an attack line nor a target line, but that the attack power it gives you (while using the term 'attack power') isn't an attack despite the fact that it has an attack line and a target line.

That's....

...


....um....


...err....

....

You should do spindoctoring for BP. The ability to take some peace of information and make it into the exact opposite is impressive.



Besides that, most of the guardian powers have the following phrase:

'Once during this encounter, you can make the following weapon attack while you are in this form.'

Hey guys, look, it -says- it's an attack right there!

In before 'Specific beats General.'