"Whenever you hit an enemy"?

[Taed]

There's a few feats that are worded with "whenever you hit an enemy", and I want to know if that refers only to the target of an attack, or also those enemies who are hit by "splash damage".

For example, I have the Mark of Storms feat with the feature "Whenever you hit an enemy with a thunder or lightning power, you can slide that enemy 1 square." I then use the Warden At-Will Tempest Assault with "Target: One creature" and "Hit: 1[W]... and one enemy within 2 squares of you that is marked by you, other than the target, takes thunder damage equal to your Constitution modifier."

So, the second enemy wasn't rolled against (not a "Target"), but it was part of the "Hit" description (not an "Effect" description) and it's clear that it's thunder damage. So, is the second enemy also affected by the Mark of Storems feat's slide bonus?

In other cases, such as with Eberron Shard of Lightning, it is clear that it only affects the Target since the description is "Property: You gain a +1 bonus to damage ROLLS with lightning attacks...". Namely, it only affects the target since that's the only one rolled against.

I haven't found that this is clear in the rules, or if it's one of those things that people will interpret differently. If you think it's covered by the rules, could you point it out?

Thanks! I just took this feat and will be using it for the first time, so I want to understand it, and not spring a judgement on the DM.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

Whenever you hit an enemy with a thunder or lightning power, you can slide that enemy 1 square.

(Emphasis mine)

To hit you have to make an attack roll against a target (and beat the defense). Even if others are effected in the hit line, you did not "hit" them. Mark of storm only effects the enemy you hit, so that's who you get to slide.

 

[Magiblack]

I think it has less to do with the "hit" line and more to do with the enemy that you rolled the attack against (the target). If it was an area burst you are targeting (and rolling to hit) everyone in the burst.

 

[the Jester]

In my judgment, to "hit" an enemy you must successfully roll an attack against that enemy.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think it has less to do with the "hit" line and more to do with the enemy that you rolled the attack against (the target). If it was an area burst you are targeting (and rolling to hit) everyone in the burst.

But you only hit the enemies that you successfully rolled attack rolls against. The ones you miss, you did not hit, and those enemies cannot be affected by triggers that apply to enemies you hit.

Enemy is a singular word in D&D rules. Enemies is the plural. In terms of the ruleset, 'The enemy' only refers to a singular creature, without exception.

 

[Gradine]

In my judgment, to "hit" an enemy you must successfully roll an attack against that enemy.

This line of thinking has already been nixed during the Great Magic Missile Debacle though. That said, whether the creature is targeted by the power seems to make all the difference. The warden's Tempest Assault bears a marked similarity to the extra damage tacked on by the fighter's Cleave, which has already been ruled not a hit. You'd slide your original target but not the mark that's taking Con damage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But you only hit the enemies that you successfully rolled attack rolls against. The ones you miss, you did not hit, and those enemies cannot be affected by triggers that apply to enemies you hit.

Enemy is a singular word in D&D rules. Enemies is the plural. In terms of the ruleset, 'The enemy' only refers to a singular creature, without exception.

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree that enemy is singular. It is a collective noun and it can refer to a group as a whole. I think you have to look to targeting and other factors to make a real determination.

This line of thinking has already been nixed during the Great Magic Missile Debacle though. That said, whether the creature is targeted by the power seems to make all the difference. The warden's Tempest Assault bears a marked similarity to the extra damage tacked on by the fighter's Cleave, which has already been ruled not a hit. You'd slide your original target but not the mark that's taking Con damage.

This is true. There are however no exactly clean ways of defining who would be eligible in the OP's sort of case. There are a few different possibilities:

1) You have a single target power which requires a to-hit roll. This is the simplest. If the attack hits then the rider effect kicks in.

2) You have a multi-target power, either an AoE or one that produces multiple attacks (Icy Rays or Twin Strike). This is also clear. Any enemy hit by the attack will be affected by the rider.

3) You have a power which has one or more targets but no to-hit roll (IE Magic Missile). This has been argued endlessly but the gist of it is the target(s) were attacked. The question of whether or not they were "hit" is a bit more ambiguous but WotC seems to be telling us that yes it is correct to say they were hit.

4) You have things like Cleave that do ancillary damage to enemies which weren't the target of the spell and don't get an attack roll made against them. This case has always been considered not and attack or hit. The enemy being affected was not selected during target selection for one thing.

5) You have powers like Acid Arrow which are single target but can make attack rolls against other enemies. These are always either explicitly or implicitly secondary attacks, so they generally should engage riders that require a hit or an attack. There may possibly be exceptions.

At this point you're not going to find a single simple 100% perfect way to define who was hit by an attack. Common sense has to prevail. If someone shot a magic missile at you then they surely attacked you and surely hit you by any reasonable definition.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree that enemy is singular. It is a collective noun and it can refer to a group as a whole. I think you have to look to targeting and other factors to make a real determination.

No it isn't. It's never been a collective noun in D&D4e rules terms, and there's no reason to believe it suddenly is just because the player picked up Mark of Storms, which goes to threat links to include 'That enemy' to indicate specificity.

Which enemy did you hit? That's the one you hit. A is A. Tautologies are not exactly rocket science.

This is true. There are however no exactly clean ways of defining who would be eligible in the OP's sort of case. There are a few different possibilities:

Sure it is. Look at which enemies you hit. Those are the ones you hit. A is A. Tautologies are not hard.

1) You have a single target power which requires a to-hit roll. This is the simplest. If the attack hits then the rider effect kicks in.

Absolutely.

2) You have a multi-target power, either an AoE or one that produces multiple attacks (Icy Rays or Twin Strike). This is also clear. Any enemy hit by the attack will be affected by the rider.

Each enemy hit will be affected by the rider. You hit an enemy, that enemy is affected. Not difficult.

3) You have a power which has one or more targets but no to-hit roll (IE Magic Missile). This has been argued endlessly but the gist of it is the target(s) were attacked. The question of whether or not they were "hit" is a bit more ambiguous but WotC seems to be telling us that yes it is correct to say they were hit.

Which WotC is this? Is this the WotC of Fantasy Land?

Hits are the result of attack rolls. Attack rolls have two states: They succeed. That's what hit is. They fail. That's what miss is. That's the definition of those game terms.

Magic Missile does not state that you hit its targets, therefore it does not contradict this rule. There is no evidence to believe that magic missile is somehow special and lets you hit things without attack rolls.

Is it an attack? Yes. That's not relevant to the question... are you succeeding with an attack roll? No? It can't trigger effects based on hits then. If you have magic missile, and hunter's quarry, you do not get to add hunter's quarry damage onto magic missile damage. Why? You did not hit anything.

4) You have things like Cleave that do ancillary damage to enemies which weren't the target of the spell and don't get an attack roll made against them. This case has always been considered not and attack or hit. The enemy being affected was not selected during target selection for one thing.

More importantly, an attack roll was never made against it, therefore it was never hit. Hits are the results of attack rolls. This is not hard.

5) You have powers like Acid Arrow which are single target but can make attack rolls against other enemies. These are always either explicitly or implicitly secondary attacks, so they generally should engage riders that require a hit or an attack. There may possibly be exceptions.

Secondary attacks often involve attack rolls. If those attack rolls hit, then the target of those attack rolls are hit. A hit is a hit.

At this point you're not going to find a single simple 100% perfect way to define who was hit by an attack.[/qupte]

Sure you do.

A hit is a successful attack roll. The enemy you roll a successful attack roll against is hit.

This is 100% effective.

Common sense has to prevail.

Agreed. If you have a rule that says 'When you roll a successful attack roll, it's a hit' and you roll a successful attack roll... it's a hit.

If someone shot a magic missile at you then they surely attacked you and surely hit you by any reasonable definition.

They SURELY attacked you, because they targetted you with an attack power.
They SURELY did not hit you, because they never succeeded in an attack roll against you.

The only reason this can be confusing is when one is confusing possible english definitions of words with the definitions of those words as game terms. Sometimes, a game term in a game does not have the literal definition of the word in the english language. If you destroy a card in Magic the Gathering, you do not take the physical card out to the backyard and set it on fire. If you gain a level in D&D, you do not add another storey onto your house. If you move the king in chess, you do not employ diplomatic protocols required when transporting a head of state.

Simply put, the reason this confuses you is you are not using the same language the game is. These cases are non-ambiguous within the game's language. Which you should use. Cause they're written in the game's language.

 

[MrGrenadine]

They SURELY attacked you, because they targetted you with an attack power.
They SURELY did not hit you, because they never succeeded in an attack roll against you.

I was mostly with your logic, (minus the snark), until here.

If the person sending the magic missile made the attack, then it seems logical to say that when the missile hits, the person sending the missile hit with the attack.


To the OP, if damage taken by an enemy is Thunder damage, and the reason the enemy took the damage is something you did, then I say the rider applies, (which may not be RAW or RAI, but is certainly WMSTM*).




*What Makes Sense To Me

 

[DracoSuave]

I was mostly with your logic, (minus the snark), until here.

If the person sending the magic missile made the attack, then it seems logical to say that when the missile hits, the person sending the missile hit with the attack.

I don't understand how it seems logical at all.

Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to thedefense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both.

The logic follows:

If you hit, you made an attack roll that beat their defense.
therefore
You made an attack roll
therefore
If you hit, it implies you made an attack roll
therefore
if you did not make an attack roll, it implies you did not hit.

What you are describing is intuition. It seems intuitive that if you attack with a magic missile, you hit the target. I don't disagree, that is intuitive.

Intuition, however, is not logic.

To the OP, if damage taken by an enemy is Thunder damage, and the reason the enemy took the damage is something you did, then I say the rider applies, (which may not be RAW or RAI, but is certainly WMSTM*).

Mark of Storms doesn't care what sort of damage is dealt. It cares if the power is a thunder power, and if you hit with it.

Many thunder powers have effects that do not deal thunder damage, but the mark of storms will have the exact same effect.

Howl of Fury, for example. Barbarian At-Wil, Thunder keyword.

When it hits, it deals 1[W] + Strength mod damage. Not thunder damage, untyped. The thunder damage only occurs after, when you deal your Con mod in damage in a blast.

Mark of Storms checks... is this a thunder power? Yes. Did you hit with it? Yes. The enemy you hit gets the push. Those others caught in the blast? You never hit them, because hit is a specific defined thing.

*What Makes Sense To Me

Is intuitive. It is not logic.