"Whenever you hit an enemy"?

[DracoSuave]

While naturally I would cede to your request, it's already been done in this thread (in fact, looking back on it, by you.) Not to mention the various tweets and other communiques from the designers outright spelling this out back when the whole argument first started.

Actually, his quote does not support the 'all attacks hit' thing.

EDIT: Went through the thread as well. The designers never mention that Magic Missile hits the target. They mention that it is making an attack. That is all.

Of course, as soon as the RAW declared Magic Missile was an attack, all the naysayers cried "but they didn't say it was a hit!" and no, the FAQ itself does not, but now you're just grasping at straws.

Except hit is defined by the rules. This 'auto-attack' thing does not exist in the rules, is never mentioned in the rules. Executing the rules is not grasping at straws. Saying that it's a hit because you heard somewhere some guy in a forum said it was is grasping at straws.

Attacks produce hits;

Attack rolls produce hits. Attacks may not produce attack rolls.

just as not-attacks (i.e, the extra Cleave damage) do not produce hits.

Explain your logic here, you're contradicting yourself. Damage dealt by an attack power is a hit, unless it's dealt to a monster you did not roll an attack roll against, unless you're not rolling any attack rolls?

Cleave damage only occurs on a hit! So you're saying that damage that does not occur on a hit does in fact hit but that damage that does occur on a hit may not in fact be a hit.

Please explain the 'logic' behind this. Page references would be nice. Use the rules. Or find the forum.

This is the simplest, most elegant way to define a hit.

Except of course for the self-contradictory part that relays on ambiguity and interpreting rules based on what some guy said in a forum somewhere.

Saying that a power requires a "Hit" line to be a hit is the same as saying a power requires an "Attack" line to be an attack,

But that's not the right logic.

An attack is defined not by the Attack 'line' but by being an attack power. A hit is defined not by the hit line, but by being a successful roll of attack dice. Also, effects are not restricted to the effect line either.

and the Magic Missile errata and accompanying FAQ already proves line of thinking false.

Except the Faq does not say Magic Missile hits, and the update does not say Magic Missile hits.

I'll admit it's not an absolute slam-dunk in saying that Magic Missile = hit, but it's closest possible thing. The only logic that can prove that Magic Missile is a hit is the same logic that only works if it isn't also an attack.

Incorrect. The only logic that says that Magic Missile does not hit is because you never succeed on an attack roll. That's all that is required, as a hit is A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ROLL.

The oft-quoted line from the PHB is, at best, outdated. The full paragraph is as follows:

It's the definition of a hit. It shows 'Look, an attack roll. that is successful, is a hit.' It's also based on PHB1 rules tech. The precidents contained within that book still apply.

Now, the first sentence quoted here is demonstrably false. The second sentence, which has been quoted here several times, is therefore based on a faulty premise. Back when the PHB was first published, an attack required an attack roll, and a hit required an attack. This has changed. There are attacks that no longer require attack rolls. So does a hit now require an attack roll, or does a hit require an attack? The PHB is, remarkably, ambiguous. How so? The next paragraph begins thusly.

The thing is tho, the rules still applies. If, during your attack, you rolled the d20 and added modifiers, and beat the defense, you got a hit. If your attack does not require this, you did not do that, and you could not have gotten a hit. Just because Magic Missile is an attack does not suddenly make the need for that attack roll magically disappear.

Emphasis added, but this line definitely seems to imply that the "effect" line is just as important as the "hit" when it comes to determining a hit. Is it tenuous? Yeah sure, but far less so than a quote from the PHB relying on an outdated definition of the term "attack." Since an attack no longer requires an attack roll, why must we cling to that same definition for the purposes of a "hit"?

Effects of a power are not restricted to the effect line. You're clinging far too much on the idea that it's the Hit line that defines a hit. It does not. It defines the RESULT of a hit for that power. The definition of hit is a successful attack roll.

No other text exists in the game to even hint that anything else could be a hit, barring a power that says, flat out 'You hit.' But that's an exception.

Does this definition lead to some... interesting consequences? Yes.

Pulling rules out of your ass often does.

But just because a rule change breaks something doesn't make it not a rule change.

Where IS this rule change? That's the problem with your logic, you mention this rule change. You point out its effects.

YOU DO NOT POINT OUT THE RULE CHANGE.

Simply put, your 'new definition for hit' does not actually exist. It's a made up thing. It's a vaporrule. Point it out. Cite a page. Link the Rules Comp. Show the errata. Do -something- to prove this rule exists.

Do I think WotC will ever definitively spell it out? No; I don't think there isn't a fully elegant solution that would satisfactorily cover all bases. There'd always be some exception here; some broken combo there. So yes, Magic Missile and Flurry of Blows are definitely attacks, and yes, they almost definitely constitute hits.

There is a fully elegant solution. Use the rule that exists. It works. Don't use 'some guy on a forum said blah somewhere' and call that a game rule.

Grab the book it is in, grab the page, and prove its existance.

I'm pretty sure there was an actual post from one of the devs either in the thread linked above or in one of the other similar threads that have hashed this out over and over on Q&A. I'm REALLY not going to go through 100+ pages of threads looking for it.

I'm pretty sure there isn't. And I don't exactly trust your record of interpreting things on this topic. So 'I'm sure it's there but I don't wanna look' ain't making your case. All your case is in this regard is 'I heard a guy on a forum who I think said this.' That ain't an argument.

You can accept that FAQ entry 38 implies that MM and similar powers DO hit, accept the obvious RAI, or play it whatever way you feel like.

It says Magic Missile is an attack. It does not say (nor imply) Magic Missile counts as making an attack roll, and it certainly does not say (nor imply) Magic Missile hits its target.

It is defining the term 'making an attack' for the purposes of Greater Invisibility. Making an attack is not the same concept as hitting. It doesn't go beyond that point.

While Greg Bilsland didn't address this issue exactly in the quote in the linked thread I seriously doubt he's going to come down on the side of it being an attack and then say it doesn't HIT.

And here is the truth. He doesn't actually say that it's a hit. So, your argument has gone from 'He said it was a hit!' to 'I'm sure he'd say it'd be a hit.'

Thus, you've gone from saying 'This thread proves my argument!' to 'I'm sure he'd say my argument is proven!'

An attack that damages a specific target is an attack and it hits.

Given your argument is now consisting of 'I heard some guy on a forum might say that if we asked him' that's not really a good argument.

Try rules text, buddy. Cite some rules, son!

If there are issues with that and other powers they need to be taken up there. As with a lot of similar areas of 4e there simply IS no one totally consistent reading of the rules that will do exactly what you want all the time. They simply aren't anywhere near written tightly enough for that.

Bullocks.

To hit is to equal or exceed a defense with an attack roll. This works 100% of the time. If you claim it does not, show me an example where this interpretation causes some sort of break down. Some rules don't always work... this one is not one of those rules.

And before you bring up magic missile, watch the rule in action.

'Magic Missile doesn't roll an attack roll, so it cannot beat a defense, so it does not hit.' BAM RULE WORKS PERFECTLY.


Allow me to point out the fallacy of your argument for you:

Let's take the power Reveletory Strike, Ardent level 23, PHB3, unaugmented.

Attack, Close burst 10, targets one one ally in burst, makes the target do an MBA as a free action, and other stuff if that MBA hits.

Does this qualify as making an attack? Yes. It is an attack power, and it targets someone.

Does this qualify as hitting the target? No. You are not hitting your ally. You're not even attacking your ally. But he's the target of the power, just the same as magic missile. It has an effect on him, same as magic missile. It is making an attack, same as magic missile.

So why aren't you hitting him? Because you're not rolling an attack roll... same as magic missile.

 

[psk20]

Scanning through the Rules Compendium, I just can't find anything that suggests that a hit is anything other than the consequence of a successful attack roll.

On page 214 it says that if the result of the attack roll is equal to the defense, it hits. Otherwise, it misses. No mention of "auto-hits".

A few lines down, on page 215, it states: "Some attack powers don't include attack rolls. Such powers automatically deal damage, impose conditions, or harm enemies in some way." Wouldn't it have been rather easy for Wizards to have said "Such powers hit automatically"?

On page 216 it has a section on "Automatic hits" - but that section only concerns itself with natural 20s and does't mention attack powers without attack rolls.

 

[psk20]

A quote that was pointed out to me in another thread:

"automagic Damage
This article introduces some powers that auto- matically deal damage to one or more enemies. Keep in mind that because the damage is in the “Effect” line, the powers don’t hit, and therefore can’t benefit from effects that trigger off of a hit. Also, since the damage is a flat number, it isn’t considered a damage roll, and therefore it doesn’t benefit from effects that increase the result of a damage roll (but can still benefit from extra damage that doesn’t require a roll)."

Dragon 381 p. 65.

 

[DracoSuave]

Maybe you're working with a different definition than I am, but it seems to me that using 'intuition' here implies that I'm working off a hunch or gut feeling, which I'm not, because if someone sends a magic missile at a target, then the target is, in fact, hit by the missile.

That's great... but that's not what 'hit' means in the game rules. That's like saying that the goal of chess is to take a pen, mark a head of state to show that he is correct, and give him a signifigant other to copulate with.

But 'check' 'king' and 'mate' in chess terms do not mean the same thing that 'check' 'king' and 'mate' do in common english. Chess uses a different jargon. Not everything means something different, a gambit in chess doesn't mean something different, to play is the same thing... but some terms mean something very specific and do not make sense in the context of the game if you use them incorrectly.

D&D also uses a different jargon. Some things mean what they do in english, and other things do not; game terms mean a specific thing, and even if they have a different meaning outside the context of terminology, inside that context, they are specific.

Hit is one of those terms. Yes, outside of terminology, you could be said to hit the target with a magic missile, but in the context of the game rules, hit means to succeed with an attack roll, and effects that refer to things you hit maintain that context. Your -character- might say "Look how I hit that guy!" but the game rules are speaking a different language.

In other words, I'm not intuiting that the target should be hit if the missile flies towards it. I'm looking at the fact that the target was indeed struck with the missile, and saying since the missile hit the target, riders that trigger on a hit should take effect.

But that's out of context. The rules use the term hit in a specific way... it's when you succeed on an attack roll. The rules don't deviate from that context just because you could use a different definition of 'hit' outside the game rules.

As an example:

'To hit something' also means to copulate with, in a slang term. Your feats and effects that kick in when you hit a target do not suddenly kick in when you score with the tavern wench.

No disrespect to the designers or anyone who chooses to follow that particular RAW, but I just don't choose to play it that way.

Your choice is yours. But it doesn't change the fact your argument is based on what is intuitive, and not what is logical within the game rules' context. Your 'logic' is that 'Hitting can mean something else in english, so I'm certain the game rules also include that second meaning of hitting.' That isn't logical. There is a missing leap that allows the first premise to lead to the end conclusion... that leap is where the intuition comes in.

 

[Gradine]

A quote that was pointed out to me in another thread:

"automagic Damage
This article introduces some powers that auto- matically deal damage to one or more enemies. Keep in mind that because the damage is in the “Effect” line, the powers don’t hit, and therefore can’t benefit from effects that trigger off of a hit. Also, since the damage is a flat number, it isn’t considered a damage roll, and therefore it doesn’t benefit from effects that increase the result of a damage roll (but can still benefit from extra damage that doesn’t require a roll)."

Dragon 381 p. 65.

Finally, a quoted rule that isn't an ass-pull or a suspect line from an outdated paragraph. While I can't say I like the logic of it, I guess I can understand the game-balance implications behind it.

I still stand with Abdul on one point; I do remember Greg at some point saying that Magic Missile hit; I suppose they caught wind of all the nasty implications and changed their minds.

They do still count as attacks though.

 

[Gradine]

oopsies, double-post

 

[DracoSuave]

I still stand with Abdul on one point; I do remember Greg at some point saying that Magic Missile hit; I suppose they caught wind of all the nasty implications and changed their minds..

So far, the only thing in the thread is 'Greg tweeted that he said this', which is that Magic Missile is an attack. Nothing about it hitting.

So... it's hearsay about hearsay as far as I can tell. But I'm looking deeper.

 

[the Jester]

This line of thinking has already been nixed during the Great Magic Missile Debacle though.

Not at all.

It hasn't (yet) made an FAQ appearance but the DESIGNERS OF THE GAME state flat out unequivocally that Magic Missile hits.

No they don't. And even if one of them did, how often in the past have we seen the designers disagree about the rules?

I'm pretty sure there was an actual post from one of the devs either in the thread linked above or in one of the other similar threads that have hashed this out over and over on Q&A. I'm REALLY not going to go through 100+ pages of threads looking for it. You can accept that FAQ entry 38 implies that MM and similar powers DO hit, accept the obvious RAI, or play it whatever way you feel like.

Anytime an argument comes down to "rules as intended" what it usually means is "this is how I play it". If you're going to assert that the argument is closed, the burden of proof is on you. So far I haven't seen much to suggest that you have met that burden of proof or provided any evidence at all to back up your assertion.

Please do not ask me to take your word for it, either. I think you are wrong. Demonstrate to me that I am incorrect by all means, but don't ask me to take it on faith.

A few lines down, on page 215, it states: "Some attack powers don't include attack rolls. Such powers automatically deal damage, impose conditions, or harm enemies in some way." Wouldn't it have been rather easy for Wizards to have said "Such powers hit automatically"?

The reason they didn't say "such powers hit automatically" is because they don't. Instead, they have an effect. In a very few cases, there may be powers that automatically hit with no attack roll required; I seem to recall one in the MM2 or maybe Open Grave or somewhere, but that's only one. For the most part, though, a no-attack-roll required attack power has an effect and "on a hit" stuff does not trigger.

A quote that was pointed out to me in another thread:

"automagic Damage
This article introduces some powers that auto- matically deal damage to one or more enemies. Keep in mind that because the damage is in the “Effect” line, the powers don’t hit, and therefore can’t benefit from effects that trigger off of a hit. Also, since the damage is a flat number, it isn’t considered a damage roll, and therefore it doesn’t benefit from effects that increase the result of a damage roll (but can still benefit from extra damage that doesn’t require a roll)."

Dragon 381 p. 65.

Aha, actual text! Pretty much exactly how I would run it- the RAI as I perceive them, plain as day.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Anytime an argument comes down to "rules as intended" what it usually means is "this is how I play it". If you're going to assert that the argument is closed, the burden of proof is on you. So far I haven't seen much to suggest that you have met that burden of proof or provided any evidence at all to back up your assertion.

Please do not ask me to take your word for it, either. I think you are wrong. Demonstrate to me that I am incorrect by all means, but don't ask me to take it on faith.

Why do I have to prove anything to you? Back up your own assertions, lol. If a power targets an enemy and does damage to that target then the target was attacked and hit. It is perfectly straightforward and in order to argue that isn't so in an RPG, a game who's rules are based on common sense modeling of an in-game fictional reality you are going to have to do better than state jargon. You have to SHOW ME how this makes sense within the context of the game. This is something you cannot do because the position you are taking is absurd from that perspective.

The wizard casts Magic Missile at the orc, the missile appears, travels to the orc and non-hits the orc! Yeah, right... Try harder.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Really, Abdul? Even after Draco pulled out line-by-line every single definition of all these terms and went through them showing how they apply, you still don't want to accept it? Look, I know that we would like to believe (because it makes SENSE) that using Magic Missile results in a Hit of a target... but by the definitions that Draco pulled out and the article that psk20 quoted... it's just not true AS WRITTEN.

The two of them have showed us all the rules that define what a Hit is... and without someone giving us counter and more up-to-date rules... we need to go with the proven evidence that they have provided.

If you (or anyone) doesn't want to accept the rules as defined is entirely your choice... but just don't try and claim that they are still wrong. Accept that they have proved their side of the argument, and until you are able to produce evidence to the contrary, man up and accept that your definition has not been proven as Rules As Written.