"Whenever you hit an enemy"?

[malraux]

If just damaging a creature is all it takes to call something a hit, then Reaping Strike hits on a miss. Clearly that's absurd. There are lots of cases of powers doing damage without hitting. MM has an effect of doing damage, not a hit for damage. Wall of Fire doesn't hit, but it does damage. Flaming Sphere has a damage without a hit line.

 

[the Jester]

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.

To use the magic missile example, it appears, travels to the orc and effects the orc... just like it says in the power. No "Hit" line- no attack roll- means no hit (generally). You seem to think that "effect" and "hit" are the same or something, but if you look in the rules you will see quite clearly that they aren't.

If a power targets an enemy, that has nothing to do with whether it hits or not. If a power targets an enemy and deals damage on a miss, it still hasn't hit. If it has an effect regardless of whether it hits or miss, that's not a hit either.

If magic missile was supposed to be a hit, don't you think it would have been written that way?

Now, you are continuing to argue both without evidence and against the evidence, which is fine- I seem to recall a rules quote just a bit upthread, including in the post of mine that you seem to have selectively read- but in general, if you're going to ignore the evidence and insist you have it right without any evidence of your own, there isn't much room for discussion, is there?

One more thing I'll add:

...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.

Not at all. 4e is explicitly not modeling an in-game fictional reality- I am quite sure that you can find a bunch of designer quotes about this too. The game rules are there to allow the pcs to be heroic.

And as for absurd- seriously, dude, you're talking about a game where high-level pcs can fall 100' and dust themselves off. You're talking about a game where even the non-magical guys can do pretty magical stuff. About a game where you pretend to be an elf. To me, it's absurd that you would continue to argue insistently that you're right when the evidence is all against you and you have no evidence backing you up. And to try to shift the burden of proof to me is lazy debate. I'm not trying to prove your point for you and you aren't convincing anyone on your say-so. I've had several online arguments lately that devolved into "It's obvious, I don't need evidence!" Well, I don't care if it's obvious to you- I am not taking your word for it because you are flat-out, plain and simple, dead wrong.

The position you seem to be taking is, "I don't care what the rules say, I KNOW THIS IS HOW IT IS!!1!!1" Is this how you argue rules disputes at the table too?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not at all. 4e is explicitly not modeling an in-game fictional reality- I am quite sure that you can find a bunch of designer quotes about this too. The game rules are there to allow the pcs to be heroic.

Nonsense. What the rules are allowing the PCs to do is irrelevant. What is relevant is that in an RPG there is FICTION and there are MECHANICS. ALL RPGs (all games that it makes any sense to call an RPG) have FICTION determining mechanics, otherwise you're just playing a board game and talking in funny voices. Statements like this are simply inaccurate on general principle.

And as for absurd- seriously, dude, you're talking about a game where high-level pcs can fall 100' and dust themselves off. You're talking about a game where even the non-magical guys can do pretty magical stuff. About a game where you pretend to be an elf. To me, it's absurd that you would continue to argue insistently that you're right when the evidence is all against you and you have no evidence backing you up. And to try to shift the burden of proof to me is lazy debate. I'm not trying to prove your point for you and you aren't convincing anyone on your say-so. I've had several online arguments lately that devolved into "It's obvious, I don't need evidence!" Well, I don't care if it's obvious to you- I am not taking your word for it because you are flat-out, plain and simple, dead wrong.

The position you seem to be taking is, "I don't care what the rules say, I KNOW THIS IS HOW IT IS!!1!!1" Is this how you argue rules disputes at the table too?

Again, it is IRRELEVANT what kind of things the PCs can do. How does that bear on whether or not certain rules are applied in a given situation??!! You're arguing things that just don't matter. What matters is that when a player's character has a rider that kicks in when they hit things they are DAMNED WELL GOING TO EXPECT that these things work in a way that makes Magic Missile a HIT!!! THAT is what is important, what happens IN GAME and how things play out WRT to the in-game fiction, not some kind of logic chopping that produces ridiculous results that the players do not expect.

I fully understand 4e rules. What I think a LOT of people fail to understand is that the DESIGNERS OF THE RULES theory of what an RPG is and how it works MANIFESTLY correspond with my own a lot more than they do with yours. This is pretty apparent if you go read the statements they've made on various rules issues. Sure in an IDEAL world the mechanics would be perfectly consistent AND provide the correct results, but they don't always. Thus you can make any number of arguments you want about "hit" but it just doesn't matter.

Obviously if you want to disagree with my theory and philosophy about how to play the game and how the rules should be interpreted that's up to you. I don't really care that much. Trading back and forth "you're wrong! No, You are!!!" is going nowhere though so I suggest we just get on with things and agree to differ. If I see a power where this interpretation doesn't work, then I'll go by a different interpretation for that power, consistency is simply not a big deal when it is at that sort of nitpick level.

 

[malraux]

I fully understand 4e rules. What I think a LOT of people fail to understand is that the DESIGNERS OF THE RULES theory of what an RPG is and how it works MANIFESTLY correspond with my own a lot more than they do with yours. This is pretty apparent if you go read the statements they've made on various rules issues. Sure in an IDEAL world the mechanics would be perfectly consistent AND provide the correct results, but they don't always. Thus you can make any number of arguments you want about "hit" but it just doesn't matter.

This paragraph is just . You just believe you are really really right, so obviously the rest of us just don't share your magical esp with the game designers? That's why you are correct? This is insulting immature and self-evidently fallacious.

 

[the Jester]

Not evidence.

I remain unconvinced.

Edit: And I notice you still haven't addressed the actual quoted rules text cited above.

 

[jdrakeh]

Why do I have to prove anything to you? Back up your own assertions, lol.

Just know that utterly failing to back up your own assertions when calling for others to do so means that few people here will take anything you have to say seriously.

 

[ExploderWizard]

'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.

Perhaps in your games.

 

[Gradine]

Look, the "Magic Missile never actually hits" ruling is probably one of the most absurd I've read when it comes to 4e RAW. But I understand that's how a lot of people felt about the "Yes, Magic Missile is an attack" ruling too. Neither one of those rulings, individually, is nearly as absurd as the fact that the power could possibly be one without the other.

That being said, I empathize with the sentiment expressed by Abdul. The narrative has been fully relegated to the backseat by the all-important game balance. And there is no logical explanation that has ever been given other than game balance as to why this ruling exists.

"But that means this and this combo is potentially broken!" should not be the lone prevailing argument. It's days like these I find myself pining for the more egalitarian "throw-it-in" design philosophy of 3.x

 

[malraux]

Look, the "Magic Missile never actually hits" ruling is probably one of the most absurd I've read when it comes to 4e RAW. But I understand that's how a lot of people felt about the "Yes, Magic Missile is an attack" ruling too. Neither one of those rulings, individually, is nearly as absurd as the fact that the power could possibly be one without the other.

That being said, I empathize with the sentiment expressed by Abdul. The narrative has been fully relegated to the backseat by the all-important game balance. And there is no logical explanation that has ever been given other than game balance as to why this ruling exists.

"But that means this and this combo is potentially broken!" should not be the lone prevailing argument. It's days like these I find myself pining for the more egalitarian "throw-it-in" design philosophy of 3.x

The combo is broken isn't the loan prevailing argument. The fact that 4e has three different categories for doing damage (Hitting by succeeding on an attack roll, Missing by failling on an attack roll, and Effecting which ignores if the attack hit or missed) means that something can target and deal damage without being a Hit.

 

[Gradine]

The combo is broken isn't the loan prevailing argument. The fact that 4e has three different categories for doing damage (Hitting by succeeding on an attack roll, Missing by failling on an attack roll, and Effecting which ignores if the attack hit or missed) means that something can target and deal damage without being a Hit.

Yeah, but the only reason for adding damage to that third category is game balance, because there's no other way attacking something and dealing damage to them but still not hitting them makes any kind of narrative sense. "Not breaking things" is the only reason these powers aren't considered hits. It's perfectly balanced and absolutely ludicrous.