D&D 4E 4e Sorcerer Power Question

[DracoSuave]

Sadly, target is a -very- specific term in the game. There's some terms that can be loose (attack) and some that are explicit and defined (target) and have multiple rules that center around them; line of effect, all that stuff. Target is one of those things that's pretty set in stone.

That said, all that's necessary for the power to ignore resistance is for it to have targetted that creature; so this allows your -own- resistance to work just fine but if you've already targeted them with the power they -don't- get to apply it.

That's pretty fair and doesn't trick you out of your ongoing/continual damage.

 

[Diirk]

Sadly, target is a -very- specific term in the game. There's some terms that can be loose (attack) and some that are explicit and defined (target) and have multiple rules that center around them; line of effect, all that stuff. Target is one of those things that's pretty set in stone.

Not sure that I really agree with you. The target entry of a power is explicit and defined (pg 57 PHB), however targetting in general has a seperate section (pg 272 PHB) where it talks in much vaguer terms and is referred to from other places that aren't related to powers.

I much prefer to say 'If you're damaging something, you're targetting it', which is straight forward and doesn't bring up oddities such as Dragonflame Mantle and similar utilities never being able to pierce resistance because they don't have a target entry. And the Burning Spray rider not piercing resistance on a creature you didn't attack with it, but piercing resistance on a creature you missed completely with it, with your ruling.

Plus, then you run into conjurations (eg lvl 19 daily Blackfire Serpent), auras (eg lvl 15 daily Spitfire Furnace altho it isn't called an aura explicitly) and zones, which can quite conceivably hit/(target?) alot of things that the initial usage of the power didn't, and while I can understand you're ruling, I feel that it can quite easily cheat the player out of some damage that he'd expect to be doing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Plus, then you run into conjurations (eg lvl 19 daily Blackfire Serpent), auras (eg lvl 15 daily Spitfire Furnace altho it isn't called an aura explicitly) and zones, which can quite conceivably hit/(target?) alot of things that the initial usage of the power didn't, and while I can understand you're ruling, I feel that it can quite easily cheat the player out of some damage that he'd expect to be doing.

That's what DMs are there to adjudicate. And it's not cheating anyone out of anything; the player has to specificly attack the monster in order for the additional effects to break resistance, but once it does, the entire power works on that mob:

Spitfire Furnace: Monsters that you attacked were targeted with that power, so your resistance-canceller does apply to -those- creatures for future turns.

Blackfire Serpent: Each subsequant attack must target the monster in order to attack it post-sustain. So it works exactly the same under both ideas.

I much prefer to say 'If you're damaging something, you're targetting it', which is straight forward and doesn't bring up oddities such as Dragonflame Mantle and similar utilities never being able to pierce resistance because they don't have a target entry.

Except that means that abilities that deal damage but do not target can trigger 'you got targetted' effects. Cleave's auto-damage, for example, would trigger Aegis of Assault, as would a damaging aura from a monster.

We already know things don't work that way--Greenflame Blade, for example, does not target the monsters adjacent to your target. Those monsters would not be punished from your resistance reduction for the -exact- reason as a fighter would not mark someone he applied Cleave auto-damage to.

 

[Diirk]

Except that means that abilities that deal damage but do not target can trigger 'you got targetted' effects. Cleave's auto-damage, for example, would trigger Aegis of Assault, as would a damaging aura from a monster.

We already know things don't work that way--Greenflame Blade, for example, does not target the monsters adjacent to your target. Those monsters would not be punished from your resistance reduction for the -exact- reason as a fighter would not mark someone he applied Cleave auto-damage to.

Neither of those are 'you got targetted' effects. Aegis of Assault is triggered by marked monsters attacking someone, not targetting someone, and likewise fighters can only mark targets they attack. Attack is explicitly defined, as anything you make an attack roll for. Which disallows incidental damage and auras straight away. Likewise utility interrupts etc which redirect attacks... they tend to trigger off attacks 'hitting', and things like auras, cleave secondary damage etc don't hit, as there is no attack roll... they just do damage.

Its possible yours is the intended interpretation, and its probably something that doesn't come up often, but I'd be loathe to track exactly which monsters a player targetted with Spitfire Furnace 6 rounds later so I can figure out if it does damage or not.

 

[DracoSuave]

Its possible yours is the intended interpretation, and its probably something that doesn't come up often, but I'd be loathe to track exactly which monsters a player targetted with Spitfire Furnace 6 rounds later so I can figure out if it does damage or not.

It only comes up once per adventure day, it's not like it's an encounter power.

And as said before, Blackfire Serpent doesn't require -any- tracking as it re-attacks.

But regardless, Target is even more explicitly defined than Attack is as a game term- It's not who a target affects, it's who you declare as a target for powers that have a Target line. Some powers deal effects to non-targets without a problem; leaders have -tons- of these powers.

As well, if you targetted things that were not explicitly declared as targets, every time you used a power that Target: Enemies but had an effect that benefitted you 'Effect: You gain 10 temporary hit points' then you could not legally use that Effect on yourself.

Obviously, that's not how things work, is it?

 

[Obryn]

I am fairly certain that, were the PHB to be completely rewritten today, Commander's Strike would follow a much, much different format than it does right now. DracoSuave is right that it's an anomalous Power.

(I think Weapon Focus would be rewritten, too, FWIW. )

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

I am fairly certain that, were the PHB to be completely rewritten today, Commander's Strike would follow a much, much different format than it does right now. DracoSuave is right that it's an anomalous Power.

(I think Weapon Focus would be rewritten, too, FWIW. )

-O

I -do- agree that Commander's Strike would be differently worded using today's templates!

It'd be much nicer as Effect: Blah the target.

 

[Obryn]

I -do- agree that Commander's Strike would be differently worded using today's templates!

It'd be much nicer as Effect: Blah the target.

Crap. Somehow this reply ended up in the wrong thread.

Please pretend like this was my answer in the Commander's Strike thread.

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

Crap. Somehow this reply ended up in the wrong thread.

Please pretend like this was my answer in the Commander's Strike thread.

-O

I did!

 

[Diirk]

As well, if you targetted things that were not explicitly declared as targets, every time you used a power that Target: Enemies but had an effect that benefitted you 'Effect: You gain 10 temporary hit points' then you could not legally use that Effect on yourself.

Ironically, the rules on page 57 actually seem to suggest that if taken literally.

"When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates.", the implication being that if the target line doesn't include 'you', then you can't take advantage of the power's effects.

I agree it doesn't work like that tho, the effect line can override the target line. I'm not sure I understand your argument tho, or what it has to do with targetting.

Going back and re-reading various things tho I'd have to say your interpretation is the more correct. While I don't feel that "target" is properly defined, "target of a power" is, and thats what the sorcerer sources tend to refer to for resistance penetration. This still causes issues with things like Dragonflame Mantle tho, which doesn't have a target line (as it affects everyone that hits you that round, not just the enemy that triggered it), and interestingly while Blackfire Serpent works, the attacks granted by Wyrm Form (for example) don't actually have a target line at all in the rules compendium !