attacking without attacking

[DracoSuave]

Draco, define "target". If I am in a room with an enemy, who gulps a potion of invisibility and vanishes from site. The next round I see the door open so I run down the corridor and into another room I think he went (but have no real clue). I see nothing in the room, but I start swinging my sword. At once stage I decide to attack 2 squares at once with DLS, teleporting in the middle.

You have reason to believe an invisible creature might be in that room, in those squares. So you target the creature (as per the rules), then guess the squares it might be in (as per the rules) and apply your attack. You roll the dice, and if the square you guess is wrong you miss the creature, but you are not told whether it is because you guessed poorly or because you failed the attack roll.

But this is important: You -miss- the creature. As per the rules.

For all I know, the enemy maybe in the room, in the first room or has actually left he dungeon by now. But I had a target at some stage so by your logic I can use this attack power with effect.

You have reason to believe there is one. It is -reasonable- to attack it, and you will miss that creature.

The only difference between the character's actions/thinking between this and attacking nothing is my mental state of "I knew there was an enemy around" and "I know there is no enemy around". Is this the only difference between a characters ability to perform an action that at some point requires an attack?

The difference is actually 'I have reason to believe he's around' and 'I have no reason to believe there is an enemy around.'

That difference means the world when the action is 'Attack that guy.'

To me this is very ambigous reason to deny an effect which is not reliant on the outcome of an attack.

No, it's reliant on the -performance- of that attack. But do not be fooled into thinking it is not reliant on the attack just because it doesn't say -Hit- or -Miss-.

As for using attack powers out of combat. Well I have a character who uses utility powers in combat all the time and doing so to damage the enemy. Faelocks get a nice set of teleport utilities and a paragon path which damages enemies when you teleport. So utilities can be used in and out of combat.

A path feature is not the same as a power that requires a target. In this instance, a -path feature- is doing the damage, and it is not targetted anyways. So how is this in any way the same as a targetted power?

They also have at least one attack power which requires no attack rolls to be made which can have a host of uses out of combat. Minions of Malbolge is a Daily Attack power which has effect: Gain 25 temp HPs. All enemies who move next to you take X damage, this lasts until you lose all temp HPs. If I am in an out of combat situation but see a source of damage I want to negate (wall of fire/blades, deep hole, dart trap, etc), I should be able to use this Attack power to gain temp HPs before taking the damage. But by some peoples opinions I shouldn't be able to purely because I am trying to use an attack power as a utility power.

Powers with the attack type of Personal have you as a target, as per the rules. Thusly, you have satisfied the targetting requirements of this power and can use it without a problem.

You're getting to caught up on this 'attack roll' thing. You -should- be concerned with the -target- requirement. The power -clearly- says you need one before the teleport. It even has a handy 'Target:' entry.

Your lack of understanding of what a target is for a power doesn't negate that simple unequivocal fact.

Otherworld Stride is another Warlock Attack power that has an effect not directly tied to attacking a creature. The area is Burst 1 and I attack each creature in burst. If there is no creature in the burst, I attack 0 creatures. I then move onto the effect which is teleport. At no point have I seen a rule whereby I must attack at least 1 creature in an area attack for me to be allowed to use said attack.

We're not talking about an area attack, nor a close attack, nor an ability that says 'All foo in foo'. All creatures in area -can- be zero creatures. However 'One creature' cannot be zero creatures.

1 <> 0.

Math.

And reading Dual Lighting Strike entry, it reads the same way. I make an attack against one creature.

Yes. One creature. Not zero creatures.

Regardless of outcome of that attack, I teleport and make a secondary attack. The main arguement here is the first target must be a valid threat (or at least the square you are swinging through is believed to potentially contain a valid threat) to allow the teleport and attack effect.

The first target must be a valid -target- in order to use the power -at all.-

Which would also disallow a character making a move action to get close to an enemy, then using DLS to teleport the final 5 squares and attacking them (witht he first attack "wasted" on a square).

Normally, yes it would. You also can't use Passing Attack that way either, by the rules.

What you want here is a charge.

And then what happens when a creature uses an ability to move out of the square you were attacking in the first swing? Does that then negate the teleport as your first attack no longer swings through a square with an enemy?

No, because you've already satisfied the necessary steps to use the power. An interrupt that renders an effect of the power unusable does not necessarily render the entire power unusable.

For example, if you Deft Strike next to someone, who then interrupts your attack and stops it, you don't undo the movement the Deft Strike originally allowed.

So, in this instance, you've satisfied the requirements to use the power. Now you use the power, and the interrupt cannot undo -that-. (otherwise the power wouldn't be consumed) You make the first attack, and let's say he moves out of range of the attack as interrupt. (You attack creatures, not squares, unless otherwise noted. If the creature were invisible and you were guessing that square, that's different.) Your attack is negated, but the rest of the -action- is not, so you can continue forth.

But this is not the same as not having a valid target in the first place.

Please disect away ;-)

Now, all that said... I'd -personally- have little problem with a player saying he'd like to do it -anyways- even tho it's 'against the rules.' Because while this case is against the rules, it still makes perfect sense, and thusly, as a DM I would invoke rule 0 and permit it anyways, because I personally think it's a cool thing to do.

But if I say -no- for whatever reason, I know that I'm -not- depriving the player out of anything that the rules say he should have, it's not house ruling, it's just invoking the rules that exist. The player is the one bending the rules if he does this, and the player should know that. He is not -entitled- to his abilities working outside the functioning of the rules.

Doing something outside the rules because it's awesome is a -great- idea and should be encouraged. Doing something outside the rules because the player feels he's entitled to it (even in a 'Say Yes' system, which covers improvization, not rulesbending specificly) is -not- necessarily such a great idea. I'd rather say 'Normally no, but that's cool so yeah' than 'normally yeah, but that scares me so no.'

One is 'Say Yes' DMing. The other is 'Say No' DMing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And this is where we differ. Effects might require a target in order to function. Some effects are affected by the hit/miss of the attack itself. Every utility that -has- a target is an example of effects that require targets.

That's irrelevant. Exceptions to the rule do not define that rule. It's like trying to argue that because Sure Strike gets a +2 to attack, all powers should get +2 to attack (obviously false). While some effects may require a target, the general rule defining effects quite notably excludes that requirement. Hence, unless the power itself defines the effect as requiring a target (Shield of Faith), the effect does not require a target.

The catch is, this has nothing to do with the fact that a target is required to -use the power-. It has nothing to do with Hit or Miss or Effect or Special or Attack... it simply is that you need a target for powers that call for a target. You resolve the power in the order it is written. The Target comes before the Effect on most powers, and if that is not satisfied, the power's requirements for use are not satisfied.

If you can't use the power, you can't bloody well use the effect now can you?

You'd be right except that, as I've pointed out several times, according to page 272 of the PHB you can target a square. As such, you have a something to target, even if it isn't a "target" in terms of hit/miss. You still trigger the effect because you have something to target for the effect (an empty square).

To put it in simpler terms, look at the cleric's Turn Undead power:
Assume the cleric is uncertain whether the creatures before him are undead (he's totally flubbed his Religion check).
Let's also assume that there are no undead in the area (but only the DM knows this).
Also, this cleric has a special (non-existent AFAIK) Pelor feat that adds to his Turn Undead the Effect: Your burst creates a zone that sheds bright light until the end of the encounter.
The cleric decides to use Turn Undead.
The cleric creates a close burst 2. He targets the squares around him, legally.
Unfortunately, there are no undead within the burst, and the targets of the power need to be undead.
As such, there is no legal target to determine hit/miss and we are forced to skip that step.
However, the effect is exempt from the "target" requirement, so the zone of light still occurs.

I think your confusion stems from the fact that target is used both as a verb and a noun. In the case on PHB page 272, we are looking at a verb (you can target a square).

That doesn't change the noun present in the power (ie, Target: one creature). However, as stated on PHB2 page 219, effects normally function irrespective of (noun) target. Only hit/miss are influenced by the noun. If you are lacking a target (noun) to target (verb) then you skip hit/miss resolution (which requires a noun target). You move onto the effect resolution which has the lesser requirement that the the power target (verb) something (a square, for example).

Effects only need to target as a verb (because otherwise the point of origin would be undefined) because they aren't defined as requiring a target (noun) on page 219 of the PHB2. For effect targeting, all you need is a space, as explained on PHB page 272.

I can find no rule that states that without a (noun) target, an effect will not occur. PHB2 page 219 indicates otherwise.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But this is important: You -miss- the creature. As per the rules.

Technically, PHB page 281 is misleading on this point. PHB2 page 219 clearly states that a target is necessary for a miss. If there is no target to hit, then there is nothing to miss either.

If one were to use the RAW of PHB page 281, then a miss effect ought to occur when targeting an empty square where you (wrongly) think an invisible creature may be. That is absurd however (the empty square can't take half damage as it is not a legitimate target for your miss effect). The RAI clearly don't intend that.

 

[Flipguarder]

I feel like the power in question is very important. Dual lightning strike is an effect, but the effect is "You teleport X squares and make a secondary attack." Now I understand where people are coming from with the understanding that miss and hit effects shouldn't be allowed. But is it that outside your pov that effect lines that don't make sense should not work either? The flavor text also supports the idea of not allowing it, because it doesn't say something like "You move across the battlefield in a blink of an eyea" No it says "It seems as though you attack two targets at once" The power was CLEARLY meant in my mind to be simply "you attack two things in one power"

 

[DracoSuave]

Technically, PHB page 281 is misleading on this point. PHB2 page 219 clearly states that a target is necessary for a miss. If there is no target to hit, then there is nothing to miss either.

If one were to use the RAW of PHB page 281, then a miss effect ought to occur when targeting an empty square where you (wrongly) think an invisible creature may be. That is absurd however (the empty square can't take half damage as it is not a legitimate target for your miss effect). The RAI clearly don't intend that.

Actually, it doesn't say you miss the square.

It says you miss the creature.

That's a whole -world- of difference. Tho the absurdities of it are where DM fiat lie.

But regardless, targetting a square -does- happen, and there's specific steps you follow to do it, and step one is targetting the creature you think is in it. You have rules for targetting a square. You claim you can do it, but then you go on to ignore the rules for doing so.

I claim you can do it, and then go on to -use- the rules for doing so.

 

[DracoSuave]

That doesn't change the noun present in the power (ie, Target: one creature). However, as stated on PHB2 page 219, effects normally function irrespective of (noun) target.

No it does not say that. It says effects function irrespective of whether the power hits or misses. It says -nothing- about not needed a target, not one word, not one syllable.

Otherwise, you have a wack of utility abilities which suddenly do not work, because their target line does -nothing-.

We already know that's not the case.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Actually, it doesn't say you miss the square.

It says you miss the creature.

That's a whole -world- of difference. Tho the absurdities of it are where DM fiat lie.

But regardless, targetting a square -does- happen, and there's specific steps you follow to do it, and step one is targetting the creature you think is in it. You have rules for targetting a square. You claim you can do it, but then you go on to ignore the rules for doing so.

I claim you can do it, and then go on to -use- the rules for doing so.

That's not any more logical though. It still shows the sidebar on PHB page 281 to be inconsistent with the rules as presented in the PHB.

Why, if I use a daily power against a creature but target the wrong square, would I still deal half damage to the creature (the miss effect)? If I'm using a melee attack the creature may well be outside the attack's range!

It's completely illogical and quite clearly not the intent of the rules on PHB page 281. Hence, the sidebar on PHB page 281 is misleading (beyond just the errata it received in the PHB2).

I'm sorry, but I strongly believe you to be incorrect. I've given you page references to rules in the PHB and PHB2 that I think clearly show that the sidebar on page 281 is nothing more than a process intended for one specific type of situation (attacking a target you cannot see).

 

[Fanaelialae]

No it does not say that. It says effects function irrespective of whether the power hits or misses. It says -nothing- about not needed a target, not one word, not one syllable.

Page 219 of the PHB2 is quite obvious in that it excludes the requirement of a target from the definition of Effect. In other words, it also says -nothing- about effects only occurring when you make opportunity attacks, but I think we can safely say that you don't have to make an opportunity attack for an effect to occur (the rules don't reference each other).

Page 218-219 of the PHB2, in sharp contrast, notes the requirement of target in the definitions for hit and miss.

Otherwise, you have a wack of utility abilities which suddenly do not work, because their target line does -nothing-.

We already know that's not the case.

I believe you are mistaken, as I've previously tried to explain.

Those utility powers you are referring to make reference to the target in the effect line. Take a look at Shield of Faith, PHB page 64, if you need an example.

In these cases the effect specifically references the target line of the power. 4e is an exception-based system. If an effect line in a power states that it utilizes a target line then it does so, but if it doesn't you need to use the general effect rules found on page 219 of the PHB2, which quite clearly do NOT define an effect as requiring a target.

It's as if a power stated "you may make an opportunity attack using this power if an enemy leaves a space adjacent to you due to forced movement". In this case, that specific power allows you to make an opportunity attack when a creature would provoke due to forced movement. That doesn't mean you can suddenly start making opportunity attacks using any power you want when an enemy is hit with a forced movement power. The forced movement rules (which state that creatures experiencing forced movement don't provoke opportunity attacks) don't cease to exist regardless of how many powers are published allowing an exception to that rule.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I feel like the power in question is very important. Dual lightning strike is an effect, but the effect is "You teleport X squares and make a secondary attack." Now I understand where people are coming from with the understanding that miss and hit effects shouldn't be allowed. But is it that outside your pov that effect lines that don't make sense should not work either? The flavor text also supports the idea of not allowing it, because it doesn't say something like "You move across the battlefield in a blink of an eyea" No it says "It seems as though you attack two targets at once" The power was CLEARLY meant in my mind to be simply "you attack two things in one power"

Fluff isn't a good metric stick, and flavor text is nothing more than fluff describing how one designer imagined the power might work. Page 4 of the PHB2 explicitly gives players license to alter the fluff to their desires.

What happens if I reflavor the power as follows: You transform into an arc of lightning, transporting yourself instantly across the intervening space and shocking enemies both as you depart and arrive? Would you allow the player who reflavored his power to use the effect outside combat, while one who prefers the original fluff is restricted to combat use only?

It's your game to do with as you will, but I don't see the sense in it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Page 219 of the PHB2 is quite obvious in that it excludes the requirement of a target from the definition of Effect. In other words, it also says -nothing- about effects only occurring when you make opportunity attacks, but I think we can safely say that you don't have to make an opportunity attack for an effect to occur (the rules don't reference each other).

Page 218-219 of the PHB2, in sharp contrast, notes the requirement of target in the definitions for hit and miss.



I believe you are mistaken, as I've previously tried to explain.

Those utility powers you are referring to make reference to the target in the effect line. Take a look at Shield of Faith, PHB page 64, if you need an example.

In these cases the effect specifically references the target line of the power. 4e is an exception-based system. If an effect line in a power states that it utilizes a target line then it does so, but if it doesn't you need to use the general effect rules found on page 219 of the PHB2, which quite clearly do NOT define an effect as requiring a target.

It's as if a power stated "you may make an opportunity attack using this power if an enemy leaves a space adjacent to you due to forced movement". In this case, that specific power allows you to make an opportunity attack when a creature would provoke due to forced movement. That doesn't mean you can suddenly start making opportunity attacks using any power you want when an enemy is hit with a forced movement power. The forced movement rules (which state that creatures experiencing forced movement don't provoke opportunity attacks) don't cease to exist regardless of how many powers are published allowing an exception to that rule.

You are caught up on the effect aspect, however you are ignoring one -simple- fact. You require the target to be satisfied to resolve the power in the first place. No target, no power You've already assumed you can use the power, but you -can't- because the -target- line occurs -before the effect- and therefore -must be satisfied first.- Once you've satisfied enough of the power to start resolving it, the rest can go as it comes, but you never get to the -effect- part because you've stopped at -target- which precludes any resolution to the power at all.