attacking without attacking

[DracoSuave]

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.

How is that?

'You may target a square' is not inconsistant with 'Here is how you target a square.'

One tells you you may do something, and the other tells you how that something is done.

Are you going to -try- to tell me that the rules for opportunity attacks are inconsistant with a rule telling you that you -can- make opportunity attacks?

Is this going to be one of those rediculous threads where someone will actually claim that rules that tell you how to do certain actions don't exist?

I had enough of -that- lunacy.

 

[Nichwee]

The following is the last paragraph on Page 272 PHB :
"When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location."

This has the line "When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy." Note the full stop. This is a stand alone line. We then get more info on a related point. "This tactic is useful ..." not limited to, but useful for.
Thus target requirements of any melee or range power are satisfied by the existance of squares of empty space. As such we can satisfy the target line fo the power out-of-combat, so the effects are good to go, as no hit/miss is required.



Onto the point of "thinking an invisable creature may be about" being so much different than "knowing one isn't". What happens if the players dealt with a monster that escaped under invis 2 encounters ago. Any reason they shouldn't assume he is still about, following them and passing info to the enemy? So does "There might be that guy still around from X days ago" count differently than "No one around I'm sure of it"? What about "There's always an invisable killer trying to get me, I'm just that important"?

Yes I know those are over the top, but I'm trying to make a point - if the mindset of the character is sooooo important with regards to thinking threats are around that attacks become valid all of a sudden, why can't mental discipline allow the character to generate the correct mental state to trigger effects just by swinging at imagined foes?




Also attacking an invisable creature in the wrong square surely doesn't trigger a Miss effect? How can you do lesser damage and slow the creature (for example) if it wasn't even there? What if the Miss effect was "and the target can't benefit from total cover or total concealment until the end of your next turn"? Would the invisable creature suddenly stop being invis just cos you swung (at a square that may be over the wrong side of the room)?

This concept, and simply saying you can use the power without an attack at all, also fixes the "Vorpol Doom issue" with using attacks for the effect. A Reliable power is not expended when you miss. But if you don't make the player attack with it, or rule that attacking an empty square isn't a hit or miss situation, then the power is expended - he didn't Miss, he didn't Hit either but he didn't Miss. No effect from Reliable = Daily wasted, unless the Swordmage is attacked in the next 5 minutes.
This also encourages a player with Reliable abilities to hunt for an invisable creature with At-Wills/AoE like everyone else which I think is not a bad thing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

If that is true, show me the page reference where it states that powers require a target (noun) to be resolved in the first place. I see where it states that fact for hit and miss (PHB2 pages 218-219), but I can't find anywhere it says it for powers or effects.

It doesn't matter what order things appear in a power if neither the first thing nor the second thing modify or reference each other. That's how effects work by default, as far as I can tell.

PHB2 page 218, under the definition of target, defines it as "specifying whom and what the power affects". However, unlike hit and miss, effect is not defined as utilizing the target rules. If you can find where it says otherwise, please feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

How is that?

'You may target a square' is not inconsistant with 'Here is how you target a square.'

One tells you you may do something, and the other tells you how that something is done.

Are you going to -try- to tell me that the rules for opportunity attacks are inconsistant with a rule telling you that you -can- make opportunity attacks?

Is this going to be one of those rediculous threads where someone will actually claim that rules that tell you how to do certain actions don't exist?

I had enough of -that- lunacy.

Did you even read what I said?

What I said was that the sidebar process on PHB page 281 is misleading.

I went further to explain that where it states, "If you pick the wrong square, your attack automatically misses..." it is an incoherent statement as written (or at least one that would produce clearly unintended consequences).

Imagine that I use a daily power that deals half damage on a miss trying to attack an invisible creature using page 281. I end up choosing the wrong square. Either I am still somehow targeting the creature in which case I use quantum-magic to deal half damage to it even though it's on the other side of the room, or I'm supposed to resolve the miss on the empty square itself, which is impossible because it isn't a legal target (hence, I couldn't miss to begin with).

In neither situation does the phrasing of PHB page 281 make sense, unless you move beyond what is written and assume what is intended (you are targeting a square lacking a target and therefore hit and miss cannot be resolved; effect still can be since target does not modify its definition, unless the power states otherwise).

That still does not support your assertion that page 281 is the only method for resolving the targeting of an empty square.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This concept, and simply saying you can use the power without an attack at all, also fixes the "Vorpol Doom issue" with using attacks for the effect. A Reliable power is not expended when you miss. But if you don't make the player attack with it, or rule that attacking an empty square isn't a hit or miss situation, then the power is expended - he didn't Miss, he didn't Hit either but he didn't Miss. No effect from Reliable = Daily wasted, unless the Swordmage is attacked in the next 5 minutes.
This also encourages a player with Reliable abilities to hunt for an invisable creature with At-Wills/AoE like everyone else which I think is not a bad thing.

This is a great point, and one I hadn't realized.

 

[FireLance]

This is a great point, and one I hadn't realized.

It would also explain all those "if an enemy hits or misses you" clauses.

 

[Diirk]

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.

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?

Right, but you have a target. A square. If you want to ignore the rules fine, but in that case this isn't the forum for you. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that pg 272 doesn't say what it does say (And no, it isn't the section on attacking invisible creatures, its the rules on attacking anything).

 

[FireLance]

Right, but you have a target. A square. If you want to ignore the rules fine, but in that case this isn't the forum for you. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that pg 272 doesn't say what it does say (And no, it isn't the section on attacking invisible creatures, its the rules on attacking anything).

Actually, I think the bit about requiring a target is a red herring. The "Target" entry on page 218 of PH2 states:

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a "Target" entry, specifying whom and what the power affects.​

In this context, the "Target" entry is informational, not prescriptive. The "Target" entry tells you what the power affects directly; it is not a requirement for using the power.

Furthermore, the text of "Legitimate Targets" on page 40 of DMG1 states:

When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target - or reducing a target to 0 hit points - the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat.​

Hence, it would appear that the DMG1 prohibition is only against allowing the characters to enjoy the benefits of "Hit" entries, or any benefits that trigger when a target is reduced to 0 hit points, when the target is not a legitimate threat. Most "Effect" entries do not fall into either of these categories.

In fact, the description of "Effect" on page 219 of PH2 states:

Anything that appears in an "Effect" entry occurs when you use the power, whether or not you hit with it, if it is an attack power.​

Since the "Target" entry does not mean that you are required to attack a target in order to use the power, and since the DMG1 prohibition is against enjoying the benefit of "Hit" entries and not "Effect" entries if the target is not a legitimate target, and since the "Effect" entry of a power occurs when you use the power, regardless of whether or not you hit with it, if it is an attack power, I would say that you can gain the benefit of the "Effect" entry of a power without needing to attack a target, even if the power has a "Target" entry of "One creature" or "One enemy".

 

[Zinovia]

Doesn't allowing the use of Dual Lightning Strike as a "teleport whenever you feel like it 1/encounter" spell rather invalidate the level 6 utility Armathor's Step, which is also an encounter power? To me it indicates that the lower level attack power is intended to be more situational (used in an attack) than the higher level utility (used whenever you like). Disallowing free use of DLS by attacking the darkness (an empty square) seems to be a reasonable interpretation supported by the very existence of that level 6 utility spell, among other arguments which have been already stated here.

We can argue all day long about the letter of the rules, but I've seen enough to decide how I'm ruling it in my own game. I'm grateful that my players, while they have some of their own unique foibles, are not rules lawyers. Hallelujah.

 

[Flipguarder]

Doesn't allowing the use of Dual Lightning Strike as a "teleport whenever you feel like it 1/encounter" spell rather invalidate the level 6 utility Armathor's Step, which is also an encounter power?

I refused to bring that up on my own, since it's so subjective which is "better" but yes this was my final argument at the table that night and it was begrudgingly accepted by my party.