attacking without attacking

[Nahat Anoj]

I guess my question to those DMs who are "strict constructionists" is what purpose is served by not allowing the scenario in question to happen? Particularly if the player is shortchanging themselves, as they are doing in this case.

Someone could respond by saying "Well, what purpose is served by allowing the scenario in question to happen?" I guess I feel that such flexibility allows for more player leeway in describing the action and rewards creative and inventive thinking. I feel that maximizes the enjoyment of everyone at the table, DM included.

 

[Flipguarder]

What is gained through not allowing it? A better understanding and predictability for the players and the DM of what can be expected of powers.

What is gained through allowing it? A better sense of creativity and an ability to suprise players and DMs.

All things said, I like #1 more

Sorry if I came off a bit defensive, but to be annoyed simply because you wouldn't make the same call and then ask for evidence of RAI when you have not done shown any yourself just kinda irked me.

And to be clear I was asking for input on whether or not i was crazy for doing it, not if you agree with the call or not. Also was wondering if you think the designers had any intent on either side.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

And to be clear I was asking for input on whether or not i was crazy for doing it, not if you agree with the call or not. Also was wondering if you think the designers had any intent on either side.

To be honest, when designers neglect to directly answer questions like this, I take it as a sign that they disagree as much as we do. (Although I wonder if anyone has directly asked for designer input on this particular issue in the general forum?)

 

[DracoSuave]

I guess my question to those DMs who are "strict constructionists" is what purpose is served by not allowing the scenario in question to happen? Particularly if the player is shortchanging themselves, as they are doing in this case.

Actually they might not be shortchanging themselves; they might instead free up a different utility power slot that can be used for something they feel is useful, so that outside battle they can use attack powers for movement tricks and utility powers for stuff in battle.

Minmaxing isn't just for damage, you know.



But regardless... My way of looking at it is pretty simple. If they can describe using their attack technique to MacGuyver their way through the situation, I'll generally judge it by the rule of awesome: If it is awesome, I'll allow it.

However, if they are going for 'technically it should work cause page blah of blah' then I'm predisposed to tell them no due to the fact that I dislike rules lawyery taking the place of roleplay at my table.


Plus I tend to be better at rules lawyery than my players anyways; they have learned better than to try.

 

[S'mon]

I would rule that a Swordmage has a mystic connection to his sword, his sword is a spell focus, and so he needs to be in combat & attacking to use this power as the rules say. I think this is a case where fluff and crunch are mutually supportive.

 

[S'mon]

No need to be sarcastic and defensive; you're the one asking for input. I could wax poetic about how D&D is supposed to be a true rpg, rather than an imitation like Diablo where PCs arbitrarily cannot teleport within town.

Town is the Realm of Man.

Dungeon is the Realm of Chaos.

Naturally, different laws apply.

 

[Nichwee]

PHB pg 272, "When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy".

If the teleport was contingent on a hit, then he couldn't do this, but as its an effect, I think he'd be able to. He'd look pretty stupid doing it, tho !

Party: "What the hell are you doing, there's nothing here!"
Swordmage: "This is the only way I learned how to teleport."

I'm with this guy, for two reasons.

1) If an effect doesn't require a hit it should be obtainable without an attack imo. Attacking 'the air' is enough for me. I may insist the player's character does indeed 'attack the air', shooting off a blast or swinging his sword, or etc as that is part of the components of how he induces the effect (and allows monsters to see/hear his actions/the bolt of energy, and he may have to use a minor action to draw his sword etc - which could trigger an alarm geared to detect 'attackers').

2) Nothing wrong, imo, with pulling cool tricks/using tricks oddly, as long as the DM is ready to go "OK, now you are taking the piss" if players push it too far.

3) If the following can happen in a fight, I would allow it out-of-combat:
Character is fighting an invisable monster (who happens to have used Ghost Sound to cover his escape). Not knowing which noise is real the player plans to target the first noise (or the square it was in) then teleport to target the other noise. The character chose wrong, swung at empty air, teleported and then swung at, and hit, the target.
If as a DM I would allow this (which the rules indicate I should - as it is an attack power trying to attack) I would allow the same even if the player knows the first square is empty.


For those who dislike this use of attack powers out of combat I have the following question:
What if the power is used in combat but initially targets air?
i.e. The swordmage is 10 squares from his target, he moves 6 squares, attacks air, teleports to the target and attacks it, would you allow this?
(I would DM this as the player charging heroically forward, cutting through space-time with his first swing and diving through the rift to attack the target at the other end)

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd allow the player to use Dual Lightning Strike as a teleport.

The teleport is an effect (triggers regardless of a hit or miss). Additionally, the teleport does not specify (unlike many other powers) that the swordmage must end the movement adjacent to an enemy. If he doesn't end adjacent to an enemy the secondary attack will obviously be wasted, but there's nothing to suggest that this invalidates the power. So I don't think that this constitutes a bad of rats scenario (the swordmage uses up the power for the encounter and "wastes" a standard action as well as two attacks and marks, in return for a 5 square teleport). It certainly isn't the most efficient use of the power, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Similarly, if a druid wanted to center Call Lightning on an empty square for the zone effect I'd let him (he just wastes the attack part) since it's an effect and would have happened regardless of whether the attack hit or missed.

The only situation where I probably wouldn't allow this would be in the case of a spell such as the cleric's Sacred Flame. It actually requires a hit in order to grant a saving throw, so I don't think I'd allow a player to "target the air" in order to give someone a free save. At the very least, I think allowing spells like Sacred Flame to target the air risks pushing some players into a boring "healbot" dynamic, "No, don't sacred flame the boss, you might miss! Just attack the air! I really need that save Mr Cleric!".

 

[Nichwee]

The only situation where I probably wouldn't allow this would be in the case of a spell such as the cleric's Sacred Flame. It actually requires a hit in order to grant a saving throw, so I don't think I'd allow a player to "target the air" in order to give someone a free save. At the very least, I think allowing spells like Sacred Flame to target the air risks pushing some players into a boring "healbot" dynamic, "No, don't sacred flame the boss, you might miss! Just attack the air! I really need that save Mr Cleric!".

Totally agree. A player can TARGET air, but he doesn't HIT it, as he doesn't beat it's defence stat (as it doesn't have one) so effect are ok but the Hit Line (and it's concequences) are never available in 'target air' situations.
I always 'fluff explain' this as the consequences require using the energy taken from the target when you hit it to power them - "The cleric harms an enemy and draws that life force out, passing it into his allies to empower them, and let them make a save."

 

[King Nate]

I think people either getting confused or are trying to find ways to abuse the “attack the air” vs “bag of rats” rules.

Here is a clarification:
You are allowed to attack the air and use it as a legitimate target, however the effects of your power will only come into play if your attack was against a meaningful threat.

For example if you attack the air and there happens to be an invisible creature there, they you are allowed to teleport. If there was no invisible creature…no teleport.

That being said, as the DM you can rule in any fashion you want, but keep this in mind; To be a good DM you are going to have to make fair and consistent rulings. If you allow one player to use an effect by attacking the air, you are going to have to allow all the players to use an effect by attacking the air.

If not, and you making this call on a per basis ruling, you may find some of your players feeling like you are picking favorites or that their character isn’t as good or as cool as this other character that can do more stuff.