I'll strongly support this notion. Consistency here is more important than whether it works or not. We can all make our own decision based on our own games and players involved.
attacking without attacking
- Thread starter Flipguarder
- Start date
I'll strongly support this notion. Consistency here is more important than whether it works or not. We can all make our own decision based on our own games and players involved.
What exactly are we talking about here? Everything is relative to the DM's whim. As a DM we should make a ruling, listen to feedback, and then finalize. Feedback comes in 2 forms; "It's in the book..." and "This is how I see it working..." To allow and disallow this use of a power would not be up to me per say, but up to the player. I see the session going like this:
PC: I want to use my <Blah> power to teleport to the other side of the casm.
DM: You can't use your <Blah> power out of combat.
Here is where the PC makes or breaks his case...
<Option 1>
PC: The DMG pg 40 says I can attack the air(target a square).
DM: As you crash your sword to the ground, <insert cool effect here> and you teleport to the other side. Roll initative (Player starts with 1 less encounter power, is seperated from the group, and has summoned the guards)
<Option 2>
PC: What if I burned a healing surge?
DM: OK...Lets see...You remember hearing once that if you preformed your <Blah> move while digging deep into your reserves, you can effect a teleport without a target. You begin performing the Kata that you used to learn the skill. With a great exertion of willpower, you perform the <Blah> attack. You feel the rush as you snap from one point to the destination. (encounter power gone till 5 min rest -- lose a healing surge)
<Option 3>
PC: I just need the extra 2 squares to get to the other side of the casm...
DM: It doesn't work like that. (end of discussion)
<Option 4>
PC: I see it like preforming a ritual...I go through the motions of the attack pretending there are monsters there, and I make the power work through force of willpower.
DM: Make a skill check using Wis/Cha mod (Med DC = success, Hard DC = success and the encounter power is not used)
These are all things I would do. Most of the time, DM'ing is VERY circumstantial and subjective. Some players deserve special treatment to encourage others to follow suit. If this was ment to have hard and fast rules, it would be a computer game already (DDO does not count) It is ment to encourage creativity and expand your thought processes. Creating a story is so much more than "stab-stab-level"
Having said that, you as the DM have to make the final decision as to what would make a good story and what would make the players happy VS. What would break my game and what would make sense?
PC: I want to use my <Blah> power to teleport to the other side of the casm.
DM: You can't use your <Blah> power out of combat.
Here is where the PC makes or breaks his case...
<Option 1>
PC: The DMG pg 40 says I can attack the air(target a square).
DM: As you crash your sword to the ground, <insert cool effect here> and you teleport to the other side. Roll initative (Player starts with 1 less encounter power, is seperated from the group, and has summoned the guards)
<Option 2>
PC: What if I burned a healing surge?
DM: OK...Lets see...You remember hearing once that if you preformed your <Blah> move while digging deep into your reserves, you can effect a teleport without a target. You begin performing the Kata that you used to learn the skill. With a great exertion of willpower, you perform the <Blah> attack. You feel the rush as you snap from one point to the destination. (encounter power gone till 5 min rest -- lose a healing surge)
<Option 3>
PC: I just need the extra 2 squares to get to the other side of the casm...
DM: It doesn't work like that. (end of discussion)
<Option 4>
PC: I see it like preforming a ritual...I go through the motions of the attack pretending there are monsters there, and I make the power work through force of willpower.
DM: Make a skill check using Wis/Cha mod (Med DC = success, Hard DC = success and the encounter power is not used)
These are all things I would do. Most of the time, DM'ing is VERY circumstantial and subjective. Some players deserve special treatment to encourage others to follow suit. If this was ment to have hard and fast rules, it would be a computer game already (DDO does not count) It is ment to encourage creativity and expand your thought processes. Creating a story is so much more than "stab-stab-level"
Having said that, you as the DM have to make the final decision as to what would make a good story and what would make the players happy VS. What would break my game and what would make sense?
DracoSuave
First Post
The air is an object. It is only a legal target if the DM permits attacking objects.
You have to have a reason to believe there's an invisible creature afoot. It's nonsensicle to apply the targetting rules for hidden creatures to situations where a creature is not present and there is no reason to believe one could be.
You're not attacking the air and hoping a creature is there. The targetting rules work by you attempting to hit said creature and -guessing- where that creature might be. If you have no reason to believe a creature exists, you have no creature to guess the location of.
Otherwise, yes, it is -totally- bag of rats.
This is where narrativism comes into play. Allow them to justify it using a narrative and it might work out.
That's a good argument not to allow such shinanegans without a good reason. Bending the rules to satisfy the small subset of players who want to use 'technicalities' to break the rules (they aren't following the rules no matter how much they claim) doesn't always work out for the benefit of the game.
Bending the rules to tell a great story and to invoke the Rule of Awesome is a different situation entirely.
Fanaelialae
Legend
I think I'm in the minority with this, but I don't think you necessarily have to make an attack at all (against the air or otherwise) to use the Effect of an attack power.
In the case of Dual Lightning Strike, I see it as the Swordmage momentarily transforming into a bolt of lightning which then leaps (teleports) across the chasm. Had he started or ended adjacent to an enemy, he could have also made a lightning attack against them, but seeing as he didn't, those attacks are wasted.
At the very least I think it's clear that he doesn't have to make a secondary attack if he doesn't end his teleportation adjacent to an enemy. The teleport doesn't fail just because there isn't a secondary target, anymore than the Sorcerer's Chaos Bolt fails to be cast if the Sorcerer is fighting a singe creature (and therefore lacks a secondary target).
For a clearer example (at least to me), why should it matter whether there are 0 or 1 creatures in the burst if a Druid wants to cast Call Lightning for just the zone effect (perhaps the enemy is spread inside a room and he wants to discourage them from following the party down a narrow hallway by placing a damaging zone in the way)? The zone will occur regardless of what the druid rolls.
I disagree that this is a bag-of-rats situation. IMO, BoR is meant to prevent a Warlock from using fey pact to teleport across the chasm. It also prevents a Cleric from using a BoR to allow the PCs to start every combat with temporary hp thanks to Sacred Flame.
Those examples are both abuses of the system. The requirement for the Warlock's pact boon is reducing a (legitimate threat) to 0 hp. The requirement for a Cleric's Sacred Flame is Hitting (a legitimate threat). Both are at-wills and would be rather broken if they didn't have built-in requirements.
Effects, on the other hand, don't have requirements. They occur automatically. Hence, I see no issue with a Swordmage using Dual Lightning Strike to teleport or a Wizard using Cloud of Daggers to discourage enemies from entering an empty square. They're already sacrificing damage in order to "target an empty square", so it seems any advantage they might find in doing so is inherently balanced out IMO.
In the case of Dual Lightning Strike, I see it as the Swordmage momentarily transforming into a bolt of lightning which then leaps (teleports) across the chasm. Had he started or ended adjacent to an enemy, he could have also made a lightning attack against them, but seeing as he didn't, those attacks are wasted.
At the very least I think it's clear that he doesn't have to make a secondary attack if he doesn't end his teleportation adjacent to an enemy. The teleport doesn't fail just because there isn't a secondary target, anymore than the Sorcerer's Chaos Bolt fails to be cast if the Sorcerer is fighting a singe creature (and therefore lacks a secondary target).
For a clearer example (at least to me), why should it matter whether there are 0 or 1 creatures in the burst if a Druid wants to cast Call Lightning for just the zone effect (perhaps the enemy is spread inside a room and he wants to discourage them from following the party down a narrow hallway by placing a damaging zone in the way)? The zone will occur regardless of what the druid rolls.
I disagree that this is a bag-of-rats situation. IMO, BoR is meant to prevent a Warlock from using fey pact to teleport across the chasm. It also prevents a Cleric from using a BoR to allow the PCs to start every combat with temporary hp thanks to Sacred Flame.
Those examples are both abuses of the system. The requirement for the Warlock's pact boon is reducing a (legitimate threat) to 0 hp. The requirement for a Cleric's Sacred Flame is Hitting (a legitimate threat). Both are at-wills and would be rather broken if they didn't have built-in requirements.
Effects, on the other hand, don't have requirements. They occur automatically. Hence, I see no issue with a Swordmage using Dual Lightning Strike to teleport or a Wizard using Cloud of Daggers to discourage enemies from entering an empty square. They're already sacrificing damage in order to "target an empty square", so it seems any advantage they might find in doing so is inherently balanced out IMO.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Narrativism comes into play when you allow the Warlock to sacrifice little children who aren't a threat in order to buff up before the combat begins.
DracoSuave
First Post
Warlocks do that all the time in games I run.
It's called 'Evil alignment.'
OH, you meant PCs.
Well, RAW, they aren't Evil alignment so that's not a problem.
-Edit-
Actually had an entire plot where a Doppleganger Evil-Priest-in-Training was practicing his death spell powers by casting that spell that kills a dying target while giving you HD... Death Knell, I believe it was... on chickens he had abducted from the nearby villiage. He was wearing the shape of a small boy to do it.
The idea was he had a wand granted by his superiors, and he used it to practice. Then once he got powerful and confident enough to try casting it himself, the child would be his first real target.
Good thing the PCs got in there eh?
Last edited:
FurryFighter
First Post
nice bag o' rat'ing.
Anyway, A, there's things which require a target. when an ability says "target" and has something actually there like creature, enemy, ally, then that thing only works with a target that is indicated as valid by its own ruling.
I'd even go so far as to rule that powers which have to target an individual creature, as opposed to a square, object ( someone said air is an object, and thus cannot be a valid form for a "creature" targeted ability ), or general direction, automatically fail if used against anything that isnt a creature, such as a 'guess' as to where a creature is invisible standing or some such (and there is in fact no creature there). In fact, I'd give them this option if they whine: Either accept it fails, or we'll go ahead and talk about how you go off balance and fall prone on your face for fully swinging to hit an expected target. maybe 2 damage for the faceplant, and woe betide the individual swinging like this one square from a precipice.
Now, about the use of a targeted power to teleport any time. Consider this: If a person can teleport at any time, what about some impassible terrain? Suppose its either a deep ravine or some slope thats too high up to be reached without some tough work, or through a locked set of bars? what if theres many solutions to all of these? Destruction of terrain, going around, keys, forcing open, sending up a high acrobatic person to the point to get a rope tied off for the others to ascend, etc etc? All of these problems will be solved by a simple *poof* teleport. That seems to degrade gameplay, not enhance it.
About the targeting and teleporting as they work together. you teleport adjacent to the target, right? No target, nothing to teleport adjacent to. it is the power's design of using a target as a focusing point that it would fail.
Anyway, A, there's things which require a target. when an ability says "target" and has something actually there like creature, enemy, ally, then that thing only works with a target that is indicated as valid by its own ruling.
I'd even go so far as to rule that powers which have to target an individual creature, as opposed to a square, object ( someone said air is an object, and thus cannot be a valid form for a "creature" targeted ability ), or general direction, automatically fail if used against anything that isnt a creature, such as a 'guess' as to where a creature is invisible standing or some such (and there is in fact no creature there). In fact, I'd give them this option if they whine: Either accept it fails, or we'll go ahead and talk about how you go off balance and fall prone on your face for fully swinging to hit an expected target. maybe 2 damage for the faceplant, and woe betide the individual swinging like this one square from a precipice.
Now, about the use of a targeted power to teleport any time. Consider this: If a person can teleport at any time, what about some impassible terrain? Suppose its either a deep ravine or some slope thats too high up to be reached without some tough work, or through a locked set of bars? what if theres many solutions to all of these? Destruction of terrain, going around, keys, forcing open, sending up a high acrobatic person to the point to get a rope tied off for the others to ascend, etc etc? All of these problems will be solved by a simple *poof* teleport. That seems to degrade gameplay, not enhance it.
About the targeting and teleporting as they work together. you teleport adjacent to the target, right? No target, nothing to teleport adjacent to. it is the power's design of using a target as a focusing point that it would fail.
Last edited:
DracoSuave
First Post
Bag o'rats doesn't counter Plot Device.
Agreed.
Provided they're not really hunting a creature.
I think whining should be dealt with in other ways myself, but it's certainly to the point!
Teleport can't include vertical motion, nor can it go through terrain that blocks line-of-sight.
This, on the other hand, teleport -can- go through, as bars don't block line-of-sight.
To be fair, that simple teleport -is- available to this class in heroic tier.
That's the point, yes. It's not that you have to hit the target, it's that you have to bamf adjacent to the target.
It's not Bamf five squares go team, it's Bamf adjacent to the target you attack... and that's a different kettle of fish.
I don't think there's any such powers. All ranged and melee powers (which are traditionally the ones that target an individual) are explicitly allowed to target a square instead of the stated target in the power description (not the air, but a square in games mechanics terms). (pg 272, PHB)
Also, the bag of rats rule doesn't even apply, because it specifically calls out effects that occur on a hit or when reducing the target to 0 hitpoints. Effects that function regardless of a hit or miss apparently don't need a meaningful threat as a target. (pg 40, DMG)
If its a melee or ranged power, then you can specify a square as the secondary target you teleport adjacent to and attack. No breach of rules there that I can tell.
Says who?
