attacking without attacking

[DracoSuave]

If I have said above power that gives me a critical hit range boost as an effect, and is reliable, then I have no reason -not- to as the first thing I do after every rest, and every five minutes after that, like clockwork.

I mean... after all. It's an effect, right?

 

[babinro]

I allow all effect lines to occur outside of combat on powers regardless of target. My reasoning is simply because the character can do this regardless of hit or miss. So they simply target an empty square (think of it as trying to use a power to hit an invisible creature) and the let the effect resolve from the miss. Of course, outside of combat its easier just to say "I teleport with power x"...and let it refresh in 5 minutes.

On the down side of things, these powers make a lot of skill checks obsolete. However, that has always been a big problem as characters progress in my history with D&D.

 

[eamon]

If I have said above power that gives me a critical hit range boost as an effect, and is reliable, then I have no reason -not- to as the first thing I do after every rest, and every five minutes after that, like clockwork.

I mean... after all. It's an effect, right?

I can see how this isn't something you want happening in your game. The power's authors shouldn't¹ have used an Effect: line but instead included it as part of the Hit: clause (and a DM could houserule that). Alternatively, you could rule that on a natural 20 the power is expended by virtue of being an auto-hit - after all, part of the problem with the crit-enhancing power is that it's reliable and you're avoiding paying the cost. That particular twist doesn't apply to most other powers, in particular, the OP's teleportation power is not reliable and using it means expending it.

If you do permit this, your game balance won't break - critting on 19-20 is pretty standard by 29th level, and Vorpal Doom (the power in question) comes at the opportunity cost of not being able to pick other (mostly better) 29th level daily powers. Not that I think you want this happening...

I also have to point out that by 29th level there are numerous other ways of guaranteeing or almost guaranteeing a miss, so this trick too could be triggered by attacking an ally. Attack penalties, defense boosts, encounter immediate interrupt forced movement or teleportation, halfling second chance, basic things like shield push all mean that the problem certainly doesn't exclusively lie with the ability to gain the miss effect by attacking an empty square - it lies with the miss effect providing an encounter-long buff and being part of a reliable power.

Since Vorpal Doom's benefit isn't that large, only affects levels 29 & 30, and the exploit is clearly abusive, I don't think you'll run into players actually doing this very quickly, but if you do, I admit I'd probably try to fix it.

¹Generally speaking, reliable powers with a miss effect always seemed suspicious to me anyhow... and this is a good example why...

Edited to fix the confusion Flipguarder tripped over...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Page 40 is a guide for running combat smoothly, so it's hardly conclusive evidence of out-of-combat RAI. Again, as someone has already pointed out, the Dual Lightning Strike situation is not like carrying around a bag of rats to heal allies. The player is expending a resource in order to teleport; even if the PC can get it back with a 5 minute rest, he doesn't know that. For all he knows, using the power to teleport will trigger an encounter.

No, the section is talking about gaining benefit from your attack powers when there are no enemies around. The example given is healing, but it is talking about more generally. The idea is that the attack powers are meant to be used within the context of a battle with legitimate enemies.

In the same way that in the example given, a character might be using a healing power that is an encounter power. They are using up resources to heal someone, why not let them when they hit a rat instead of a real enemy? The answer is that these powers are NOT meant to be used that way. Utility powers are meant to be use out of combat and Attack powers used in combat.

 

[Flipguarder]

I can see this isn't something you want happening in your game. The effect of that power should only occur on a hit (and as a DM, you might rule so).

Please stop misrepresenting his argument. He never said that effects should only occur on hits, and I believe you know that.

 

[eamon]

No, the section is talking about gaining benefit from your attack powers when there are no enemies around. The example given is healing, but it is talking about more generally. The idea is that the attack powers are meant to be used within the context of a battle with legitimate enemies.

The subsection "Legitimate Targets" is on the page titled "Running Combat"; it probably is about combat. In any case, you're ignoring a critical aspect of that text; it's about beneficial effects that trigger when you hit or reduce to 0 hitpoints a legitimate target. Triggers like that reward PC's for success - meaningful success. If the reward is conditional upon a success, that success must be meaningful.

If a power gives a bonus to intimidate for killing an enemy, you're not going to get that bonus for swatting a fly. When a warlock gains power from a felled foe - well, he's not gaining much power from a powerless enemy.

In short, the price of admission to the "Hit:" line is success, and you shouldn't cheat your way around that price by hitting something irrelevant. By contrast, the price of admission to the "Effect:" line is simply expending the action and power - and by targeting an empty square you are paying that price.

That's not to say a DM shouldn't forbid nonsense (say, a player using out-of-character information that his character couldn't possibly have known to inform his PC's actions) - but expending a power when you can't get the full benefits isn't necessarily nonsense.

 

[eamon]

Please stop misrepresenting his argument. He never said that effects should only occur on hits, and I believe you know that.

You misunderstood: I was saying that for that particular power the effect should only have applied on a hit (and that as a DM, you might rule so). Like DracoSuave is said, the power is dubious if you let people trigger it off a guaranteed miss - such as by targeting an empty square.

I certainly didn't want to suggest that DracoSuave was mistaken about the basic rules regarding Effect: lines - sorry for any confusion 'bout that!

Rereading the post, I can see how it's not the most comprehensible of phrasings. I'll edit it...

 

[DracoSuave]

You misunderstood: I was saying that for that particular power the effect should only have applied on a hit (and that as a DM, you might rule so). Like DracoSuave is said, the power is dubious if you let people trigger it off a guaranteed miss - such as by targeting an empty square.

I certainly didn't want to suggest that DracoSuave was mistaken about the basic rules regarding Effect: lines - sorry for any confusion 'bout that!

Rereading the post, I can see how it's not the most comprehensible of phrasings. I'll edit it...

Oh no, that's not what I'm saying at all. The effect of 19-20 crits for that power is an -Effect.- Reliable is an effect that triggers on a miss.

And targetting an empty square is, by definition, a miss.

So, Reliable powers don't lose for targetting empty squares, and Effects always happen as the 'price for admission' is using the power.

But no, this is clearly abusive and not the way the power is intended to be used. And the rules don't -really- support this anyways, despite all the 'But they do'.

And like any other occasion where you're not targetting the legal target, the DM can go 'No.'

That doesn't mean he -should- but that he has the right by default.

 

[eamon]

Oh no, that's not what I'm saying[...]

I don't know exactly what the misunderstanding here is, but unless I'm terribly mistaken, you thought Vorpal Doom's Effect: line was problematic because it's on a Reliable power and can thus be triggered for a mere standard action. My solution (make the effect part of the hit) to this issue is different than yours (forbid targeting empty squares), and to avoid the impression that this alteration was your idea, I specifically emphasized the authorship in the edited version. If you feel I'm still somehow slighting you by misrepresenting your standpoint, PM me with the specific issue, and I'll avoid it.

Back to attacking without attacking...

As you point out with the example of Vorpal Doom, (and as my previous post does as well) Reliable powers with (buffing) effects are problematic. However these problems are not exclusive to targeting empty squares. Furthermore, these type of powers are very, very rare - banning the targeting of empty squares in response to a very rare issue is hardly reasonable (particularly when the ban doesn't actually fix the problem!)

Recap:
- (post) The rules on p. 272 permit targeting empty squares - regardless of purpose (in direct contradiction to your previous assertion that no such rule exists). This isn't the core issue however - as a DM you have the task to make decent consistent rulings, which brings us to...
- Banning such targeting results in an inconsistency - why does the effect go off for some empty squares but not for others? And why may some attacks be ignored (chaos bolt) but others not?
- There is no balance purpose (in general) achieved by such banning, most effects aren't gamechangers.
- If the players really want to work-around this limitation they can - but then you'll turn the game into a farce; you're better off letting them do something they'll manage anyhow.

In short, the rules permit it, and for good reason: banning it leads to consistency and gameplay problems. Not to mention the fact that starting point for a DM should be to say yes - and the flavor reasons for saying no can be fixed - as easily as allowing the player to simply forgo the meaningless attack entirely (as with chaos bolt) rather than targeting an empty square.

 

[DracoSuave]

- Banning such targeting results in an inconsistency - why does the effect go off for some empty squares but not for others?

That's for the DM to decide, the reasoning can be consistant, but it doesn't have to be consistant regarding only the rules.

And inconsistancies can be made on a case-by-case basis.

It's easier to start with a default that doesn't allow rules abuses and allow non-abusive rulebending, then it is to start with a default that does, but suddenly disallow abusive rulebending.

Then you can explain on a case-by-case basis why you're -allowing- something from a narrative POV, which is a lot easier than explaining why you -aren't- from a narrative POV.

The game table -is- a two-way street. Not only are you as a DM supposed to understand the players want to think outside the box, the players must understand that sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes they don't even get an explanation at that moment in time. And sometimes it is -right- they don't get an explanation.

And why may some attacks be ignored (chaos bolt) but others not?

A secondary target is not declared until after the power's mid-resolving, therefore it's lack of declaration is not necessary to resolve the power, so it's not the same situation at all.

But even then, you are never required to declare a secondary target or make a secondary attack.

- There is no balance purpose (in general) achieved by such banning, most effects aren't gamechangers.

Unless you feel that your players might try to get around their utility powers limit by taking attack powers with Utility effects. Then you might have an issue with it.

As well, you then give them a choice... they have to describe what they want to do to pull it off, rather than simply "i use the power and go there." This adds to immersion which only enhances the game play.

- If the players really want to work-around this limitation they can - but then you'll turn the game into a farce; you're better off letting them do something they'll manage anyhow.

If you say no, then the Players can't work around it. And if they slow the game down to a crawl trying to ruleslawyer their way around Rule 0, they're wasting the group's time and they -themselves- are being destructive to the group.

In short, the rules permit it, and for good reason: banning it leads to consistency and gameplay problems.

How is it inconsistant? You make the default for attacks such that they only work -as- attacks, with the caveat that the player can use the power outside of such if they can plausible describe it to your satisfaction.

That's -very- consistant. It's -subjective- to the will of the DM, but then everything is.

Not to mention the fact that starting point for a DM should be to say yes - and the flavor reasons for saying no can be fixed - as easily as allowing the player to simply forgo the meaningless attack entirely (as with chaos bolt) rather than targeting an empty square.

The advice on how a DM should deal with improvisation when the players get an idea to go in a direction is not 'The rules should always allow it unless the DM says no.'

In fact, how -can- the DM say 'Yes' if the rules already say 'Yes' and force the DM to say 'No.'

You've missed the entire point of that series of paragraphs in the DMG. The idea is to say "Yes, and..." when the players do something that goes outside of the plans of an adventure.

That's not the same as saying the rules must automatically allow stuff that could be problematic, and then you say 'No' to it on a case by case basis.

And again, you're using an attack to gain a benefit. The DM -already- has the right to say No, and should do so unless there's a reason not to. The 'targetting a square' rule is not intended to trigger power effects, as you can tell if you follow the very page reference given from the very quote given. I don't know how you get 'This tactic is good for blah, see page blah' and take that to mean 'regardless of purpose' And the rules for how to target a square and what you do with it are on that page. And mention you have to be targetting a creature.

Out of context=bad.