attacking without attacking

[eamon]

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.

Ah - so you may choose to take secondary attacks, but must make primary attacks? And these primary attacks must not target empty squares? And the effect line which "occurs when you use a power, whether or not you hit" won't occur when you don't attack?

All three of these assumptions are far from obvious. If you can choose to forgo a secondary attack, why can't choose to forgo the primary? There's a specific rule permitting targeting empty squares, why does that not apply (particularly, what in-game rationalization do you have for that)? The effect that occurs when you use a power, regardless of whether you hit or miss - why does this not occur when you use the power out-of-combat (and consider other attack powers that don't even have an attack roll...)

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.

During a game, a DM needs to make a quick call, and all DM's make occasional mistakes. I wouldn't blame a DM for making a wrong in an unclear situation. That's why it's useful to have these discussions elsewhere - say, here.

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.

That's most certainly not what page 272 says. The relevant paragraph is quoted in its entirety in an earlier post. The preceding paragraph talks of targeting enemies directly. In short, the first paragraph says that in order to use a power against an enemy you must be able to target them. The second paragraph says that you may choose to target a square instead of an enemy, and that this is useful when you need to guess the location of invisible opponents.

Notably, the choice of whether or not to target an empty square is left entirely up to the player; the text merely notes that targeting a square is useful for attacking invisible creatures - not language which indicates that you may only target a creature.

And later paragraphs are pretty consistent about it. The range segment talks of the "nearest creature or square", Line of effect says "You can target a creature or a square if there's an unblocked path...".


To the crux of the matter:

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.

Right. I use my exceptional training in arcane swordplay to transposition myself across the chasm. I go through the same disciplined motions as always, and cross the chasm in a blink of an eye.

Now, let's see what a DM is saying to say no to that....

A DM can ban technically rule what he will. But the above hypothetical player has a power with an effect that lets him do - without precondition - whatever's on the Effect: line; teleportation, here. If a DM wishes to encourage bag-of-rats+ruleslawyer style gameplay, he can say NO
- and claim a target is required, but there's no DMG suggestion to do so. Requiring a target inevitably leads to the very unfun discussion of targeting an empty square, an action explicitly permitted in the PHB. 'course, a DM can say NO
- and claim it's ludicrous, that's not a legitimate target. Again, the DMG doesn't actually suggest he do this - the section about legitimate targets speaks of hitting or killing, and with reason: permitting trivial targets would make the hitting or killing restriction trivial. On the other hand, no such restriction exists for Effect lines, so the reasoning behind legitimate targets there makes a lot less sense. OK, says the player, I'll take a run action and not use a weapon, and then target my paladin buddy over there who's doing total defense. Whoops, I rolled a twenty (lame) and deal 1d4-1 damage... can I teleport? To which our naysaying DM says NO
- since after all this action is even less "heroic". At this point, it's completely unclear in-game why this wouldn't work, but it's obviously not behaviour you'd expect from heroes - which should be a hint that an earlier ruling is problematic: you have a situation that's nonsense out-of-game, but in-game it's not clear why it wouldn't work. Let's say though, that this player isn't out to pick at the DM's weird rulings, so he tries to make it sound less crazy, so instead of targeting an ally, they use a captive. From the perspective of the player this is crazy - but from the perspective of the character it's a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

Let's take a step back. An in-game character has the ability to teleport across the chasm. He does this kind of stuff all the time - several times a day, as part of his arcane combat style. He can perform this teleportation regardless of the outcame sword thrust which is part of the arcane spell; normally, the thrust is a valuable part of the spell, hurting his opponents, and the teleportation merely a means to foil the retaliatory strike - and since he can only master a few spells, he picked one which has this handy combination. Now, the spell's second effect (teleportation) isn't normally affected by the first (a melee attack). In fact, even when the swordmage attacks an empty square by accident or a hallucinatory opponent, the teleportation works. In fact, there's no in-game dependency between the first and the second effect. Now, this in-game swordmage is confronted by a chasm that he can cross using this spell of his. It just so happens that the first effect is useless.

In-game, it's entirely reasonable for said swordmage not only to try crossing the chasm via the teleportation spell, and even for him to choose said spell because of its flexibility (and thereby avoid the need to a utility spell with only that function).

Some powers have out-of-combat utility. This is rare, but happens. When it does, you might have the bad luck that the power was poorly written and usage out-of-combat is disruptive. Usually, that's not the case, and the OP's teleportation power falls in that category: Crossing a chasm via teleportation is a perfectly reasonable strategy. Perhaps the DM didn't expect it, as is typical (the DM's best laid plans tend to shatter upon impact with an actual party), but it's more fun all around if the DM goes along with such ideas - if it seems like a good idea out-of-character, then why wouldn't the (far more expert) PC think of it?

Perhaps for a specific power, you can think of some in-game connection to the enemy you need to have. But that in-game connection is going to need to be different for each power, and it makes a fishy general rule (which is notably absent from the rulebooks). And you don't need it to be a general rule - you can fix up powers as needed when needed (i.e. almost never), and when you need to, the power is probably going to need bigger fixes anyhow (just like Vorpal Doom) to avoid the unwanted effect.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ah - so you may choose to take secondary attacks, but must make primary attacks? And these primary attacks must not target empty squares? And the effect line which "occurs when you use a power, whether or not you hit" won't occur when you don't attack?

That's pretty much it. This is the way I play it and seemed pretty obvious to me. It works a lot like Magic The Gathering does. If you are using an attack, you must have a valid target to even begin casting a spell. Even if the spell has an effect in addition to the effect it has on the target, you cannot use it if you don't have a target.

Attack powers are meant to attack people. Despite the EXACT wording on the "bag of rats" section of the DMG, the intent behind it is clear: Don't let players abuse their powers by using them in situations they were not intended to be used in. The example given essentially says "If there is special effect tied to an attack, it is tied to that attack because it is meant to be used in a real, actual battle. Don't let players use it in what amounts to a rules lawyery attempt to get around this restriction." The exact example just happens to be an on hit power and the example given was a bag of rats. This applies equally to attempts to attack your friends in order to get the benefit, to attack empty spaces in order to get the benefit and so on.

If you can choose to forgo a secondary attack, why can't choose to forgo the primary?

Because people from R&D answered a question saying "You don't have to take secondary attacks from a power", simultaneously allowing people to stop taking their secondary attacks and implying that primary ones are different in that they must be taken.

There's a specific rule permitting targeting empty squares, why does that not apply (particularly, what in-game rationalization do you have for that)? The effect that occurs when you use a power, regardless of whether you hit or miss - why does this not occur when you use the power out-of-combat (and consider other attack powers that don't even have an attack roll...)

Because I don't let people use the power at all unless they have a valid target for it. Valid being an appropriate challenge for them. I won't even let them cross it off their character sheet as used. If the power targets specifically a square, I'll let people use it out of combat, but if it requires a primary target of a creature, there must actually be a valid creature to use it against in order to activate the power. Or they must have at least a reasonable assumption that there IS such a creature around(which means they have to have made a perception check to hear the enemy or have an ally who has made such a check tell them).

It's the same in game reason I use why powers don't work on a bag of rats. It SHOULD work on a bag of rats, but since that removes all the drama and narration out of the game, it doesn't work, so don't bother trying. It's the same reason in books there will be characters who clearly have the ability to do something but never seem to do it unless it is dramatically appropriate. Your character may have the ability to suddenly appear over there in a large firey explosion, but he only uses it in the middle of battle when there are targets over there to hit with said explosion. There can be a hundred narrativistic reasons for it. But no in game reason.

That is the same in game reason why you can only use your encounter powers every 5 minutes. The same reason you can only use your daily powers once a day. You know the motions to activate the power and can do them over and over again...you just choose not to, because the game rules tell you that you choose not to.

If a DM wishes to encourage bag-of-rats+ruleslawyer style gameplay, he can say NO

This shouldn't encourage any sort of rules lawyer gameplay. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Rules lawyering is precisely what you are arguing: "It doesn't say precisely that targeting empty squares is ONLY for targeting invisible creatures. It talks a lot about invisible creatures in the same paragraph, but if it doesn't say precisely "You may only use this when targeting an invisible creature" then it can be used whenever I want to.

Whereas people who aren't rules lawyering instead look at the paragraph and say "Why was this section put into the book? What reason do the designers of the game have for putting in a rule that says you can target empty squares instead of an actual creature? When does this come up in the game? Why is there talk about invisible creatures in the same paragraph as the rule?" and then conclude that the reason the rule is there is for targeting invisible creatures. Then they don't try to use it in other situations because they aren't trying to rules lawyer.

I'd reply individually to the rest, but it all amounts to the same thing. 4e is a heavily narrativistic game. There doesn't need to be in game reasons for any rule. You can only activate your immediate interrupts when they are triggered because of game balance reasons and because they are dramatically appropriate at the precise moment they are designed to be used at. You can only use your encounter powers once an encounter for game balance reason and because it creates a better narrative flow if you don't use the same powers over and over again. There are utility powers that let you teleport out of combat for game balance reasons. To keep your out of combat powers separate from your combat powers.

 

[DracoSuave]

Ah - so you may choose to take secondary attacks, but must make primary attacks? And these primary attacks must not target empty squares? And the effect line which "occurs when you use a power, whether or not you hit" won't occur when you don't attack?

1) Secondary attacks are like pushes. You don't have to do them. Primary -targets- are not like pushes. They have nothing to do with attacks, hits, or misses. They are targets and are mandatory for the use of the power. You're caught up on Primary -attack- but you should be caught up on Primary -Target-.

2) You can target an empty square if you have evidence that a creature might be in that square. There is a process for doing so outlined in the rules.

Step 1) Target a creature you can't see...

...oh, see, you've already failed this step, which means that you cannot use the process for targetting a square.

I -agree- that you -can- target a square. Now let's use the rules and guidelines for doing so.

3) An Effect line that has a target cannot happen if you have no target. It has nothing to do with Hit, or Miss. It has -everything- to do with 'Target' which you are lacking in this case.

All three of these assumptions are far from obvious. If you can choose to forgo a secondary attack, why can't choose to forgo the primary?

Because Secondary Targets are not required to use a power, Primary Targets -are-.

That's what 'Secondary' means, that using it is contingent on other effects.

There's a specific rule permitting targeting empty squares, why does that not apply (particularly, what in-game rationalization do you have for that)?

The rules for targetting empty squares require an unseen creature to target. You should read them.

The effect that occurs when you use a power, regardless of whether you hit or miss - why does this not occur when you use the power out-of-combat (and consider other attack powers that don't even have an attack roll...)

Again, not relevant. No Target.

During a game, a DM needs to make a quick call, and all DM's make occasional mistakes. I wouldn't blame a DM for making a wrong in an unclear situation. That's why it's useful to have these discussions elsewhere - say, here.

Agreed. In this case, the default tho is to say 'No Target, no power, but describe to me why you can.'

That's most certainly not what page 272 says. The relevant paragraph is quoted in its entirety in an earlier post. The preceding paragraph talks of targeting enemies directly. In short, the first paragraph says that in order to use a power against an enemy you must be able to target them. The second paragraph says that you may choose to target a square instead of an enemy, and that this is useful when you need to guess the location of invisible opponents.

And the page reference in that points you to 'Targetting that which you cannot see' which tells you you're still targetting a creature.

It even uses that phrase 'Target the creature.' You have to in order to apply Miss effects to that creature.

Notably, the choice of whether or not to target an empty square is left entirely up to the player; the text merely notes that targeting a square is useful for attacking invisible creatures - not language which indicates that you may only target a creature.

And for that, you see the rules for targetting empty squares.

Cause those rules exist.

So use them.

And later paragraphs are pretty consistent about it. The range segment talks of the "nearest creature or square", Line of effect says "You can target a creature or a square if there's an unblocked path...".

To which 'targetting a square' has specific steps you must take to do so.

I know you have trouble accepting this, but it does. The rules are there, printed in black and white, and 'You may target a square' points you directly to them.

I know it's hard to flip to that page, but you should do so, so you can know -how- you target a square.

To the crux of the matter:

Right. I use my exceptional training in arcane swordplay to transposition myself across the chasm. I go through the same disciplined motions as always, and cross the chasm in a blink of an eye.

And I'd say 'Sure.'

Because, while it's bending the rules, it makes sense and I have no problem accepting that.

Now, let's see what a DM is saying to say no to that....

Who said a DM was saying no to that? Far from it, my advice is 'The rules don't allow for it, but the DM can say yes to it if it makes sense.'

Sometimes it doesn't. Lifetapping darts against nothing to drain life force from nothing and feed it to your comerade does -not- make sense.

You determine that on a case by case basis. It doesn't have to be consistent across the entire ruleset, only by case.

A DM can ban technically rule what he will. But the above hypothetical player has a power with an effect that lets him do - without precondition - whatever's on the Effect: line; teleportation, here. If a DM wishes to encourage bag-of-rats+ruleslawyer style gameplay, he can say NO
- and claim a target is required,

Because the power has a Primary target, which must be satisfied before the normal use of the power. Targetting a square requires a target, which must be satisfied before the normal use of the power.

This is the same as any power that says 'Shift 2 squares then make your attack.' You still need to satisfy that requirement of having a target after that Shift. Attacks are not -utility replacements- even tho they may have utility... um... use.

That said, it's not wholy unjustifiable that it works that way either should you explain it well.

but there's no DMG suggestion to do so. Requiring a target inevitably leads to the very unfun discussion of targeting an empty square, an action explicitly permitted in the PHB. 'course, a DM can say NO
- and claim it's ludicrous, that's not a legitimate target. Again, the DMG doesn't actually suggest he do this - the section about legitimate targets speaks of hitting or killing, and with reason: permitting trivial targets would make the hitting or killing restriction trivial.

And of course then goes on to talk about healing tons of allies with one power as well. Don't misrepresent the case they make. They're saying that if a power does something that the DM interprets as too powerful in a given case, then that power can have limits imposed by the DM in that case.

Bag of Rats is an -example- set in a section of -examples-. Don't confuse the example for the rule.

On the other hand, no such restriction exists for Effect lines, so the reasoning behind legitimate targets there makes a lot less sense. OK, says the player, I'll take a run action and not use a weapon, and then target my paladin buddy over there who's doing total defense.

The paragraph after bag of rats says an effect line abuse as an example. Don't even start this.

Whoops, I rolled a twenty (lame) and deal 1d4-1 damage... can I teleport?

To which our naysaying DM says NO
- since after all this action is even less "heroic".

'Because sword magic requires life force and conflict in order to energize it. Stronger magics require stronger force and conflicts.'

Not that hard to lampshade. It's magic. Magic doesn't even have to follow consistant rules. It's -magic-.

At this point, it's completely unclear in-game why this wouldn't work, but it's obviously not behaviour you'd expect from heroes - which should be a hint that an earlier ruling is problematic: you have a situation that's nonsense out-of-game, but in-game it's not clear why it wouldn't work.

Not always true. Again, see 'Life Tapping Darts' for an example of why it makes sense some times, and why you make the determination power-by-power.

Let's say though, that this player isn't out to pick at the DM's weird rulings, so he tries to make it sound less crazy, so instead of targeting an ally, they use a captive. From the perspective of the player this is crazy - but from the perspective of the character it's a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

If they're Good or Lawful Good, sacrificing a prisoner isn't something you do for the 'Greater Good'. Unaligned -might- and Evil -might-. See thinking you serve the 'Greater Good' and being Good are not the same thing. Being Good means you don't do sacrifice helpless people for moments of power.

Even if that power is to take down an evil. Lines you won't cross and all that. Antiheroic actions are not the province of 'Good.'

Let's take a step back. An in-game character has the ability to teleport across the chasm. He does this kind of stuff all the time - several times a day, as part of his arcane combat style. He can perform this teleportation regardless of the outcame sword thrust which is part of the arcane spell; normally, the thrust is a valuable part of the spell, hurting his opponents, and the teleportation merely a means to foil the retaliatory strike - and since he can only master a few spells, he picked one which has this handy combination. Now, the spell's second effect (teleportation) isn't normally affected by the first (a melee attack). In fact, even when the swordmage attacks an empty square by accident or a hallucinatory opponent, the teleportation works. In fact, there's no in-game dependency between the first and the second effect. Now, this in-game swordmage is confronted by a chasm that he can cross using this spell of his. It just so happens that the first effect is useless.

That's if -this- is the narrative explanation for the power. Which it could be. And with the rules saying you can't normally do this, this sort of narrative explanation would make some sense and would allow you in a given case to bend the rules.

See, it's this sort of thinking you want to -encourage- in your players.

I don't see how 'You normally can't, but convince me otherwise' discourages this sort of thought.

In-game, it's entirely reasonable for said swordmage not only to try crossing the chasm via the teleportation spell, and even for him to choose said spell because of its flexibility (and thereby avoid the need to a utility spell with only that function).

However, if you came to me and said "I want to use this power as my teleportation spell." I would reply 'So, you're so in tune with teleportation that you can only do it once per encounter and as an attack, but you're not such a master of it that you have other means to teleport, and you haven't made this mastery a focus of your character. So where is your justification that he's a master of it? He requires it as part of combat. He must be under danger to generate the adrenaline necessary to do it, otherwise he does not have the same connection with the Weave. If he were a master of teleportation, he'd have more than one teleportation ability. Did you even take Aegis of Assault? No? Then how can you even -say- it's something he does all the time?'

It cuts both ways. In that case, I can plainly see you're doing it to get maximum advantage out of your utilities, and so there's no -reason- for me to allow you to pull that out. -Especially- if you're not Aegis of Assault, which -would- prove you're a master of the Bamf as a part of your attack kata.

Some powers have out-of-combat utility. This is rare, but happens.

This is not a bad thing. Which is why you have the 'but you can convince me otherwise' rule.

When it does, you might have the bad luck that the power was poorly written and usage out-of-combat is disruptive. Usually, that's not the case, and the OP's teleportation power falls in that category: Crossing a chasm via teleportation is a perfectly reasonable strategy.

Provided the other side is at equal elevation, yes. Of course, the range of the power is how much?

Perhaps the DM didn't expect it, as is typical (the DM's best laid plans tend to shatter upon impact with an actual party), but it's more fun all around if the DM goes along with such ideas - if it seems like a good idea out-of-character, then why wouldn't the (far more expert) PC think of it?

Which is why you say 'normally no, but you can try to convince me.

Your situation has a DM going 'NO! NO! NO' whenever he hears something he doesn't like. Mine has a DM going... '...good idea. I like that. Yes.'

See, in order to say yes, you have to assume the answer is no.

Perhaps for a specific power, you can think of some in-game connection to the enemy you need to have. But that in-game connection is going to need to be different for each power, and it makes a fishy general rule (which is notably absent from the rulebooks).

Except for where it's there and written down and you choose not to turn to that page and read it.

And you don't need it to be a general rule - you can fix up powers as needed when needed (i.e. almost never), and when you need to, the power is probably going to need bigger fixes anyhow (just like Vorpal Doom) to avoid the unwanted effect.

It's easier as a DM to not worry about it, and just let players describe their powers alternate uses to convince you.

And the cool thing is, if you're more likely to say yes, than no, that means that your players are spending all that time describing cool stuff rather than whinging because 'BUT THE RULES SAY I CAN BAAAAW' on that one time that it doesn't.

 

[Nichwee]

My opinion on the original issue: I see no problem, in general, allowing Katas to give Effects of attacks without the attack. Some would be uber-cheese and would need to be stopped - but in general I feel most should be okay.

Provided the other side is at equal elevation, yes. Of course, the range of the power is how much?

Did I miss an errata? I saw nothing stopping teleporting working in vertical diagonals. Not saying it isn't prhibitted, just I think I missed it - and would like to know where I can find it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Did I miss an errata? I saw nothing stopping teleporting working in vertical diagonals. Not saying it isn't prhibitted, just I think I missed it - and would like to know where I can find it.

Good point, I -swear- I read it somewhere.

Turns out I didn't.

Huh.

Altho I -did- catch this little gem:

No Opportunity Actions: The creature or object being teleported doesn’t provoke opportunity actions for leaving its space.

Turns out Polearm Gamble -does- work on it now if they teleport adjacent to you from a square in reach.

Yeah yeah, not relevant, I know.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well actually the rules do say that you can in this case. If the DM wants to disallow it, then fine, its his game. But the rules do allow it.

I've covered the attacking a square thing a few times, that's explicitly allowed whenever you feel like it.

No, it's expllicity used when you're trying to hit an invisible creature. You're infering that means you can also use it even when there's nothing to target. You're going beyond what the rules say, to what they imply. Deciding that is your DM's job.

The rest of your argument is more of the same.

It is true that the DM can change rules he doesn't like, but this isn't even getting into that realm. We're dealing with a question the rules don't quite cover. There is no right answer: except the answer your DM comes up with. Respect it. Don't whine. Don't make his life any harder.

 

[eamon]

We obvious have a difference of opinion on a few rules questions. Those questions might deserve further discussion, but I'm not the one to do so. I don't believe that the rules really matter that much here anyhow, in the sense that this is sufficiently far out of the ordinary that you'd need to take any "RAW" interpretation with a large grain of salt anyhow - after all, this situation is almost certainly not one they were written for.

Regardless, we apparently agree on the (rather weak) statement that effects on powers might occur without a target. Your decision criteria would be a narrative one, requiring players to explain how (and thus why) they can do so; mine would focus more on consistency (between striking an empty square accidentally and intentionally).

I do see the value in your approach, and would encourage (or even require) a narrative explanation - but I try to avoid having my rulings depend on the quality of explanation. I've had players that are pretty bad at describing the action their attempting, and I'd rather do it for them than let em fail when they describe poorly and succeed when they describe well. Which just goes to show that I'm a simulationist at heart...

Signing off,
--Eamon

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, one way you can help out with players who are bad at describing things is to present them with a possible explanation, and ask if that's how they want to do it. So, help them along a little.

That way you can let them do what they want when it suits the story, by describing it in a way that works for you.

 

[Zustiur]

For what it's worth, here's how I see the situation:
Some powers require their effect to come 'from somewhere', other powers do not. Some powers have a cost, others do not.
The infernal warlock's "Dark One's Blessing" cannot be used on a bag of rats because it needs to draw power from the cursed target. A rat doesn't have enough life force, so the effect doesn't work.

The swordmage on the other hand, can clearly teleport (the number of teleport powers they have is evidence of this). Therefore if his action is normally 'Attack target, and then teleport' I see no problem with him 'attack nothing, and teleport anyway'. Teleporting is like a spell, his power essentially states he attacks and then teleports. Not, he attacks, and uses the contact with his target to push himself away in a monk-like backflip.
If the character has sufficient reason to spend an encounter power to achieve the same result as a utility power, then let him do it.
The warlock doesn't get away with this because Dark One's Blessing has no cost.

Another example is the cleric's "healing strike". In this instance the health is essentially transferred from the target to the ally, therefore you cannot use this without a target. And this is backed up by the text being in the Hit section not an Effect section.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, one way you can help out with players who are bad at describing things is to present them with a possible explanation, and ask if that's how they want to do it. So, help them along a little.

That way you can let them do what they want when it suits the story, by describing it in a way that works for you.

Not a bad idea at all.

Eventually they'll get into it.