attacking without attacking

[FireLance]

Those really sound like basic attacks to me... yup... but do me your daily. The passionate energetic circumstance dependent thing that one.
The one that takes digging deep .. yeah go through the motions.. and guess how well it ought to work?

Once per extended rest.

EDIT: Okay, more seriously though - I think there are a couple of underlying issues here. First is the issue of resources. In other words, what you are giving up to get the benefit. Many bag of rats problems are problems because the player isn't giving up much compared to the benefits they are getting. An encounter power that allows a character to regain hit points by spending a healing surge is not a problem to me when used out of combat because the character is giving up a healing surge, and he can spend a healing surge out of combat anyway. On the other hand, an encounter power that heals without requiring the expenditure of a healing surge is a problem to me when used out of combat because it provides healing at a relatively low cost in terms of time. This is why I don't like the 6th-level swordmage utility power unicorn's touch from Arcane Power. To me, it's even more abusive than allowing a paladin to use invigorating smite on a bag of rats. Oddly enough, I have less of an issue when daily powers are used in this manner, possibly because I have been conditioned by my years of playing pre-4E D&D to view daily abilities as resources even though the only difference between a daily ability and an encounter ability is how long it takes to recover it.

The second issue is creativity in the use of powers. The line between a cheesy exploit which abuses the rules and a clever tactic which uses the rules creatively can be very fine - I am sure different DMs will have different views on the example I cited earlier of using acid arrow to target an empty square in the middle of a group of enemies in order to affect them all with the secondary attack instead of only affecting a single target with the primary attack (or, for that mattter, using stinking cloud to create a "low ceiling" effect to deal with a flying enemy ). Depending on their individual inclination, DMs will want to either encourage or discourage similar tactics from their players, and will allow or disallow it accordingly.

 

[ColdHeart]

Jackie Chan can beat up 50 guys with a ladder, Errol Flynn can swing across a room on a rope and drop a chandelier on the king's men, and Batman can take out an army of 18 wheelers armed only with his wits and a grappling hook, but you never see the scenes where they're practicing those maneuvers.

I have seen movies where they do a montage of the hero practising moves. Sure, they are not practising the "use a ladder as a spear" move but they are practising sets of katas over and over and over again until they become second nature. You also practise a lot of theory and situation moves. In the end you've done so many moves in so many situations you know how to adapt to any given enviroment with any given weapon against any given set of opponents.

As for the point attacking the air is not the same as attacking a foe. Sure, they are all the powers with a Hit or Kill requirement. The main point of discussion here is about powers with an effect independent of the initial attack.

And now I have the imagine of 4 clerics in a circle, each one hitting the next one in the circle and healing the rest... Well they gotta practise at some point

 

[Nytmare]

I have seen movies where they do a montage of the hero practising moves.

But that's what I'm saying, I don't see a doing pushups and tying a bandana around your head in the same kind of light that I see daily powers.

 

[abyssaldeath]

But that's what I'm saying, I don't see a doing pushups and tying a bandana around your head in the same kind of light that I see daily powers.

What if I play "Eye of the Tiger" when I use that daily?


Sorry, I just couldn't fight the impulse.

 

[FireLance]

But that's what I'm saying, I don't see a doing pushups and tying a bandana around your head in the same kind of light that I see daily powers.

Sure, but I do recall scenes in which the master demonstrates the technique while the student looks on in awe and amazement (the one that comes most readily to mind at the moment is Yoda using the Force to levitate Luke's X-wing fighter out of the swamp in Dagobah) or the training montage cumulates in the student mastering the technique and demonstrating it himself (or students in the case of the one in Disney's Mulan). Maybe we just watch different movies.

 

[ColdHeart]

TBH I am not sure why a practising a daily or an at-will makes any difference to this discussion.

But also, considering a character will use the same daily every day of the week, it feels more "tried and tested" than a spontaneous "wait, if I do this and this and use that I can make this happen", which seems to be what you are comparing them to.

 

[Nichwee]

But also, considering a character will use the same daily every day of the week, it feels more "tried and tested" than a spontaneous "wait, if I do this and this and use that I can make this happen", which seems to be what you are comparing them to.

A case made even more apparent, imo, when you think of a Wizard - who has his Daily in a spellbook and picks between it and another to 'prepare' that day.

Your 'powers' are something your character has learnt to do, and then uses when the oppertunity arises. The exact way they pull of the 'trick' may be a spur of the moment thing (reskin the fluff everytime you use it) but the 'trick' itself is something they have learnt and look for the opening to use.

And Gathanos; In the game I play at the moment I play a nervous wizard with a bit of an inferiority comlex (based on Neville Longbottom) who has been through a war recently. A fair number of his encounter powers are shooting ones (Ranged, one/two targets). There is no way he would have waited until in combat to make sure he knew how to do Spactral Ram (for example), and probably practised it for hours even after being confident he could cast it well. He would be convinced he'd mess it up/misaim if he wasn't practiced enough, as he is certain his natural talent is never enough.

Practice is normal for all powers. The barbarian practices hitting the target dummy/imagined foe (D/IF) to build his base technique (using At-Will). He then tries to cleave the D/IF in two to strengthen his swing (using a Daily 4W power potentially).
No need for uber-hypnosis/self-delusion, just trying to hit hard even though you know you are hitting nothing. It ties you out a bit (so no doing that again until tomorrow) but overtime you find you can do better and better (You learn a 5W Daily or 4W + lasting effect).

In Fencing I practice my At-Will a lot (fast arm movement with a bit of shifting). I then have psuedo-encounter attacks = I lunge, which due to bad knees I can't do often or I find I lose all mobility for the day (and a Daily involving rapid sucession lunging to score a single hit). I still practice the lunge tho, not as often but I still do - so if I need the advantage in a fight I am still able to keep my sword tip under control when doing something taxing and different to my normal move. 90% of this practice is done facing a wall, or other blank vista, and just imagining where my opponent would be.

 

[Garthanos]

I think the effects from practice "tend to be lame" in comparison to what you achieve in the the heat against real adversaries.... because the spirit isn't in it.

But not always ;-), that's what dms are for.

 

[Mort]

Great what is the hypothetical armor class of a square?

For this discussion - it doesn't matter because hitting is irrelevant, which is kind of the point of why bother with a target.

I'm away from my books at the moment - so have a hopefully simple question: can you deliberately miss a target?

If the answer is yes then there is no difference at all (really) between attacking to miss deliberately and not attacking at all. In other words, you can use just the effect line of a power without attacking.

I suppose you can argue that the presence of the target makes all the difference but that’s really twisting things to an unecessary absurdity (imo of course).

 

[Markn]

I don't think there is any precdence for deliberately missing a target.