attacking without attacking

[eamon]

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.

On the other hand, during practice, you're actually concentrating on that particular technique, and focused on making it work, and aren't distracted by the needs of a bunch of allies, the burning arrow sticking out of your chest, keeping your defenses up while you do it, etc. Also, if you're performing such a stunt as a one off action, you're probably a bunch less tired to boot than you would be if you used it towards the tail-end of a combat.

D&D doesn't account for any of these issues in the name of simplicity. This is no different. You either perform the power or you can't - and requiring "your heart" to be in it is a pretty lame excuse for a DM to make - when exactly is your heart in it - when you miss a minion in an easy fight?

Micromanaging the PC's abilities to fit the DMs schedule smacks of railroading. Sure, you can find some excuse to forbid it in any particular scenario - but that holds for all kinds of actions. If the PC has a power with a side effect that triggers regardless of the target, and regardless of whether the target is even hit, presumably that power isn't very dependant on said target - so if the player wants to use it, let him, unless there's some good reason not too. Annoyance at the fact that it replicates a utility power isn't a particularly good reason - rather that just goes to show that the effect is essentially a common, non-gamebreaking effect. Thus, interference in the power's function thus opens up a huge grey area for the DM to adjudicate without actually much affect game balance, while simultaneously interfering with the players control over his character.

Before I do that, it'd better be necessary for game balance or common sense. Clearly that's not the case here.

 

[Garthanos]

D&D doesn't account for any of these issues in the name of simplicity. This is no different. You either perform the power or you can't - and requiring "your heart" to be in it is a pretty lame excuse for a DM to make - when exactly is your heart in it - when you miss a minion in an easy fight?

If you are attacking a real enemy that is an easy definition of putting your heart in to it... no attacking allies or pieces of the scenery....

Micromanaging the PC's abilities to fit the DMs schedule smacks of railroading. Sure, you can find some excuse to forbid it in any particular scenario - but that holds for all kinds of actions. If the PC has a power with a side effect that triggers regardless of the target, and regardless of whether the target is even hit, presumably that power isn't very dependant on said target - so if the player wants to use it, let him, unless there's some good reason not too. Annoyance at the fact that it replicates a utility power isn't a particularly good reason - rather that just goes to show that the effect is essentially a common, non-gamebreaking effect. Thus, interference in the power's function thus opens up a huge grey area for the DM to adjudicate without actually much affect game balance, while simultaneously interfering with the players control over his character.

Before I do that, it'd better be necessary for game balance or common sense. Clearly that's not the case here.

I would like to confess I have been being a bit of devils advocate here.

There have been people who were arguing there was a game balance element. (the character may be able to get away without invoking an opportunity attack - woop de doo) I wasn't impressed with the argument either. The circumstance of laying a real attack against a real target "could" be an element that contributes to the effect and could even be the definition of whether the characters spirit is in it (which has an effect on real world actions), so there is some logic to some dm saying no....
The attack could itself hit or miss be a set up for the auxiliary situation and effect.

Inspite of that....

My thinking is that the game does have guidelines for use of the powers in "non-standard" ways on page 42... I think its basically up to the DM and also a general "say yes" attitude which says go for it.... and this seems an easy wing it.

So by default I agree.... unless there is something more wonky and hyjinky going on than avoiding an opportunity attack or preventing what seems like multiple use of utility effect... why not let them do it?

 

[FireLance]

I didn't want to derail the Blood of the Mighty thread, but I couldn't help wondering...

Blood of the Mighty daily power from Divine Power.

Hit: 4[W]+str

Effect: You take 5 damage

If the paladin attacks the air, does he still take damage?

 

[Flipguarder]

yes. He is sacrificing his own vitality to kick the living crap out of the air.

 

[FireLance]

yes. He is sacrificing his own vitality to kick the living crap out of the air.

As long as you're consistent about it. If attacking the air means that "Effect: You take damage" happens, attacking the air should also mean that "Effect: You teleport" happens.

 

[Flipguarder]

You've got the wrong kind of consistency. Mine is based on realism. That is an effect that makes sense, since the flavor says you harm yourself to do make your attack more vicious. The Dual lightning strike flavor says you seem to attack two things at once.

I know others disagree with me on how important Fluff is in rules, but imo one makes sense, the other doesn't.

 

[FireLance]

You've got the wrong kind of consistency. Mine is based on realism. That is an effect that makes sense, since the flavor says you harm yourself to do make your attack more vicious. The Dual lightning strike flavor says you seem to attack two things at once.

I know others disagree with me on how important Fluff is in rules, but imo one makes sense, the other doesn't.

The problem with flavor-based arguments is that flavor is very mutable in 4E. I could easily reflavor dual lightning strike as transforming yourself into a bolt of lightning, so that the ability to damage an enemy close to the point where you discorporate and another one close to the point where you rematerialize, while a bonus, is not an essential element of the power.

In addition, consider the flavor text of the 5th-level Ranger attack power, splintering shot:

"Your arrow burrows into flesh and shatters, sending splinters of wood deep into the wound."​

If you apply your flavor text rule consistently, then you should rule that the ranger has to use an arrow with this power, even though it is not explicitly called out by a "Requirement" entry in the rules.

One final minor nitpick: I find that "realism" is a vague concept at best when applied to a fantasy role-playing game, and doubly so when it is used to determine when happens when a magic spell is used.

Some better yardsticks might be: "plausibility", which basically boils down to whether the player or the DM can come up with a reasonable explanation for what happens, or "internal consistency", which can arise from either treating the game rules as the laws of physics in the game world, or taking reference from the DM's house rules on the laws of magic or something similar.

As an example, one internally consistent way to have blood of the mighty damage the paladin when he uses it to attack the air, but to disallow the swordmage from teleporting outside of combat by attacking the air with dual lightning strike, even though they are both Effects, is to rule that harmful Effects occur even when the character does not have a valid target, but beneficial Effects don't.

 

[Garthanos]

The problem with flavor-based arguments is that flavor is very mutable in 4E. I could easily reflavor dual lightning strike as transforming yourself into a bolt of lightning, so that the ability to damage an enemy close to the point where you discorporate and another one close to the point where you rematerialize, while a bonus, is not an essential element of the power.

Exactly and it might well be the players preferred visualization of the power... it is high on my list.

 

[eamon]

As an example, one internally consistent way to have blood of the mighty damage the paladin when he uses it to attack the air, but to disallow the swordmage from teleporting outside of combat by attacking the air with dual lightning strike, even though they are both Effects, is to rule that harmful Effects occur even when the character does not have a valid target, but beneficial Effects don't.

That's a fragile example, if you ask me. It's perhaps externally consistent in the sense that the game retains a measure of consistency, but it's almost certainly not internally consistent as it all of the sudden requires an in-game notion of beneficial vs. non-beneficial effects. And, of course, those two categories are frequently not clearly distinguishable (is that slide beneficial or not?) and/or the same effect is sometimes beneficial and sometimes not. Now, you could institute your example rule (it's certainly not completely inconsistent), but it'd be tricky in some cases.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don't interpret your post as a suggestion to actually implement this example , you were merely illustrating a point, right? In any case, I think it'd be very very hard to distinguish between "Effects:" in a consistent manner based on a balance argument.

So, you could say that Effects on psychic or charm powers don't occur, but others do when you attack a square rather than a creature - but that wouldn't selectively apply to particularly imbalanced effects.

 

[eamon]

One final minor nitpick: I find that "realism" is a vague concept at best when applied to a fantasy role-playing game, and doubly so when it is used to determine when happens when a magic spell is used.

Some better yardsticks might be: "plausibility", which basically boils down to whether the player or the DM can come up with a reasonable explanation for what happens, or "internal consistency", which can arise from either treating the game rules as the laws of physics in the game world, or taking reference from the DM's house rules on the laws of magic or something similar.

This is a critically important notion to me. I couldn't agree more!