Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4951956" data-attributes="member: 51942">You persist in misrepresenting the rules to suggest that the DM could override the rules to permit something unreasonable.&nbsp; That's The player isn't going against any rules by attacking an empty square.&nbsp; At worst he's using the rules in an unintended - but not unbalanced - fashion.&nbsp; There are rules permitting a player to attack a square but the DM may, at his disgression, override those rules since they were likely not intended for that use.&nbsp; Alternatively, the DM might permit the PC to attack an object, again at his disgression.Whether or not the player makes the case, the DM will need to decide.&nbsp;It certainly could mean that - and the player could also simply target the square rather than any single object.You admit the obvious: a DM is the final arbiter.&nbsp; However, you also suggest that the clear default choice is for the DM to deny the player the option of attacking an empty square to be able to trigger effects without attacking an opponent.&nbsp; That position is not supported by the game.The simple matter is that there is a rule permitting attacking empty squares, but that using it to attack a square that is known empty doesn't seem to have been it's original purpose - so the DM can reasonably say it's a no go.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4951956, member: 51942"] You persist in misrepresenting the rules to suggest that the DM could override the rules to permit something unreasonable. That's The player isn't going against any rules by attacking an empty square. At worst he's using the rules in an unintended - but not unbalanced - fashion. There are rules permitting a player to attack a square but the DM may, at his disgression, override those rules since they were likely not intended for that use. Alternatively, the DM might permit the PC to attack an object, again at his disgression. Whether or not the player makes the case, the DM will need to decide. It certainly [I]could [/I]mean that - and the player could also simply target the square rather than any single object. You admit the obvious: a DM is the final arbiter. However, you also suggest that the clear [I]default [/I]choice is for the DM to deny the player the option of attacking an empty square to be able to trigger effects without attacking an opponent. That position is not supported by the game. The simple matter is that there is a rule permitting attacking empty squares, but that using it to attack a square that is known empty doesn't seem to have been it's original purpose - so the DM can reasonably say it's a no go. [/QUOTE]

Verification