Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4953729" data-attributes="member: 71571">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.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.  The rules for targetting empty squares require an unseen creature to target.  You should read them.Again, not relevant.  No Target.Agreed.  In this case, the default tho is to say 'No Target, no power, but describe to me why you can.'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.And for that, you see the rules for targetting empty squares.Cause those rules exist.So use them.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.And I'd say 'Sure.'Because, while it's bending the rules, it makes sense and I have no problem accepting 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.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.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.  The paragraph after bag of rats says an effect line abuse as an example.  Don't even start this. '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-.   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.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.'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.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.This is not a bad thing.  Which is why you have the 'but you can convince me otherwise' rule.  Provided the other side is at equal elevation, yes.  Of course, the range of the power is how much?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. Except for where it's there and written down and you choose not to turn to that page and read it. 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.</blockquote>

Verification