CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[KarinsDad]

Custserv are not allowed to make decisions. Their job is to answer questions. If they can't answer a general question, then they're useless. I feel sympathy for them since 4E has made their job much more difficult.

Except when the person asking the question is trying to drill down into the rules for a specific answer to a specific question which is unclear in the rules. In that case, someone at WotC has to make a decision. If CustServ has to escalate the question to the developers, fine.

If the person asking is vague, then it's not the fault of CustServ.

 

[ST]

If the person asking is vague, then it's not the fault of CustServ.

Specifically, if the question is so vague that it's not applicable to "In this situation, at the table, which happens, A or B?", then I think it's outside their area of responsibility.

Rules questions that aren't applicable to "How do I play 4e", but rather are trying to create implications about how to interpret the rules, aren't what they're there for. They're there to help people play 4e the same way the Betty Crocker helpline is there to help you make sure your cake turns out right.

 

[KarinsDad]

A d20 check which targets a Defense.

An "Attack Power" is not the same as an "attack roll," which is the actual attack in question. Attack Powers is simply a label for the type of power it is, for the purpose of determining how many powers of what type you possess.

The problem with this definition is that it leads to logical inconsistencies.

Many elements of the game state something like "When an attack occurs, ...". Limiting it to Attack Checks is fine if that was the designer intention (and they clarify it in the FAQ or an errata), but this does not appear to be the case. Nowhere in the rules is this called out.

The word "attack" is used 2456 times in the PHB. It is likely that the designers mean "attack" (i.e. trying to affect a foe) in many of those instances (even in the case of an Attack Power, it is a power that affects one or more foes).

One really should assume that every Attack Power is an attack and every Utility Power is not an attack. Regardless of whether there is an Attack Check within any given Attack Power.

Otherwise, you get people stating that a Wall of Fire is not REALLY an attack. It kills 3 enemy minions, but it is not REALLY an attack. WT?

That's just nonsensical.

We should go with the logical (and English) definition of the word attack instead of limiting it to Attack Checks because the logical definition avoids stupid stuff like this example. The logical definition is also RAW (e.g. if a feat that affects attacks does not state that it is limited to Attack Rolls, then it is not) and it also appears to be RAI.


Granted, I understand the POV that attacks are only attacks if they have the Attack keyword, but to me, that just means that attacks only have attack check rolls if they have the Attack keyword.

To me, the Attack keyword is not the definition of an attack. It is the definition of needing an Attack Check.

Just like a Wall of Fire really does affect targets, even though it does not have the Target keyword.


Another thing. In the Evasion feat, the word attack is not capitalized. The Attack keyword appears to be always capitalized.

To me, they are not the same. The non-capitalized word attack simply means the English word attack. It does not mean the Attack keyword. YMMV.

Ditto for Target.


Feats that affect power keywords like Astra Fire state things like:

"when you use a power that has the fire or radiant keyword"

Explicit over Implicit.

 

[The Little Raven]

Otherwise, you get people stating that a Wall of Fire is not REALLY an attack. It kills 3 enemy minions, but it is not REALLY an attack. WT?

That's just nonsensical.

No, it makes perfect sense.

You create a conjuration of fire that has an effect on people who are within a certain range. However, it is not an active attack against a defense (as it does not contain an attack against a defense).

Attack Power is not the same as an attack. It's simply the category in which the power is placed for power selection/limit purposes. It would have been more clear if they had named them Wizard Combat 1 instead of Wizard Attack 1.

Granted, I understand the POV that attacks are only attacks if they have the Attack keyword, but to me, that just means that attacks only have attack check rolls if they have the Attack keyword.

To me, the Attack keyword is not the definition of an attack. It is the definition of needing an Attack Check.

Just like a Wall of Fire really does affect targets, even though it does not have the Target keyword.

There are no Attack or Target keywords. There are five types of keywords: Usage (at-will, encounter, daily), Power Source (arcane, divine, martial), Damage Type (acid, cold, etc), Effect (charm, healing, teleportation, etc), and Accessories (weapon, implement). Attack and Target are not applicable to any of those categories.

Keywords only appear in one place in a power's description.

Daily ✦ Arcane, Conjuration, Fire, Implement

Target is entirely separate section independent from keywords entirely, and yes, Wall of Fire does have a target...

Area wall 8 within 10 squares

It's a contiguous 8-square area within 10 squares of you. Target can indicate area, not just a particular creature or object. There is no "Target:" section, because there is no attack roll (all powers with a "Target: One or more creatures in burst" or whatever have an attack roll, unless they're used on allies).

Another thing. In the Evasion feat, the word attack is not capitalized. The Attack keyword is always capitalized.

The only way Evasion can function is if there is an attack roll (against a defense), and it deals damage when it misses. If there is no attack roll (like Wall of Fire), or it doesn't deal damage on a miss, then Evasion doesn't come into play at all.

Feats that affect power keywords like Astra Fire state things like:

"when you use a power that has the fire or radiant keyword"

Part of the problem is that you're trying to turn things into keywords which are not keywords, like Target and Attack.

 

[ryryguy]

There are no Attack or Target keywords. There are five types of keywords: Usage (at-will, encounter, daily), Power Source (arcane, divine, martial), Damage Type (acid, cold, etc), Effect (charm, healing, teleportation, etc), and Accessories (weapon, implement). Attack and Target are not applicable to any of those categories.

Keywords only appear in one place in a power's description.

Agreed! The thing that people are referring to when they say "Attack keyword" doesn't seem to have an explicitly defined term, but it's often referred to in the rules as a "line", e.g., "the Attack line."

 

[Hypersmurf]

According to your "an Attack power must have the Target keyword in order to target an enemy" definition, then Wall of Fire is not a power that can EVER be used against an enemy.

Right. The enemy is irrelevant. You don't use Wall of Fire against the paladin; you use Wall of Fire to create an obstacle. If the paladin takes damage from that obstacle, that's his problem, not yours.

According to your Targeting definition, it's not just that it cannot Target a Paladin, it can NEVER be used against anyone.

Right. You don't use the Wall of Fire power against anyone. You use it to create an obstacle.

This does not say and/or. It says and. Without the target keyword, areas affect ZERO targets.

That's right. Wall of Fire doesn't affect targets. It affects creatures in the area or adjacent to the area, but it doesn't consider them targets.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, it makes perfect sense.

You create a conjuration of fire that has an effect on people who are within a certain range. However, it is not an active attack against a defense (as it does not contain an attack against a defense).

Attack Power is not the same as an attack. It's simply the category in which the power is placed for power selection/limit purposes. It would have been more clear if they had named them Wizard Combat 1 instead of Wizard Attack 1.

I would be ok with this definition from a rules perspective if WotC stated this.


At that point, I would have a problem with Divine Challenge, not with Area Effects.

Divine Challenge to me should not limit the opponent to attacks with attacks versus defenses. If the opponent uses an attack power, that to me is an attack.

I don't like vague rules about rules, I like rules that make sense and are consistent. In the case of Divine Challenge:

"I CHALLENGE YOU TO ATTACK ME"

and Indy pulls out his Dancing Weapon and blows the Paladin with his Two Handed sword away with Wall of Fire. Challenge met.


Back to the rules, WotC should be more clear. If they mean Attack Check power every time they use the word attack, they should say so. Since they did not, one has to consider an Attack Power to be an attack until they do.

You are infering that not all Attack powers are attacks and that to me just does not make sense.

All Attack Powers do not have Attack Checks, but until WotC rules differently, all Attack Powers are attacks. Every single one of them harms or hinders an opponent, the definition of attack in the PHB.

They should not be called Combat Powers (since Utility Powers can also be used in Combat), they are properly called Attack Powers because that is what they are.

Part of the problem is that you're trying to turn things into keywords which are not keywords, like Target and Attack.

Yup. My bad.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's right. Wall of Fire doesn't affect targets. It affects creatures in the area or adjacent to the area, but it doesn't consider them targets.

And that is just too terminology literal for some people playing the game to figure out easily. Not everyone analyzes the rules to death like you do Hyp. To some people, a target and a creature being attacked are the same thing in the game.

"Walls do not target creatures. They have no target."

Would it have been that hard for WotC to add this?

I'm glad that Hyp can distinguish, but then again if that's the case, why did you need to contact CustServ? Oh yeah. Because it is not crystal clear to the general 4E playing community here.

If "target" only means powers with the Target line, then they have to be careful when using that term.

If "attack" only means powers with the Attack line, then they have to be careful when using that term.

They weren't. Those words are used willy nilly throughout the PHB. They use the word target when talking about skills with relation to a creature. Page 56, the very first sentence in the Area section talks about targets, even though Areas do not need to have targets.

An attack is an attack. Attack should be the superset of all attacks, not the subset of all attacks that have certain characteristics.

Sorry, but they should have different unique and distinct terminology for different things and they should not re-use words when they are terminology words, and they should not have phrases in the rules that state:

An area attack's area of effect sets the targets it affects

if there are area effects that cannot have targets. If that is the case, they should clarify this sentence.


In fact, they should not have called them Area Attacks in the first place. Not all of them are Attacks (using the Attack Power definition). Not all of them are Attacks (using the Attack Check definition).

This is typical of WotC. They re-use the same word in the rules both as specific terms and as general English words and hence they sometimes have slightly different meanings and it's a pain in the butt.


PS. I think it is totally non-intuitive that a Divine Challanged marked Wizard cannot use Wall of Ice as an attack against the Paladin, especiallty if his Attack spell kills the Paladin, and still take DC damage. That's just plain dumb. But, that is only my opinion on how the rule should have been.

Maybe they'll get it right by 5E.

 

[ki11erDM]

I love you

/agree

Reading Hype's posts are worth the admission... if there was one. : )

 

[Ginnel]

PS. I think it is totally non-intuitive that a Divine Challanged marked Wizard cannot use Wall of Ice as an attack against the Paladin, especiallty if his Attack spell kills the Paladin, and still take DC damage. That's just plain dumb. But, that is only my opinion on how the rule should have been.

Maybe they'll get it right by 5E.

No thats correct a wizard creates a wall of fire/ice which causes damage to the paladin on his next turn, the wizard hasn't attacked him he merely created an obstacle, a paladins divine challenge is "attack me curr, or [deity of choice] will make you regret it!"

creating an obstacle which damages the paladin a bit later or even not at all (shift/push/pull etc) would be counter intuitive to the point of divine challnge to me, however Gods bringing the smackdown to overly smart wizards, working as intended.