CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[RefinedBean]

...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.

I'd have to agree with this, actually. The idea of Divine Challenge means it should provoke a direct attack. If a Wizard instead puts up a huge frickin' obstacle between him and the Paladin (i.e. a wall of frickin' FIRE), then that's not making an attack, that's trying to preserve the Wizard's life for a few rounds.

I see where Karinsdad is coming from on this, though...would an enemy take the Challenge damage if he used his turn to activate a trap that made an immediate attack on the Paladin? That's highly situational...if he had no other way of "attacking" the Paladin, then I'd say no Challenge damage.

Hmmm. Murky.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Maybe Cody was thinking of time stop when he made that call.
Such as dropping wall of fire under time stop.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Making an attack that damages the paladin immediately or even not at all is not much different than one that damages the paladin a bit later or even not at all, and in fact, since all Actions are considered simultaneous (page 266) in a round, it's not really that much later.

And, you are entitled to that opinon. Personally, I think Attack Powers, especially ones that almost always do damage, ARE attacks.


Hyp's (and your) interpretation is at this point, just one interpretation.

If WotC supports that interpretation, fine. I'm ok with that.

If WotC supports my preferred interpretation, fine. I'm ok with that too.

Although we have a Paladin in our group, the number of Wizards or Clerics (compared to monsters) that he will be Divine Challenging in the lifetime of the campaign is probably pretty low and the number of those that use a Wall spell or Blade Barrier against him is even lower.

In other words, the chances of this happening in our game are so low that who really gives a rat's rearend how WotC adjudicates it? It really is mostly a non-issue.

What is important is for WotC to come up with answers and then FAQ / Errata them so that everyone can clearly understand the intent with these types of rules.

Which way they decide? Meh. Don't care. I have my preference, but I won't lose any sleep over it if they decide differently. I'm more concerned about easy and consistent rules.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

If you walk into anything that is burning (a campfire, a burning building, a wall of fire) and get burned, I can't see how that is an attack.

Now, dropping said wall of fire on someone I would consider to be an attack...

 

[KarinsDad]

Now, dropping said wall of fire on someone I would consider to be an attack...

Precisely. If the Paladin is in the area of effect of the Effect of the Attack Power Wall of Fire, he is attacked. But, not if Hyp is right about the targeting rules.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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!"

If Wall of Fire is not considered an attack, and the Wizard uses it against the Paladin, he does not take Divine Challenge damage. In order for someone to take Divine Challenge damage, they must make an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as one of it's targets. Since you've determined that Wall of Fire isn't an attack at all, they haven't fulfilled that criteria.

In fact, they can ignore the Paladin and cast Wall of Fire in an area where others may be affected since, again, it's not an attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Page 56, the very first sentence in the Area section talks about targets, even though Areas do not need to have targets.

Er, exactly. The very first sentence in the Area section talks about targets - it says an Area power affects multiple targets, or creates an obstacle.

The very first sentence in the Area section talks about targets, in order to tell us that Areas do not need to have targets. They can create an obstacle as an alternative to affecting multiple targets.

This first time Area is defined, we learn that an Area power doesn't need to affect targets to be an Area power.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

If Wall of Fire is not considered an attack, and the Wizard uses it against the Paladin, he does not take Divine Challenge damage. In order for someone to take Divine Challenge damage, they must make an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as one of it's targets. Since you've determined that Wall of Fire isn't an attack at all, they haven't fulfilled that criteria.

In fact, they can ignore the Paladin and cast Wall of Fire in an area where others may be affected since, again, it's not an attack.

He shoots. He SCORES!

I hate being stupid.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He shoots. He SCORES!

I hate being stupid.

Well, it's basically what I said earlier:

Well, let's say Wall of Fire is not an attack. He can cast it with no damage.

Let's say Wall of Fire is an attack. He can't cast it with no damage even if he drops it right through the paladin's space, because Wall of Fire has no targets, and thus cannot include the paladin as a target.

RigaMortus2 just posted the "Wall of Fire is not an attack" position.

But since you reject the "Wall of Fire is not an attack" idea, it doesn't apply to you. If Wall of Fire is an attack (as you espouse), then if you're under Divine Challenge and you use Wall of Fire, the only way you avoid damage is if the power targets the Paladin.

Which it can't, if you agree with the "Wall of Fire creates an obstacle, it does not have targets" reading. ... which you don't.

You managed to create a third position which I hadn't conceived of - "Wall of Fire is an attack, despite not having an Attack entry, and it has targets, despite not having a Target entry".

-Hyp.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I'm going to go with custserv epic fail on this one, and say "not an attack."