CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[Hypersmurf]

So the attack is over...

Is it?

Let's say I use Shadowfell Gloves to change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power I use to necrotic, then I cast Elemental Maw.

I hit a target's Reflex, and he takes 6d6+Int necrotic damage, and is Pulled into the area, which means he takes 3d6+Int damage from the Effect. Is the 3d6+Int necrotic damage or, say, lightning?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A slight rephrase: if you make an attack, then you roll 1d20 and add appropriate modifiers.

The rules of logic then say that if you do not roll 1d20 and add appropriate modifiers, then you have not made an attack.

Therefore Wall of Fire, which does not include a d20 roll, is not an attack. Therefore an attack power is not necessarily an attack.

Check p269, though, Making An Attack:

All attacks follow the same basic process.
1: Choose the attack you'll use.
... 3: Make an attack roll.
... 5: Deal damage and apply other effects.

If all attacks follow this process, and step 5 is "Deal damage and...", do the rules of logic not then say that if your power did not deal damage, then you have not made an attack?

Therefore Sleep, which includes a d20 roll but does not deal damage, is not an attack. Therefore an attack power which includes an attack roll is not necessarily an attack.

... did I do it right?

-Hyp.

 

[zgrose]

Is it?

Let's say I use Shadowfell Gloves to change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power I use to necrotic, then I cast Elemental Maw.

I hit a target's Reflex, and he takes 6d6+Int necrotic damage, and is Pulled into the area, which means he takes 3d6+Int damage from the Effect. Is the 3d6+Int necrotic damage or, say, lightning?

-Hyp.

Good question. Of course it says change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power you use to necrotic. Not, change the damage type dealt by the next attack.

I would make the Hit and the Effect necrotic.

I would make a Wall of Fire deal necrotic as well via the same principle.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Good question. Of course it says change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power you use to necrotic. Not, change the damage type dealt by the next attack.

But what's the difference? You agree with CustServ's response that any power of the form [Class] Attack [Level] is an attack, right?

Elemental Maw is an arcane power, so it's the next arcane power I use.

Elemental Maw is of the form [Class] Attack [Level], so it's an attack, so it's the next attack I make.

If the damage dealt by the effect becomes necrotic, then the damage dealt by the effect is damage dealt by Elemental Maw.

Since Elemental Maw is of the form [Class] Attack [Level], it's an attack, and it targets Reflex.

So we can take the Evasion wording:
When [an area or close attack targeting your AC or Reflex Defense] misses you but deals damage on a miss, you take no damage from [the attack].

and substitute in Elemental Maw where appropriate, since Elemental Maw is the attack:
When Elemental Maw misses you but deals damage on a miss, you take no damage from Elemental Maw.

And we've already established that the damage dealt by the effect is damage dealt by Elemental Maw... so when Elemental Maw misses you but deals damage on a miss, you take no damage from the effect.

Unless Elemental Maw is not, in fact, an attack, but rather includes an attack and an effect. In which case Wall of Fire is not an attack.

-Hyp.

 

[zgrose]

But what's the difference? You agree with CustServ's response that any power of the form [Class] Attack [Level] is an attack, right?

Elemental Maw is an arcane power, so it's the next arcane power I use.

Elemental Maw is of the form [Class] Attack [Level], so it's an attack, so it's the next attack I make.

If the damage dealt by the effect becomes necrotic, then the damage dealt by the effect is damage dealt by Elemental Maw.

Since Elemental Maw is of the form [Class] Attack [Level], it's an attack, and it targets Reflex.

So we can take the Evasion wording:
When [an area or close attack targeting your AC or Reflex Defense] misses you but deals damage on a miss, you take no damage from [the attack].

and substitute in Elemental Maw where appropriate, since Elemental Maw is the attack:
When Elemental Maw misses you but deals damage on a miss, you take no damage from Elemental Maw.

And we've already established that the damage dealt by the effect is damage dealt by Elemental Maw... so when Elemental Maw misses you but deals damage on a miss, you take no damage from the effect.

Unless Elemental Maw is not, in fact, an attack, but rather includes an attack and an effect. In which case Wall of Fire is not an attack.

-Hyp.

The Elemental Maw is an Attack. It is used by the Wizard to make an attack. The attack is over. The Attack is still in effect. An Attack can attack more than once and can be used to make more than one attack (e.g. Flaming Sphere)

I really can't explain it in any other way.

If you want to know if Elemental Maw can affect you if you Evaded the initial attack, I suggest you just ask them that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Elemental Maw is an Attack.

Ah!

But I haven't been asking about the definition of an Attack. I've been asking about the definition of an attack.

When you say "Attack", you mean "Attack Power".

Do you feel that someone subject to Seal of Binding, who cannot be affected by other attacks, will take damage from Wall of Fire (an Attack Power which does not make an attack)?

An Attack can attack more than once...

Or, indeed, not at all... sometimes it can affect an enemy with no attack required.

-Hyp.

 

[Branduil]

There is obviously a definitional problem in the rules. In cases like this I think it's best to look for the RAI rather than the RAW.

Is Wall of Fire intended to be an attack?
I think so, it's an attack power after all.

Are Evasion and the Minion rule intended to refer to the entire attack power or only attack rolls?
It seems to me they are not. A minion can be missed by the attack roll for Cloud of Daggers but still die from the attack effect. A Rogue with evasion can take no damage from the attack roll of Elemental Maw but still takes damage from the effect.

If we take the opposing argument to the logical conclusion, if a Ranger targets a minion with Twin Strike, and misses on one of the attacks, the minion cannot take damage from the other attack, even if it hits. That is an absurd ruling.

Arguing Wall of Fire can get past Seal of Binding is also absurd. The power is unbalanced if the target can take damage from any other attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Arguing Wall of Fire can get past Seal of Binding is also absurd. The power is unbalanced if the target can take damage from any other attack.

The target can't take damage from any other attack. That's not under dispute at all.

What's at question is whether or not Wall of Fire is, in fact, 'any other attack'.

The problem is that avoiding the two rulings you call absurd is a mutually-exclusive issue. If we define 'attack' so as to prevent Wall of Fire damage someone under Seal of Binding, then Evasion avoids the Effect damage of Elemental Maw or Righteous Inferno. If we define 'attack' so as to stop the Evasion problem, then Wall of Fire isn't subject to the Seal of Binding restriction.

Unless, of course, we say that "an attack" means one thing under the Seal of Binding text, and a different thing under the Evasion text, and repeat for any occurrence of "attack" in the PHB...

-Hyp.

 

[zgrose]

Ah!

But I haven't been asking about the definition of an Attack. I've been asking about the definition of an attack.

When you say "Attack", you mean "Attack Power".

Do you feel that someone subject to Seal of Binding, who cannot be affected by other attacks, will take damage from Wall of Fire (an Attack Power which does not make an attack)?

I do believe the target would take the damage from the Wall of Fire. By extension, something like Fiery Rebuke wouldn't add to the Wall of Fire since you're not hitting. The damage just *is*.

Now I need to scroll up and see if I've reversed myself anywhere.... =)

(edit) I don't think I've reversed myself anywhere.

If we define 'attack' so as to stop the Evasion problem, then Wall of Fire isn't subject to the Seal of Binding restriction.

Well there you go, we agree. =)

 

[zgrose]

Arguing Wall of Fire can get past Seal of Binding is also absurd. The power is unbalanced if the target can take damage from any other attack.

I don't think that is true. Consider the following:

Seal of Binding on Hopeless_Foe_01
Push/pull/slide/whatever foe into pit of lava
Hopeless_Foe_01 dies.

That doesn't seem absurd. If they wanted to make the target immune to all damage, they could've said just that.