CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"

[theNater]

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.

Perfectly! Well done!

According to RAW, Sleep is not an attack. Neither is Magic Missile, as it does not apply other effects. And Ray of Frost ceases to be an attack if it misses, as it does neither.

A generous reading of the rules would say that Sleep deals no damage, rather than not dealing damage, which clears this up by saying it deals damage equal to 0. Similarly, we can make things without an effect apply no effect rather than not applying an effect. Semantic nonsense, but useful semantic nonsense.

Which leads me to my first house rule. In my games, I will either institute a rule saying essentially the above paragraph or rewriting that 5th step to be:
5. Deal damage(if any) and apply other effects(if any).

I believe those two house rules to be equivalent. Are there any situations where they wouldn't be?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

You can't push/pull/slide him as the result of an attack, though, since he's unaffected by other attacks. You can only push/pull/slide him if you can do it without an attack.

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

Well, you did say "It can deal damage. And CSR said it was an attack. It seems pretty straightforward and internally consistent, no?", but your ruling on Wall of Fire vs Seal of Binding, based on the pretty straightforward and internally consistent rules, is the opposite of the CSR's.

-Hyp.

 

[Branduil]

Seal of Binding is certainly poorly worded, I'll give you that. It probably should say the creature cannot be affected by any attack or attack power. Otherwise Seal of Binding is utterly overpowered as soon as the Wizard casts a zone that deals automatic damage without an attack roll.

 

[zgrose]

One last followup before bed:

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...

Context is king in English. For example, I can call a male dog a "boy dog" and everyone would know what I mean. I can call my son a "boy" and everyone would know what I mean. If the dog and my son are next to see other and I tell you to throw a ball to the boy, you would probably throw the ball to my son. If I put the dog and my wife's female dog next to each other with my son and said throw the bone to the boy, you would probably throw the ball to the male dog.

Same word, different meaning in different contexts.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A generous reading of the rules would say that Sleep deals no damage, rather than not dealing damage, which clears this up by saying it deals damage equal to 0. Similarly, we can make things without an effect apply no effect rather than not applying an effect. Semantic nonsense, but useful semantic nonsense.

Which leads me to my first house rule. In my games, I will either institute a rule saying essentially the above paragraph or rewriting that 5th step to be:
5. Deal damage(if any) and apply other effects(if any).

I believe those two house rules to be equivalent. Are there any situations where they wouldn't be?

I don't know if there are any rules in 4E which use this wording, but if there's anything that says "When you deal damage to an opponent, you may X", there's a difference between "You deal damage equal to 0" and "You don't deal damage".

Actually, the Shadowfell Gloves probably fit the bill - "Add +1d6 to the damage dealt by the power (if any)", if you've defined all attacks as dealing damage equal to 0 or more, adds +1d6 damage to all attacks (since 0 damage is damage and therefore 'any'), whereas the rewritten 5th step would prevent that (since an absence of damage is not 'any').

-Hyp.

 

[zgrose]

Seal of Binding is certainly poorly worded, I'll give you that. It probably should say the creature cannot be affected by any attack or attack power. Otherwise Seal of Binding is utterly overpowered as soon as the Wizard casts a zone that deals automatic damage without an attack roll.

I think the OP-ness of Seal of Binding has already been established. =)

 

[theNater]

I don't know if there are any rules in 4E which use this wording, but if there's anything that says "When you deal damage to an opponent, you may X", there's a difference between "You deal damage equal to 0" and "You don't deal damage".

Actually, the Shadowfell Gloves probably fit the bill - "Add +1d6 to the damage dealt by the power (if any)", if you've defined all attacks as dealing damage equal to 0 or more, adds +1d6 damage to all attacks (since 0 damage is damage and therefore 'any'), whereas the rewritten 5th step would prevent that (since an absence of damage is not 'any').

Yup, that makes 'em different. I'll be editing part 5 of that box with my first house rule.

 

[IceFractal]

I would go with the "an attack consists of an Attack, Hit, and (optionally) Miss entry", as it seems most consistent with the rest of the rules and causes the least stupid situations.

Yes, this means you can use Wall of Fire with Seal of Binding - but Seal of Binding was already broken without that (see Divine Regeneration, for instance). Better to have one broken power than have a fundamental part of the system be poorly defined.

And incidentally, you can push someone into lava without using an attack (by any definition). The Warlord power Own the Battlefield is a Utility power with no Attack or Hit involved which allows you to slide several people.

 

[hamishspence]

pushing into lava

Lava isn't actually defined in DMG: The "Target dies" idea has no rules support, its just conjecture.

unless a published adventure with lava in it exists.

 

[Derren]

Lets use a other example.
Can a enemy under the effect of a Divine Challenge cast a Wall of Fire which does not affect the paladin without being damaged? Will the enemy be damaged if he uses Wall of Fog without including the paladin into the area?