Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4356342" data-attributes="member: 2011">No.Wall of Fire is an attack (a Wizard Attack Level 9 to be precise). If it targets the Paladin, the enemy is ok. If it does not, he take Divine Challenge damage.The Paladin is included as a target if he is placed into the Area of Effect of the Attack. Page 271:Any attack that has an area that includes the Paladin is an attack that targets him and nullifies the damage of Divine Challenge.This seems crystal clear. Is there a rule that would imply that it works differently?The enemy could also cast Wall of Fog, with or without the Paladin being in the area, and would not take the Divine Challenge damage since Wall of Fog is not an attack (regardless of the "Attack Type" terminology).Yup, Evasion currently reads that it negates the damage of the Effect portion of an attack because it negates the damage of a missed Attack.Having said that this is what is written, I do not think that this was the intent. It might have been, but I think it is just bad editing.I think RAI here is that the character takes no damage from the Miss part of the Attack. He still takes damage from the Effect part of the attack.I view Hit as "only hit targets take this portion", Miss as "only missed targets take this portion", and Effect as "everyone takes this portion".Now, the designers might come out and state that Evasion does indeed do that (i.e. they mean the entire Attack as opposed to just the Miss portion). If they meant it that way, they should have stated it more clear and should clarify it in the FAQ or errata.If they meant it like I think they did, they should have stated "the damage portion of the Miss part of the attack is negated" or some such, and again should clarify it in the FAQ or errata.In any case, Evasion currently reads that it negates the damage of the Effect because it negates the damage of the attack. So, that is the rule until WotC clarifies differently.The phrase Attack Type of Area is semantical silliness. The designers goofed here.Sure, the book literally states Attack Type Area. The designers did not realize that they accidentally opened a can of worms with this because the following sentence is not enough to convince everyone:This sentence is enough to show designer intent. Attack Type is just a term and a poor one at that and does not have anything to do with whether a power is an attack, nor does it turn utility powers into attack powers.The term "Attack Type" should have never been used. It should have been called "Primary Action Type" or something else since not all "Attack Types" are attacks. Many of them are, but since all of them are not, the term is inferior and misleading. If the designers would have called it "Primary Action Type" (or something) instead of "Attack Type", we would not be having this portion of this discussion right now.Yes, the CustServ guy was literally correct that Wall of Fog is "an Attack Type Area" power. But, it is not an attack (as you say).And in the case of calling CustServ, I suspect we are wanting a RAI answer, not a RAW one.What good is a RAW answer from CustServ. We can literally misinterpret RAW for ourselves. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification