Do you remain Stealthed if you attack yourself?

[Dausuul]

Strictly by the rules: Yes, you lose your stealth.

Applying the slightest ounce of common sense: When you say "attacking yourself," what are you physically doing? If you're slicing your palm with a dagger to draw blood, you should be able to remain stealthed. If you're blowing yourself up with a fireball, not so much.

 

[mneme]

Yes, you certainly lose stealth. Unless you don't have line of effect to anything except yourself, where I think you could make an argument that you don't (or you do but it doesn't matter).

I disagree with Aegeri that this falls under bag of rats. There's a big difference between attacking a "bag of rats" with an effect and attacking yourself or an ally -- particularly when you're not trying to "fudge" the definition of enemy. You can use Thunderwave to (on a hit) move allies out of the target of an effect, and can use Bolstering Breath to give allies temp hp even when there aren't any enemies to breathe on.

The point of the "bag of rats" rule is to prevent players from abusing powers that gain a benefit for killing/hitting stuff when the thing you're "killing" isn't actually something worth rewarding--Dark-pact warlocks would be broken without BoR, for instance. But in the exemplar, you're giving up a daily attack and taking the chance of doing damage to your target to get the effect of a power--it's about as far from bag of rats (while still outside the "attack an enemy to do damage) as you can get.

 

[Nullzone]

Replace every instance of "killing" with "attacking" in your bag of rats rationale and it sinks quickly. Bag of rats refers to any element that can be abused by a circumstance of convenience in a way that it's fairly clear wasn't meant to be passable, not just things specific to killing vermin.

 

[Aegeri]

There's a big difference between attacking a "bag of rats" with an effect and attacking yourself or an ally -- particularly when you're not trying to "fudge" the definition of enemy.

There actually isn't and in this case, the player almost certainly is.

But in the exemplar, you're giving up a daily attack and taking the chance of doing damage to your target to get the effect of a power--it's about as far from bag of rats (while still outside the "attack an enemy to do damage) as you can get.

It's entirely a bag of rats issue, because the RC has clearly defined that you can't get effects from attack powers unless your target is a meaningful threat. If your target isn't a meaningful threat, in this case yourself, you can't do it. There are so many ways of abusing this sort of ruling that the bag of rats happily deals with that I don't even want to begin. Like a battlerager fighter just punching himself to get temp HP before a fight. I mean that's just stupid, but that's the sort of nonsense you'd open the floodgates to with this interpretation.

 

[IanB]

I kind of see the bag of rats rule as a contingency to be broken out when something is actually abusive, rather than a hard and fast always applies thing. It squishes too many creative/flavor appropriate actions to be applied always to every situation, IMO.

Example #1 in my mind would be using the rule to block a vampire from feeding on an unconscious enemy after a fight, but attacking yourself or an ally to get a buff from a particular power doesn't strike me as something that is *always* problematic, there's certainly a cost.

 

[mneme]

Er... Obviously BoR isn't to be taken literally with rodents (although there's a reason it's called that).

Making weak attacks for effect (with your eyes closed, after lying down) are a related issue, but not exactly the same issue.

Er, the battlerager is easy:

Battlerager Vigor
Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier, plus any temporary hit points normally granted by the power. You gain the hit points only after the attack is resolved.

Allies aren't enemies. You aren't an enemy. A non-credible threat isn't an enemy. Bag of rats is all about not being allowed to treat non-threats as enemies (although you can -also- use attacks on objects at GM judgement, so clearly there's some squish here).

I need to look at RC to judge RAW as opposed to RAI -- but I don't think that Temple of Light on an ally breaks RAI, and I'd allow it (and not let you gimp the attack).

 

[Aegeri]

I need to look at RC to judge RAW as opposed to RAI -- but I don't think that Temple of Light on an ally breaks RAI, and I'd allow it (and not let you gimp the attack).

You see, this is incredibly inconsistent and adding some massive complications. You allow the PC to do this normally, yet won't let them just say - pull out a non-magical full-blade (so the attack could never hit) to do it. What about being blinded beforehand and knocked prone in the middle of nowhere important, but not of their own choice? Would you disallow it? What's the difference?

You have pretty much no rules supporting you whatsoever, while I have the firm ruling that the Bag of Rats (and meaningful threat distinction in the RC) to support mine. At this point you're not using RAI for anything, you're purely going on an interpretation that is entirely arbitrary and basically creates almost case by case scenarios you need to specifically rule on every time they occur. I may be extremely strict with my interpretation, but it's extremely consistent and never breaks the game or any power. If you want an effect, suck it up charlie and attack something that is actually a meaningful threat. Not yourself. Not allies. A meaningful target and RAW 100% supports my interpretation.

Under your interpretation, I think a player could feel rightly aggrieved when your logic (with no rules support) can't explain why an effect works when using their +6 longsword and not their mundane dagger. Obviously in one case the attack is obviously going to miss by miles - but you've abandoned the RCs "Meaningful threat" distinction in the first place. So you're going to bury yourself in issues like this pretty quickly. Not to mention interpreting if a PC who ran, fell prone and tried to do it can't do it, while if a PC who was blinded by an enemies effect and has a -2 mark penalty (as an example), could do it.

What about effects that occur on powers that target creatures? Would you allow a PC to declare a chair as a target and then hit it to get phasing movement (I think avengers have a power that lets them phase). What about just pulling out a +2 mundane weapon and having a go at the fighter taking total defense to get the phasing movement effect?

This is just layers upon layers of nonsense that is simply stopped by what the rules already say can't be done.

 

[IanB]

I hardly think most players would be more aggrieved by an answer from the DM that gives them a way to do what they're asking as opposed to a plain "no."

 

[Aegeri]

I hardly think most players would be more aggrieved by an answer from the DM that gives them a way to do what they're asking as opposed to a plain "no."

I've run games with something like 20ish people over 2.5 or so years of 4E, plus other one shots and similar. I have never once had a problem eliminating any of this with the simple RAW bag of rats rules. Indeed the bag of rats being a handy codified rule in 4E makes this kind of discussion very easy. That I am 100% absolutely consistent in ruling it for pretty much everything in the game, means it never becomes an issue. I've only had it come up once and that was an epic tier Cleric:Warpriest wanting to use Battlecry (while in the middle of nowhere). I immediately shot it down, because if I am inconsistent I'm going to have to start specifically ruling on a power by power basis.

That's pretty much what he's going to have to do. Additionally the logic is really inconsistent and fails to make any sense (to me). The rules don't say you need to be a meaningful threat to your target to get an effect (this is a different rules issue entirely). So what's to stop just pulling out a crappy weapon and using that on the PC to get the excellent daily power effect? You'll do minimal damage (if at all) and get a great effect. He's allowed this in the rules by breaking the RAW on how targeting and gaining effects from attack powers work in the RC. Now he needs to add further rules to why that doesn't work and we go down the rabbit hole from there into specific situations. I used blinded + marked above, but basically if you can't meaningfully hit your target does that mean you can't get any effect from a power?

Quite frankly, the rules allow you to stop everything from the get go and are (as of the Rules Compendium especially) 100% clear by RAW. You are not a meaningful threat to yourself. Your allies are not a meaningful threat to you. A rat is not a meaningful threat to you. The air is not a meaningful threat to you. That sinister looking table? That too is not a meaningful threat to you. Therefore attack powers effects do not work when you use them on your allies. As I've literally never seen this "strict" interpretation cause a single rules issue or be unclear on how it will work at any point in nearly seven campaigns I've run, multiple one shots (with various people) and what encounters I got the pleasure of running - it just works. It can feel somewhat strange rules wise, but I can't think of many things in 4E that aren't strange rules wise in various situations. Ultimately it produces the most consistent game and everyone knows how it works.

 

[Samir]

You see, this is incredibly inconsistent and adding some massive complications. You allow the PC to do this normally, yet won't let them just say - pull out a non-magical full-blade (so the attack could never hit) to do it. What about being blinded beforehand and knocked prone in the middle of nowhere important, but not of their own choice? Would you disallow it? What's the difference?

You have pretty much no rules supporting you whatsoever, while I have the firm ruling that the Bag of Rats (and meaningful threat distinction in the RC) to support mine. At this point you're not using RAI for anything, you're purely going on an interpretation that is entirely arbitrary and basically creates almost case by case scenarios you need to specifically rule on every time they occur. I may be extremely strict with my interpretation, but it's extremely consistent and never breaks the game or any power. If you want an effect, suck it up charlie and attack something that is actually a meaningful threat. Not yourself. Not allies. A meaningful target and RAW 100% supports my interpretation.

Under your interpretation, I think a player could feel rightly aggrieved when your logic (with no rules support) can't explain why an effect works when using their +6 longsword and not their mundane dagger. Obviously in one case the attack is obviously going to miss by miles - but you've abandoned the RCs "Meaningful threat" distinction in the first place. So you're going to bury yourself in issues like this pretty quickly. Not to mention interpreting if a PC who ran, fell prone and tried to do it can't do it, while if a PC who was blinded by an enemies effect and has a -2 mark penalty (as an example), could do it.

What about effects that occur on powers that target creatures? Would you allow a PC to declare a chair as a target and then hit it to get phasing movement (I think avengers have a power that lets them phase). What about just pulling out a +2 mundane weapon and having a go at the fighter taking total defense to get the phasing movement effect?

This is just layers upon layers of nonsense that is simply stopped by what the rules already say can't be done.

There are some misconceptions here, so let's start with the comparison of the DMG bag of rats vs. the RC bag of rats.

From the DMG:

When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats.

From the RC:

When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting, missing, or otherwise affecting a target, the effect takes place only if the target in question is a meaningful threat. For instance, characters can get no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in the hope of healing their allies by hitting the rats.

By strict RAW of the RC ruling, healing powers such as Healing Word no longer function, because you and your allies aren't meaningful threats to you. Under your "strict RAW" interpretation, you can't heal allies. Unless your allies are attacking you.

The Avenger power you are thinking of has phasing in its Effect: line, so it provides phasing hit or miss. In fact, the phasing + shifting Effect of that particular power occurs before the attack is even made. The effect of that power does not occur "upon hitting, missing, or otherwise affecting a target." It happens regardless, and has nothing to do with the target of the power. I'd let that Avenger player use that encounter attack power as a phasing power in or out of combat, utility-style, no problem. After all, he's using a standard action, spending an encounter power, and giving up an attack just to phase for a turn.

It's much more consistent just to go back to the DMG bag-of-rats clause, and say that you can't get Hit: benefits unless you're attacking a meaningful threat, but anything in an Effect: line works just fine. That also leaves very few corner cases to deal with.