Does the term "a creature" include yourself?

[moxcamel]

You know, I thought you couldn't melee-basic-attack yourself, but I dont see any rule to the contrary.

RAW allows it. DMG pg 40 says 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." It then goes on with the "bag of rats" example.

It has nothing to say, however, about the main damage effect, which implies that you the attacker and target take damage but no secondary effects (because you are not a meaningful threat).

I'd allow a PC to attack themselves with the caveat that it had to be a basic melee attack (no, you can't cleave yourself, sorry ), and you can't derive some effect that you'd receive from hitting an enemy (a la the "bag of rats" example.) And in fact there are good reasons why you'd want to do such a thing. I played in a game once where a character did attack himself because there was some kind of parasite worming its way through him. He wasn't targeting the parasite (which had been ruled as untargetable) he was hitting himself.

does melee range include range "0"?

Sure. Tiny creatures have to attack at a range 0.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'd allow a PC to attack themselves with the caveat that it had to be a basic melee attack (no, you can't cleave yourself, sorry ), and you can't derive some effect that you'd receive from hitting an enemy (a la the "bag of rats" example.) And in fact there are good reasons why you'd want to do such a thing. I played in a game once where a character did attack himself because there was some kind of parasite worming its way through him. He wasn't targeting the parasite (which had been ruled as untargetable) he was hitting himself.

Of course, in this particular instance, bag-o-rats need not even come close to applying... it's a monster being compelled to attack itself by an external and hostile force. The concern of whether the monster is a threat is moot; if the monster weren't it'd be a subpar use of the player's power and therefore not a problem.

 

[moxcamel]

Of course, in this particular instance, bag-o-rats need not even come close to applying... it's a monster being compelled to attack itself by an external and hostile force. The concern of whether the monster is a threat is moot; if the monster weren't it'd be a subpar use of the player's power and therefore not a problem.

Yeah. I was actually addressing webrunner's question.

 

[Pbartender]

PBartender: the example you've used isn't very strong.

I didn't mean them to be, especially. But rather they're just examples of a few powers that specify attacks that can target the attacker in addition to "creature". They imply that creature =/= yourself, that if you were included as a creature, then the extra verbiage would be unnecessary. But it's just that... An implication and nothing more.

Just go to the Compendium and do a search for "itself" within the category of Powers, and you'll find a whole long list of various examples.

But then again, here's something else to think about. From the definition of Burst...

Unless a power description notes otherwise, a close burst you create does not affect you. However, an area burst you create does affect you.​

So, if a Fireball, for example, deals damage to the caster when he happens to be within the affected area, then Creature includes You. If Creature does not include You, then this particular series of consonants and vowels are just several inches of wasted space, since no blast will affect the caster unless it specifically targets "You".

Alternatively, one could treat it as if normally Creature includes You, unless the attack happens to be a close blast. Which is to say, normally a creature could melee attack itself, but who would normally want to if they didn't have to?

All in all, it's not entirely clear.


Has anyone tried the Wizards' Customer Service people yet?

 

[Shikami]

Creature, You, Enemy, Ally. You are a creature. if you were not a creature, nothing could ever target you. The definition of what creature means in targetting is pretty clear: "A creature of any sort." You certainly qualify.

First off you are on the path to understanding this. The problem is you are making it too complicated. The semantics are simple. On page 106 there are only three targets-plain and simple. The targets define how to understand them. Now the excepetion to everything is this: Specific beats general.

As an origin square (melee, close, range, area) you have to understand what validates a target. There are only three types and these types have specific responses to the power. There is creature, enemy, and ally. This is it, unless a specific is noted or required by power. Such as bloodied ally, prone, etc. These are the defined terms plain and simple. They do not go further than this (unless specific). So, no, "you/self (personal powers define this)" is not a valid target, unless it is specific for such. You have to think you or the power are the origin square-that is it. And then a target.

You've already discounted the fact that you yourself are 'a creature of any sort' and therefore this cannot exclude you from the effect. Just because it goes on to say that it does not discriminate against ally/enemy status does not logically mean it must therefore exclude you.

Incorrect, this is me explaining the semantics of a target. Read page 105 "Choosing Targets" first. Now, creature pg 106: "means a creature of any sort, whether it is an enemy or an ally of the power's user." This is it. Creature by defined terms can be BOTH-this is it. Not one or the other as it is with enemy, or ally. e.g.: If "Target: is ally in burst." Origin square cannot target enemy nor creature and power has an optional affect if so desired by targeted ally (Note the specific. Since it is ally, singular. It of course can only target an ally not allies). If "Target: is creature in burst." Origin square can target an ally or an enemy with ally having no option to disregard the affect. If "Target: is enemy in burst." Origin square cannot target creature nor ally. if "Target: is each creature." There is no distinction between enemy and ally, and also the ally cannot disregard the affect.

General:
Creature means a creature of any sort.

For it not to include you, a specific exception must be presented. Otherwise there IS no exception, and therefore you are not excepted.

Again, reading too far into it with no regard for the semantics. If the specific targets you/self/personal-which you will see in the power's resolutions if so-then you/self/personal is a valid target. If not, you only have creature, enemy and ally using your origin square as what is needed to see if line of effect, line of sight, cover and concealment take place.

Irrelevant. All melee cares about is if the target is in range. Melee 2 does not exclude targets adjacent to you. You can target yourself with a melee attack because you are within the range of the power from the origin square. 0 <= 1, 2, touch, or weapon for all values of these things.

It is very relevant and you are very incorrect. Not only that you are blatantly excluding the rules mechanic, but what is funny is you disregard my statement only to say that which I said "All melee cares about is if the target is in range." First off for melee to work you have to have all the basics, such as capable to take actions, target, et al. Second-which is the most important-you have to have line of effect. If you do not, you cannot attack the target! Melee 2 does not mean you cannot attack melee 1. Melee 2 means (as I said in previous example): 2 squares adjacent from the origin square. Meaning anything in the 1 or 2 square adjacent to the origin square. Note, that there is no addition with reach to this melee range.

You cannot target yourself at all. You are not the target and the origin square, unless specific is given.

Wrong.

I can be targetted by my ally's powers that target creatures. Therefore I must be a creature of any sort. My powers that target creatures target creatures of any sort, therefore they must target me.

You've placed an artificial constraint on enemy and ally that a creature must be one of those two. The definition of creature in the context of targetting makes absolutely no distinction whatsoever. It says, verbatim: A creature of any sort.

You are a creature, ergo, you are a creature.

If creature did not target you, then you must not be a creature of any sort. Ergo other people's powers cannot target you. As they are also benefitting from this, you cannot target other people.

I strongly advise not using rules interpretations that cause the entire ruleset to break down and stop working completely.

Incorrect see above. To note though, you are on the right path when you are finally thinking that you are not the origin square,a target, but the lose it after that.

You do not need a specific exception because the general rules allow you to do this.

1) Melee can target yourself. You are in range, and nothing says you cannot.
2) Creature includes yourself. Creature means a creature of any sort, and nothing says you are not.

Both have the same logical structure... you have one thing saying that the situation in question would qualify, and it is followed by the complete absence of anything saying that it could not qualify.

To sum up why your argument is wrong: You have yet to present a single exception to the general rules I've noted above that excepts them and makes them not apply to yourself.

No specific means no specific beats general.

Incorrect see above. The powers, in general, do not have a mechanism for attacking oneself. However, nothing says that it cannot be adjudicated to create such in your game.

 

[Shikami]

I didn't mean them to be, especially. But rather they're just examples of a few powers that specify attacks that can target the attacker in addition to "creature". They imply that creature =/= yourself, that if you were included as a creature, then the extra verbiage would be unnecessary. But it's just that... An implication and nothing more.

Just go to the Compendium and do a search for "itself" within the category of Powers, and you'll find a whole long list of various examples.

But then again, here's something else to think about. From the definition of Burst...
Unless a power description notes otherwise, a close burst you create does not affect you. However, an area burst you create does affect you.
So, if a Fireball, for example, deals damage to the caster when he happens to be within the affected area, then Creature includes You. If Creature does not include You, then this particular series of consonants and vowels are just several inches of wasted space, since no blast will affect the caster unless it specifically targets "You".

Alternatively, one could treat it as if normally Creature includes You, unless the attack happens to be a close blast. Which is to say, normally a creature could melee attack itself, but who would normally want to if they didn't have to?

All in all, it's not entirely clear.

Oh, Pbartender you are so close. You are good with your logic, and almost have the whole picture.

Now, read origin square within the forms of attacks. The user of the power is not the origin square with fireball-he invoked it. The origin square is where the fireball takes place. Since, this is the point in which things take effect, any target that is creature has a possible effect through resolution. Although, one may say each creature would have been better. But still enemy and ally-which will include you, since you are ally of the origin square-are a target.

Get it? Do not think that once invoked has anything to do with you solely. The power takes affect targeting anything in the burst as an enemy or ally. Think of it as another player or monster, if that helps with the origin square.

 

[Shikami]

Quote:
Effect: When the target takes ongoing psychic damage from this attack, it makes a melee basic attack against a random creature as a free action. If it cannot make a melee attack against any creature, it targets itself with a melee basic attack.
.

The answer is right there within the power's resolution, Skottie. And the example that you and Pbartender gave are perfect example as in how specific beats general. Basically-in this case through the power's resolution-disregarding, the rules that prevent the target from attacking itself, because the power makes it attack itself. If it cannot use a free action to do so, if it cannot interrupt, or if there are no valid targets to do so. Note, that the target will target an enemy or even ally (randomly-suggesting a die role) when it takes the on going damage. And this is an immediate reaction interrupting the resolution of the creature's turn to handle the effect.

Disregard this:

Still, this is inductive reasoning, which does not necessarily hold. The deductive reasoning (a creature is a creature, range 0 is within range 1, therefore the target can attack itself) however, does always hold

Think of the specific beats general as like an interrupt that prevents you from using the general rules, or even taking place in its normal time of resolution.

 

[Shikami]

I think I have explained it well enough governing typed text, time, and whatever can allow me to do so. But rather than break down my posts ask questions concerning the terms, definition, or rules. Play devil's advocate, perhaps. I think this will help you all understand the powers resolution and actually respect the powers a lot more.

For example, Commander's Strike is a very powerful at will. There is no action that is used for the ally against the target when he makes the melee basic attack. Meaning no action to account, no interrupt takes place even. The ally gets to make an MBA against target.

If the warlord spends an action point, he can cause the same affect, again. If the ally had to spend a free action, it would not be possible. He would have to have another ally to attack. The rules are logical.

Others will argue that an unconscious ally can attack because of how this power resolution reads. However, the ally with that condition has no line of effect for MBA. It would be a waste, because the warlord can do it. However, to make a melee basic attack the ally needs line of effect. So it is wasted.

The rules are very simple not complex as it can be made out to be. The defined terms, and semantics are there. Just look for them.

 

[Shikami]

You know, I thought you couldn't melee-basic-attack yourself, but I dont see any rule to the contrary.

does melee range include range "0"?

Quote:
does melee range include range "0"?
Sure. Tiny creatures have to attack at a range 0.

Opps, forgot this one. Tiny creatures (up to 4) can occupy a larger creature's square and end their turn there. Therefore their range is 0 and have to occupy the creatures square to be able to attack it. Meaning they cannot attack adjacent squares since their reach is 0. This also means that a creature of larger size-for the melee based attack, power, et al-has to shift (unless you want OA against you by walking) to be able to have line of effect. Since he is origin square and the range is typical 1 or the square adjacent to origin square at x. He cannot trace a line to his own square-it is to the adjacent squares. Unless, a specific is given of course.

 

[OnlineDM]

I've had a related question come up with the Swordmage power Dimensional Vortex. It reads:

Trigger: An enemy hits an ally with a melee attack
Target: The triggering enemy
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: You teleport the target 5 squares. The target then makes its melee attack against a creature you choose. If no creatures are within range of the target, the attack is expended.

Take a look at that Hit line. If the creature can attack itself, I'm trying really hard to think of a situation where the last sentence could come into play. The attacker is always in melee range of itself (unless there's some bizarre corner case I can't think of).



I interpret this to mean that, at least for this particular power, a creature can't be made to attack itself. My interpretation could be wrong, of course, but if it's wrong then that last sentence confuses the heck out of me!



Anyway, the way we play it at my table is that a creature can't be made to attack itself unless there's something specific in the power that says otherwise.