Does the term "a creature" include yourself?

[Larrin]

Page 100: "Melee [number]: For example, a melee power that has a range of 1 can normally be used against an adjacent target, wheres a melee power that has a range of 0 can be used only against a target sharing the attacker's space.

No math necessary. It is clean and concise.

Look up the definition of adjacent, creatures in the same square are adjacent (HOTFK page 353), and your quoted rule confirms that they can be attcked by melee 1. range 0, specifies because they can't attack ANY adjacent character, only ones that are adjacent by virtue of being in the same square.

 

[Shikami]

Your grasp of the English language when your counter-argument involves posting that text that proves my point, and you wrong, can't possibly be said to be anything but bad.

You are being obtuse with an ad hominem. My previous post does not disprove my posts. You are basically not comprehending it and nothing in the provided text proves your logic, it only disproves your logic

 

[Shikami]

Look up the definition of adjacent, creatures in the same square are adjacent (HOTFK page 353), and your quoted rule confirms that they can be attcked by melee 1. range 0, specifies because they can't attack ANY adjacent character, only ones that are adjacent by virtue of being in the same square.

You are not taking into consideration the rules that govern being in another creature's space. You are assuming that this is the rule and nothing else.

However, you are on the path to understanding it. You just have it a bit messed up. They are considered adjacent, yes. But for you to attack you have to shift to another square for your origin square to to allow melee 1, unless specific beat general. As in a power allows you to attack melee 0.

 

[Aulirophile]

You are being obtuse with an ad hominem. My previous post does not disprove my posts. You are basically not comprehending it and nothing in the provided text proves your logic, it only disproves your logic

Do you even know what those words mean? Really, there is a very clear reason I can't be making an ad hominem argument in that post, which is that I wasn't arguing, I was mocking your illiteracy. Which is rude, and I apologize. As I said to Draco, getting in the way of someone who is choosing to be perversely obstinate is... well, it results in this, because it isn't like the person is going to stop being perversely obstinate (or change whatever characteristic is causing that condition, as it is usually an effect and not a cause).

 

[DracoSuave]

You are not taking into consideration the rules that govern being in another creature's space. You are assuming that this is the rule and nothing else.

However, you are on the path to understanding it. You just have it a bit messed up. They are considered adjacent, yes. But for you to attack you have to shift to another square for your origin square to to allow melee 1, unless specific beat general. As in a power allows you to attack melee 0.

And where is this rule that says you cannot attack your own space, even tho it is considered adjacent?

As I said to Draco, getting in the way of someone who is choosing to be perversely obstinate

I happen to BE perversely obstinate myself!

 

[Shikami]

What.

So, you count as a creature for the purpose of fireball but not for other powers.... This does not make sense.

You do not target yourself, it targets you? So an Area attack works entirely different in terms of targetting than other powers because....

.....I'm sorry. You cannot invent rules that do not exist to support your case regarding what the rules say.

The origin square of the burst from Fireball, targets each creature. Which can include you for you are an enemy or an ally. It is not treated as if you are bursting from the origin square.

Bloodied enemy MUST be an enemy. It must also be bloodied. But creature does not mean 'enemy or ally.'

It means 'CREATURE'.

Incorrect. It is either one of the two sorts enemy or ally. And has to be bloodied for it to target.

Creature is 'A creature of any sort.' The additional whether clause is to indicate that enemy or ally status is irrelevant to this definition.

Incorrect, and is very relevant for this is the defined term of creature-semantics

I am not attacking you, I am attacking a lack of premise in your argument, and that is NOT an ad hominem.

First off, the burden of proof is on you to provide pertinent rules text to support your case. It is not ad hominem to insist that you actually supply rules text that says what you claim. It is proper debate.

Where the origin square is irrelevant to this discussion. The rules for what you may target count origin square for concerns of line of sight, and line of effect. Origin square is never mentioned re: Creature, Ally, Enemy, or anything else.

You said: "We don't care how you resolve Personal 'attack-type' powers. That's not relevant to the task at hand. We don't care how you resolve powers that include 'you' as a target. That's also not relevant to the task at hand."

In this statement you are actually speaking for everyone or yourself? Just a curious quick rhetorical question. Anyway, you do not care how I resolve? Seems pretty clear to me the intention of your statement. These are forums and have a governing way of respect and in every post rebuttal you are clearly showing in your language used: "Wrong" "don't care." I have only said incorrect, and proceeded to debunk you; and even given examples to help you (and others). Perhaps I should say I don't care, or you are wrong.

The origin square is the mark for what you use as defined for adjacent to count. So very relevant.

Melee powers do require a target in order to target. Every melee power does, however, and every melee power has, following the Melee entry, a range that is either a numeral (1, 2) or a variable representing reach (weapon, reach).

The point you've missed here is that nothing in the entry for the Melee attack type restricts the minimum range of the power to 1. You are inferring that it does, but this rules text does not exist. And again, origin squares do not target. You do. This invention of yours may help in grokking the basics of how the rules work for various attack-types, but it is not rules correct, and has no place in a discussion on what the rules actually do.

I have not done so at all, nor is there any point I have missed. Only you have done to this to me, and to the rules. Look at all my previous posts and say if I have done so.

If you are unable to take actions, you are unable to take free actions. That makes that powers that allow you to take attacks as free actions, either your own OR someone else's, will not allow you to do so as you are forbidden from taking that action. Powers that force you to attack without taking an action will not be stopped by you being forbidden to take actions.

Almost perfect. A condition may prevent you from targeting even if the action does not need to be used to attack. Such as being unconscious and petrified.

This is trivial.

Only you are thinking this and note your general usage of your language.

There are thirty-two potential lines of effect in this scenario

There are only 4 points of a square in which you can draw to the intended target and 1 line of effect. Only 1 LoE is necessary for the power to work in question. Even in my example this is exactly it.

The origin square for a melee power is the attacker's square... but that does not logically mean that the origin square and the target cannot be one and the same.

No page you've pointed to actually countermands that, and in fact, that interpretation is contradictory to how very common powers work.

An example: Scorching Burst. The creature in the origin square of a scorching burst is quite targetted by it. It has line of effect to the origin square. And you can decide the origin square is your own square if you like, to 'groundpound' it. Not that it's a tactically smart idea, but you -can-.

Incorrect. Read the pages as previous noted. It is all there. As for Scorching Burst, a good example and you perfectly are in understanding of the rules here. Not only that I agree with you! It is a burst and its origin square is where you place it, within range of course. Within meaning, up to range if decided, and also meaning your square. So, if you decided to place it on your square (note not yourself), it will have an affect on you. It's an area burst, and it targets creatures which is you, in this case (ally), just like fireball.

I do agree that a close burst does not affect the creator (unless a specific exception is given). That is not the same thing as 'All powers that target creatures cannot target the creator.' In fact, you're trying to use a specific exception and claiming it is somehow the general rule?

I don't understand what the point of that example is.

I am quoting the rules. However, there is a specific that has to be understood. Frankly, I do not think you are understanding any of the posts which I have made. Which is ironic.

Except you are also a creature, and therefore, 'a creature of any sort.' The only instance that would render creature to not target you is if you were NOT a creature of any sort. In that cause, you would not be targettable by any other power that targets creatures. And, because in this instance, 'you' means the actor of one's powers, that would mean that any creature with powers is not a creature of any sort, and therefore cannot be targetted by powers.

Again, this is a rules interpretation that breaks the ruleset... and therefore it is problematic.

Any sort of the two concerning targets which are enemy or ally. Not being able to target a creature means it has to target an enemy or ally. As would be described by the power.

I will agree that origin square and target mean different things.

Now, you have a contradiction of your previous rebuttals.

However, there is not a single solitary shred of rules text that says that creatures occupying origin squares are not targetted by that power.

Range melee 1

Origin Squares don't target anything. You do. This rule does not exist, and possibly explains your odd interpretations here.

Look on page 220. Even though this is an example for cover it can be an example for a few things. If you are the creator space then yes. If the burst, such as fireball, you are not the space. The origin square proceeds to acquire the appropriate targets which are creatures-enemy or ally. In most or probably all cases I concur that it is not tactical, and smart.

How is creature any different? The sentences are semantically equivalent.

And even so, specific beats general works here against you. There is no text that excludes you from the class 'A creature of any sort.' For your interpretation to be valid, the power MUST say 'A creature of any sort, excluding yourself.' Nothing excludes you.

Whoa, whoa! Did you just ask that question?! I have stated it and have given the pages many times, and even yourself have your personal logic for the term creature. But now are asking the question? Creature=enemy or ally.

A Creature is any sort of the two which is enemy or ally. You are not target you generally are the origin square, the creator's space.

Already did.

However, I must point out where I think your misunderstanding of the rule arises from:

Origin squares do not target things. You do. Your power, your target. If a fighter has something that triggers off of you not targetting them when you attack, if you used an area attack, by your definition, even if the attack targetted the fighter, the fighter would still trigger his ability. This is false... you HAVE triggered the fighter. Origin square is for determining line of effect and line of sight.

Nor do the concepts 'enemy' or 'ally' have meaning towards a square Squares do not have enemies or allies, because they do not have teammates or companions, something essential for the enemy/ally distinction.

I am still waiting for a text step by step resolution debunking using the rules in which we play D&D 4th edition with. There are no mistakes and the origin square is used for much more; you are generalizing.

This is another case of confusing an example of what is possible with the extent of what is possible.

Contrast the example of melee 1 with melee 0. The first case says 'Can normally be used against' where as the second case says 'can be used only against'.

Because normally, means, if all can normally happens it happens in melee 1. Such as an immediate interrupt preventing a melee 1 in that square interned with Dimensional Vortex it does not normally happen.

(Technically, your own space is range 1 from yourself, as in counting range, you do count the space the target occupies as one square, so... 0+1=1. Melee 0 is an exception, and it explicitly states that it means you can only attack your own square.)

Incorrect you would use a personal power. As for measuring distance pg 202. Note, one does not start in the space of the creature. It starts adjacent to the adventurer that is closest to the target intended.

 

[Shikami]

Do you even know what those words mean? Really, there is a very clear reason I can't be making an ad hominem argument in that post, which is that I wasn't arguing, I was mocking your illiteracy. Which is rude, and I apologize. As I said to Draco, getting in the way of someone who is choosing to be perversely obstinate is... well, it results in this, because it isn't like the person is going to stop being perversely obstinate (or change whatever characteristic is causing that condition, as it is usually an effect and not a cause).

You contradict yourself noted highlights in your quote given.

I am here to help. I am not being obstinate. You think I am being obstinate. Look at my actions compared to you, and ask am I being obstinate. What is what something is, and what is what you think something is?

 

[Shikami]

And where is this rule that says you cannot attack your own space, even tho it is considered adjacent?

Page 100: "Melee [number]: The power can be used against a target that is within the specified number of squares of the power's origin square. For example, a melee power that has a range of 1 can normally be used against an adjacent target, whereas a melee power that has a range of 0 can be used only against a target sharing the attacker's space.

If tiny creature(s) are occupying a creatures space. For that creature to attack the tiny creature(s) with melee 1 he needs to shift to a proper square to target, unless he wants OA. If he has melee 0 then he can attack what is occupying his space with him.

 

[Kingreaper]

You contradict yourself noted highlights in your quote given.

An ad hominem is an argument of the form "you are stupid; therefore you are wrong"

Saying "You are wrong, here's the evidence. Also, you're stupid" is not an ad hominem.

Nor is saying "You are wrong, this is probably because you are stupid"

 

[Kingreaper]

Page 100: "Melee [number]: The power can be used against a target that is within the specified number of squares of the power's origin square. For example, a melee power that has a range of 1 can normally be used against an adjacent target, whereas a melee power that has a range of 0 can be used only against a target sharing the attacker's space.
.

If something is next to me (in my square) is it within 5 feet of me (within one square of me)

Well, yes, yes it is.

Melee 1 isn't limited to adjacent squares, it can also be used on the same square, it's just that melee 0 can't hit adjacent squares.