Does the term "a creature" include yourself?

[Piratecat]

Stop, folks. I've already banned one person today for exceptional rudeness, so I'm going to take a deep breath here. Shikami, you're being particularly rude, and that rudeness is bringing out the worst in other people. I don't have a lot of patience for it. So please, everyone - treat other people with respect even if they don't agree with you, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and support your argument in a way that doesn't make other people think that you might be a jerk. It will be appreciated.

PM me if this is at all unclear.

 

[666Sinner666]

I'm going to weigh in with a real game situation from a few weeks ago;

The party was on a large ship in the middle of the ocean. A kraken appears and attacks the ship and its crew. We were only level 16 and the kraken the DM had made and was using was a level 20'ish solo elite so it was the only enemy. The krakens melee at will could hit any creature or creatures up to 8 times. There was an essentials mage in the group with Hypnotism. Oddly enough its will defense was the lowest defense. That being said the DM ruled in that situation the kraken COULD attack itself since otherwise the mage had little else he could do, that and he fully expected us to get our butts handed to us since we were mostly melee and attacked AC and it had a 39 AC and the highest to hit bonus was +22, my artificer|warlord.

In all the other combats we have been in where there were multiple enemies the DM has not allowed the mage to use Hypnotism in such a way because there were other valid targets the mage could have made the enemy attack.

So, while the rules are all well and dandy they should never get in the way of good fun and are up to the DM's interpertation. Plus "stop hitting yourself" has become the mages signature line.

 

[Samir]

Lay on Hands is a Melee power with range touch that targets one creature.

When a Paladin uses Lay on Hands, he can target himself with the power. (Source: FAQ for the Player's Handbook! question #9)

Therefore, melee powers with a range of touch can target yourself.

RC defines melee touch as "The power can be used on a target within the reach of the power's user. A creature has a reach of 1 unless otherwise noted, so it can typically use a melee power only against a target that is within 1 square of it."

Since you can use melee touch powers against yourself, you are considered within range of yourself for melee powers.

Therefore, you can use melee powers against yourself.

 

[Aulirophile]

So, while the rules are all well and dandy they should never get in the way of good fun and are up to the DM's interpertation. Plus "stop hitting yourself" has become the mages signature line.

Considering a large portion of 4e's regular gaming is LFR, where the DM has no such liberty, the actual rules are pretty relevant. Particularly when there is now a whole class-build whose whole shtick is based around this concept... even in home games you eliminate a lot of tactical options if you don't allow the rules to work as they were written. Solos, as you pointed out, being a prime example.

Also that is a ridiculous AC if you actually had to kill the Kraken... needing a 17+? So anywhere from a 23 to a level 25 creature. Even with a Killswitch variant in my party I wouldn't want to try that.

 

[phloog]

(QUOTING SOMEONE ELSES rules quote, so hope they got it right)

"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."

I think I agree with an earlier poster in that I think that the problem is stemming from Shikami having an odd definition of "within"

"Within the specified number of squares"...so if I'm reading Shikami's posts correctly, the origin square is not "within" 1 square of the origin square...?

For me, in these terms a number can either fall within a range, or outside a range, or if you want a third it can exist on the fringe, but clearly 0 does not fall on the fringe between, say, 1 and 2.

Shikami, a serious question: Do you accept as an adequate (for these purposes) definition of 'within' the idea that it involves a distance that is less than or equal to some specified value? If not, how are you defining "within"

If you don't define it as <=X , then I'm confused.

Now imagine a Melee 7 power if such existed. I think you would agree that it could hit someone at 7 squares out, but also 6, 5, 4, 3, etc. Or are you suggesting that it can only hit at exactly 7?

And the 'etc.' is where you're losing us I think.

My definition of "within" in terms of squares means that it encompasses all distances less than or equal to the specified value. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the logical progression ends right before 0 -- essentially that 0 (in the same square) is not <= X, where X is the value. Our assertion is that 0 is less than 1.

Now take it to the practical, and I think that unless you're just arguing for argument's sake you'll agree that even if you were right about that rule (you aren't) that your interpretation makes no sense in practice .

A melee attack could include a swat with the bare hands, correct?

By your interpretation, if I kick a beehive, and now have 4,023 bees swarming about my head, I am completely unable to swat at them unless I move over a bit...I need to step 5 feet over to be adjacent to the swarm, drawing OAs, and then swat over at them.

If you want to HOUSE rule that you can't attack someone in the square you are in with a pike, that might make sense (but I could still probably hit someone with the shaft), but I think that by the rules I'VE read, and by just sensible looks at the impacts in game, the idea that you can attack someone who is 5' away from you with a dagger, but you can't stab someone who is getting a piggy back ride from you, is a bit silly.

 

[Mirtek]

Incorrect. You cannot attack melee 0 unless specified. The attack is melee 1 from the origin square to the adjacent square. The creator is not the "range."

That is not correct

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, 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.

You are proven wrong by your own quote and don't realize it.

 

[phloog]

Shikami: You say "You cannot attack Melee 0 unless specified" - can you point me to the page that says what you are saying here. Based on the definition of "within", I still see your thinking as out of whack here.

Assume Melee 2 is the case - - are you suggesting that Melee 2 attacks cannot attack adjacent creatures unless the attack specifically calls it out?

What about Ranged attacks, with a Range of 8 squares....must each power specifically state "...Oh! And this also can hit creatures 7 squares away....oh!oh! and 6 squares away too...and five!!!........"?

I create a creature called the Lungmuskie...it attacks by latching onto your chest. It is the most deadly creature in the world, because it moves into your square to latch on, and since it is in your square you are hopeless to attack it unless you have a power with a range/melee of exactly zero, because while I can freely stab/shoot/blast enemies adjacent to me, once they are right on top of me I am powerless.

Again...three squares away is WITHIN a range of 5 squares, two squares away is WITHIN a range of nine squares, and ZERO squares away is WITHIN a range of one square. Any other interpretation is not supported by any RULES, only by your statement that someone cannot attack Melee 0 unless they have an attack that specifically says "Melee 1 - - OOH! and Also zero!"

Show me the rule, not your own statement, that says that you cannot attack melee 0 with a melee 1 attack...heck, even your own quote snippet has a flipped logic...Saying that Melee 0 can only attack your own square does not mean that no other Melee X can NOT attack your own square. And the Melee 1 bit uses the phrase "normally" and mentions adjacent not to say you can't hit CLOSER than that, but to - oddly enough - show what is NORMALLY done with Melee 1.

Because of the word WITHIN, and because the rules never specifically call out EACH and EVERY range that can be hit, only giving the OUTER LIMIT, then unless you show me text that says "Melee 0 is the one that defies all the logic...to hit someone in your square you must have an attack that specifically says so"

Again....try this one: Do you HONESTLY think if you went up to one of the designers and told them your reasoning that they would say that was their intent? "Oh, yes, Shikami...we wanted any creature that could enter your space to be immune to any attacks other than the ones we specifically labeled as Melee 0"

 

[Arlough]

As for targeting, well the discussion here bled out into my table when I asked what people thought of the idea. Then there was much discussion and agreement that this is something that really should be clarified, because we all had different views on what the rule was. I, as the DM, ruled that a creature can target itself if the power does not have restrictive stipulations that prevent it (for example, a power that can only attack dazed creatures when the creature itself isn't dazed) Well, here is what WotC Customer support responded with when I asked for guidance on Forceful Push, and more generally, the targeting of yourself.

My friends an I got into a discussion about powers that force a creature to target a creature of my choosing (in this case, the power is Dimentional Vortex, Arcane Power, page 53) an we couldn't find anything that would state you can't have the creature target itself (making the last sentence seem a bit silly.)
So, with that thought in mind, could I have my Psion target himself with Forceful Push to gain some extra movement as a free action?

And the response...

Thanks for the question! In the Rules Compendium on page 95 it covers what can be targeted. There it states "If a power directly affects one or more creature other than the user, its description has a "target" entry that specifies whom and what it can affect." This means that if it has a target entry it can't target the caster.

Thank you and have fun!

Now, I have not adopted essentials so I can't verify this. Can anyone else confirm this, please?

Also, this seems like it completely neuters things that dominate, as well as some buffing abilities. It also takes a lot of the risk out of spells like fireball, which I disagree with. If I only played Strikers and Defenders, this wouldn't bother me so much. But when I do get to play, I tend to play Controllers and Leaders instead, and I think this would weaken the cinematic options available to me.
I can't confirm that right now, because I don't have any of my books with me, and I let my DDi subscription die ungracefully quite a while ago.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Area spells don´t state a target directly (IIRC). They usually have burst xxx. Target each creature in the burst.

Close bursts actually do exclude the caster if not otherwise stated.

 

[Brys]

Just weighing in. The answer is yes. There seems to be one hold out (I don't think I saw any others), but everyone else says "Yes, the term creature includes yourself".

For most of the powers that lets you dictate who the enemy attacks, the enemy itself is a valid target. Melee (ever cut yourself with while chopping vegetables?) or ranged (I'm reminded of the DEA agent that shot himself during a "gun safety" course in Florida).

snopes.com: Safety First