Magic Missile

[Nifft]

What's the ruling on the new magic missile spell attacking the darkness?

Well, we know what "darkness" means, but some folks are still arguing about how to define "attack".

However: one can certainly cast Magic Missile at the darkness, and it would be accurate to say you are making a ranged basic attack at the darkness.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ExploderWizard]

What's the ruling on the new magic missile spell attacking the darkness?

There is autohit on the darkness now so no need to worry about sometimes hitting a moving goblin from 20 squares away yet failing to hit an empty patch of darkness adjacent to you (that was embarrassing).

Of course the larger debate is whether the darkness gets an opportunity attack against you for making a ranged attack adjacent to it. Since you didn't technically make an attack does it still get an opportunity attack?

The Darkness
M Envelop
The darkness creeps into your space, + 40 vs reflex, Damage: complete lack of light (light source ends).

 

[Infiniti2000]

What's the ruling on the new magic missile spell attacking the darkness?

Depends on whether or not the player in question brought a bag of Cheetos.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think there is too much confusion here. There already exist attack powers that don't require an attack roll.

Look, the PHB says that "Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll." That indicates that not all of them do. Magic Missile is an attack power - it triggers anything that triggers off of an 'attack'. It does not require an attack roll - it does not trigger anything involving an 'attack roll'.

Rain of Steel doesn't trigger a fighter's mark because it doesn't target an enemy. It targets the character, giving them what is essentially an aura of damage. One could probably argue that activating the stance would break Greater Invisibility, but if you activate the stance first, dealing the damage wouldn't.

In this case, though, you have an attack power that targets an enemy. That's an attack.

Attack powers do not require you to make an attack roll, but attacks do. Rain of Steel is an attack power, but it is not an attack. The new Magic Missile is an attack power, but not an attack. Dispel Magic is a utility power, but it is an attack.

Just like attack types can be used for powers that are not attacks as well.

The quote you have there discusses attack powers, not attacks.

Page 269 discusses attacks in a few places. For example, "When you attack, you make an attack roll to determine whether your attack hits your target." or "All attacks follow the same basic process: 1. Choose the attack you’ll use. Each attack has an attack type. 2. Choose targets for the attack (page 272). Each target must be within range (page 273). Check whether you can see and target your enemies (page 273). 3. Make an attack roll (page 273).".

This is pretty clear. If it's an attack, it has an attack roll. If it's an attack power, it may or may not have an attack roll. But, attacks are not attack powers. Think of a venn diagram. Some attack powers are attacks, some are not. Some utility powers are attacks, some are not. At least according to page 269 of the PHB.

 

[Gradine]

FAQ #2 of the PHB explicitly states that the free damage with cleave isn't enough to mark.

2. Suppose a Fighter uses his Cleave Attack, dealing damage to an enemy adjacent to the attack target. Can he mark that adjacent enemy as well?

No. Even if the adjacent enemy suffers damage, it was not the target of the attack, and cannot be marked.

This argument does seem to support Magic Missile as an attack, as it seems that the underlying issue is who is being targeted, not whether the damage falls under the Hit or Effect line. This interpretation also excludes damage from zones, auras and most summons. Of course, this only makes sense given the designers have already weighed in that MM is an attack.

EDIT: What exactly is the point behind differentiating between an attack power and an attack? Other than that when WotC uses one term it supports one argument and when it uses the other term it supports the other argument? Ultimately there is none... it's a fool's errand really, a semantic trap meant to sustain an argument that common sense and Word of God have both already ended.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@ Karin´s Dad: This horse has already taken enough of a beating... it's dead!

Seems there is disagreement here, and i tend to support the other interpretation:

every attack power that has a target is an attack. A utility that has an attack line is no attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

@ Karin´s Dad: This horse has already taken enough of a beating... it's dead!

Seems there is disagreement here, and i tend to support the other interpretation:

every attack power that has a target is an attack. A utility that has an attack line is no attack.

Actually, I agreed with you until I saw the text on page 269. You can disagree all you like, but when it's there in black and white, your argument is weak. Where are the rules text that state that if something has a target, it's an attack? Where are the rules text that state that utility powers override the normal attack rule? I'd gladly change my mind back because I think that all attack powers should be attacks. Just show me explicit rules: attack power = attack, utility power <> attack. It's one thing to claim it, it's another to quote it. Not side rules like attack powers do not need to have attack rolls, but explicit rules.

It doesn't fall into the interpretation arena when there are multiple places in the rules that explicitly state the same thing: attack = attack roll. Not all attack powers have attack rolls, but all attacks do. That's the definition of an attack. It's not the definition of an attack power.

 

[keterys]

At the end of the day, Greg said it's an attack, and he's the guy who did the errata so... it's easier to just go with the flow.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, i give in, the soon to be updated rules seem to imply that an attack includes an attack roll to determine if you hit...

so attack -> attack roll

from a logical standpoint you are right at the moment...

but common sense tells me otherwise. And that is the ruling, i am always going to use.

 

[KarinsDad]

but common sense tells me otherwise. And that is the ruling, i am always going to use.

And that is precisely what you should do. Every DM should take the ruleset as s/he knows it and apply it so that the game works for her/his group.

I try to follow the rules as they are laid out and the best I understand them, but I modify them when necessarily, usually, with a group discussion before anything is set in concrete.