Paladin Hospitaler vs Beholder Death Tyrant

[Trebor62]

The aura involves making an attack by using an attack power. Therefore is an attack.

Also, nothing in the rules states auras must be passive, nor are 'passive effects' and 'active effects' gamerule-relevant terms. The aura says you use an attack power, then you're -using an attack power- and therefore making an attack. The fact it didn't cost you an action is irrelevant.

MM pg 6 "An Aura is a passive ability that takes effect when another creature comes within a curtain distance of the monster". It is indeed a passive effect and as such cannot be an attack action.

 

[DracoSuave]

The aura calls for the use of a power. That power is, by definition, an attack power. It has the monster attack with an attack power. The fact the monster deals an -attack- with it says it is, in fact, an attack.

Or more accurately, the aura itself isn't an attack, but the free attack the aura gives is an attack.

If the monster were affected by a power that granted a bonus to all attacks, the aura's granted attacks would get that bonus.

Inventing rules-exceptions that do not exist just to hose a single PP isn't a good way to go about defeating the problem. Using the monster's abilities to the hilt and correctly, and effectively, and knowing when -not- to use an aura is a better way.

Instead of punishing the player for having an ability, you're instead making the ability use pivotal and powerful -while it is up-, and throwing a subgame where the party wants to get the paladin's challenge up because of the swing in the battle.

The paladin feels like he's saving the day, the rest of the group feel challenged trying to keep their 'salvation' up, and everyone is feeling challenged by the monster.

This happens to be a battle where the paladin gets to shine, let him have that day, but make it -rough- for him. Have the beholder single him out for massive attacks, and when the beholder stops firing his aura rays, make it -obvious- it's the paladin's abilities preventing it, and that the beholder is just -salivating- for when the paladin's challenge goes down.

Then the fight goes from auto-win to tense and exciting.

 

[Trebor62]

But its just not so. It is a passive effect as stated on Pg 6 of the MM. yes it uses the eyestalks as a free action, not as a standard action. That does not alter the aura being a passive effect. Weither it is auto damage, or a basic attack, when it is triggered by the aura it is passive.

 

[DracoSuave]

It doesn't matter if the ability that permits it is passive or not. It's irrelevant. It's an attack power. It is using that attack power. That attack power attacks a player. That makes it, by any definition, an attack. There are similiar abilities that give players automatic attacks under certain circumstance.... they are -still- attacks no matter how it happens. The spending of an action is not the defining attribute of attacks.

 

[Trebor62]

The Aura is the Aura, it is passive. Weither it inflicts autodamage or use a basic attack or inflicts a condition it is all passive when occuring as a result of an Aura. If it was otherwise WOTC would not have started off the very first sentence with an Aura is a passive ability..... When an aura does it is a passive effect, passive damage, passive basic attack, all as a free action, and continously in effect. Those are the RAW. The rules do not say it is passive except when using a basic attack. It is passive with no stated exceptions.

Again the fact that it calls for a basic attack with an attack roll does not make it an attack. It remains a passive effect which uses an attack rolls to determine its effectiveness. Other make no attack rolls as they are auto damage, or auto effect.

This is a case of the specific overruling the general.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is the part you are missing.

No part of the aura rules, either on page 6 or in the glossery state that attacks created from an aura are not attacks. So there IS NO SPECIFIC RULE trumping the general rule.

Bravura Warlords have a passive ability that can permit an extra attack when someone uses an action point and hits with an attack. That extra attack is, in fact, an attack.

A Barbarian has a passive ability that permits an extra attack when they critical hit. That extra attack is, in fact, an attack.

Aboleth lashers have a passive ability that permits an extra attack when they have combat advantage. That extra attack is, in fact, an attack.

The fact you're calling it an attack.... it cannot simultaneously be an attack and not be an attack. That doesn't make sense, and has no rules support in the game.

 

[SlyFlourish]

"An eye tyrant has the tools to deal with this situation. Period. Use them. Complaining that the player is broken when it is clear that you did not use the tools -designed to handle situations like this- is like a rogue complaining about his poor damage output because -he never bothers to flank.-"

It wasn't an Eye Tyrant, it was a Death Tyrant. He has fewer tools to control the situation since he generally only gets to choose three rays each turn - the rest being random hits.

I focused the petrification ray on the paladin who made most of his saves. The center eye doesn't really hurt the paladin that much. The paladin has throwing hammers so it takes 10 squares between them to break the mark which just didn't happen.

This is only one example, however, of how Hospitalers can almost completely neutralize solo and area attack creatures. Really, the ability as written is far more effective than any other paragon ability I've seen. I think the Rules as Intended call for a "once per turn".

 

[keterys]

Put me in the 'you make an attack, and it has attack rolls, ergo it's still an attack' corner.

That said, not sure why folks think that dropping the paladin's mark for a round will really help all that much. He can just rechallenge after he waits a round for the penalty to clear. So, it's certainly helpful to screw up the paladin so it's hard for him to keep marking, but he's still going to have that mark up pretty darn often.

 

[Trebor62]

This is the part you are missing.

No part of the aura rules, either on page 6 or in the glossery state that attacks created from an aura are not attacks. So there IS NO SPECIFIC RULE trumping the general rule.




Bravura Warlords have a passive ability that can permit an extra attack when someone uses an action point and hits with an attack. That extra attack is, in fact, an attack.

A Barbarian has a passive ability that permits an extra attack when they critical hit. That extra attack is, in fact, an attack.

Aboleth lashers have a passive ability that permits an extra attack when they have combat advantage. That extra attack is, in fact, an attack.

The fact you're calling it an attack.... it cannot simultaneously be an attack and not be an attack. That doesn't make sense, and has no rules support in the game.

Nor should you expect it to as the rule explicitely states that Aura are PASSIVE effects.


Yes all of these examples you sight explicitely call the attacks extra attacks, whereas Aura never mentions attack, but refers to it as a passive and continuous effect.

 

[Fedifensor]

As a tangent, I've been having a tough time deciding whether my cleric should take Consecrated Ground at 5th...or Rune of Peace. The latter guarantees that a solo cannot attack for an entire round even on a miss. Furthermore, as DracoSuave noted, an aura can be turned off, which means the 'cannot attack' effect will override the aura.

The only downsides are the paltry [1W] damage, and that a solo will almost always save versus the effect. Still, it shows that there is more than one way to cause difficulty for a solo.