poor rational for "updating" Magic Missile?

[Mengu]

I didn't like magic missile before, I don't like it now, so not much has changed as far as I'm concerned. What I would have preferred to see is the old magic missile become a class feature for the wizard, so every wizard got it, and it didn't count toward at-will powers.

I don't understand the concept of a character without a basic attack. All characters should have a free basic attack of some sort that uses their primary stat. It makes no sense to me that when the warlord says "hey you wizard, blast that guy," the wizard without magic missile has to say, "sorry boss, no can do." Same with a cleric, a bard, an invoker, etc. A charisma paladin trained in how to use his weapon, can't hit the broad side of a barn with a basic attack if he doesn't have a specific at-will power or feat. An avenger, swordmage, or battlemind has to have a feat. While they are supposedly trained on how to use a weapon, they can't exactly prove it when they are forced to use strength as an attack stat.

To get back on topic, magic missile becoming a class feature I think would have been received with more open arms, than the change to auto-hit.

 

[Aegeri]

There is actually quite a lot of debate over whether the new MM is "an attack".

Greg Bilsland posted this on his twitter, which I think is definitely going to blow the debate on "What is an attack" wide open:

@gregbilsland: is "Magic Missile" an attack? If so, Why? (Rules lawyer's on pin question: PHB p.269 says all attacks have attack rolls)

And the response

@kilpatds It's an attack power. Rules lawyers are reading it too literally. "When you attack, you make an attack roll" does not mean atk pwr

So it appears that those saying attack powers do not require an attack roll to be counted as one might be correct. It's definitely something we could use a FAQ ruling on, but I am personally willing to go with what Greg says here as something that is logical. It does however have some nasty repercussions.

 

[KarinsDad]

Attack powers are not necessarily attacks.

Only with one interpretation of the rules.

If attack powers are not attacks, then what are they? If most attack powers have attack rolls to hit, but not all of them, then what are the attack powers that do not have attack rolls to hit? Non-attacks?

That sentence is in the Attack: line description of attack powers. It effectively states that not all attack powers have Attack: line rolls to hit. You, on the other hand, are claiming that if it does not have an attack roll to hit, it is not an attack.

Sorry. There is no such explicit rule. You made that up.

You know those times that we've had to remind you that you can disagree with someone without being a jerk? Please go reread them. I am really, really tired of this. You know the rules; scale back the aggression and the rudeness dramatically. I don't give a damn if someone disagrees with you are not, you do not have license to be rude.


Attack powers are still attacks, even if they do not have Attack: line descriptions.

Magic Missile is still classified as a Wizard Level One At Will Attack power, even though it now doesn't have a roll to hit.

If a Fighter marks a Wizard and the Wizard does Magic Missile on a creature other than the Fighter, the Fighter gets to both do an Opportunity attack against the Wizard for using a ranged power, and he also gets to do a Combat Challenge attack against the Wizard for doing an attack without also targeting the Fighter with it.

Combat Challenge says "makes an attack", not "makes an attack roll". Without a crystal clear definition of what an attack is, this is up for interpretation.

So unless you have some explicit rules to back up your POV, I would suggest that you stop telling other people to actually read what they quote. The moderators frown on that type of behavior dude.

And do NOT try to use us as a club to tell other people what to do. If you see a problem you should report it, but we have no patience for this behavior at all. ~ PCat

The words attack and attacks are a bit nebulous in 4E. There are sections in the rules that discuss attacks with attack rolls, and sections in the rules that do not.

Dispel Magic has an Attack roll. Would you state that it makes sense that the Wizard who targets a zone with the Utility Dispel Magic provokes a Combat Challenge, but the Wizard who targets an enemy with the Attack Magic Missile does not provoke a Combat Challenge. That's backwards.

It would be great if WotC stated that "all attack powers are attacks", or stated that "any power with an Attack: line is an attack, attack powers without an Attack: line are not attacks", or even "all attack powers and any power with the attack: line is an attack". So far, they haven't explicitly done so with an update.

So until they do, your interpretation on the subject at the moment is merely like mine, an interpretation. You like yours. I like mine. But, yours isn't RAW. It's one interpretation of RAW.

 

[Aulirophile]

"An attack targets AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will"

Rules quote. See if you can find it. Betcha can't! Attack rolls specify /gasp, that you target a defense and roll to see if you hit.

So, no, I didn't make anything up, and you're wrong and insulting. Good for you.

 

[KarinsDad]

"An attack targets AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will"

Rules quote. See if you can find it. Betcha can't! Attack rolls specify /gasp, that you target a defense and roll to see if you hit.

So, no, I didn't make anything up, and you're wrong and insulting. Good for you.

Yup. The section in the Monster Manual which discusses, heaven forbid, Target Defense. Therefore, this rule only applies to Monster Attack powers that have a Target Defense. Duh!

Do all monster attack powers have attack rolls? Nope. Yet, that Target Defense definition is in the Attack Powers section of the MM.

And, your claim is that it isn't a monster attack unless it has an attack roll.

Same page:

Attack Powers
Attack powers are presented so that basic attacks appear first, followed by the monster’s other powers.
Type
Each power has an icon that indicates what type of attack it is: melee (M), ranged (R), close (C), or area (A).

This implies the exact opposite of your POV. Whoops.

A swarm takes half damage from melee and ranged attacks. It is vulnerable to close and area attacks, as indicated in the monster’s stat block.

How does Magic Missile affect a Swarm? Half Damage? No Damage? Full Damage?

How about Close and Area effects that do not have an attack roll? Are they not vulnerable to those?

It is still an interpretation dude. Can't help it that you have blinders on.

Since I'm going through the thread, this is another example of being deliberately insulting. Everyone reading this? This is an excellent example of what not to do. - PCat

 

[Aulirophile]

You're welcome to your opinion. I would point out that the rule only applies to monsters isn't written anywhere, nothing in the MM says it only applies to monsters. Except one thing, in the MM3, which says "Monster powers that have attack rolls are attack powers." I wonder why they phrased it that way.... odd. So my "claim" is correct.

Also in the PHB Melee, Ranged, Close, and Area individually specify that melee attacks, ranged attacks, close attacks, and area attacks all have an attack roll. So yes, if it is a close attack, and you reference close attack, and close attack says it has an attack roll.... mmmm.

"Blinders." How is this for blinders? Any zone that does auto-damage on entering it is now an auto-kill power with the selection of two feats and one item, since "all attack powers are attacks." There are several encounter powers like that. They last for one round, but that is all you need.

I think I'll stick with a rule that doesn't break the game.

 

[Aegeri]

"An attack targets AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will"

Rules quote. See if you can find it. Betcha can't! Attack rolls specify /gasp, that you target a defense and roll to see if you hit.

That's from MM1 I recognize that, but it's worth noting it's been "updated" a bit and so isn't as definitive anymore.

From MM3 on attacks:

A monster power that has an attack roll is an attack power. Sometimes an attack entry includes special information about a component of that entry

Personally I think that still supports your core argument, but it does specifically say that it's for monsters if someone wants to bring a quibble to it.

Edit: CURSES, YOU WIN THIS TIME AULIROPHILE, BUT NEXT TIME I WILL GET YOU AND YOUR BAND OF MEDDLING KIDS!!!!

 

[Aulirophile]

Thanks for the XP Aegeri.

I am dead serious though, if that ruling sticks I am going to show up at Gencon and do the delve's table with a group of two PCs, and end every fight in 1-2 rounds. Greg is fundamentally unaware of the shenanigans he just said were legal.

EDIT: I'm bad with names.

 

[Aegeri]

Thanks for the XP Aegeri.

I am dead serious though, if that ruling sticks I am going to show up at Gencon and do the delve's table with a group of two PCs, and end every fight in 1-2 rounds. Mike is fundamentally unaware of the shenanigans he just said were legal.

That's not Mike, it was from Greg Bilsland. I actually have just 'houseruled' that certain things are attacks, because what you can do with some forced movement and storm pillar at epic with certain items can be pretty ridiculous. I do realize though that if things that don't make attack rolls count as attacks, then we end up with some very interesting problems like infinite slide automatic damage and similar.

 

[Aulirophile]

That's not mike, it was from Greg Bilsland. I actually have just 'houseruled' that certain things are attacks, because what you can do with some forced movement and storm pillar at epic with certain items can be pretty ridiculous.

Storm Pillar has to be on their turn, to conditional for infinity damage.

And you beat my edit time.