Proposal: Clarification on Howl of Fury and it's effect

[JoeNotCharles]

While I can see there's some ambiguity to HOF, what you're saying here really amounts to a house rule... there's nothing in the definition of "close attack" that says "it has to target every creature in the area". If this is going to be how we play, it ought to be noted as a house rule in the charter.

That's the clear intent, though. If you say, "close burst power", I'm just going to assume it targets every creature in the burst. The powers that say, "close burst, only targets 1 creature" always make people do a double-take at first.

 

[Mezegis]

This is why I included the part on Melee, Ranged, Close, and Area attacks. To prevent having to house rule 50% of the powers in the game, have the attack be based off the listed type. If there isn’t a type listed, like in HoF’s blast effect, view it as untyped and have it neither be halved, or trigger a vulnerability, similar to the way ongoing damage is treated.

It is the middle ground.

I see both sides of the argument, which is why I brought up the question.

 

[covaithe]

Eh. I don't think we need to codify it that strictly. There are variations in interpretation between different DMs in L4W; always have been, always will be. Example: Mal Malenkirk doesn't allow taking two short rests in a row to use things like Healing Word, to conserve surges. I do.

I'm not interested in dictating exactly how every DM has to run their games; quite the opposite. I don't think this game works at all without the DM using their common sense to arbitrate the (many) gaps and contradictions in the rules that inevitably crop up whenever PCs do their thing.

For instance, I think it's silly to argue that Cleave's secondary damage isn't damage from an attack. The guy hit you with a sword, fer cryin' out loud, and he did it on purpose. Arguing that it's not an attack because it doesn't have the word "attack" next to it, makes me feel like I'm grading papers, or debugging a really badly written program, instead of playing a game.

More to say; out of time, gotta run.

 

[elecgraystone]

What's a "true" area attack?

So it's only a "true" attack if it targets all creatures in burst, or what?

Yep.

I guess Earthshock, which targets "Enemies in burst that are touching the ground", it doesn't trigger the vulnerabilty?

Why would you say that? It's a power that hits everything in it's area and you don't pick targets. it's area just happens to be things touching the gound.

War Proxy, which targets "One creature in burst", or Call Forth the Spirit Pack, which targets "One or two creatures in burst", these actual close burst attack powers do not trigger the vulnerability to "close attacks"?

IMO, these powers are ranged attacks that don't provoke an OA. That's the way I'd treat them since they aren't an area attack. it's be easier if they said that instead of bursts and blasts with selected targets.

re: Cloud of Daggers, definitely the initial attack, where you roll to hit, is an area attack and triggers the vulnerability. I'm talking about the damaging zone it leaves behind. Does that trigger the vulnerability?

Well it damages anything in it's area. Sounds like an area attack to me. That's how I'd rule.

 

[ryryguy]

Eh. I don't think we need to codify it that strictly. There are variations in interpretation between different DMs in L4W; always have been, always will be. Example: Mal Malenkirk doesn't allow taking two short rests in a row to use things like Healing Word, to conserve surges. I do.

I'm not interested in dictating exactly how every DM has to run their games; quite the opposite. I don't think this game works at all without the DM using their common sense to arbitrate the (many) gaps and contradictions in the rules that inevitably crop up whenever PCs do their thing.

I agree with this completely.

So does that mean that how to rule on Howl of Fury, plus these other questions, should just be left up to individual DMs?

 

[covaithe]

So does that mean that how to rule on Howl of Fury, plus these other questions, should just be left up to individual DMs?

I'm okay with that. I wouldn't have bothered typing my opinion in if there hadn't been this thread here asking for opinions. I certainly wouldn't have felt a need to intervene in your game.

 

[ryryguy]

Well, I wonder if it wouldn't be bad to have an official or semi-official ruling regarding Howl of Fury specifically, because that's the one that's going to come up over and over. Since people obviously expect it to work as a close blast, that'd be the way to rule it.

That still doesn't seem worth actually amending the charter. Is there any other way to handle it? Maybe a sticky thread with a rule FAQ and suggested (but not binding) rulings? I don't know...

 

[elecgraystone]

Well, I wonder if it wouldn't be bad to have an official or semi-official ruling regarding Howl of Fury specifically, because that's the one that's going to come up over and over.

While I'm all for the GM's making up their own minds on this, it does leave the players guessing. If the reason you take a power is you want a swarm busting power and it doesn't work with that GM it's going to feel like a big nerf. The same could be said about Mal Malenkirk not allow taking two short rests in a row. There a several powers/abilities/feats that boost this kind of thing and not being able to use them is an issue.

My suggestion would be to add something to the rules letting people know to ask their GM when they join up that these are grey area's and GM's rulings may differ. In fact adding a section called 'grey area's' would do it.