What happens with reliable multi-target powers?

[Zurai]

Not true at all. I already quoted the relevant portion of text. If you get to apply the Hit section of a power entry, then the power has clearly hit. If the Power has hit, it didn't miss, therefore, it is used.

Hitting with a power IS defined. If you hit, you didn't miss. If you think you did, then you must be encountering a language barrier.

So then Fireball does full damage to all enemies in the burst if you hit even once? The Miss: line only occurs if you miss on every attack roll?

Remember, Reliable doesn't say "if you hit". It says "if you miss".

 

[Thasmodious]

So then Fireball does full damage to all enemies in the burst if you hit even once? The Miss: line only occurs if you miss on every attack roll?

Any comment I could reasonably respond with to this nonsense would require moderator action, so I'll just pass.

Remember, Reliable doesn't say "if you hit". It says "if you miss".

It says if you miss with the POWER. If the power hit someone, it didn't miss.

A miss is defined as - not hitting.

A hit is defined as - hitting and applying the effects under Hit.

So, if you hit, you didn't miss. If you had missed with the POWER, you wouldn't have got to roll those pretty little damage dice.

 

[Zurai]

I am quite confused how you can obviously miss with a power (you use the Miss: line) and still not trigger effects that are triggered on missing with a power (the Reliable keyword).

 

[Thasmodious]

It is clear you are quite confused.

 

[Zurai]

You seem to be operating under the principle that a power cannot both hit and miss at the same time - that "hit" and "miss" are two sides of a coin. That's quite correct when you're dealing with powers that only have a single attack roll. It's quite incorrect when you're dealing with powers that have multiple attack rolls. A power CAN both Hit and Miss at the same time. Thus, a power can trigger both Hit: and Miss: effects at the same time.

Reliable is a Miss: effect. For proof, look at the character sheet for the Keep on the Shadowfell Fighter.

 

[Thasmodious]

No, I'm not operating under such a principle. I am operating under two distinct principles

1. Reading comprehension
2. Common sense

Reliable keys if the Power, not one attack of the power, misses. The Power would miss if you don't get to apply the Hit line, which you only apply if you did not miss. In any case where you have applied the Hit line, the power has not missed.

 

[Zurai]

The Power would miss if you don't get to apply the Hit line, which you only apply if you did not miss. In any case where you have applied the Hit line, the power has not missed.

Can you please cite where that's stated in the rules?

Everyone in this thread agrees that it's intended to work the way you describe, more or less. That's not the issue. The issue is that you keep claiming that there's rules for defining misses with relation to a power. There are none that I can find. If you can cite me a book and page that proves otherwise, I'll happily eat my crow. I like internally consistent rules.

 

[Kordeth]

No, I'm not operating under such a principle. I am operating under two distinct principles

1. Reading comprehension
2. Common sense

Reliable keys if the Power, not one attack of the power, misses. The Power would miss if you don't get to apply the Hit line, which you only apply if you did not miss. In any case where you have applied the Hit line, the power has not missed.

This I think is one of the biggest holes in 4E's rules--there's no clear definition of the difference between an attack as an individual roll of the d20 versus the overall use of an attack power.

IMHO, things would be much simplified if the individual d20 rolls that make up an area attack were called something else--hit rolls or target checks or something--and "attack" was reserved for "using an attack power."

 

[phloog]

...However, it can't just be as simple as adding the word "entirely", since that would make Reliable very low value for AoE attacks. Hardly what was intended either.

That was why I could see a well-intentioned group reading the power as written - that any miss means the power isn't expended.

The problem is that if we read it as people are SAYING it was intended - get even a single hit and it's used up, it feels like it's a bit weak as you will likely have many times when that single hit renders a power meant to be impressive no better than a standard hit...and if you read it as 'even one miss means it's not used' then it's likely too powerful and leads to bad behavior/abuse.

To me the errata can't really be written for 'reliable', but must instead be written for this individual power that seems to be the only instance of a multi-target reliable, because I think there needs to be a more complicated middle ground...like if >1 attack hits it's used or something.

 

[frankthedm]

I'll say that if the power hits someone, it should be used up. I'll also say the wording could be far better.