What happens with reliable multi-target powers?

[Thasmodious]

I certainly agree the rules here could be clearer. And I have to concede, despite my being a smartass about it, that you could make a case for your position. However, I think the case for my position as RAW is strong, and I have already posted the relevant rules. We all agree the intent is clear, and if the rules could be read a couple of ways, then it is also clear which side your interpretation of the RAW should fall on.

I just think interpreting what you are reading in such a way as you would deliberately have to violate the actual language (as in, English) to try and make your case, there is a good chance you are barking up the wrong tree.

A power hasn't missed if you hit someone with it. Period. If I decide I wish to shoot someone and I unload a clip from an uzi at them and they drop dead with a single bullet hole to the forehead, then, using the language we share, I don't think you can claim I missed because the other 49 bullets didn't hit the target. Similarly, if you set off a fireball in an area and burn up a guy or two, then clearly your power has hit.

As an aside, although relevant, is Thicket of Blades the only area power with the 'reliable' keyword? If it is, I would say it is very likely that the inclusion of that keyword is an error and then this whole thing would be rather moot.

It's the only one I can find on a quick scan through.

 

[Jack Colby]

Gosh, it's easy to be difficult if one tries, isn't it?

 

[Zurai]

A power hasn't missed if you hit someone with it. Period. If I decide I wish to shoot someone and I unload a clip from an uzi at them and they drop dead with a single bullet hole to the forehead, then, using the language we share, I don't think you can claim I missed because the other 49 bullets didn't hit the target. Similarly, if you set off a fireball in an area and burn up a guy or two, then clearly your power has hit.

It has hit and missed. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you're applying a binary result to something that has more than two possible end states. The language supports missing with an attack that hit. English is my first language and I am relatively proficient with it; the language used in the PHB is clear. That said...

As an aside, although relevant, is Thicket of Blades the only area power with the 'reliable' keyword? If it is, I would say it is very likely that the inclusion of that keyword is an error and then this whole thing would be rather moot.

I was actually going to say this myself. I believe you're right, and I too agree that it's likely the inclusion of the Reliable keyword is either an outright typo/misprint, or at least an unintentional error on the editing team's part.

 

[phloog]

Gosh, it's easy to be difficult if one tries, isn't it?

Winkies aside, this doesn't really add anything to the discussion, does it?

Back to the actual discussion: It seems to me that the INTENT of ALL of these powers with the 'Reliable' attribute is "This is one of your Coolest Powers, so we're putting in a rule that keeps you from using it up for the day if it turns out not to work worth a darn"

If that's the intent, then it makes sense that for all these powers that take place in a single ATTACK, reliable means that a miss lets you try again later.

I'm honestly not sure how this INTENT is honored if for this power you can hit a SINGLE target and no others. Seems to me that in that case you'd be better off using a regular attack, and by the intent of Reliable you shouldn't be charged for the use...I agree that making it unused unless you hit EVERYONE is a bit much, but by the intent of Reliable I could see a rule/house rule that says you need to hit at least some number of folks >1

 

[Thasmodious]

It has hit and missed. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you're applying a binary result to something that has more than two possible end states. The language supports missing with an attack that hit. English is my first language and I am relatively proficient with it; the language used in the PHB is clear.

The power itself hasn't both hit and missed. Some of its attacks have. The power hit, you struck someone, you rolled damage, you used the power and it was successful. The power didn't miss, just some of the attacks granted by the power missed. That's not the same thing and the RAW doesn't support it either. A power and a single attack are not the same thing.

That said...I was actually going to say this myself. I believe you're right, and I too agree that it's likely the inclusion of the Reliable keyword is either an outright typo/misprint, or at least an unintentional error on the editing team's part.

I fired off an email to support asking that question. So, we'll see.

 

[Andur]

For those of you who are trying to argue the wording, here are your choices, if an AoE Reliable power misses even one target:

1) The power is not expended, so thus NO hits that the power "triggered" happen either. Since the power is not expended it can not exert any "force" on the world.

2) The power is expended because you hit at least one target, the miss(es) stand, but so do the effects of the hit(s).

Choose one or the other and stick with it in your campaign and all will be well. Flip flop between the two and it causes chaos.

 

[Zogmo]

I don't have the books yet so here's my question. If it turns out the Reliable keyword is a typo and should have not been included here, how or what would the power do then? How would it affect the power?

 

[Andur]

Makes it an "all or nothing" type of an attack, which means "Reliable" is not a type to the power.

 

[Thasmodious]

Got an answer back from Wizards already. Doesn't solve the dilemma, but apparently they agree it is enough of a problem that it warrants some investigation:

This lvl 9 fighter daily exploit is an area attack with the 'reliable' keyword. It is also the only area effect power with the reliable keyword (unless I missed one). Is this keyword an error? If not, how does it apply - does reliable only key if all attacks in the area miss or does it key if any of the attacks miss?

Thanks for the great question! We’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon.

Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign.

 

[nonamazing]

On page 276: "When you hit, you usually deal damage and sometimes produce some other effect. When you're using a power, the power description tells you what happens when you hit."

Could that be read to define 'hit' as 'dealing damage (and sometimes some other effect)'? And if so, could that mean a 'miss' is defined as 'not dealing damage'?

If we read them in this context, then the reliable keyword could be rephrased as: 'if you deal no damage (or fail to do whatever the 'Hit:' part of the power dictates), then this power is not expended'. Is this an accurate reading of the rules? I'm not entirely sure...

Also, on page 271, it notes that with a close attack power, you make a separate attack roll for each legal target, but only a single damage roll. Could this mean that if you get to make that damage roll, it's still a 'hit', even if the damage isn't applied to all of the targets? Or to rephrase myself, does the word 'hit' mean 'applying the effects of a power' or does it mean 'striking a creature'? The second reading would seem more obvious, given the traditional meaning of the word, but perhaps the word is meant to be more abstract in its usage here. After all, there are powers whose 'hit' doesn't involve any contact with the target at all.