Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5335875" data-attributes="member: 57112">While naturally I would cede to your request, it's already been done in this thread (in fact, looking back on it, by you.) Not to mention the various tweets and other communiques from the designers outright spelling this out back when the whole argument first started.Of course, as soon as the RAW declared Magic Missile was an attack, all the naysayers cried "but they didn't say it was a hit!" and no, the FAQ itself does not, but now you're just grasping at straws. Attacks produce hits; just as not-attacks (i.e, the extra Cleave damage) do not produce hits. This is the simplest, most elegant way to define a hit. Saying that a power requires a "Hit" line to be a hit is the same as saying a power requires an "Attack" line to be an attack, and the Magic Missile errata and accompanying FAQ already proves line of thinking false. I'll admit it's not an absolute slam-dunk in saying that Magic Missile = hit, but it's closest possible thing. The only logic that can prove that Magic Missile is a hit is the same logic that only works if it isn't also an attack.The oft-quoted line from the PHB is, at best, outdated. The full paragraph is as follows:Now, the first sentence quoted here is demonstrably false. The second sentence, which has been quoted here several times, is therefore based on a faulty premise. Back when the PHB was first published, an attack required an attack roll, and a hit required an attack. This has changed. There are attacks that no longer require attack rolls. So does a hit now require an attack roll, or does a hit require an attack? The PHB is, remarkably, ambiguous. How so? The next paragraph begins thusly.Emphasis added, but this line definitely seems to imply that the "effect" line is just as important as the "hit" when it comes to determining a hit. Is it tenuous? Yeah sure, but far less so than a quote from the PHB relying on an outdated definition of the term "attack." Since an attack no longer requires an attack roll, why must we cling to that same definition for the purposes of a "hit"?Does this definition lead to some... interesting consequences? Yes. But just because a rule change breaks something doesn't make it not a rule change. Do I think WotC will ever definitively spell it out? No; I don't think there isn't a fully elegant solution that would satisfactorily cover all bases. There'd always be some exception here; some broken combo there. So yes, Magic Missile and Flurry of Blows are definitely attacks, and yes, they almost definitely constitute hits.</blockquote>

Verification