Powers that deflect attacks - vs. legal targets only?

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
We recently had an argument about how powers that deflect attacks actually work.

Example.

An enemy spellcaster has two powers. The first power applies a hexed (save ends) condition.
This condition basically is just a temporary "warlock's curse" type of deal that has no other effect on its own.

The second power it uses is roughly the following:
Target: One hexed enemy
X vs. Will
Hit: target is turned into a squirrel (cannot make attacks etc.)

One of our PC's is hexed, and is targeted by this second power.
He then uses an immediate interrupt that "deflects" the attack to an enemy.

DM argues that because the enemy is not hexed, the spell has no effect. For arguments sake, lets assume the hit line does not refer to hexed condition in any way.

My personal interpretation is that a power that deflects the attack to another creature is effectively replacing the target line so that the new target is also legal. If the hit line would also require a hexed target, then I could be persuaded to see that the attack does nothing to the new target, but if it does not, then I think it should fully work.

If deflecting of enemy attacks does not replace the target line, and the target line has to be valid for any damage or conditions to apply, then deflection powers are kind of crappy. Enemies only target means that such powers would not be valid vs. the allies of the enemy using the power that you want to deflect - this is clearly not the intent behind the rules in my opinion.
IMO the Powers changing targets validity takes precedence. Here, wether the new target is a Hexed creature or not so it can be targeted legally, it is targeted regardless because another effect says he become the target of the attacke.

Just like when one of your ally use an enemy-targeting Power and the enemy deflect it at another PC, the PC become the target even if he originally didn't meet the criteria.
If a target is invalid, for any reason, the attack fails.  An interrupt that blinds you when you make a "Target:  Each enemy in the burst you can see" attack will make your attack fail against a target just the same as if an interrupt slides the target out of the burst.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
We don't agree on Triggerring Action timing vs Targeting so i am not surprise you hold such position. Wink IMO The Trigger would have to say "'you are targeted by an an attack'' in order to  interrupt before the target is Chosen and become an invalid target.  Otherwise, interrupting being hit won't change that you've already been legally targeted, this wether the attacker becomes Blind or not as an interrupt. The thing is it would affect the attack occuring and it would give a penalty of -5 if its a Melee or Ranged attack.

Exemple; if you're the 3rd creature attacked by a Power and  you Blind the attacker as an Interrupt, it won't invalidate the attacks and the damage done to the 2 other creatures attacked before you nor yours, since you were all targeted before even the first creature was attacked.

It would not even apply a -5 penalty to the attack they got, just yours. 
You can't tell me that the line:

"Targets:  One enemy in the burst you can see"

is not rendered invalid either by moving the enemy out of the burst or making it so that you can't see it.  Are you really saying that an interrupt that results in you not seeing the target means the attack goes off as normal (-5 for total concealment doesn't apply to bursts), but an interrupt that moves the creature out of the burst would prevent the attack?

This is a weakness in your argument.  Nothing in the target line allows for that differentiation.  Nothing in the attack resolution step, specifically, actually requires the target be in range any more, which invalidates all interrupt-based attack disruption.

You cannot be correct.  Your argument is completely inconsistent with itself.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
You can't tell me that the line:

"Targets:  One enemy in the burst you can see"

is not rendered invalid either by moving the enemy out of the burst or making it so that you can't see it.  



If you move the enemy out of the burst before he attacks, the attack is lost. The enemy will still have been targeted legally. If you Blind the enemy before he attacks, the attack takes the proper penalty. The enemy will still have been targeted legally.

ALL TARGETS are selected before any of them is attacked, as many as there are. 


EDITED

I have to agree that deflecting the attack to an invalid target will cause the attack to simply fail. Deflecting the target just changes the target of the power, not whether the power can actually succeed in targetting that target.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
You can't tell me that the line:

"Targets:  One enemy in the burst you can see"

is not rendered invalid either by moving the enemy out of the burst or making it so that you can't see it.  



If you move the enemy out of the burst before he attacks, the attack is lost.


Right, which you do by interrupting the attack.  There are a lot of interrupt powers that move either the attacker or the target with the direct purpose of negating the attack.  Some of them even trigger on the damage step, and yet somehow we as Rules Q&A have decided that they can cause the attack to fail.

If the attack is not made against a valid target, the attack fails.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If the Triggering action is lost when an attack interrupt and Slide the target, its because the target is no longer withinin Reach or Ranged of the Power when attacked and Powers can't affect target outside their Reach/Range. 

It doesn't change that the Triggerring action that is lost was an attack that targeted the creature.

One happen at the attacking step. The OP is about something happening after targeting is made Interrupting an attack doesn't interrupt the targeting step. Only you and LoW thik that by saying Triggerred Actions Interrupt Making Attack Process entirely or resolve after it resolved comeptely.  If this was true, Interrpting Step 1 would mean it happens before the Power is even choosen and therefore would not be used when the Triggerring action is lost, and reacting after Step 6 would mean that all other targets are also attacked before you  can react to your attack, which is also incorrect. And also, targeting is not part of an Attack Definition regardless of what you say  (Rc 308) so your interpretation is the one inconsistent with the Rules not mine.
"Targets:  One enemy in the burst you can see"

If you move the enemy out of the burst before he attacks, the attack is lost. The enemy will still have been targeted legally. If you Blind the enemy before he attacks, the attack takes the proper penalty. The enemy will still have been targeted legally.

In this example, there are several targeting requirements: a) the target is in the burst; b) you can see the target; c) the target is an enemy.

What's so special about requirement (a)? Why would violating that requirement cause the power to fail, but not violating the other requirements?

In my opinion, there is nothing special about any of the targeting requirements -- if any of them are not met, the power will fail. In the absence of any rules that say so, there is no reason that violating requirement (a) will stop the power, but violating requirements (b) or (c) will not.

However, it's certainly possible for a power to override these targeting restrictions. For example, suppose a monster uses a melee attack that targets only its enemies, but a swordmage switches the target with one of its allies using surprising transposition. In this case, the attack will still happen because surprising transposition specifically allows it.
You will have to forgive my power quote, this is from mobile.

Fortuitous Dodge(rogue utility 6), Immediate Reaction, Melee 1
Trigger: an enemy misses you with a melee or ranged attack
Target: any enemy other than triggering enemy
Effect: Target is also target of triggering attack.

If enemy A and B are flanking me and A misses with a melee attack, when I chose enemy B, B is out of range of A's original melee attack.

Under version Mand, this power does nothing. Do not like. But! This does bring up some interesting timing issues relevant to the /other/ thread. Let's not devolve this one into its ugly child.
Fortuitous Dodge(rogue utility 6), Immediate Reaction, Melee 1

If enemy A and B are flanking me and A misses with a melee attack, when I chose enemy B, B is out of range of A's original melee attack.

Strictly speaking, the power does not function as intended because it should be an immediate interrupt, not an immediate reaction.  With reaction timing, it's too late to change anything about the power's targeting.

For the sake of discussion, I will pretend that fortuitious dodge acts as an immediate interrupt.

In this case, because the fortuitous dodge power specifically states the new target, I would allow the attack to affect a target that would normally be out of range.

Yes, it should act as an interrupt, but aside from that, no it would not override the range of the triggering attack.  Nothing says that it does, therefore it does not.  The power does nothing against a melee attack if you're being flanked and there are no other creatures around, that is correct.  But it doesn't do nothing under many other circumstances, especially when dealing with ranged attacks.

Really, what this and the other thread boil down to is whether you think the interrupt and reaction rules are a consistent set, or whether you have to conveniently ignore them a lot of times to get powers to work.  My position is that they are a consistent set, and I haven't yet found a power that flat out breaks when evaluated under my position.  Yet I'm deluged by "well, that's just a SvG exception, I'll allow it" answers.  Eventually you might want to consider that your interpretation is wrong, if you actually claim to continue to have an open mind.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I've seen this issue (change in target = failed attack) arise previously with the Skald's Armor power. As an immediate interrupt the target of a melee attack is changed to another adjacent creature. But what if the new target is outside the range of the melee attack being used?

A person can always argue that the PC wearing the armor "threw" the adjacent person into the path of the melee attack, but are we supposed to assume such?
Mand, you first said that the power has to be an interrupt and then say there are no powers given break under your position. But its /not/ an interrupt, it is a reaction. So it does break under your interpretation.
There's a subtle difference. 

There are powers that are simply mislabeled - as a reaction, under either interpretation, Fortuitous Dodge does nothing.  That's an error in the design of the power, and needs errata to fix it.  Power Strike and Dual Weapon Attack being free actions were a similar error.  They needed to be no actions to function properly, and so they were made no actions.

Then there are powers that do something, only it's not what someone thinks it should do.  There are things that are reactions that people wish were interrupts because it'd be cooler, and so they twist the reaction rules so that the power functions as they want, rather than as it says.  Furthermore, there are situations where their own logic prevents the use of the power at all (such as an interrupt to being hit by an attack that changes the allegedly already-resolved target designation), and they handwave away the rules they claim are correct and call it Specific vs General.

My position does not require any of that handwaving.  It is self-consistent as well as consistent with RAW.  The opposing position is consistent with RAW under a very convoluted, inventive definition of "event" that isn't all that well supported by rules and is self-contradictory.  And yet people still claim to be correct, which I do not understand.

Edit:  To clarify, when I say inventive, I mean people are manufacturing timing steps based on what "feels right" rather than what the immediate rules say.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Mand, I would prefer if we only do this in one thread and not to hijack this one, so I will contine this discussion in the other thread.
When using the Skald Armor's Power, if the triggering enemy's melee attack that now target a creature adjacent to you instead you is a targeting a creature outside its Reach, his attack will be lost because the target of his attack won't be within Reach of the attack, unless the attacker has Reach, in which case the attack isn't lost.


 
And why is that more valid than removing the ability to see the target if that was also in the target line of the attack?  You still haven't answered logopolis's question:

In this example, there are several targeting requirements: a) the target is in the burst; b) you can see the target; c) the target is an enemy.

What's so special about requirement (a)? Why would violating that requirement cause the power to fail, but not violating the other requirements?

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Because ''cannot see'' doesn't have a clause that says that the Power doesn't affect it if it isn't finally seen when resolving the attack.  Range do and when making the attack roll, the enemy must still be within Range or Reach of it or else it isn't affected. It doesn't invalidate the targeting, it make the attack fail by no longer being able to reach its target and affect it.

RC 99 Range: The maximum distance that an effect can reach. 

Fortuitous Dodge(rogue utility 6), Immediate Reaction, Melee 1

If enemy A and B are flanking me and A misses with a melee attack, when I chose enemy B, B is out of range of A's original melee attack.

Strictly speaking, the power does not function as intended because it should be an immediate interrupt, not an immediate reaction.  With reaction timing, it's too late to change anything about the power's targeting.

For the sake of discussion, I will pretend that fortuitious dodge acts as an immediate interrupt.

In this case, because the fortuitous dodge power specifically states the new target, I would allow the attack to affect a target that would normally be out of range.




It works fine because it changes the state of the targets not the step in which targeting took place.
So, it seems like there is no actual firm rule for what happens when you switch targets with an interrupt. I can see good arguments either way.

What I would prefer is, that the powers that were designed to deflect stuff would actually do so without a big glitch in the rules. Seems like it is difficult to specify them so.

I guess that if a power says "target becomes another creature adjacent to you" then it is a specific instance of exception to the original power's rules, and that could hold.

What if it also has a qualifier like "a hexed enemy"?

Seems quite difficult, and probably the rules were not made with deflection powers in mind, when thinking about timing and targeting. That means, such powers should specify more things where they actually cause exceptions to the triggering power and the timing/targeting rules in general.

Wait a second.  Let's look at the Bugbear Strangler.  The monster's Body Shield ability allows it to change the target of a melee or ranged attack against it target a creature it has grabbed instead.  So if the Bugbear is being attacked by a ranged power that targets, say "one enemy", does that mean it cannot use Body Shield to redirect the attack?

   

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks

Wait a second.  Let's look at the Bugbear Strangler.  The monster's Body Shield ability allows it to change the target of a melee or ranged attack against it target a creature it has grabbed instead.  So if the Bugbear is being attacked by a ranged power that targets, say "one enemy", does that mean it cannot use Body Shield to redirect the attack?

   


If the new target is not legal, I'd assume the strangler can change the target, but then the attack doesn't work on the new target because it does not qualify as a target for the ranged attack. (this is how the discussion here seems to go, I don't really agree that it is the best way for these powers to work though)

Still, melee and ranged attacks are usually of the format "target: one creature", which means that the new target usually is legal, except when reach, range or other qualifiers (like cursed or marked or whatever) apply.

Fortuitous Dodge(rogue utility 6), Immediate Reaction, Melee 1

If enemy A and B are flanking me and A misses with a melee attack, when I chose enemy B, B is out of range of A's original melee attack.

Strictly speaking, the power does not function as intended because it should be an immediate interrupt, not an immediate reaction.  With reaction timing, it's too late to change anything about the power's targeting.

For the sake of discussion, I will pretend that fortuitious dodge acts as an immediate interrupt.

In this case, because the fortuitous dodge power specifically states the new target, I would allow the attack to affect a target that would normally be out of range.




It works fine because it changes the state of the targets not the step in which targeting took place.


Perhaps I was unclear as to why I don't like this line of reasoning.

If you're allowed to change the state of targeting whenever a power says to, why bother having the targeting step resolve?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Because ''cannot see'' doesn't have a clause that says that the Power doesn't affect it if it isn't finally seen when resolving the attack.  Range do and when making the attack roll, the enemy must still be within Range or Reach of it or else it isn't affected. It doesn't invalidate the targeting, it make the attack fail by no longer being able to reach its target and affect it.

RC 99 Range: The maximum distance that an effect can reach. 




Wait, so you're really trying to say that if you fail to meet the criteria for the Target line, the attack still works?  You don't see the logical inconsistency here?  Why is only range subject to "invalidates the action"?  Also, how do you deal with the burst attack that was the actual example?  Range of a burst is not the same thing as the area of the burst.  In the example of an area burst, are you really trying to say that if an interrupt allows me to shift out of the burst, but still be within range of the attack, that I get attacked anyway?  Because that is the direct result of what you just said.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Wait, so you're really trying to say that if you fail to meet the criteria for the Target line, the attack still works?



When Choosing Targetsm you were  meeting the criteria by being a creature the attacker could see this before he attacked you or anyone else. Now when an Interrupt occur the Trigger occur but you jump in before it finishes. The enemy at this point has targeted you and is attacking you. If you Blind him, it won't change the targeting step since its resolved already. It will affect the incoming attack occuring and any other attack the power might have against subsequent targets already targeted when Step 6 resolve.

Why is only range subject to "invalidates the action"?  Also, how do you deal with the burst attack that was the actual example?  Range of a burst is not the same thing as the area of the burst.  In the example of an area burst, are you really trying to say that if an interrupt allows me to shift out of the burst, but still be within range of the attack, that I get attacked anyway?  Because that is the direct result of what you just said.


I was referring to the Melee attack Shifted away from. I didn't say only Range can invalidate action. For Burst and Blast, it still invalidate the attack against you if you end up outside the AoE as an Interrupt because there won't be Line of Effect from the Origin Square to you anymore and won't be affected.

RC 108 Blast: ..and a Blast affect a target only if the target is in the Blast's Area and there is Line of Effect from the Origin Square to the target.

RC 109 Burst: A Burst affect a target only if the target is in the Burst's Area and there is Line of Effect from the Burst's Origin Square to the target


  
  

So, if the target line is "One creature in the burst you can see" you really are saying that the attack still goes off if you can't see the target?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Yes. And even if there was Three of them.

Blinding the enemy as an interrupt would not invalidate the legality of your targeting, nor would it invalidate the targeting of the creatures attacked before you in a Multi-Target Attack or those yet to be attacked, because all were targeted before any was attacked.

That's how Making Attacks works:

RC 214 Making Attacks:

1. Choose Power
2. Choose Targets   (Target is Plurial and not repeated at Step 6 meaning all target are chosen before attacking)
3. Make Attack roll
4. Compare Attack roll to target Defense and see if it Hit or Miss
5. If the attack Hit, deal damage and other effects.
6. If the attack has more than 1 target, repeat step 3 through 5 for each of them.



 
Yes. And even if there was Three of them.

Blinding the enemy as an interrupt would not invalidate the legality of your targeting, nor would it invalidate the targeting of the creatures attacked before you in a Multi-Target Attack or those yet to be attacked, because all were targeted before any was attacked.



yet you maintain that if you target someone with a melee attack, then them moving out of range as a intterupt (at the same point as your mentioned example) would in fact invalidate the targeting, should it not be consistant with your above example and still be a legal target?

IMO in the above case, it would blind the creature (as an intterupt this blind resolves before the attaack) and since you are no longer a legal target (as such in moving out of the blast or range of a melee attack) you cannot be targeted, the same for targets following you as they cannot be seen either.

To imply that is to say that once the targeting is checked it will attack regardless of any actions or intterupts, meaning shifting out of range or out of an area would till target the original target.

edit:  "chose targets'" =/= 'target', what if i mentally chose the target outside my turn, can someone have an interupt or reaction to that choice?
Fortuitous Dodge(rogue utility 6), Immediate Reaction, Melee 1

If enemy A and B are flanking me and A misses with a melee attack, when I chose enemy B, B is out of range of A's original melee attack.

Strictly speaking, the power does not function as intended because it should be an immediate interrupt, not an immediate reaction.  With reaction timing, it's too late to change anything about the power's targeting.

For the sake of discussion, I will pretend that fortuitious dodge acts as an immediate interrupt.

In this case, because the fortuitous dodge power specifically states the new target, I would allow the attack to affect a target that would normally be out of range.




It works fine because it changes the state of the targets not the step in which targeting took place.


Perhaps I was unclear as to why I don't like this line of reasoning.

If you're allowed to change the state of targeting whenever a power says to, why bother having the targeting step resolve?



That's a good question.

The answer is just because something has happened in the past that changes the state of the game in the present does not mean a future event will not further change the state. Yes. I know you don't like the word but w/e.

An example I have given earlier in another thread was hit point loss and gain.

Kobold 20 HP
MBA hit  kobold 10 HP
State changed
Kobold regen 3
kobold hp 13

The regen did not modify nor go back in time and change the hit event. Nor did the hit event go forward in time and modify the regen event. Both events worked directly on the state of the game object. In this case a kobold.

Now with targeting. Targeting resolves fully because that is part of the attack process. If you are doing a ranged attack you MUST select a target prior to the attack roll. Once you do so that is your target. Now lets say you have an interrupt on the attack roll or an interrupt on the hit/miss/effect line of a power that allows you to change the target.

You do NOT go back to the attacker choose target step of the making an attack process. You merely swap or otherwise modify the target of power set. I know set is not defined in the rules. Nor do I care. Yes the targeting part of the process resolved and set the game parameters however a future power can easily modify them and really that's what nearly every single power in the game basically does.

To the OP's question:  I believe that effects and events need to check their legality as they resolve. Since the targeting needs to be a hexed enemy the way I would do it (and there are no explicit rules for this to be honest) is to treat "hexed enemy" as hexed AND enemy. BTW this is how move out of range interrupts would work as well. When the hit/miss/effect line was checked for resolution it would look to see if you are still a valid target and since the range would be invalid that attack would fizzle as well.

The power deflecting interrupt would override enemy but hexed would still be a condition needing to be true for the power hit/miss/effect line resolution to be legal and I would say it would fail. Again, you won't find this in RAW (that I am aware of).
yet you maintain that if you target someone with a melee attack, then them moving out of range as a intterupt (at the same point as your mentioned example) would in fact invalidate the targeting, should it not be consistant with your above example and still be a legal target?



I didn't say that it would invalidate the targeting, in fact i say the opposite. I say the attack is not invalidated because the target is now illegal being out of Range, i say the attack action is lost because even if you legally targeted before the attacked finished you ended up outside the reach of the attacker's effect. 

IMO in the above case, it would blind the creature (as an intterupt this blind resolves before the attaack) and since you are no longer a legal target (as such in moving out of the blast or range of a melee attack) you cannot be targeted, the same for targets following you as they cannot be seen either.



And what about the other creature attacked before you that were all targeted before any attacks ? Give them back their HP and call it short because he finally was Blinded and couldn't target them ? That's now targeting and attackign works

To imply that is to say that once the targeting is checked it will attack regardless of any actions or intterupts, meaning shifting out of range or out of an area would till target the original target.




And yet that's how it works. The reason you are no longer affected is not because you are not legally targeted anymore, its because you end up outside the Range/Reach or AoE of the Attack before it resolve.

1. CHOOSE POWER 
2. CHOOSE TARGETS 
3-4-5. ATTACK.
6. RINCE AND REPEAT 3-4-5 IF THERE IS MORE THAN 1 TARGET


It works fine because it changes the state of the targets not the step in which targeting took place.

Now with targeting. Targeting resolves fully because that is part of the attack process. If you are doing a ranged attack you MUST select a target prior to the attack roll. Once you do so that is your target. Now lets say you have an interrupt on the attack roll or an interrupt on the hit/miss/effect line of a power that allows you to change the target.

You do NOT go back to the attacker choose target step of the making an attack process. You merely swap or otherwise modify the target of power set. I know set is not defined in the rules. Nor do I care. Yes the targeting part of the process resolved and set the game parameters however a future power can easily modify them and really that's what nearly every single power in the game basically does.

To the OP's question:  I believe that effects and events need to check their legality as they resolve. Since the targeting needs to be a hexed enemy the way I would do it (and there are no explicit rules for this to be honest) is to treat "hexed enemy" as hexed AND enemy. BTW this is how move out of range interrupts would work as well. When the hit/miss/effect line was checked for resolution it would look to see if you are still a valid target and since the range would be invalid that attack would fizzle as well.

The power deflecting interrupt would override enemy but hexed would still be a condition needing to be true for the power hit/miss/effect line resolution to be legal and I would say it would fail. Again, you won't find this in RAW (that I am aware of).



You contradict yourself, you first say you do not go back to the target step, then you say you do.

I didn't say that it would invalidate the targeting, in fact i say the opposite. I say the attack is not invalidated because the target is now illegal being out of Range, i say the attack action is lost because even if you legally targeted before the attacked finished you ended up outside the reach of the attacker's effect. 



Where does it state in your 'making an attack process' to check range?  can you choose targets before you check range, does it ever say to go back and check range?


out the other creature attacked before you that were all targeted before any attacks ? Give them back their HP and call it short because he finally was Blinded and couldn't target them ? That's now targeting and attackign works.

  Thats actually not what i said, its an interupt that resolves before the attack(s), so it would invalide the following targets, but not the previous targets.  I see nothing wrong with this.

And yet that's how it works. The reason you are no longer affected is not because you are not legally targeted anymore, its because you end up outside the Range/Reach or AoE of the Attack before it resolve.

1. CHOOSE POWER 
2. CHOOSE TARGETS 
3-4-5. ATTACK.
6. RINCE AND REPEAT 3-4-5 IF THERE IS MORE THAN 1 TARGET



So do you check range on 2 or are you telling me you can choose targets outside your range?
I didn't say that it would invalidate the targeting, in fact i say the opposite. I say the attack is not invalidated because the target is now illegal being out of Range, i say the attack action is lost because even if you legally targeted before the attacked finished you ended up outside the reach of the attacker's effect. 



Where does it state in your 'making an attack process' to check range?  can you choose targets before you check range, does it ever say to go back and check range?


out the other creature attacked before you that were all targeted before any attacks ? Give them back their HP and call it short because he finally was Blinded and couldn't target them ? That's now targeting and attackign works.

  Thats actually not what i said, its an interupt that resolves before the attack(s), so it would invalide the following targets, but not the previous targets.  I see nothing wrong with this.

And yet that's how it works. The reason you are no longer affected is not because you are not legally targeted anymore, its because you end up outside the Range/Reach or AoE of the Attack before it resolve.

1. CHOOSE POWER 
2. CHOOSE TARGETS 
3-4-5. ATTACK.
6. RINCE AND REPEAT 3-4-5 IF THERE IS MORE THAN 1 TARGET



So do you check range on 2 or are you telling me you can choose targets outside your range?



RC 214  Making Attacks step 2 is where range and line of effect are checked.



Wait a second.  Let's look at the Bugbear Strangler.  The monster's Body Shield ability allows it to change the target of a melee or ranged attack against it target a creature it has grabbed instead.  So if the Bugbear is being attacked by a ranged power that targets, say "one enemy", does that mean it cannot use Body Shield to redirect the attack?



No IMO the Powers changing targets validity takes precedence. Body Shield allows the Bugbear Strangler to have a grabbed creature becoming the target a melee or ranged attack instead of him as an Interrupt. Wether the newly appointed target is not an enemy of the attacker is irrevelant since Body Shield state that the creature become the target of the attack instead of the Bugbear.
 

[sblock]

Body Shield Recharge
Trigger: An enemy makes a melee or ranged attack against the bugbear’s AC or Reflex while the bugbear is grabbing a creature.
Effect (Immediate Interrupt): The grabbed creature becomes the target instead. The bugbear can’t use this power to redirect attacks made by a creature it is grabbing.   
I didn't say that it would invalidate the targeting, in fact i say the opposite. I say the attack is not invalidated because the target is now illegal being out of Range, i say the attack action is lost because even if you legally targeted before the attacked finished you ended up outside the reach of the attacker's effect. 



Where does it state in your 'making an attack process' to check range?  can you choose targets before you check range, does it ever say to go back and check range?


out the other creature attacked before you that were all targeted before any attacks ? Give them back their HP and call it short because he finally was Blinded and couldn't target them ? That's now targeting and attackign works.

  Thats actually not what i said, its an interupt that resolves before the attack(s), so it would invalide the following targets, but not the previous targets.  I see nothing wrong with this.

And yet that's how it works. The reason you are no longer affected is not because you are not legally targeted anymore, its because you end up outside the Range/Reach or AoE of the Attack before it resolve.

1. CHOOSE POWER 
2. CHOOSE TARGETS 
3-4-5. ATTACK.
6. RINCE AND REPEAT 3-4-5 IF THERE IS MORE THAN 1 TARGET



So do you check range on 2 or are you telling me you can choose targets outside your range?



RC 214  Making Attacks step 2 is where range and line of effect are checked.





So the quote in the immediate interrupt section that says that if an attack hits you and you shift out of range of the attack as an interrupt then the attack fails is....what?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Step 2 is where you check if Target are in Range to be targeted. If something take a Target out of your Range/Reach/AoE before resolving the attack, the effect doesn't affect you and the attack against you is lost.

But the attack isn't lost if you violate some other portion of the Target line before resolving the attack?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Step 2 is where you check if Target are in Range to be targeted. If something take a Target out of your Range/Reach/AoE before resolving the attack, the effect doesn't affect you and the attack against you is lost.




So you are saying that in 'the targeting step' ranged is checked along with validity of the target.

Then you say that if the target changes you dont check validity, but if the placement of targets change then you check range?

But you dont check range if the target is changed?

And you have no rules quotes to back any of those statements up, does this not sound hand-wavy to you?

So the quote in the immediate interrupt section that says that if an attack hits you and you shift out of range of the attack as an interrupt then the attack fails is....what?



Says like i said. The attack is lost because the enemy can no longer reach her or because she evade the enemy's attack before it can deal damage. It doesn't say the attack is lost because she can no longer be targeted legally.

RC 195 Interrupts: Example: An enemy makes a melee attack against Keira the Rogue, but Keira uses a power that lets her shift away as an immediate interrupt. If the enemy can no longer reach her, its attack action is lost. Similarly, Albanon the wizard might use shield in response to being hit and turn that hit into a miss, or Keira might use the immediate interrupt heroic escape to evade an enemy's attack before it can deal damage 
Sign In to post comments