Wait is no attack on distract optional?

So the way its worded Distract on the Rogue features seems like the next round of not doing anything is optional right. So its optional to take the negative side effect? (Classes p43) Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
You are only given an option if it says 'May'

'Can' means if you are able to, you must

Meaning if you have an action to give, it must be given but if you have no actions to give, then it does not need to be given

Distract:When a creature within 5 feet of you that can see or hear you hits with an attack, you can use your reaction to cause the damage of the attack to be halved. You can then take no action on your next turn.


Not seeing what you mean by optional. Once you use your Reaction to Distract you lose your next action.


Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

The rule could do with a slight rewording to remove any ambiguity.

Can does not mean "you must if you are able". Can implies that a choice is available.

For instance: on my turn I can move up to 30 feet. I don't have to, but the option is there if I want it.
Likewise, a Rogue can use their reaction to halve the damage taken. Again, they don't have to if they don't want to, but the option is there. 

I agree with the general reading though and think the last sentence should read as "If you choose to use this ability, you cannot take an action on your next turn."
"You can then take no action on your next turn" is really odd-sounding language that doesn't appear anywhere else. I think it's clearly a mistake.

"On your next turn, you lose your action" would sound better.

Still, what a lousy drawback. I would just eliminate that sentence and consider it balanced.
The rule could do with a slight rewording to remove any ambiguity.

Can does not mean "you must if you are able". Can implies that a choice is available.

For instance: on my turn I can move up to 30 feet. I don't have to, but the option is there if I want it.
Likewise, a Rogue can use their reaction to halve the damage taken. Again, they don't have to if they don't want to, but the option is there. 

I agree with the general reading though and think the last sentence should read as "If you choose to use this ability, you cannot take an action on your next turn."



'Can' doesnt grant you the permission to do something, it just tells you whether you are capable of doing it
Im not english native, but the point seems that ''can take no action = cannot take action''  

While it could be written more clearly, the sentence is clear enought to not persuade any DM that an option exist.


Sign In to post comments