|
3 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2010 - 5:24PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
No, it's an attack, not the attack line.
There is plenty to show that those steps can be refering to an Attack line just as much as an individual attack.
But that's neither here nor there, even if the steps are for the individual attacks in the Attack, an attack isn't step 3. An attack is all of the steps. And since all the steps are part of an attack, which is part of an Attack, my point still holds true. You still don't read the power as "range, target, attack, effect, hit, effect". Range and target aren't used until you get to an Attack ... or if you prefer, an individual attack within the Attack line.
As a result, you only need to consider Attack lines and Effect lines when determining the order things happen in. The Hit line just tells you what happens when you are running the Attack or attack, just as the Target line does.
So as written, the best interpretation for the power is Attack (including damage if you hit), Effect, Effect.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2010 - 7:09PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
But that's neither here nor there, even if the steps are for the individual attacks in the Attack, an attack isn't step 3. An attack is all of the steps.
In reference to an attack power, yes it is all the steps. In reference to the attack line, no.
You still don't read the power as "range, target, attack, effect, hit, effect".
Sure you do, because that's what the power description says.
Range and target aren't used until you get to an Attack ... or if you prefer, an individual attack within the Attack line.
Not true. Under the Reading a Power appendix (page 214 of player's handbook 3) in the Entries in a Power section for attack it says: "A power's attack entry specifies the ability score you use to make the attack, any special modifiers that apply to the attack roll, and which of the target's defenses you roll against."
That's it. No reference to page 269 pf the PHB 1 and the chart contained there. That is all the attack line in a power means. It doesn't mean target, attack, hit/miss or the 5 step program of making an attack as referenced on page 269. As a matter of fact, that definition of the attack line jibes with what I said earlier, that step 3 of that chart is the attack line. The entry for Attack Roll on page 274 of the PHB 1 (in the 269 chart it is incorrectly listed as 273) spells out the same information. As it says in the book, the chart on 269 of PHB1 is the "basic process."
The Entries in a Power section of PHB3 page 214 (where the Attack definition came from) even says the definitions are "presented in their typical order." (emphasis mine) IOW, that's the order they are typically in when you look at a power, but they may end up in a different order. Specifically the case for Effect as in the Entries in a Power the Effect entry is listed after Miss, but in the sequence section of The Power Format it uses effect as an example saying "an Effect entry might appear above attack information in a power description to indicate that somehting happens before you make an attack."
With what you are saying that would be impossible because, according to you, the Target line is not part of the sequencing which is in direct conflict with pages 214-5 of PHB3. Also, by what you are saying, the example of Effect in the Sequence section could not happen because that is "part of the attack line" (step 2 of the chart) so it would be impossible to Target then Effect then Attack.
So as written, the best interpretation for the power is Attack (including damage if you hit), Effect, Effect.
Again, incorrect. The best interpretation of the power is as it is written. Otherwise you are rewriting the power. And your previous statement about immediate interrupts and reactions is irrelevant because this isn't an issue of using an II or IR power. (I would have included that earlier but my 13 month old was getting into trouble when I was typing.  )
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 24, 2010 - 7:58PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2004
|
I don't see what's wrong with playing the power naively (attack - teleport - hit - effect). Heck, it fits the flavour: (attack, then) "As you pass unseen through dimensional space, you leave in your wake (hit) a thunderous roar that bombards enemies upon your arrival (effect)".
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2010 - 9:21AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Again, incorrect. The best interpretation of the power is as it is written. Otherwise you are rewriting the power.
If we run it with your interpretation, we break a whole host of melee striker and defender powers. Many ranger, rogue, fighter and avenger powers no longer work in their intended manner, because you must meet the range/target requirements before you move to the target to attack it. OTOH, my interpretation almost perfectly matches intent for almost all powers. (At least until the new PHB3 Monk powers came out that have an Effect after the Attack that happens in between the attacks. But those break all interpretations IMO and are probably a specific vs general argument.)
Edit: And as I've implied earlier in this thread, just because I think the rules very clearly are not designed to include the target/range in "orsder" of executeion of a power, that doesn't automatically preclude Hit from being treated as a seperate entity from Attack. I certainly think it was never intended to be seperate, but that doesn't mean I'm right in guessing the intention. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2010 - 9:34AM
#25
|
|
|
Keep in mind that allowing a power to be exceptional does not invalidate the general. It is perfectly reasonable to rule that power X does Y because Z without expanding the scope to include powers A, B and C by "inheritance."
(edit) Albeit is it unfortunate in those cases where Z is not spelled out as the reason since that leads to doubt as to whether it is an intentional exception or a mistake by the author.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2010 - 10:30AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2001
|
I'd have to say that Fitz most likely has it right. If you read that the Hit and Attack lines are separate than the attack auto misses if you teleport out of melee range, you no longer have a valid target for the damage. Unless you want to be really odd and claim that you can attack target A and hit target B.
Read the other way, there is no difference in the effect of the power of having the effect line before or after the hit line. You either do indeed damage an initial target or you damage the initial target. Bloodied effects will need to be adjudicated by the DM, since most arent labled as IR or II to establish an order of finishing the power or setting off the BE.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2010 - 10:38AM
#27
|
|
|
I'd have to say that Fitz most likely has it right. If you read that the Hit and Attack lines are separate than the attack auto misses if you teleport out of melee range, you no longer have a valid target for the damage. Unless you want to be really odd and claim that you can attack target A and hit target B.
Or, more simply, you could say that Dimensional Thunder allows you to damage the target after you've attacked and teleported away because that's what its written to do. Just because Dimensional Thunder lets you do it doesn't me any other power/ability can.
Personally I think you could play it either way. I just don't like this line of reasoning that because nothing else can deal damage after you've moved away, that no power can ever deal damage after you've moved away and that this must be an error and isn't just an exceptional power. A wake, after all, is where you've been, not where you are. 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2010 - 7:21AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2001
|
I'd buy that except that the 'wake' effect attacks the destination targets not the departure area. If its the actual teleport wake that is doing damage than the attack line should be after the effect : teleport anyway.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 14, 2012 - 10:08PM
#29
|
|
|
More than 2 years later... has there been any consensus on this?
For me it doesn't make any sense to have Attack and Hit separated. So I'm guessing it was a typo that the Effect got trapped in between attack and hit...
I haven't find any FAQ or Errata on this power, so the main question remains... shall the teleport happen before or after the attack?
What's the RAI approach most DM's are taking on this?
Cheers,
Bruno
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 4:19PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2003
|
This probably won't ever get fixed because it was in Dragon and not a book, which is why it also has the wrong structure to begin with. The way we ran it in our campaign (before we leveled high enough that the swordmage swapped it out) was that the swordmage teleports first, then attacks, and then the additional effect applies. So basically we played it as if it were written this way, with the first effect before the target or attack lines. This puts it more in line with the structure of some similar powers and seems to be the RAI. Daily  Arcane, Teleportation, Thunder, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon Effect: Teleport a number of squares equal to your Constitution modifier. Target: One creature Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude Hit: 2[W] + Intelligence modifier thunder damage. Effect: Each enemy adjacent to you gains ongoing 5 thunder damage (save ends).
|
|
|
