Community

The new magic missile is an level 1 attack power, it is a ranged attack, and it has a target.  But it doesn't have an attack line or a hit line. 

Should it count as an attack for, say, popping greater invisibility?  What about for imposing penalties via the rattling keyword (which you can add via the Righteous Fury feat)?  Or triggering a paladin's Divine Challenge damage?

Edit: ---------------

Summary of the thread, as of post #311.  Thanks wrecan!

Thesis: Magic Missile (MM) is not an attack

Target  Defense Argument: The Monster Manual states that "An attack  targets AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will."  MM does not attack any  defense.  Therefore, it is not an attack. 

• Counter: See all counters to the Combat Section  Argument, except the D&E Counter and the "Basic" Counter, and all  associated Rebuttals and Replies.

Attack Line Argument: PHB, page 57, states, "The  “Attack” entry specifies the kind of attack you make and which of the  target’s defenses you check against."   Since MM doesn't have an Attack  line, it is not an attack. 

• Nonexclusive Counter:  This only means there  are multiple kinds of attacks which exist as attacks independent of any  attack line.                      
  • Rebuttal: Since the attack line tells you the  kind of attack you make, a lack of an attack line means there is no type  of attack to make.  I.e., it's not an attack.      
    • Reply: That only means that all powers with  attack lines are attacks, not that all attacks have attack lines.

Combat Section Argument: The Combat Section in the  Players Handbook (PHB) lists the elements of "the basic process" that  "All attacks follow".  These elements are: 1) Attack type, 2) targets,  3) range, 4) an attack roll, 5) target defense, and 6) damage and other  effects.  Since MM no longer requires an attack roll, it is not an  attack.      

• MM3 Counter: Many monster powers inflict  automatic damage.  They have a "Hit" entry, but no attack roll.  The Monster  Manual 3 definition of "Hit" states "This entry describes what  happens to each target that a monster hits with a power's attack."   Since these monster powers have a hit entry, even though no attack  roll, they are attacks.  Thus, powers without an attack roll can be  attacks, notwithstanding the "basic process".  The "basic process"  therefore should not be used as a definition of "attack". 
  • Rebuttal: The preceding paragraph states "A  monster power that has an attack roll is an attack power", not an  attack.                
    • Reply: That it is an attack power does not  preclude it from being an attack.  That sentence does not exclude it  from being an attack.  The next sentence (quoted in Counter) states it  is an attack.  So it is both an attack and an attack power.   (Technically, automatic damage powers with a Hit line are attacks, but  not attack powers.)
• D&E Counter: The sixth element requires one to  "deal damage and apply other effects (page 276)".   Taken literally, this would mean that powers that have an attack type  and attack roll, choose a target, target a defense, and impose an  effect, but not damage (for example, Sleep), would not be an attack.  In  addition, an attack that imposes only damage and no other effects (like  a melee basic attack (MBA)) would not be an attack.  But we know they  are attacks.  Ergo, the "basic process" cannot be used as a definition  of attack.      
  • Rebuttal: Page 276 specifies that the power can  deal damage, have a special effect, or both.
• "Hit" Counter: On PHB, page 273, the PHB clarifies  that "make an attack roll" is only necessary to determine if the power  hits.  But MM automatically hits, so it (and all automatic damage  powers) is an exception to this rule.      
  • Rebuttal: PHB, page 273 only states why you  make an attack roll.  It does not state that automatic damage powers  that don't make attack rolls are still attacks.
• "Most" Counter: PHB p.57 states that "Most Attack  Powers that require you to make an attack roll."  This overrules the  more general definition of an attack.      
  • Rebuttal: "Attack powers" and "Attacks" are  different.
• "Basic" Counter: Because it is a "basic" process,  not all attacks need follow it.                                      
  • Rebuttal: This merely references the fact that  "specific beats general".  A specific exception would need to be made  for MM.  The cited rule explicitly states that "all attacks" use the basic process.  And "All" is pretty clear.
• FoB Counter: This interpretation means Flurry of  Blows (FoB) is not an attack and that seems silly.                                       
  • Rebuttal: Silly as it may seem, FoB is not an  attack, based on the definition above.
• WoF Counter: Wall of Force (WoF) states that it can  be attacked, but it lacks any defense.  Since a target defense is an  element of an attack under this theory, you have a paradox.  The only  way to resolve the paradox is that the "basic process" is not intended  to be a definition of "attack".      
  • Rebuttal: WoF has a defense -- it uses its  creator's defenses.
  • Rebuttal: If the power you employ to attack has a  target defense, it's an attack, even if your target lacks that defense.
  • Rebuttal: To the extent that the WoF is illustative  of any exception to the basic process for combat, it is a specific  exception that does not reference MM, and thus does not change MM's  status as being or not being an attack.

General Counters Applicable to All Arguments

• CS Counter: Customer Service (CS) has stated it  is an attack.                                      
  • Rebuttal: CS is often deemed unreliable.  In  fact they then said that Wall of Fire is not an attack power because it  has no attack roll.  Neither does MM! 
    • Reply: Regardless, for the RPGA, this will  suffice.
• Developer Counter: Developer Greg Bilsand tweeted  that it is an attack.                                      
  • Rebuttal: Until he puts it in an errata it  doesn't count.
  • Rebuttal: His explanation -- equating attacks and  attack powers -- makes no sense.  His tweet was likely hastily written,  as tweets often are.
• FAQ Counter: The PHB FAQ, for Magic Missile (ironically), states,"The initial use of any attack power that has a  target line, an attack  line, or both counts as making an attack."  MM  still has a target line, and is thus a power. 
  • Rebuttal: No substantive rebuttal has yet  been offered.
• Attack Power Counter: MM is an attack by virtue of  being an Attack Power, which has attack right in the name.    
  • Rebuttal: All the Arguments above use specific  language defining "attack".  No specific language states that an attack  power is an attack.  Given that other mechanics with "attack" in the  name (like "attack line" and "attack roll") are not necessarily attacks,  this seems like a big assumption.
  • Rebuttal: On PHB, p.57 it says not all attack  powers have attack rolls and PHB, p.269, 276 say that an attack roll is  needed to attack. Therefore, not all attack powers are attacks.
  • Rebuttal: Many attack powers, such as stances,  walls, etc., would not operate if it were an attack because they would  trigger marks and other effects that they are clearly not intended to  trigger.
• PHB p.270 Counter: PHB p. 270 specifically states  "Shooting a bow or casting a magic missile is a ranged attack."                                       
  • Rebuttal: Ranged Attack" is an attack type.   PHB pg 56 states that having an "attack type" does not make something an  attack.
    
  • Rebuttal: PHB p.270 goes on to explain that a  ranged attack is an attack because it has "an attack roll".  The text on  p.270 was written when MM did have an attack roll.  Now MM has been  errataed so it has no attack roll.  Many powers are errataed without the  errata also changing every other reference to the power.  This is no  different.P.270 is thus errataed.
  • Rebuttal: That is an "explanation", not an  "exception".                                      
    • Reply: Nothing in the rules indicates a  distinction between the two.  And the "basic process" could just as  easily be termed an "explanation" rather than an "exception".
• RBA Counter: MM explicitly states is can be used as  a ranged basic attack (RBA).                                      
  • Rebuttal: "used as an RBA" is not "is an RBA."  RBA is a specific power.  That's why the Barbarian powers were changed. 
    • Reply: That is not why the barbarian powers  were changed.
  • Rebuttal: MM might be considered an attack only  when used as an RBA.                                      
    • Reply: If you are using it as a standard action  in melee, you are using it as an RBA.  Thus, it will always be a RBA,  and always an attack.

Jul 7, 2010 -- 10:52AM, Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:

It's an attack power, but using an attack power does not mean you are making an attack. Using the new magic missile is no different than a fighter activating his rain of steel stance. There is no attack line in the power, therefore you are not making an attack when you use the power, and do not trigger anything that requires making an attack.

I don't see any reason to believe that activating Rain of Steel is not an attack.

Jul 7, 2010 -- 11:03AM, jaelis wrote:

Rain of Steel doesn't have a target, that is one difference.

It is a difference, yes.  It means that Rain of Steel does not attack anyone in particular, but it's still an attack and I still rule it as breaking Greater Invisibility.