Community

Jul 16, 2010 -- 6:30AM, jaelis wrote:

I should have checked, I was thinking that the warden forms did have a target line in the initial power.  That they don't is, as you say, even a better argument.

They do have an Attack line in the initial power, and are indeed attacks under the FAQ definition.

If you are looking at the Compendium for Forms, it is wrong. It seperates the powers into a power and a sub-power.  But the correct power is only one power, and it contains both a target and an attack line.

Jul 16, 2010 -- 8:07AM, Damon_Tor wrote:

Well, I'll have to check on that while my wife isn't in the room (I'm "at work" right now, and it'd spoil the illusion is if broke out my PHB2 )

That's what you get for working from home while your wife is around. 

The compendium is wrong any time it breaks a power into two sub-powers.  And about a couple of other things (such as Combat Challenge being a power at all).  I've always assumed they do it because it makes it convinient to display in the CB, but the downside is a lot of us use it for actual rules determinations.

This is a running summary of the arguments presented.  Please note I am not taking sides.  I'm just trying to list the arguments, without all the rancor, passive aggressiveness and personal attacks.
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.
• Context Counter: All of the "definitions" of "attack" are specific to the context in which they are published.  None are presented as global definitions of "attack".  There is no game-wide definition of attack, so whether MM is an attack is up to the DM (or CS in the case of the RPGA).
  
• 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: This FAQ entry is presented in the context of MM and powers like Greater Invisibility.  It may or may not apply in any other context.  (This is also now the Context Counter.)
• 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 16, 2010 -- 8:32AM, wrecan wrote:

At any rate, I think the discussion of the import of the FAQ definition of "attack" is more appropriate for CharOp than Rules Q&A.

Not the discussion of the rules import.  CharOp is where you go to figure out how to abuse the new rule.