|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 4:48PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Sure. It works. I win.
You have the will of the warrior, therefore you win. Rematch? You win again. 
Different argument, of course.
Yep, and one I'm willing to let lie in this thread. Regardless, it appears that both you and I and Jay all agree so far that Magic Missile is not an Attack. I assume you feel that neither is Flurry of blows for the same reasons?
Edit: And the fact that it can be used as an RBA doesn't give it either an Attack line or an attack roll, so that has no bearing IMO. (Not directed at Alcestis.)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 4:52PM
#42
|
|
|
I assume you feel that neither is Flurry of blows for the same reasons?
Hadn't thought about it, but yeah, that isn't an attack either. Net benefit: Not effected by the weakened condition. Have to remember that, I have someone switching to a Monk in a game I play in.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 4:56PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
What the developers say after they realize their colossal screw up is of no interest to me.
Intuiting RAI is part of the game.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 5:13PM
#44
|
|
|
What the developers say after they realize their colossal screw up is of no interest to me.
Intuiting RAI is part of the game.
No, understanding RAW is the game. The actual rules. Predicting rules changes is pointless, especially since so many of them are non-sensical (like the MM change, just as a for instance). In the absence of RAW (be it book, FAQ, or errata) it is entirely up to the DM (which is, dun dun dun, the actual rule. The DMG says it.) So I don't need to every worry about RAI, because either I am a player and it isn't up to me, or I am a DM and in the absence of RAW I can do whatever I want. It is part of this great game called D&D. You should play it sometime.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 5:28PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Well, in this case you also have several of the rules-lawyer forum heavies agreeing with CS (and with each other... which hardly ever happens).
Hope you didn't think I was agreeing with CS. I was just picking a pointlessly technical rules debate with Alcestis for no particular reason. I gotta stop doing that. :D
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 5:57PM
#46
|
|
|
Flurry of Blows also says Monk Feature, not Monk Attack, so the lack of an attack roll may not be the only thing keeping it from being an attack. It's not entirely analagous to this situation.
With regards to "used as RBA" - It does not tell us in what regards it is and is not an RBA. Lacking further clarification, I consider it as an RBA in all respects. Bracers of the Perfect Shot would apply, for example. Compare this to the wording of certain other powers, which can be used "in place of" a basic attack. It's clear that Howling Strike, for instance, isn't a basic attack because of this. There's a difference between "used as" or "counts as" as opposed to "use in place of."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 6:02PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
Bracers of the Perfect Shot would apply, for example.
Bracers of the Perfect Shot require that you hit with a RBA. You can't hit with magic missile.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 6:29PM
#48
|
|
|
Bracers of the Perfect Shot require that you hit with a RBA. You can't hit with magic missile.
Pretend we're talking about Eldritch Blast, then, for purposes of thigns that count as an RBA.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 7:01PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2008
|
A lot of recent rules updates have flat-out contradicted CS. I'll repeat my position from a different thread; they are good for simple questions, but for tricky stuff like this there's just no point in invoking them at all.
What constitutes an attack is pretty much up to the DM. There is no clear RAW definition, and anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a tussle.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2010 - 7:44PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
Seems to me that dnd is a game of exceptions, and so it is unreasonable to think that the text on page 269 of the PHB means that nothing that lacks an attack roll can be considered an attack.
For instance, it seems like a tough sell to claim that Commander's Strike (as written) is not an attack. It has an attack line and a hit line. If it is not actually an attack, then what are those lines supposed to mean? The rules say (PHB 57) that the attack line tell you what kind of attack to make and how to resolve it. So unless the line said "none," then it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that you are in fact attacking. (The PHB2 has similar text.)
There are also things like a Wall of Force conjuration, which you can attack and automatically hit. That clearly violates the rules laid out on pg 269, which say that in order to hit, you need to beat a target's defense. According to the conjuration rules (which are not overridden here), the wall has the same defenses as the caster, but here you don't use them. Not a big deal, just another illustration that the general rules for what makes an attack can be overridden.
Whether MM is supposed to be an exception or not isn't so obvious. But the fact that it can be used as an RBA means that whether it is an attack or not, it can be used as an attack. To me, that's enough to conclude that we should treat it as an attack, following the "if it walks like a duck..." logic.
|
|
|
