Community

Jul 7, 2010 -- 3:06PM, Dragon9 wrote:

So... Magic missle is listed as an attack power, has an attack type, and deals damage.  But, it isn't really an attack, unless it's used as a ranged basic attack in which case it is an attack. 

Page 57: "Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll. The “Attack” entry specifies the kind of attack you make and which of the target’s defenses you check against."

Page 59: "Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required."

Slavish adherence to the "basic process" of an attack isn't good grounds for saying something isn't an attack.  By it's own admission it is the basic process, but that doesn't mean some attacks may not adhere to a different process.  Also by their own admission, some attacks may not require an attack roll.

It's a thin argument even by RAW.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Actually it says "most attack POWERS" require an attack roll...but nowhere does it say that all attack powers are inherently attacks...all the above shows is that there are attack powers that are attacks.

I throw a storm pillar into the middle of an empty field...did I attack anything? Using an attack power does not necessarily involve making an attack, and the opposite is also true as there are some non-attack powers that have attacks in them (Dispel Magic for instance has an attack line but is a utility power). Unless someone finds a rules quote that states "all attack powers are attacks", it's going to be hard to argue that magic missile or any other power without an attack line are considered attacks.

Also, the fact that it can be used as a RBA does not make it an attack. The specific power "ranged basic attack" is an attack, but that does not mean that all things that can be used as RBAs are inherently attacks as well. Instead of attacking, you are just damaging. This part is similar to the "construct" vs. "living construct" argument. Just because their creature type contains the word "construct" does not suddenly grant living constructs all the benefits of that creature type. Similarly, just because something can be used as a ranged basic attack does not automatically imply that it is an attack.

Let me add my 2 coppers.

There is no actual definition of what constitutes an attacvk in the PHB. All we have are the description of what an attack line means, and the steps of an attack. However the steps are not an absolute, because of the 3 basic rules found on page 11 of the PHB.

This means that the only possible source for a definition is the language the rules are written in. English in this case. If it meets the english language definition of an atack, it is an attack. Why? because they did not contradict this definition, and if they want to have a word have a different meaning, then they need to re-define it in terms of the rules. elf is re-defined, Tiefling is defined, attack is not re-defined.

The general rule is that attacks begin with an attack roll.  But the new MM specifically says:

"Special:  If the implement used with this power has an enhancement bonus, add that bonus to the damage.  In addition, you can use this power as a ranged basic attack."

It doesn't say that it replaces an RBA, or that you use MM instead of an RBA.  It says that you can use MM as an RBA.  So anytime I use it, I declare that I'm using it as an RBA.  It' is now an attack.

Jul 7, 2010 -- 4:10PM, Alcestis wrote:

I say it works.

Does this mean you have accepted my wager?