|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 8:38AM
#1
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
In the context of the rules discussion of whether the errata'ed Magic Missile spell is an attack, someone identified the following statement in the PHB FAQ for the old new magic missile (the important part in red): 38. What happens if I use magic missile while benefiting from a power like greater invisibility? Does it count as an attack and would my invisibility end?
Yes, it does, and yes, it would. The initial use of any attack power that has a target line, an attack line, or both counts as making an attack. Because of this fact, using an attack power like the fighter's rain of steel does not count as making an attack, since the power has neither a target line nor an attack line.
Assuming this rule provides a global definition of "attack" for the game, the goal of this thread is to find ways to abuse this rule with as few questionable rulings as possible. Suggested candidates for abuse are warlord powers that "attack" allies, and monk full discipline powers, and Thundering Armor. But don't limit yourself. Be creative!
Go!
edited to reflect the errata was for the new mm, not the old one
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 9:05AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2006
|
Well with that rule, then a Shadar-Kai with Reaper's Touch could charge with magic missile and benefit from a horned helm, vanguard weapon, and the powerful charge feat, doing a reasonable ammount of auto-damage when charging.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 9:23AM
#3
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
How does any of that exploit the rule that powers with target lines or attack lines are considered "attacks". That just seems like a charge-based build that existed with or without this rule.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 9:32AM
#4
|
|
|
I'm not sure your original post is correct that the FAQ in question referred to the old magic missile -- looks to me like that particular item was added to the FAQ quite recently, almost certainly in response to the post-errata debate over whether the new magic missile was an attack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 9:56AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2006
|
How does any of that exploit the rule that powers with target lines or attack lines are considered "attacks". That just seems like a charge-based build that existed with or without this rule.
Because without MM being considered an attack, it couldn't reasonably be considered a charge attack. But now that it is considered an attack, it would be a charge attack when charging, and therefore benefit from the above items that wouldn't necessarily have applied if it wasn't an attack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 9:56AM
#6
|
|
|
How does any of that exploit the rule that powers with target lines or attack lines are considered "attacks". That just seems like a charge-based build that existed with or without this rule.
It 'exploits' it because in this instance, no d20 attack roll needs to be made to get that extra damage. Essentially, MM lost the ability to crit, but now we can add damage adders to an autohit.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:10PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
In the context of the rules discussion of whether the errata'ed Magic Missile spell is an attack, someone identified the following statement in the PHB FAQ for the old magic missile (the important part in red)
The FAQ isn't for the old magic missile; I checked the FAQ yesterday and it wasn't there, so the entry is around a day old at most and definitely refers to the post-errata magic missile.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:33PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2005
|
It would have been an odd question for a pre-errata Magic Missile, since why would anyone question if it was an attack or not?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 1:28PM
#9
|
|
|
Do monsters have attack powers? If so, there may be monsters that are rendered ineffective by this ruling (because they are invisible until they attack, and target allies). I can't think of any direct examples, though.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 5:24PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
Do monsters have attack powers? If so, there may be monsters that are rendered ineffective by this ruling (because they are invisible until they attack, and target allies). I can't think of any direct examples, though.
Wouldn't work, because the ruling only applies to attack powers. Monsters don't have "attack" powers (or "utility", "feature", or "racial" powers), they just have powers. However, this means that Weapon of the Gods, for instance, is considered an attack, which is just silly.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
