|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 3:52PM
#241
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
But Fitz, the problem is, your suggestion doesn't reduce the amount of errata needed. All those wizard powers would need to be changed too.
I don't have any problems with large amount of errata. The more errata the better, as long as the system is improved along the way. It's tons of codacils and sub-rules that I'm objecting to. I'd *much* rather have one reasonably simple and complete rule than bend the rule 10 ways from sunday in an attempt to avoid changing some (or even a lot) of powers, and still have it not cover the situation properly.
Also, that's only the case if you insist that auto-damage targeting spells are attacks. :P
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 4:24PM
#242
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2007
|
I agree that errata to powers to make them fit a simple rule is preferable than having complicated rules, all other things being equal. That said, it's better to not need the errata in the first place, imo. I don't really think the current rules are that complicated anyway. Just tick these boxes and it's an attack:
Is it an attack power (if it doesn't say, then ask: does it deal damage)?
Does it have a target or attack line?
Granted, it's a little more complex than your solution, but it's still pretty simple and would require less errata.
I really think that magic missile needs to be an attack, or else it leads to some very weird stuff, as I said before. A half-elf cunning rogue shouldn't be able to stay perma-hidden while blasting away with magic missile.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 5:00PM
#243
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
What about warden forms? Summons? If those are attacks, how do you determine when? That's at least one more rule.
You also haven't added the rule to distinguish between Divine Challenge, Rain of Steel, and Magic Missile. {Rain of Steel is covered if both of your rules are supposed to be answered yes for it to be an attack.}
Note: I *still* disagree with the assumption that just because something does damage to a target, it must be an attack. My suggestion leaves the designers free to make that decision for any given power, yours doesn't.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 5:33PM
#244
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2007
|
What about warden forms?
Where's the problem? The actual attack in a warden form is written as a separate power. The initial use of THAT power is an attack. Any power with "nested" powers is quite easily interpreted.
Summons?
Assuming that you can treat the condensed attack descriptions in the summoning power writeup as having "targets" and "attack lines," then the initial use of the summoning power counts as an attack. If you treat each command as the use of a power, then each command is an attack. The rules could do with some clarification here, but you'd need to similarly clarify your position (is it an attack when you execute the attack line, or when you first use the power, or both?)
You also haven't added the rule to distinguish between Divine Challenge, Rain of Steel, and Magic Missile. {Rain of Steel is covered if both of your rules are supposed to be answered yes for it to be an attack.}
Rain of steel isn't an attack, because it has no attack or target line. Check the PHB3 FAQ. What rule is needed to distinguish divine challenge from magic missile? Divine Challenge deals damage. Therefore, RAW, it is an attack power until an errata is issued. Presumably it will be dealt with some time, hopefully not too far away, by rewording divine challenge.
Note: I *still* disagree with the assumption that just because something does damage to a target, it must be an attack. My suggestion leaves the designers free to make that decision for any given power, yours doesn't.
If it doesn't, then how did they do it for Rain of Steel?
html_removed
I'm not forcing them to making all damage dealing powers into attacks. They could write them up as utility powers, or write them without attack or target lines.
"Attack" matters because many effects end when an attack is made by a party in the combat. Being hidden or having a target charmed by certain effects are two important examples. Many other game elements are similarly restrictive of attacks, e.g. the Timeless Locket.
It seems pretty clear to me (given the way they've worded the FAQ) that the designers didn't want a hidden wizard to be able to use their Timeless Locket to zap their charmed (with an effect such as End to Strife) foe with a magic missile, and for neither the charm nor the hidden status to end. It also seems clear to me that such a state of affairs would be ridiculously broken, even if Wizards was ok with it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 5:36PM
#245
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
What about warden forms?
Where's the problem? The actual attack in a warden form is written as a separate power. The initial use of THAT power is an attack. Any power with "nested" powers is quite easily interpreted.
No it isn't. There are no nested powers. Don't use the Compendium when it's wrong.
So you're going to need a special rule here.
Summons?
Assuming that you can treat the condensed attack descriptions in the summoning power writeup as having "targets" and "attack lines," then the initial use of the summoning power counts as an attack. If you treat each command as the use of a power, then each command is an attack. The rules could do with some clarification here, but you'd need to similarly clarify your position (is it an attack when you execute the attack line, or when you first use the power, or both?)
Okay so that's two more rules so far.
You also haven't added the rule to distinguish between Divine Challenge, Rain of Steel, and Magic Missile. {Rain of Steel is covered if both of your rules are supposed to be answered yes for it to be an attack.}
Rain of steel isn't an attack, because it has no attack or target line. Check the PHB3 FAQ. What rule is needed to distinguish divine challenge from magic missile? Divine Challenge deals damage. Therefore, RAW, it is an attack power until an errata is issued. Presumably it will be dealt with some time, hopefully not too far away, by rewording divine challenge.
Okay so we've got 3 more special rules on top of the two you already had.
Why can't we just have one rule, one which also incidentally indicates *when* in a power's resolution the attack actually occurs, and be done with it? Instead of a mish-mash of special convuluted rules that people can't even agree on?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 5:58PM
#246
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2007
|
That's a hillarious double standard you've got there for your counting method. Right now we have A) the rules in the RC and B) the rules in the PHB FAQ. FAQ 38 apparently needs to be given a liberal spraying with pedant-repellent. This wouldn't be difficult - they'd just have to replace "initial use" with something more sensible, along the exact same lines that you're clearly in favor of when you say "incidentally indicates "when" in a power's resolution the attack actually occurs". Fixing a FAQ is not at all disruptive (unlike removing/replacing text in a published print product) - in fact, even if they don't change FAQ 38 it needs to be added to the Rules Compendium or PHB via an errata - a FAQ should be for clarifications, not entirely new rules. So, that's 1 rule I'm counting so far - the FAQ, edited for clarity and published in an errata. What were the other 2 "rules"? html_removed
Assuming that you can treat the condensed attack descriptions in the summoning power writeup as having "targets" and "attack lines," then the initial use of the summoning power counts as an attack. If you treat each command as the use of a power, then each command is an attack. The rules could do with some clarification here, but you'd need to similarly clarify your position (is it an attack when you execute the attack line, or when you first use the power, or both?)
Apparently this is another rule, according to you.
What were you referring to, the rule about timing? This is the exact same thing as covered above. I'm still counting 1. And if you think this counts as a separate rule then you need to apply that same counting method to your own suggestion.
Lastly, apparently you think that rewording Divine challenge counts as writing a whole new rule. Therefore, to avoid hypocrisy you'd be forced to conclude that all those wizard powers that would need to be rewritten in order to have them continue to function as attacks, also each counts as an individual "new rule." There are half a dozen of them.
Don't want to count rewriting those powers as new "rules"? Then I don't have to either. Incidentally, I think that having to rewrite powers is an inconvenience worth noting, but I don't think it's as much of an inconvenience as rewriting rules.
OK, so we're at 1.
Lastly, you try and add these 3 special rules to the "two I already had." Yet, there isn't really two. One of the rules defines attack and utility powers, and the other one defines attacks. Having a distinction between attack and utility powers is something I'd support independently of this whole attack question.
So we've just got one rule to define attacks.
Both our suggestions really involve one rule. The difference in complexity isn't huge. I just like the way Wizards did it more. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 05, 2010 - 6:21PM
#247
|
|
|
Divine Challenge doesn't need an exception. Flurry of Blows might need to be rewritten but I've always been underwhelmed with it enough that ... who gives a !@#$?
All that needs to happen is that the context of "Deals damage" means "Deals damage as the immediate result of the power against the targeted creature." A power that Slows (save ends) and has an Effect in the area of effect would not be an attack (except that it'd be an attack power with a target line). No conflict. The only conflicts are where we interpret "deals damage" as anything other than "deals damage immediately upon the application of the power."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2010 - 7:54AM
#248
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Here's the rules I'm counting so far:
1) Attack power
2) Targets (exception for rain of steel)
3) does damage
4) but must do damage directly (to except combat challenge)
5) must do damage initially (to cover forms)
6) unless its divine challenge then it can do damage later (to cover divine challenge)
7) summons are attacks once you issue a command (summons)
As opposed to:
1) Attack line = an attack.
Edit: Notice I didn't put in the rules for how you determine if the attack is when you use the power, or use a command, or do the damage, in the complex ruleset. So there are more to come yet. It's already covered in mine of course: the attack line is the attack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2010 - 8:18AM
#249
|
|
|
They're not "exceptions" if they're explicit rules. "Exceptions" means ad hoc things that just don't fit the model. Divine Challenge might count if it weren't for the distinction between immediate damage and circumstantial damage.
It's true that if everything that was an attack needed an attack line, you could get around having a complex rules set, but you'd have to go back and add attack lines to all the powers they want to be attacks. And apparently, they want Magic Missile to be an attack.
The status quo-for whatever reason-is that it's an attack. So we need to figure out why it shouldn't be an attack, not a rant about how the current rules are complicated.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2010 - 8:44AM
#250
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
They're not "exceptions" if they're explicit rules. "Exceptions" means ad hoc things that just don't fit the model. Divine Challenge might count if it weren't for the distinction between immediate damage and circumstantial damage.
I'm not counting "exceptions", I'm counting unnecessary complex components to the rule, including all exceptions.
It's true that if everything that was an attack needed an attack line, you could get around having a complex rules set, but you'd have to go back and add attack lines to all the powers they want to be attacks. And apparently, they want Magic Missile to be an attack.
God forbid that instead of breaking the rules to fit around all the powers that are poorly written, you might have the rule be simple and fix the few powers that are poorly written.
The status quo-for whatever reason-is that it's an attack. So we need to figure out why it shouldn't be an attack, not a rant about how the current rules are complicated.
It's a seperate issue really if MM should be an attack. Either with the terrible current attack rules or the much cleaner ones I proposed when the FAQ was written (and from what I can tell matches what the original design RAI), if its an attack then it needs to be accomodated.
|
|
|
