Community

Oct 8, 2010 -- 6:55AM, Artoomis wrote:

Oct 7, 2010 -- 5:18PM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

...
Yeah, we probably need the actual quote to really continue the debate.  It's the thing that mentions targeting, which this one doesn't.  ...

You mean, "...using such a power counts as making an attack if the power has a target..." 

Right but it doesn't tell you how to discover "such a power".  For example, Magic Missile doesn't have a special line that says "this power is an attack".  Unlike the PHB MM FAQ, that statement doesn't define it as an attack by it having a target in and of itself, there is a further ambiguous reference to some subset of powers ... except for the specific call out of MM in the statement itself.

Oct 7, 2010 -- 5:21PM, lofgren wrote:

Oct 7, 2010 -- 5:18PM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

My fire and zeal to correct all which is illogically constructed has dropped to a smoldering ember.  I'll try and fan the flames again tomorrow.

Let it burn itself out.  You'll be happier in the long run.  Remember, slavery is freedom.

I've always prefered war is peace myself

Oct 8, 2010 -- 2:30PM, TheyCallMeTomuReborn wrote:

They are referring to attack powers.

There is nothing that indicates this.  It just refers to "some powers" such as Magic Missile.

And that's the whole problem here.  Sometimes an attack is an attack roll.  But other times its an attack power.  But othertimes its just a power, but we don't tell you which ones, which can target an enemy.  And sometimes (but not by the RC rule), it'd doing damage that does it.

Oct 8, 2010 -- 2:55PM, TheyCallMeTomuReborn wrote:

I do admit there's a bit of object confusion due to the commas slapped around, but the context is clear-we're talking about attack powers.

I don't see this clear context.  I see some parts about attack rolls, some about attack powers, and others that don't specifically reference attack power by context.

To be honest, the PHB MM FAQ is far clearer and meaningful than this rule, even if it is more problematic.  About the only thing the RC rule has going for it is the first part: attacks are attack rolls and their effects.  But then it does exactly what I am complaining about: makes the rule unclear and complex (in this case necessarily complex, since other wise MM can't be an attack).

Oct 7, 2010 -- 11:18AM, TheyCallMeTomuReborn wrote:

Oct 7, 2010 -- 10:21AM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

I'm fairly sure the original devs  intended the attack line to be exactly what I say it should be: where  the attack occurs in an attacking power.

The "That's what the original developers want!" line is of no relevance. It requires that the originals somehow be more ... goodish... than new things by virtue of originality.

Well, earlier RAI can often at least illuminate latter RAI (example: it might be useful in say, finding a mistake in a power that was overlooked and never re-written). Not that everyone values RAI, but I certainly may find Fitz's RAI factoid useful later.