Defensive: When you use a ranged or area power with the defensive keyword while adjacent to an enemy, you do not invoke opportunity attacks.
(Or her/she if you're a female girl
).(Or her/she if you're a female girl
As opposed to a non-female girl?
As opposed to a non-female girl?
It can happen... *shudder*
As opposed to a non-female girl?
Yes. I thought this was a simple concept to grasp. You are either a female girl, or you're a non-female girl? Has someone invented new terminology behind my back? :P
...and what about the attacks that are similar to "close burst 5, 3 creatures in burst" for a targeting line? How do you propose to have those powers benefit from this keyword addition, or do you propose that these powers be left as-is and create a double standard?
Just because you would have an easier time with it being a keyword does not mean that the general player would as well.
Yeah... switch it to a keyword instead of just leaving as is where it fits just fine within the arleady established rules... we totally need the resulting threads caused by confusion when a player thinks that it is a regular burst or blast and the DM tells them otherwise. (see the threads regarding the topic of how long Stances and Rages last.)
...and what about the attacks that are similar to "close burst 5, 3 creatures in burst" for a targeting line? How do you propose to have those powers benefit from this keyword addition, or do you propose that these powers be left as-is and create a double standard?
Just because you would have an easier time with it being a keyword does not mean that the general player would as well.
Those powers would be handled exactly the same way ranged powers with multiple targets are handled - "ranged 5; one, two or three targets". They would just use the "defensive" keyword. Right now, the -only- reason that powers are worded "Close burst 5; one creature in burst" is to avoid triggering opportunity attacks.
I'm not sure what you mean by "we totally need the resulting threads caused by confusion when a player thinks that it is a regular burst or blast and the DM tells them otherwise." If the defensive keyword were implemented, the attacks in question would never be called bursts again. They'd be called ranged attacks with the defensive keyword.
I do definitely agree that having keywords that change the functionality of a power - albeit in a minor way - does add complexity, but the tradeoff can be worth it. (And they haven't been shy about adding keywords - Martial Power added at least three, and PHB2 added several as well.) Right now, the template for ranged powers that don't provoke is an awkward hack; a simple keyword addition would allow them a cleaner template.
Those powers would be handled exactly the same way ranged powers with multiple targets are handled - "ranged 5; one, two or three targets". They would just use the "defensive" keyword. Right now, the -only- reason that powers are worded "Close burst 5; one creature in burst" is to avoid triggering opportunity attacks.
It would affect marked attackers as well. Close burst 5 attacks that attack multiple creatures including the marker will not incur the -2 attack penalty. A ranged 5 attack that targets the marker and other targets will incur the -2 penalty to the other targets.
I do definitely agree that having keywords that change the functionality of a power - albeit in a minor way - does add complexity, but the tradeoff can be worth it. (And they haven't been shy about adding keywords - Martial Power added at least three, and PHB2 added several as well.) Right now, the template for ranged powers that don't provoke is an awkward hack; a simple keyword addition would allow them a cleaner template.
It adds complexity in one way and removes it in another way. It seems that defensive is designed to work with the ranged keyword only. Also, ranged and ranged defensive is similar where as ranged and close burst are quite different and more easily distinguisable. Players may miss the word defensive when reading the powers. There are a lot of keywords on some powers. Most of the time I may miss certain ones like damage type when it matters.
I think that when the burst and blast rules were originally written, they expected players to actually read the rules. As we all know, not everyone is going to read the rules and know the details. If you don't read the part that says, "A close attack’s area of effect and targets are specified in its power description," you would assume it affects everything even though some powers affect only allies while others affect all creatures. I taught my group the 4E rules and half of them don't read the PH all the way through.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the close blast powers because I check to see if it affects all creatures or not. If it affects only one, then I know.
Has anyone actually played a close burst power with target of one creature in error affecting all targets? It sounds like players just don't like reading "close burst target 1 creature" and not misreading it as "close burst target all creatures."
It would affect marked attackers as well. Close burst 5 attacks that attack multiple creatures including the marker will not incur the -2 attack penalty. A ranged 5 attack that targets the marker and other targets will incur the -2 penalty to the other targets.
This sounds wrong to me. The attack never targeted the marker (it only targets that one creature), so it can't really be said to have "included" the marker, and thus should incur the penalty, just like a ranged attack.
There already is a keyword to describe powers that don't provoke OAs. It's either 'Close' or 'Melee'.
But close hits multiple targets and melee hits targets next to you. What if you want to hit a single target that's outside your melee reach w/o provoking an OA?
But close hits multiple targets and melee hits targets next to you. What if you want to hit a single target that's outside your melee reach w/o provoking an OA?
Close burst X. Then look at the target line. Close do not necessarily hit multiple targets. Even if it does hit multiple targets, you still have to look at the target line to see which multiple targets it may hit. Some close attacks hit all creatures, some hit enemies only and some hit only one creature.
Close burst X. Then look at the target line. Close do not necessarily hit multiple targets. Even if it does hit multiple targets, you still have to look at the target line to see which multiple targets it may hit. Some close attacks hit all creatures, some hit enemies only and some hit only one creature.
This argument seems to say "All you have to do is READ to understand the power!"
Well, this argument doesn't really work, because you would still have to read for Defensive. But at least, once the "Defensive" keyword is in the D&D consciousness, we'll KNOW to look for it, just as we KNOW now to look for a target line with bursts.
However, looking for a target line for bursts is less intuitive than looking for defensive on ranged, meaning that, given an equal amount of "knowing to look for it" in both cases, Defensive would work out better.
We're looking for the MOST intuitive playstyle possible.
As for instances where this causes trouble? I'm playing a sorcerer now. Every other time I load up the CB to look up new powers, I'm assaulted with close bursts that effect one or two or three targets. I notice that sorcerer is the primary victim of this sort of close burst confusion, though it exists elsewhere.
If we could start 4E over, I would prefer things like Healing Word and the sorcerer powers to simply be 'ranged 10; defensive keyword; three targets'. I find it would be more intuitive.
And it's not too late. The philosophy of 4E so far is 'we're not making a 4.5--but we will update the rules as we go if they need simplification or streamlining'.
Well, this is one HUGE kludge: the designers build ranged attack after ranged attack after ranged attack, and instead of saying "This attack does not invoke opportunity attacks" in a simple keyword--or even in the Special: line--they write "Close burst 10" and "Target: One creature in burst."
That says 'kludge' to me. And we're coming on the PHB3--I just think the PHB3 should introduce the Defensive mechanic, before we get so far into the edition that this kludge is completely irreversible.
One line details range/area.
One line details targets.
You'd need to read both regardless.
"Defensive" has been used for weapons already and using it in a different way for powers would cause a lot of confusion.
"Defensive" can have negative connotations. I wouldn't want my Bravura warlord to have to use a "defensive" power to heal his allies. Lame.
Maybe it's the word choice I object to the most, but there's also an element of "if it's not broken, don't fix it." I find close bursts adequately intuitive. If they'd done it your way from the beginning, I imagine people would be asking why they didn't just do away with "defensive" powers and use bursts. The game definitely needs the "Close burst" concept, and I'm actually proud of the designers that they managed to repurpose it in this way, instead of adding extra keywords.
Now, if they could just manage to remember that they already have a keyword that means "This weapon can be wielded one-/two-handed by a small character" instead of using a footnote which, I notice, hasn't been added to the Compendium....
Making this change would affect other things as well. For example, in a Close attack the target doesn't get Concealment bonuses.
That in and of itself does end up with some strange powers, like Blinding Barrage (rogue daily 1). The flavour is clearly the rogue throwing a single dagger at each enemy, but you get strange (flavour) results when dealing with swarms, invisible creatures, and other targets that treat 'close blast' as area saturation.
Conversely, if you said 'ranged 3 | defensive | all targets in range' you've promoted it to a burst rather than blast area.
Now, if they could just manage to remember that they already have a keyword that means "This weapon can be wielded one-/two-handed by a small character" instead of using a footnote which, I notice, hasn't been added to the Compendium....
Amen.
Edit:
Nom, I agree, there are some powers that suffer currently from the Close Burst designation.
This argument seems to say "All you have to do is READ to understand the power!"
Well, this argument doesn't really work, because you would still have to read for Defensive. But at least, once the "Defensive" keyword is in the D&D consciousness, we'll KNOW to look for it, just as we KNOW now to look for a target line with bursts.
However, looking for a target line for bursts is less intuitive than looking for defensive on ranged, meaning that, given an equal amount of "knowing to look for it" in both cases, Defensive would work out better.
We're looking for the MOST intuitive playstyle possible.
As for instances where this causes trouble? I'm playing a sorcerer now. Every other time I load up the CB to look up new powers, I'm assaulted with close bursts that effect one or two or three targets. I notice that sorcerer is the primary victim of this sort of close burst confusion, though it exists elsewhere.
If we could start 4E over, I would prefer things like Healing Word and the sorcerer powers to simply be 'ranged 10; defensive keyword; three targets'. I find it would be more intuitive.
And it's not too late. The philosophy of 4E so far is 'we're not making a 4.5--but we will update the rules as we go if they need simplification or streamlining'.
Well, this is one HUGE kludge: the designers build ranged attack after ranged attack after ranged attack, and instead of saying "This attack does not invoke opportunity attacks" in a simple keyword--or even in the Special: line--they write "Close burst 10" and "Target: One creature in burst."
That says 'kludge' to me. And we're coming on the PHB3--I just think the PHB3 should introduce the Defensive mechanic, before we get so far into the edition that this kludge is completely irreversible.
You're always going to have to look at the target line. Even for ranged powers. If you add the defensive keyword, you will have to look at the target line and for the defensive keyword. There are many ranged powers that affect multiple targets. If you are always looking at the target line anyway for all of your powers, you should be able to notice exactly what the targets are for that close burst or close blast power.
If you add the defensive keyword, you will end up having to look for that defensive keyword whether the attack is melee, ranged, close or area. I'm not entirely convinced that adding the defensive keyword is necessarily going to make it easier. If anything, it is another item that players have to look for.
That in and of itself does end up with some strange powers, like Blinding Barrage (rogue daily 1). The flavour is clearly the rogue throwing a single dagger at each enemy, but you get strange (flavour) results when dealing with swarms, invisible creatures, and other targets that treat 'close blast' as area saturation.
Conversely, if you said 'ranged 3 | defensive | all targets in range' you've promoted it to a burst rather than blast area.
Regarding Blinding Barrage, the target line says "each enemy in blast you can see" so it doesn't really mess up the flavor for invisible creatures being in the blast. Attacks with that kind of flavor usually have that in their target line. Again, it comes down to reading.
Another thing it would change is the damage for close attacks since they use the same damage roll for all targets and ranged attacks roll damage separately for each target.
Bottom line, I don't think it should be changed and I'm not worried about it ever happening.
The problem is with close BURSTS, x targets... not close blasts, ALL targets...
Another thing it would change is the damage for close attacks since they use the same damage roll for all targets and ranged attacks roll damage separately for each target.
Uhm.. but... think about it for just a second...
If this keyword would be relevant only to close bursts that attack one or two targets...
In the case of two targets, I'd much rather have a pair of die rolls, so that I don't end up with minimum damage on both. The entire purpose of having a single damage die is because when you have 8 or 9 (if not more!) enemies being hit, it's tedious to roll all that dice. But this proposed keyword only would come into play with close burst powers that attack ONE or TWO creatures--in which case, multiple damage die rolls is PREFERABLE. Not that most of these powers are even attacks; they're healing spells, or utilities, or the like. Damage dice doesn't come into the matter in 90% of the cases this would effect.
In the case of close bursts that hit one target, YOUR POINT IT DOESN'T MATTER because there's only one damage roll _ANYWAY_.
This isn't a thread saying 'let's revise the mechanics of close burst (and somehow, people got to thinking, close blasts? I dunno) to be ranged attacks!'
This is a thread saying 'if a close burst only attacks a single target or so, why don't we just call it a ranged power with a keyword? It's less convoluted.'
This is a thread saying 'if a close burst only attacks a single target or so, why don't we just call it a ranged power with a keyword? It's less convoluted.'
Is it really that convoluted to look at the target line? Are people really accidentally affecting the wrong number of creatures when using close bursts powers that have 1 creature on the target line?
Is it really that convoluted to look at the target line? Are people really accidentally affecting the wrong number of creatures when using close bursts powers that have 1 creature on the target line?
The problem isn't with DMs or experienced players. The problem is with NEW players, or players who have played for a while but aren't too familiar with this mechanic (say, a fighter, used to close burst 1 attacks, who decides to become a sorcerer, and gets confused; or simply someone who is a really casual player)
And I've had it happen. To me, to my players; we simply don't catch that little caveat, or we catch it after we got really excited for one power only to realize it was essentially a ranged attack versus one target that didn't invoke opportunity attacks.
If it's happened to me, if it's happened to my players... well, I just think that this could be a little more newbie-friendly, if it can even effect someone experienced in the system. And besides... even though it's understandable once you GET it, I simply can't see how someone would see the current system as more intuitive than a simple keyword on ranged attacks; and if we're making 2, 3, or even 4+ more PHBs before 5E... I'd like the system to be simplified in this one area, especially if they're adding in new, more complicated mechanics like psionics.
I'm not saying "This needs to be fixed! Errata!"
I'm saying "Uh, given these two systems, I find my proposal more intuitive, if only slightly; therefore, shouldn't our future of 4E D&D be based on the more intuitive of two options, even if we can't fix the past?"
"Ranged" implies that the PC is carefully sighting up target(s) in the distance and launching an attack, or boon. This makes it easy to understand why a ranged power provokes OAs (the PC has to take his eyes off matters at hand to aim), and why cover, concealment and line of sight matter. A selective close burst implies that the PC doesn't have to consciously line up the target(s); simply thinking or praying about them will do (or maybe, in the case of a warlord, shouting at them).
Ranged defensive also reminds me of the whole "casting on the defensive" concept that WotC worked to eliminate from 4e. I doubt they'd be interested in bringing it back.
Even for a "normal" close blast you have to look for "all enemies/all targets" in the effect line - so adding defensive doesn't get you anything.