See, my ranger has twin strikes and has "exotic fighting style" which allows him to shift between twin strikes attacks. If I end up one square short of being able to hit a target after a move, can I do an attack on empty air, then shift to within range of the target and attack again with my second attack?
Bag of Rats rule. You don't get any kicker effects out of a power unless you use it on a legitimate threat.
OK, here's the "bag o' rats" rule from the DMG: "When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."
In this case the feat does not rely on hitting a target. So I can see how it might be interpreted to apply, but as written this does not seem that it would apply to twin strikes and Exotic Fighting Style striking at empty air.
I suppose it can be opposed on the pure basis of "cheese" but I can't agree that the BoR "RAW" applies here.
Is the air a meaningful threat to your party?
The "meaningful threat" part of it was referring to powers or effects that require actually hitting something, as I explained above. That was the whole reason for me posting the actual text of the "bag of rats" rule. Twin Strikes and Exotic Fighting style are not based on "hitting" anything, so that does not apply as I understand RAW.
Don't both attacks of twin strike occur at the same time?
Not if you read the "Exotic Fighting Style" feat which says you shift between attacks, as I explained above.
I come to that conclusion because the feat relies on the player making an attack, not making a hit. Next, on pg 272 of the PHB under the "Choosing Targets" section, it states that you can target a square instead of an enemy.
I don't think it was the original intention of those rules to be able to do that but I couldn't make a strong arguement against it unless I'm missing a rule somewhere.
From a role play perspective I could argue this make sense. The Exotic Fighting style is a sort of melee dance effect where you gain the shift because you're allowing an attack's momentum to shift you a square. So it makes sense as fluff.
From a rules perspective I agree that was probably not the intention, but the question is how much of an exploit is this? All it does is allow me to make one of two twin strikes melee attacks when I could have attacked twice with a ranged weapon easily. I don't see it as a major advantage in DPR, but I do see it as an interesting tactical maneuver.
I may just try it in our next session to see if it blows the DM's mind. I'll probably actually lose some DPR, but it might provide some tactical positioning advantage... Plus it's sorta cool.
Is the air a meaningful threat to your party?
The "meaningful threat" part of it was referring to powers or effects that require actually hitting something, as I explained above. That was the whole reason for me posting the actual text of the "bag of rats" rule. Twin Strikes and Exotic Fighting style are not based on "hitting" anything, so that does not apply as I understand RAW.
So, does this mean that as I've only encountered one thing to-date (a lava dragon) in our Tue night 4e game that I even considered a threat, that none of my powers should have been working before or since?
At-lv 4e combat = "Bag-o-Rats.
Can a character attack the empty air?
See, my ranger has twin strikes and has "exotic fighting style" which allows him to shift between twin strikes attacks. If I end up one square short of being able to hit a target after a move, can I do an attack on empty air, then shift to within range of the target and attack again with my second attack?
How big are your battle maps? 60+ squares?
Unless your ranger is only throwing a dagger or such I don't see how this can be a problem.
Most rangers I have Dmed for use a longbow/greatbow with a range of 40/50 squares where as most of my battles are on Gamemastery flip maps or the like and are 24 squares and easily within range.
I realize this is slightly different from the OP's example, but the principle is similar: it's using an effect that doesn't require a hit. And in order to get the benefit of the effect in both of these examples, the attack must be 'wasted' on an auto-miss. Seems fair to me.
PtM
As for attacking the air... the target line does say "creature" and the air does not count unless it's an elemental. If you really need that square of movement just attack yourself and hope it's not a critical.
Is the air a meaningful threat to your party?
The "meaningful threat" part of it was referring to powers or effects that require actually hitting something, as I explained above. That was the whole reason for me posting the actual text of the "bag of rats" rule. Twin Strikes and Exotic Fighting style are not based on "hitting" anything, so that does not apply as I understand RAW.
So, does this mean that as I've only encountered one thing to-date (a lava dragon) in our Tue night 4e game that I even considered a threat, that none of my powers should have been working before or since?
At-lv 4e combat = "Bag-o-Rats.
A meaningful threat is anything that has the potential to cause the character harm...a commoner with a sword is a meaningful threat because if you don't address it, he has a chance to kill you. Just because something isn't as powerful as you doesn't mean it isn't a threat.
How big are your battle maps? 60+ squares?
Unless your ranger is only throwing a dagger or such I don't see how this can be a problem.
Most rangers I have Dmed for use a longbow/greatbow with a range of 40/50 squares where as most of my battles are on Gamemastery flip maps or the like and are 24 squares and easily within range.
I didn't say it was a problem. I was just curious. There are some situations it might be useful, such as moving in to attack a monster with threatening reach. Mostly I was just curious.
Arguing it as RAW, thinly btw, would only matter in the RPGA, and only if you could get the judge to agree. Otherwise if you are curious, ask your DM. Me I would rule that under the spirit of the presented bag of rats rule, which is designed specifically to counter just exactly this type of cheese, no way in hell. My 2 cents.
Fine, you'd rule against it. I wouldn't, I can come up with plausible explanations for why it would work, it provides no significant advantage and it is sorta cool. I like it when my players come up with cool things.
And I think, for reasons stated above, that the bag of rats rule simply doesn't apply here for the rather obvious reason that you don't need a rat to pull it off.
"Targets: One or two creatures"
unless you can convince me you trully belive there is a creature to target in the square then you can not use Twin strike to attack it. Im all for creative ways to use abilities and powers, but this just sounds like a wheel of cheese.
-Nerp
...so you're saying that twin strike can't target an empty square at all? That if you have an invisible enemy that has passed his stealth check, you can't use twin strike to try to find him? This seems excessive. Also incorrect.
Do you normally swing wildly into the air in hopes of "finding" an invisible creature?
On the OP's question, I'd most likely let you do it.
Uh, yes actually. We have used that method to find invisible opponents... It worked once too!
Did you suspect there was an invisible opponent or do you as a matter of course swing weapons around just in case?
1st, we thought there was someone invisible robbing us. Method used unseccessfully. Never found out if someone was there but stuff went missing.
2nd we knew someone was there, they were summoning creatures and casting illusions but we couldn't see them. Method was used again unsuccessfully. Ended up blasting stones to powder and throwing it everywhere to find them.
3rd We saw the opponent dissapear in front of us and were reasonably sure he was still around. Method used and actually worked!
No, we don't randomly, for no reason, swing our weapons in case someone is there. But the OP isn't also randomly swinging his weapon. He is initiating a rehersed movement with an attack, think of it like the first steps of a kata, who cares if no one happens to be where the first swing goes? He wastes one of his attacks for a slight benefit. I'd allow it.
Came up three times.
1st, we thought there was someone invisible robbing us. Method used unseccessfully. Never found out if someone was there but stuff went missing.
2nd we knew someone was there, they were summoning creatures and casting illusions but we couldn't see them. Method was used again unsuccessfully. Ended up blasting stones to powder and throwing it everywhere to find them.
3rd We saw the opponent dissapear in front of us and were reasonably sure he was still around. Method used and actually worked!No, we don't randomly, for no reason, swing our weapons in case someone is there.
Precisely. In all cases the target was the invisible creature, not the air.
But the OP isn't also randomly swinging his weapon.
The OP is not randomly swinging his weapon, but he is violating the intent of the rules: he is trying to gain a benefit contingent uponattacking a target by specifically not attacking a target. In essence doing precisely the opposite of the required condition. Allowing this sets precedent and opens the game up to all manner of similar, and potentially far more problematic, abuses.
He is initiating a rehersed movement with an attack, think of it like the first steps of a kata, who cares if no one happens to be where the first swing goes? He wastes one of his attacks for a slight benefit.
A spurious comparison, and immaterial. The rules require a target. It's really that simple.
I'd allow it.
And I'd not. This difference of opinion is precisely what DMs are for.
.... but then again... my ranger IS targeting one creature, right?
You are allowed to target a square any time you could normally target a creature. See the choosing targets section of the PHB. You don't have to pretend there are invisible creatures there.
Bag-o-rat rule only applies things triggered by hitting targets.
This is no different that using Beacon of Hope (or Otherwind Stride, as someone else pointed out) without using the attack in terms of the BoR rule. The only difference is it has individual targets, and that is covered by the targeting rules.
IMO, balance-wise, it's fine too, you just gave up an attack. I'd allow it as a DM if the player put some time into describing it the first time he did it.
But I'd run in on a point by point basis. to me, it would seem dumb not to allow it, but if it was something like astral seal or recovinger strike.. then i wouldn't allow it. Unless you could attack the exact piece of air that they attacked. >:D
Can a character attack the empty air?
Well, you can target a square you suspect may contain an invisible opponent. Asside from that, the DMG advises not allowing characters to use an attack in the absence of an actual opponent to get some beneficial rider.
See, my ranger has twin strikes and has "exotic fighting style" which allows him to shift between twin strikes attacks. If I end up one square short of being able to hit a target after a move, can I do an attack on empty air, then shift to within range of the target and attack again with my second attack?
In this case, your DM wouldn't be out of line letting you get away with it. For one thing, the benefit is slight - you shift one, there are ranger powers let you shift before or after attacking, and they're all significantly better than half a twin strike, which'd be all you'd be getting out of this. Secondly, there /is/ an actual opponent involved in the attack, you're just only able to get at him with part of it.
But, it's still up to your DM, and he'd be within his rights to let you pull that trick once in awhile, but not allow you to attack nonexistant foes in other circumstances or with other powers.
By the same logic I'd allow the Ranger in question to forego the first Twin Strike attack, shift, and make the second. As a prior poster said, it's not actually that powerful, getting half a Twin Strike. While I agree that sometimes a DM should say 'no', this situation is not important enough to warrant it.
Uh, yes actually. We have used that method to find invisible opponents... It worked once too!
Did you suspect there was an invisible opponent or do you as a matter of course swing weapons around just in case?
I do this all the time. Parking lots, malls... any large open areas, I walk around swinging a large stick in front of me in case of invisible enemies.
In all seriousness, as the general consensus seems to be, it's the DM's call. And on a case-by-case basis, at that.
Can a character attack the empty air?
Well, you can target a square you suspect may contain an invisible opponent. Asside from that, the DMG advises not allowing characters to use an attack in the absence of an actual opponent to get some beneficial rider.
Quote? Because from what I've read, the DMG advises not allowing character to get a beneficial rider from hitting a non-threatening target.
Can a character attack the empty air?
Well, you can target a square you suspect may contain an invisible opponent. Asside from that, the DMG advises not allowing characters to use an attack in the absence of an actual opponent to get some beneficial rider.
Quote? Because from what I've read, the DMG advises not allowing character to get a beneficial rider from hitting a non-threatening target.
...but he's not getting a rider from hitting a target. He's not actually hitting the target in the first place. Nothing about his hitting is generating anything at all. It's an effect, not an on-hit.
...but he's not getting a rider from hitting a target. He's not actually hitting the target in the first place. Nothing about his hitting is generating anything at all. It's an effect, not an on-hit.
Agreed. Which is why I'm asking Tony for a quote. Because I don't think anything in the DMG advises against allowing a player to attack nothing to gain the benefit of an effect. And the PHB specifically allows it.
The phb and dmg both have similar wordings on the subject
phb
"If you want to use a power against an enemy, the enemy must be within the range of your power, and you have to be able to target the enemy. Many powers allow you to target multiple enemies. Each of these enemies must be an eligible target.
When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This
tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location."
dmg
"When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."
However you want to read that is up to your individual groups.
I read that as saying you need a meaningful target to use your powers.
When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy.
Clearly indicates that you CAN do this.
Quote? Because from what I've read, the DMG advises not allowing character to get a beneficial rider from hitting a non-threatening target.
We're thinking of the same bit of the DMG. It is, afterall, advice, not a hard-and-fast rule, and disecting its wording to the degree you seem to be implying hardly strikes me as apropriate in that light.
But, take it as you like - when you're DMing.
When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy.
Clearly indicates that you CAN do this.
Perhaps. In my game, no, you can't attack nothing to gain a beneift from a power, but you can target a square behind someone and 'catch' them in the blast/burst or you can target a square hoping that the creature is still in that square and you roll high enough to actually hit them. That is what the next sentence after the one you quote says to me, "This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location".
Whether it's RAW or not is immaterial to me, it is how we(I) play it.
That is fine, but the sentence you are quoting is an example of when this tactic can be used. It is not the only time it can be used. If you guys want to play it that way thats fine by me, but it is not RAW. Question for you then, would you allow a warlock with Otherwind Stride to use it outside of combat? If so, why or why not?
Yes I would allow it, only once between short rests (5 minutes).
are you saying i cannot use my reaping strike to bust down a door faster than basic melee attacks?
Can an Eladrin not use his fey step to sneak past an open doorway outside of combat?
you can target inanimate objects to deal damage to them, why couldn't you target the floor/wall or space infront of you?
That is fine, but the sentence you are quoting is an example of when this tactic can be used. It is not the only time it can be used. If you guys want to play it that way thats fine by me, but it is not RAW. Question for you then, would you allow a warlock with Otherwind Stride to use it outside of combat? If so, why or why not?
Never said anything about RAW, but I also don't subscribe to others interpretation of what "When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy." means.
As to Otherwind Stride, no I don't allow the use of that outside of combat. It is an Attacking Power, not something some guy can do, cuz it's kewl. If he wants to teleport play as an Eladrin or Shadar Kai.
Same thing as to the OP's question, he has spent a feat and is wasting half of his attack power to be able to shift one square. The rules specifically allow you target a square/object/floor instead of a creature. There could be many tactical reasons for doing this, locating an invisible enemy, breaking something, or starting a move to push your body somewhere else. When I DM I tend to rule in favor of my players to do cool things because they are the main characters. Ranger wants to battle dance go for it, warlock wants to otherwind stride to jump from one rooftop to another, go for. I don't care if someone is attacking them as long as they have a compelling reason to be able to do it. This goes for any class and ability as well and it has encouraged my players to think creatively and come up with some really cool solutions to problems.
Very interesting. I completely disagree with you but interesting none the less. I don't see the difference between Otherwind Stride and Eladrin's Fey Step. Both are abilities designed to be used in combat, but because one has the potential for doing damage it can only be used in combat? This makes no sense to me.
Same thing as to the OP's question, he has spent a feat and is wasting half of his attack power to be able to shift one square. The rules specifically allow you target a square/object/floor instead of a creature. There could be many tactical reasons for doing this, locating an invisible enemy, breaking something, or starting a move to push your body somewhere else. When I DM I tend to rule in favor of my players to do cool things because they are the main characters. Ranger wants to battle dance go for it, warlock wants to otherwind stride to jump from one rooftop to another, go for. I don't care if someone is attacking them as long as they have a compelling reason to be able to do it. This goes for any class and ability as well and it has encouraged my players to think creatively and come up with some really cool solutions to problems.
To me Otherwind Stride is an attacking power that has a movement ability as a rider, Fey Step is a movement power. One is because of race, the other because of a pact made with another entity, but I also put a much greater emphasis on powersources. They actually mean something more than just what feats you have access to in my games.
I too want my players to do cool things, I however do not want them to 'game' the system to do those cool things. I have no problem with a wizard targeting a square behind the orc so he wont have to also hit his paladin buddy., I have no problem with a sorc targeting the last known location of a hidden enemy, I have no problem with an invoker targeting an obstacle hoping to catch a creature as well, I do have problems with Scott shooting an arrow into the air so he can get his ranger to shift a square. When I read pg 272, 281 of the phb and couple that with pg40 of the dmg I interpret that to mean you need a reason to target what you are trying to target, geting the rider effect from a power is not a legitimate reason.
More than one Ranger Exploit grants two or even more attacks, and whilst it makes some sense for the TWF Ranger, a lot of those Powers apply to the Bow Ranger as well. Most Classes have similar Powers and Feetses... Will you allow a Fighter or Wizard, Artificer, Cleric the same sort of Power? Paladins?
What's good for one is good for all. Jayne is right to be skeptical. I know I am.
-Sarena
Quote? Because from what I've read, the DMG advises not allowing character to get a beneficial rider from hitting a non-threatening target.
We're thinking of the same bit of the DMG. It is, afterall, advice, not a hard-and-fast rule, and disecting its wording to the degree you seem to be implying hardly strikes me as apropriate in that light.
But, take it as you like - when you're DMing.
I'll also take it as I like when I'm playing in a RAW setting, such as LFR. Because it *is* an important rule that is very straight forward in it's language, even if it is in the DMG.
Bag-o-Rats, by RAW, only applies to effects that trigger from hitting a target. If the effect doesn't require a hit, then it works fine even if there are no targets for the power.
Combined with the PHB rule that clearly states you may attack an empty square (with melee/ranged attacks), that means that any power which has effects that aren't triggered by a hit can be used for that effect at any time.
I understand DMs might want to run it differently in their home games, because they may feel that it's abusive for some powers. I cringe a little when an Avenger uses his powers that allow him to phase before the attack without actually making an attack. But to universally reverse the BoR rule means that powers such as Beacon of Hope and Otherwind Stride, which attack an area, require targets to trigger their Effects, which IMO is just silly.
Bag of rats rule is to prevent abuse. I don't see this, or really any other effect that occurs whether you hit or not, as being abuse.
Sorry, BB, but I'm afraid I have to go with thhe Bag 'o Rats rule here. Unless you have a reason to believe there's something in the square, even wasting an attack on empty air for a free Shift sounds to me like there's a gigantic Wheel o' Cheese for the surviving rats to nom on.
More than one Ranger Exploit grants two or even more attacks, and whilst it makes some sense for the TWF Ranger, a lot of those Powers apply to the Bow Ranger as well. Most Classes have similar Powers and Feetses... Will you allow a Fighter or Wizard, Artificer, Cleric the same sort of Power? Paladins?
What's good for one is good for all. Jayne is right to be skeptical. I know I am.
-Sarena
You can go with whatever you like, but the fact that there is no "hitting" required has been clearly stated as the reason "bag o rats" doesn't apply. You can extend the CONCEPT of "bag o rats" any way you like, but that's just your interpretation and perogative. As written, as has been explained many times, "bag o' rats" simply does not apply. It's pretty clear. Any DM can rule an way they like on this, but to use "bag o' rats" as your "reason" only indicates you aren't reading it right.
Sorry, BB, but I'm afraid I have to go with thhe Bag 'o Rats rule here. Unless you have a reason to believe there's something in the square, even wasting an attack on empty air for a free Shift sounds to me like there's a gigantic Wheel o' Cheese for the surviving rats to nom on.
More than one Ranger Exploit grants two or even more attacks, and whilst it makes some sense for the TWF Ranger, a lot of those Powers apply to the Bow Ranger as well. Most Classes have similar Powers and Feetses... Will you allow a Fighter or Wizard, Artificer, Cleric the same sort of Power? Paladins?
What's good for one is good for all. Jayne is right to be skeptical. I know I am.
-Sarena
You can go with whatever you like, but the fact that there is no "hitting" required has been clearly stated as the reason "bag o rats" doesn't apply. You can extend the CONCEPT of "bag o rats" any way you like, but that's just your interpretation and perogative. As written, as has been explained many times, "bag o' rats" simply does not apply. It's pretty clear. Any DM can rule an way they like on this, but to use "bag o' rats" as your "reason" only indicates you aren't reading it right.
You can read it however you like, the game leaves it up to the Dm to determine if attacking a square is warranted or not.
You can read it however you like, the game leaves it up to the Dm to determine if attacking a square is warranted or not.
Actually... well, if you're a DM that is all about "whatever I say goes, I don't care about the RAW", then certainly it's up to you as the DM. If you're playing by RAW (and that's what we're discussing here, I think) then you really can't read it "however you like".
Now, while the PHB1 does state that melee and ranged attacks have to target individuals (PHB p.270, "Melee Attack" & "Ranged Attack" ruleboxes) and that close and area attacks target an area and the effect just happens to target the creatures inside the affected squares (PHB p.271, "Close Attack" & "Area Attack" ruleboxes) which renders the "Beacon of Hope"-argument invalid, p.281 ("Targeting what you can't see") specifically states that when you are in combat with a creature that is hidden from you (that you can neither hear nor see) you are allowed to "guess", which means target an empty square with a power.
Just so we're clear here - we're really talking about a "you can't really have an idea its even there" kind of hidden creature here, because the paragraph even specifies that if you HAVE an idea it's there... then it's not completely hidden.
Players can "join combat" - that is, roll initiative - any time they please and switch to combat time (the rulings for initiative do not state that the DM has to tell you to roll it, ergo you can start a combat at any time - say, when you expect the DM to spring an ambush on you). They can always assume that there is a hidden enemy nearby and thus attack any empty square.
Obviously, they'll miss.
...which won't matter, as the player doesn't want to use the on-hit-rider (which rules out the "Bag of rats" theory) but the effect of the power, which occurs regardless of hit or miss.
Now, I don't know about you, but doing this every time a player wants to use the effect of one of her character's powers to have some fleeting roleplaying aid or even waste a perfectly fine standard action to more or less shift an additional square or what have you seems kind of tedious to me. Kinda running counter to any form of logic too, but that may very well just be me indeed - seems awfully strange that the guy who can teleport all over the place and/or shift around like a madman when there are enemies around and in range suddenly can't any longer just because there is no one to attack. What, does he need an audience?
(Having said that, I'd remind the player that he doesn't get his power back until the next short rest, which won't be until after the next encounter. So no "I teleport. I wait 5 minutes. I teleport." But I think that might be a houserule. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, though.)
EDIT: Just came to my mind that someone could argue "then I'll just tell my player that his character wouldn't assume that". If you did that, you'd have some issues that do not pertain to the use of powers. Players control what their characters think/assume/expect/do. Not the DM.
You can read it however you like, the game leaves it up to the Dm to determine if attacking a square is warranted or not.
Sure, but if he does he's overruling RAW. The PHB section on choosing targets (Page 272 or thereabouts) states that you may can to attack a square. It's up to the player to decide if he wants to attack a square. If he does, then he can, by RAW. The DM can always overrule RAW of course.
It would look way cooler if he chucked an off-hand weapon at the same target on the way in though. Nothing like 3 feet of steel getting parried out of the air only to see the blade's twin cutting in now that the target's defense is out of position.
Though I don't know if most DMs would let you blend melee and ranged attacks with a single twin strike. *Shrug* Maybe I'm just too fond of my double hand-axe wielding ranger from days of yore. Ahh the ability to melee or range with the same tool in hand for either.
(Having said that, I'd remind the player that he doesn't get his power back until the next short rest, which won't be until after the next encounter. So no "I teleport. I wait 5 minutes. I teleport." But I think that might be a houserule. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, though.)
I'm pretty sure that's a houserule. PHB page 263 explicitly describes a situation where you'd want to use two short rests in close succession, but contains no hint that you wouldn't be allowed to.
Unlike extended rests, which have to be at least 12 hours apart.
You can read it however you like, the game leaves it up to the Dm to determine if attacking a square is warranted or not.
Actually... well, if you're a DM that is all about "whatever I say goes, I don't care about the RAW", then certainly it's up to you as the DM. If you're playing by RAW (and that's what we're discussing here, I think) then you really can't read it "however you like"....
Sure, but if he does he's overruling RAW. The PHB section on choosing targets (Page 272 or thereabouts) states that you may can to attack a square. It's up to the player to decide if he wants to attack a square. If he does, then he can, by RAW. The DM can always overrule RAW of course.
I read it as players cannot hiptoss powers all willy nilly to gain their effects.
ymmv
I read it as players cannot hiptoss powers all willy nilly to gain their effects.
ymmv
Then you are adding to what the text actually says, and has been mentioned already, not playing by the rules as they stand. We get that it is a houserule you impliment and thats cool for your games. But if you go by RAW then there is nothing stopping a player from targeting a square to get a shift, or teleporting with an effect rider that doesn't require a hit. The text is pretty clear cut on this and specifies exactly when the bag-o-rats rule applies, that is only when a power has an effect that happens on a hit.
Personally I don't see the point in telling a player that they can't do something simply because there are no enemies there. Why does the ranger's combat form stop working? Why can the warlock not teleport? Why can the happy hippo not smile!? (randomness when I'm waaaay too tired, sorry if the joke isn't funny
) It is limiting player's ability to be creative for no real reason.(Having said that, I'd remind the player that he doesn't get his power back until the next short rest, which won't be until after the next encounter. So no "I teleport. I wait 5 minutes. I teleport." But I think that might be a houserule. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, though.)
I'm pretty sure that's a houserule. PHB page 263 explicitly describes a situation where you'd want to use two short rests in close succession, but contains no hint that you wouldn't be allowed to.
Unlike extended rests, which have to be at least 12 hours apart.
Yep, that's a houserule. It's not really relevant to the topic at hand though, thats why I put it in parentheses. ;)
The argument on the RAW side of this seems to completely ignore that this very scenario is in fact what the bag of rats rule and the legitimate targets segment of the PHB are trying to address. The rest is just insane amounts of ruleslawyering the language to make thin arguments. Regrettably, this kind of overreaching interpretation seems supported on these forums by WoTC who is very reticent to step in and make clarifications.
Unfortunately, everything written requires interpertation, and the writer assumes the most reasonable interpretations to be applied, however, as ruleslawyers have shown, that isn't nearly always the case. I don't know about anyone else, but I would prefer to apply some modicum of common sense in these situations, looking at design intent and the rule as written, rather than eventually forcing gaming companies to release books that are as dry as day old toast and written in legalese so as to avoid deliberate misinterpretations of the rules as written. My 2 cents.
I still go with the bag o rats rule here. Simply because the intent seems fairly clear, and the RAW argument more or less relies simply on the fact that they gave a general rule of thumb instead of calling out every possible scenario under the sun, which is horribly unreralistic of an expectation. The game cannot by virtue of space limitations have covered everything in the world, the english language isn't precise enough, and the cost and space for the book would be prohibitive. the argument on the RAW side of this seems to completely ignore that this very scenario is in fact what the bag of rats rule and the legitimate targets segment of the PHB are trying to address. The rest is just insane amounts of ruleslawyering the language to make a thin argument. Regrettably, this kind of overreaching interpretation seems supported on these forums by WoTC who is very reticent to make clarifications. It seems ludicrous to me though how the ruleslawyers will argue that "this is RAW because in this scenario there was no rats harmed so it doesn't apply, and since I am not actually hitting anything, there isn't a target either"...stupid and intentionally obtuse with regards to obvious intent. I'm out.
So, let me sum this up... you disagree that the RAW explicitly states that you can attack an empty square (which it, just to reiterate, does) because you think that the English language is insufficient? So you basically argue that just because it doesn't have a box stating "Empty squares are valid individual targets though attacking them causes the attack to miss, not triggering rider effects only effects not depending on a successful hit" it doesn't work? I'm sorry, but a reading of intent does not work that way.
Also, the "Bag of Rats"-rule is the general rule of triggering (or, in DnD4 not triggering) a rider effect of an attack by attacking a target not posing any threat. So, your last ruleslawyering example doesn't really make sense.
EDIT: Quoting DS here before he edited.
I read it as players cannot hiptoss powers all willy nilly to gain their effects.
ymmv
You read what as that? I was commenting on the targeting of empty squares rule, which is explicitly allowed in the PHB and doesn't in any way imply that players can't gain effects when doing so. The Legitimate Targets rule can be read to imply the hiptossing of powers all willy nilly shouldn't be allowed to gain effects ... but only if you intentionally ignore the fact that it only addresses hitting targets.
I'll address the same to DS. It's not rules lawyering of a failure in english. They were incredibly specific in the way they addressed the issues in each rule. One straight up says that you can target empty squares. The other clearly states you can't gain beneficial riders when you hit illegitimate targets.
If they had wanted to, they could have easily changed the meanings of both rules with a small change in the language. The first could have said you can target squares "when you suspect there is an invisible creature there", as opposed to being the absolute statement it is now. The Legitimate Targets rule could have easily said "when you attack" a target that isn't a threat "or no target at all". {Note: "when you attack" would be sufficient, but "or no target at all" would make it absolutely clear.}
I read it as players cannot hiptoss powers all willy nilly to gain their effects.
ymmv
If they had wanted to, they could have easily changed the meanings of both rules with a small change in the language. The first could have said you can target squares "when you suspect there is an invisible creature there", as opposed to being the absolute statement it is now. The Legitimate Targets rule could have easily said "when you attack" a target that isn't a threat "or no target at all". {Note: "when you attack" would be sufficient, but "or no target at all" would make it absolutely clear.}
You mean like
"When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location." page272phb
It's already there. The difference is it's two sentences instead of the one sentence you are wanting.
I read the relevant sections in both phb and dmg and came to a conclusion.
I read the relevant sections in both phb and dmg and came to a conclusion.
Then personally I think you came to the wrong one, although you certainly have the right to house-rule based on it. The reason I think that is the PHB quote first says that attacking a square is allowed, then gives you a helpful hint as to a time it is useful. As opposed to what I presented, which would *only* allow it if you thought there was an invisible creature there.
Similarly on the legitimate targets rule. People seem to think that it was designed to prevent anything from happening if there isn't a legitimate target. But it specifically addresses itself to hitting legitimate targets, it doesn't care about Effects.
I read the relevant sections in both phb and dmg and came to a conclusion.
Then personally I think you came to the wrong one, although you certainly have the right to house-rule based on it. The reason I think that is the PHB quote first says that attacking a square is allowed, then gives you a helpful hint as to a time it is useful. As opposed to what I presented, which would *only* allow it if you thought there was an invisible creature there.
Similarly on the legitimate targets rule. People seem to think that it was designed to prevent anything from happening if there isn't a legitimate target. But it specifically addresses itself to hitting legitimate targets, it doesn't care about Effects.
I find it strange that since I have a different reading of the rule, what I read is a house-rule only because it differs from your opinion.
Like I said I read all the relevant information on the subject and came to a different conclusion, whether you think that is right or wrong is immaterial. The wordings give enough leeway to make the interpretations valid for either side.
However, I find in this case that this is a loop hole (in my opinion) but then again I'm not a designer.
I would not house rule against this because the rulebook provides concessions for this to happen IN OTHER INSTANCES and as such since there is nothing that says you CANNOT attack an empty square, but examples where you can, I'd have to rule in favor of that (grudgingly)
I find it strange that since I have a different reading of the rule, what I read is a house-rule only because it differs from your opinion.
It is a house-rule because your conclusion isn't what the rules actually say. Thus, you are house-ruling them, although it sounds like your conclusion is based on what you think they were intended to mean.
Changing RAW because of what you think is RAI means you have a house-rule.
If you are trying to claim that your conclusion is what the rules actually say, then I'm afraid you are wrong. The wording in each of the two rules is clear, so RAW is very clear. If they weren't intended to say what they actually say (based on context of surrounding non-binding text), then that's a RAI determination
Here's where I am ending up.
As a player I can see that this might be a useful tactic to attempt. Not a common situation, but not a completely bizarre situation either. So I can see times I might request it.
As a DM my only real questions are:
1. Is it cool? I think the answer is "sort of, yeah."
2. Does it exhibit original thinking from the player? "Yes."
3. Does it violate any RAW? "No."
4. Is it cheesy? "I think not."
5. Can I use it for NPCs? "Why not?"
6. Does it provide incentive for other players to be inventive? "Probably."
Conclusion: "Go for it!"
I find it strange that since I have a different reading of the rule, what I read is a house-rule only because it differs from your opinion.
It is a house-rule because your conclusion isn't what the rules actually say. Thus, you are house-ruling them, although it sounds like your conclusion is based on what you think they were intended to mean.
Changing RAW because of what you think is RAI means you have a house-rule.
If you are trying to claim that your conclusion is what the rules actually say, then I'm afraid you are wrong. The wording in each of the two rules is clear, so RAW is very clear. If they weren't intended to say what they actually say (based on context of surrounding non-binding text), then that's a RAI determination
Well that is your interpretation.
I like to read the whole text, not pick apart the whole text to get what I want.
Since my original question was whether this seemed a reasonable interpretation of the rules, and there are at least half of the responders saying that it is, then I will conclude that it is, in fact, a reasonable interpretation of the rules.
Math is hilarious.
I like to read the whole text, not pick apart the whole text to get what I want.
Nothing in the whole text explicitly states that you are restricted in any way from attacking a square, nor that you do not get the Effect line of a power when you don't target a creature (let alone a legitimate target).
If you can find a rule that explicitly states either, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you are arguing a RAI argument, not a RAW argument.
As a DM my only real questions are:
1. Is it cool? I think the answer is "sort of, yeah."
2. Does it exhibit original thinking from the player? "Yes."
3. Does it violate any RAW? "No."
4. Is it cheesy? "I think not."
5. Can I use it for NPCs? "Why not?"
6. Does it provide incentive for other players to be inventive? "Probably."
Conclusion: "Go for it!"
Personally I think (in a home game) 1 & 4 are the most important, followed by 2/6. Also "will it slow down game play" is another one I like to consider. That includes by causing arguments, so if you are the DM make sure you let the players know the way you are going to rule in advance.
I like to read the whole text, not pick apart the whole text to get what I want.
Nothing in the whole text explicitly states that you are restricted in any way from attacking a square, nor that you do not get the Effect line of a power when you don't target a creature (let alone a legitimate target).
If you can find a rule that explicitly states either, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you are arguing a RAI argument, not a RAW argument.
It doesn't explicitly say you can either. It gives a circumstance where attacking an unoccupied(?) square is useful.
Since my original question was whether this seemed a reasonable interpretation of the rules, and there are at least half of the responders saying that it is, then I will conclude that it is, in fact, a reasonable interpretation of the rules.
Math is hilarious.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Let's say the question is "Is Global Warming real?" Current public opinion polls are right at about 50% yes, 50% no. Are you saying that because 50% agree with the contention, therefore Global Warming is NOT a reasonable interpretation? Well, 50% don't agree, so by that logic a lack of Global Warming is also NOT a reasonable interpretation. So if I am reading your snark correctly, you are saying that if there is a 50/50 split on a subject NEITHER can be a "reasonable interpretation."
That's hilarious.
It doesn't explicitly say you can either. It gives a circumstance where attacking an unoccupied(?) square is useful.
It explicitly says you can target a square instead of a creature. "When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy." It doesn't place any explicit limitations on that statement. I don't even see an implicit limitation in the following sentence, which is the sentence that gives a circumstance in which the explicit rule is useful, although obviously you disagree with me on that. The legitimate targets rule explicitly places a limitation on benefits gained based on if you hit a target, but places no such limitation on benefits gained that aren't based on hitting a target.