# Cloud of Knives kills minions?



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

Autokill? "A missed attack never damages a minion."

Cloud of Knives, on a miss, is a missed attack. Hence, it does not autokill minion.

Discuss.


----------



## Puggins (Jul 2, 2008)

Certainly.  Except that on the minion's turn it automatically takes damage, meaning it dies.


----------



## Tale (Jul 2, 2008)

I believe there's a distinction between automatic damage and damage-on-miss.

Automatic damage occurs when there's a hit, as well, so those hit take both damage. Damage-on-miss only occurs when there is a miss, so those who are hit do not take it.  Minions are only immune to the second.

I could be wrong.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 2, 2008)

Cloud of daggers deals no damage on a miss.
Hit and miss entries are resolved during the attack.

A zone a minion happens to start its turn in is an entirely unrelated issue.


----------



## Maximillian (Jul 2, 2008)

Tale said:


> I could be wrong.




Luckily, you're not.

Similar to the damage from a Cleave's secondary effect. 
Similar to standing too close to a Wall of Ice.
Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Only _missed_ attacks deal no damage. No attack roll equals no miss.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

"A missed attack never damages a minion."

Not "A minion does not take damage from the 'Miss:' section of powers."

Things like Poison Cloud (or whatever it's called, the 1d10+int) every turn are easier to explain working, if they hit, because a "Missed" attack is an attack that doesn't hit, and once the power hits, it stops being a missed attack.

But Cloud of Knives does not autokill minions.

Edit: Let's make this a bit clearer.

The "Effect" is part of the attack. The attack is a missed attack. Hence, no damage.


----------



## Antioch (Jul 2, 2008)

_Cloud of daggers_ creates a section of difficult terrain that deals Wisdom-modifier (minimum of 1) damage if you start your turn in it, or move through it. So, even if the attack misses the minion, its going to take at least 1 point of damage when it starts anyway.
Its entirely possible for another creature to use a power that allows the creature to move. For example, a kobold wyrmpriest can use _incite faith_ to let him shift 1 square. Since he didnt start his turn there, and didnt enter the square, he'd be fine.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Edit: Let's make this a bit clearer.
> 
> The "Effect" is part of the attack. The attack is a missed attack. Hence, no damage.




Rules for 'Effect' p59. You are incorrect.

It's no big deal, though. Just a minion, and all that.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

Antioch said:


> _Cloud of daggers_ creates a section of difficult terrain that deals Wisdom-modifier (minimum of 1) damage if you start your turn in it, or move through it. So, even if the attack misses the minion, its going to take at least 1 point of damage when it starts anyway.





But if it misses the minion, it does not damage it, as missed attacks never damage minions.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 2, 2008)

Puggins said:


> Certainly.  Except that on the minion's turn it automatically takes damage, meaning it dies.




Unless the Elite Boss of Doom uses his action to grab the minion and pull it out of the clouds before the minion's turn. And we all know _that's_ gonna happen, right? BBEG's are famous for their concern regarding their minions' wellbeing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But Cloud of Knives does not autokill minions.
> 
> Edit: Let's make this a bit clearer.
> 
> The "Effect" is part of the attack. The attack is a missed attack. Hence, no damage.




Corrected that for you.

The secondary damage of Cloud of Daggers is irrelevant to the miss.

It is damage. It kills minions. It is not due to a Miss, it is a damaging effect regardless of hit or miss.

Customer Service has concurred.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> Rules for 'Effect' p59. You are incorrect.




Mind giving me a quote? I'm AFB at the moment.

Customer Service has been known to be wrong before. Can you use Lay on Hands on yourself?


----------



## Caliban (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But if it misses the minion, it does not damage it, as missed attacks never damage minions.




The missed attack did not damage the minion.  The zone effect the minion is in, however,  is not a missed attack.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 2, 2008)

It's a missed ATTACK POWER, but only the initial ATTACK is a missed ATTACK that doesnt damage a minion.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

webrunner said:


> It's a missed ATTACK POWER, but only the initial ATTACK is a missed ATTACK that doesnt damage a minion.




That is a ridiculous definition, but I'm still waiting on that quote about "Effects". Wish I wasn't at work.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Mind giving me a quote? I'm AFB at the moment.




"Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required." -PHB p 59

The attack damage from Cloud of Daggers is completely separate from the damage caused by the one square zone created by it. It is not damage from a miss, it is automatic damage. The spell could be cast on an empty square (not attacking anyone) and the cloud would still be there, and if a minion wandered in, its dead.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

None of that matters. Thanks for the quote, it proves my point.

Here are the premises:

A) Cloud of Knives is an attack.

B) Minions take no damage from a missed attack.

C) The fact that Cloud of Knives creates an effect does not change the fact that it is an attack.

Hence, if Cloud of Knives misses, the minion takes no damage from the Effect, as it is part of a missed attack.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 2, 2008)

Oh, and of course lay on hands works on yourself.
It's a replacement effect.
"you do not get a watch. Instead, the target gets a watch."
If you target yourself, it reads
"you do not get a watch. Instead, you get a watch."



SadisticFishing said:


> None of that matters. Thanks for the quote, it proves my point.
> 
> Here are the premises:
> 
> ...




Hang on, that is exactly the same as cloudkill .. so, according to you, cloudkill doesn't kill minions either?


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

Yeah, I agree. CustServ doesn't though. Well, sometimes it does.

The point of the question was as a response to the whole "CustServ said it works!"

Not if it misses.

If it were just Cloud of Knives, I wouldn't have made the post if Cloud of Knives was the only thing it mattered to


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

That is very curious logic. If it truly offends you, I encourage you to house rule things for your game. A lot of players don't like cloud of daggers anyways, so that will possibly just put a lock on the wizard not taking it, really removing the problem from your game.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> That is very curious logic. If it truly offends you, I encourage you to house rule things for your game. A lot of players don't like cloud of daggers anyways, so that will possibly just put a lock on the wizard not taking it, really removing the problem from your game.




It is not curious at all. It is a straight forward reading of the rules.

My only assumption is that the effect is part of the attack. Which it is.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> None of that matters. Thanks for the quote, it proves my point.
> 
> Here are the premises:
> 
> ...




What if no attack roll is made? And then the Minion wanders in? Then its not a missed attack. 

Or hey, lets say, Wizard Cloud of Daggers Goblin leader succesfully. Then Goblin lead leaves the cloud, and Goblin minion walks in? Does it take damage then? Its not a missed attack, in fact its still a successful attack by your logic. So this kills the minion, but all other applications of the cloud don't?


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 2, 2008)

Effects are not part of attacks.
They happen regardless.


----------



## Oompa (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Mind giving me a quote? I'm AFB at the moment.
> 
> Customer Service has been known to be wrong before. Can you use Lay on Hands on yourself?




Yes you can use lay on hands on yourself.. its target is Creature, and it costs you an HS.. To use it, it costs an surge but as you cannot undo the cost price the surge is lost..

It is indeed an bit weird descriped.. but i think its good.. the paladin is an character that helps others at his own cost..


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> My only assumption is that the effect is part of the attack. Which it is.




No, it's not. The only entries that are relevant to the attack are the "Hit:" and "Miss:" entries. The "Effect:" entry has no relationship to the attack, because it occurs regardless of whether the attack is successful or not. Cloud of Daggers creates a zone (which is not an attack), which automatically deals damage upon one of two conditions (move into the square or start your turn in the square). No hit or miss involved at all in the zone.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> None of that matters. Thanks for the quote, it proves my point.
> 
> Here are the premises:
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what the rules exactly say, but the zone-effect of Cloud of Daggers is an effect that is not tied to the attack roll hit/miss; it is not indented after the "hit" section. I'd say that that's why it still damages the minion - it's not a part of the "miss" section, which minions are immune to damage-wise.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> It is not curious at all. It is a straight forward reading of the rules.
> 
> My only assumption is that the effect is part of the attack. Which it is.





Cloud of Knives is an attack spell. Being an attack spell has nothing to do with hit or miss. The miss portion of minions description is specifically referring to powers that have a miss portion like fireball (miss:half damage)or reaping strike (miss: half str damage). Effect is separate from hit or miss unless otherwise stated.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 2, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> I'd say that that's why it still damages the minion - it's not a part of the "miss" section, which minions are immune to damage-wise.




Well, there is no "Miss:" section under the spell, so the "minions don't take damage from a miss" has absolutely zero bearing on this power at all. It's a non-issue entirely.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Hence, if Cloud of Knives misses, the minion takes no damage from the Effect, as it is part of a missed attack.




So what would happen if you cast Cloud of Knives in an empty spot, and some minion enters and stays in that square?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 2, 2008)

lukelightning said:


> So what would happen if you cast Cloud of Knives in an empty spot, and some minion enters and stays in that square?




The minion dies, because SadisticFishing is reading it completely wrong.


----------



## Oompa (Jul 2, 2008)

*



At-Will




Arcane, Force, Implement

Click to expand...


*


> *Standard Action Area 1 square within 10 squares*
> *Target: Each creature in square*
> *Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex*
> *Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier force damage.*
> ...




When an creature in the square fails the attack roll, it doesnt do any Miss damage.

If the spell is cast in an empty square, and an minion enters it, it takes an minimum of 1 damage, like every character that enters it. For the effect you dont need to make an attack roll.

You only make the attack roll when you cast the spell on an creature..


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> It is not curious at all. It is a straight forward reading of the rules.
> 
> My only assumption is that the effect is part of the attack. Which it is.



So then I suppose Healing/Inspiring Word is an attack which has a chance to miss?  And you can miss with Elven Accuracy too (the power itself, not the reroll it grants - fine distinction)?  And what about Cure Light/Serious Wounds?  I suppose you can miss with those too then, since apparently the "Effect:" clause is part of an attack.  

Examine your logic.  What's the point of having an Effect clause if Hit and Miss already cover all the possibilities?  Whatever follows the Effect: happens regardless of a Hit or Miss, and a dice roll of any kind has no bearing whatsoever on the Effect part of a power, by definition.  Therefore, you cannot "hit" or "miss" with regards to the Effect of a power.  As far as the Effect clause is concerned, there is no attack roll.  It just happens.


----------



## Klaumbaz (Jul 2, 2008)

So, the minion dies before it can do anything 99% of the time (the unholy hand of the BBEG being the exception).

so, the only real difference i can see are abilities that trigger upon death, such as a warlocks Pact boon. wether the fey warlock ports during the wizards turn or during the minions turn. 

What's the big deal?


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 2, 2008)

Mourn said:


> The minion dies, because SadisticFishing is reading it completely wrong.




Actually I think he has a point, although I disagree with his interpretation of the rules. Other powers have the same type of problem, where it's unclear which part of the description is which, and what affects what. For example, the fighter encounter 3 attack Rain of Blows split the forums pretty evenly 50/50 whether it gives 3 attacks or 2+2, and the interpretation comes from whether the secondary attack is an independent thing or a part of the "hit" section. 

I think the PHB is lacking a bit in examples of how things work, and some things could have been explained in a bit more verbose and precise fashion - this is one of those. The OP might not be right, but many others may be making the same conclusions, and those people might not have the benefit of forums like these.


----------



## Doomhawk (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> The "Effect" is part of the attack. The attack is a missed attack. Hence, no damage.




So, if I cast Spiritual Weapon and miss with the first attack, then since it's a missed attack, I can't kill minions with it in subsequent rounds, no matter how long I sustain the power?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 2, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> Other powers have the same type of problem, where it's unclear which part of the description is which, and what affects what.




It's completely clear.

Effect: Happens. Period.
Hit: Only happens on a successful attack.
Miss: Only happens on a failed attack.



> For example, the fighter encounter 3 attack Rain of Blows split the forums pretty evenly 50/50 whether it gives 3 attacks or 2+2, and the interpretation comes from whether the secondary attack is an independent thing or a part of the "hit" section.




Rain of Blows seems pretty clear to me.

You make two attacks against a single target. If you're wielding a light blade, spear, or flail, you get to make an additional attack (note that it doesn't say two attacks in the secondary attack section, like it does in the primary attack section) against the same (or a different) target.



> The OP might not be right, but many others may be making the same conclusions, and those people might not have the benefit of forums like these.




They need to read more carefully, then. It's clear that minions don't take damage on a MISS, and an EFFECT is not a MISS.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 2, 2008)

Doomhawk said:


> So, if I cast Spiritual Weapon and miss with the first attack, then since it's a missed attack, I can't kill minions with it in subsequent rounds, no matter how long I sustain the power?




Ouch!


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 2, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Rain of Blows seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> You make two attacks against a single target. If you're wielding a light blade, spear, or flail, you get to make an additional attack (note that it doesn't say two attacks in the secondary attack section, like it does in the primary attack section) against the same (or a different) target.




Plenty of people disagree with you, though, just read the forums on the topic. And even if you're right, the fact that plenty of people disagree prove my point - there are rules in the books that aren't that intuitive and may be misunderstood no matter how many times you read the RAW. 

I can totally understand why someone would think that Cloud of Daggers does nothing to minions if the attack roll had missed, although the implications would be silly (= if you cast it in an empty square it would do more damage to minions than if you cast it directly on them and missed). If you don't understand how someone could come to that conclusion, then there's nothing I can do to persuade you (nor would there be any point).


----------



## Oompa (Jul 2, 2008)

Its quite simple..

If the attack misses the minion, it does nothing, if it is the minions turn it dies, why? because he starts his turn in the square..

*Any creature that enters the area or starts its turn there takes force damage equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1)..*

So...

When cast and misses, nothing happens and when the minions turn is there, it dies.. 

Only the divine intervention of the BBEG can save the minion...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 2, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> Plenty of people disagree with you, though, just read the forums on the topic.




That's fine. People are wrong all the time.



> And even if you're right, the fact that plenty of people disagree prove my point - there are rules in the books that aren't that intuitive and may be misunderstood no matter how many times you read the RAW.




*Primary Target: One creature
Primary Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks*

One target, two attacks. Clear as day.

*Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade, a spear, or a flail and have Dexterity 15 or higher, make a secondary attack.*

If you're using a particular weapon, you get the secondary attack. Clear as day.



> I can totally understand why someone would think that Cloud of Daggers does nothing to minions if the attack roll had missed, although the implications would be silly (= if you cast it in an empty square it would do more damage to minions than if you cast it directly on them and missed).




The attack does nothing on a miss, hence the reason there is no MISS entry. Thus, the minion-miss rule has zero application in this situation, since there is no benefit to missing.

However, the zone is not an attack in any way, shape, or form. It's a zone that deals automatic damage.



> If you don't understand how someone could come to that conclusion, then there's nothing I can do to persuade you (nor would there be any point).




The only way I could understand someone misinterpreting something so clearly worded in the book is a reading problem.


----------



## Goobermunch (Jul 2, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> What if no attack roll is made? And then the Minion wanders in? Then its not a missed attack.
> 
> Or hey, lets say, Wizard Cloud of Daggers Goblin leader succesfully. Then Goblin lead leaves the cloud, and Goblin minion walks in? Does it take damage then? Its not a missed attack, in fact its still a successful attack by your logic. So this kills the minion, but all other applications of the cloud don't?




Ding ding ding ding ding!

Here's the correct answer.

When interpreting rules, if one interpretation gives an absurd result, and another does not, the preferred interpretation is the latter.

--G


----------



## Nikolai II (Jul 2, 2008)

keterys said:


> That is very curious logic. If it truly offends you, I encourage you to house rule things for your game. A lot of players don't like cloud of daggers anyways, so that will possibly just put a lock on the wizard not taking it, really removing the problem from your game.




That is because Cloud of Daggers looks like a poor spell, until you realize that its balancing feature is that it is a good minion-killer/blocker.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

Yeah, I was personally really surprised that the wizard in my game didn't take CoD - I even pointed out stuff to him.

But, whatever makes you (the player) happy, really. It's a game. Have fun first. Sweat the little stuff second


----------



## Switchback (Jul 2, 2008)

This is one of the sillier things I've read. Cloud of Daggers is obviously _meant_ to kill minions. That is the point of the automatic damage. If it doesn't, no other minions are going to walk in it just for the fun of it.

Apart from that, once *any* creature enters that square, they are automatically hit no matter how tough or agile they are. So why should a minion, whether he was missed or not initially, somehow be able to stand in that square at the start of his turn and not take the default damage? Is he 'Neo' the Kobold? 

This kind of over thinking could lead to all kinds of ridiculous situations. If a minion that is missed by an aoe can avoid CoD's automatic damage, then I suppose he could ignore all manner of other effects, like continuing damage from poison clouds, or the slowing of Icy Terrain, the auto damage of standing next to a Flaming Sphere, etc. It's just silliness.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 2, 2008)

Nikolai II said:


> That is because Cloud of Daggers looks like a poor spell, until you realize that its balancing feature is that it is a good minion-killer/blocker.




Plus it makes chopping potatoes a breeze!


----------



## Cavalorn (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> My only assumption is that the effect is part of the attack. Which it is.




No, the _attack_ and the _effect_ are both parts of the _power._

The effect takes place independently of the attack.


----------



## Nikolai II (Jul 2, 2008)

NorthSaber said:


> I can totally understand why someone would think that Cloud of Daggers does nothing to minions if the attack roll had missed, although the implications would be silly (= if you cast it in an empty square it would do more damage to minions than if you cast it directly on them and missed). If you don't understand how someone could come to that conclusion, then there's nothing I can do to persuade you (nor would there be any point).




Well, the difference would be that by not entering the cloud of daggers they could not die, so it turns from an autokill to a "block area". I actually don't know which is the best way to run it - letting it autokill minions without possibility to escape makes it quite powerful - I might rule that it doesn't damage when one starts a turn in it, but as soon as one enters another square than the one one started in (or one stays in place), one takes damage. (So it can only autokill one minion each turn, by centering on him. All others must be hit, or they get a chance to run away. And if fighter is locking them and marking them, running away might kill them..)


----------



## GoLu (Jul 2, 2008)

Nikolai II said:


> letting it autokill minions without possibility to escape makes it quite powerful




Does it really?  It's a spell that affects a single square.  The wizard uses a turn to autokill a single minion.  That doesn't seem particularly overpowered, given that the wizard could cast a different spell and probably end up killing a lot more minions.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 2, 2008)

Is there a lot of doubt that any other class could use a standard action to kill a minion just about every time as well?  If you are spending your round trying to kill a minion, you probably succeed regardless of class.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2008)

'I spend my turn killing a minion' could almost (but not quite) invoke the rule from GURPs Black Ops (I think) where you get to describe it however you want, no roll required.

'I parry his sword, then disarm it into the air, catch it with my off hand and ram it through his sternum, stepping past him so that he collapses face down behind me'


----------



## Xorn (Jul 2, 2008)

Look, the guy posts an obviously loaded idea, that he had no intention of discussing, before finishing with, "Discuss."

He then proceeded to smash the same eyes-closed interpretation of the rules over and over before stopping.  I'm not going to call it a troll post, but a discussion would have started with a full explanation of their interpretation, not quick, snarky responses that just repeat the same thing over and over.

He got two pages out of it.  Amateur hour compared to the Dagger Mastery warlock posts.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Jul 2, 2008)

Not really. A minion's defenses are such that any given attack against them is looking at about a 50% chance of missing, with some variance either way. They're not intended to be popcorn you can take out in one round unless you've got abilities keyed to autohit- like Cloud of Daggers. Regular attacks will quite regularly miss them, eating your entire turn.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 2, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:


> Not really. A minion's defenses are such that any given attack against them is looking at about a 50% chance of missing, with some variance either way. They're not intended to be popcorn you can take out in one round unless you've got abilities keyed to autohit- like Cloud of Daggers. Regular attacks will quite regularly miss them, eating your entire turn.




Pretty much every class has an at-will power that will let you kill a minion on odds much better than 50%.


----------



## IanB (Jul 2, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:


> Not really. A minion's defenses are such that any given attack against them is looking at about a 50% chance of missing, with some variance either way. They're not intended to be popcorn you can take out in one round unless you've got abilities keyed to autohit- like Cloud of Daggers. Regular attacks will quite regularly miss them, eating your entire turn.




In my experience so far, almost nobody ever 'wastes' their turn on a single target swing against a minion, unless using Cloud of Daggers.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jul 2, 2008)

I would have to rule that the "Cloud of Daggers" damage will not kill a minion.  I have seen people bring up the "Cleave" damage killing a minion.  This is true but the "Cleave" damage is preceded by a HIT.  

The end of the "Minion" description in the MM Pg 282 is why I would rule this way: "However, if a Minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage"

Maybe we will see an errata on this at some point.  But this is just how I look at it.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

Nikolai II said:


> Well, the difference would be that by not entering the cloud of daggers they could not die, so it turns from an autokill to a "block area". I actually don't know which is the best way to run it - letting it autokill minions without possibility to escape makes it quite powerful - I might rule that it doesn't damage when one starts a turn in it, but as soon as one enters another square than the one one started in (or one stays in place), one takes damage. (So it can only autokill one minion each turn, by centering on him. All others must be hit, or they get a chance to run away. And if fighter is locking them and marking them, running away might kill them..)




I'm not sure I 100% understand what your saying.  Are you saying that as soon the minion moves out of the area or stays in place it dies? Because isn't that basically the same thing. Do you want them to have a possible turn first or something?

Regardless, just realize that you are making a house rule, not interpreting the RAW. This may have unintended effects.


----------



## IanB (Jul 2, 2008)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> I would have to rule that the "Cloud of Daggers" damage will not kill a minion.  I have seen people bring up the "Cleave" damage killing a minion.  This is true but the "Cleave" damage is preceded by a HIT.
> 
> The end of the "Minion" description in the MM Pg 282 is why I would rule this way: "However, if a Minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage"
> 
> Maybe we will see an errata on this at some point.  But this is just how I look at it.




So no zone that deals damage will kill minions in your game?

Imagine if there was a power that just created a zone without an attack roll, and the zone was described exactly as the 'effect' field in the cloud of daggers description. Would that kill minions?


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> I would have to rule that the "Cloud of Daggers" damage will not kill a minion. I have seen people bring up the "Cleave" damage killing a minion. This is true but the "Cleave" damage is preceded by a HIT.
> 
> The end of the "Minion" description in the MM Pg 282 is why I would rule this way: "However, if a Minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage"
> 
> Maybe we will see an errata on this at some point. But this is just how I look at it.




Did you read my example earlier in the thread? How will you be handling it when the first target is hit by an attack and a minion wanders into the zone created by the attack? It is then preceded by a hit. Or with things such as firewall or cloudkill that create a larger zone that deals automatic damage.


----------



## Mort_Q (Jul 2, 2008)

> Minion Excerpt
> 
> *Damage from* an attack or from *a source that doesn’t require an attack roll* (such as the paladin’s divine challenge or the fighter’s cleave) also *destroys a minion*. However, if a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.




I'm not sure why people are confused.  The only damage that doesn't drop a minion is the damage listed in the *miss:* section of a power.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

Mort_Q said:


> I'm not sure people are confused.




Thank you MortQ, I knew there had to be an excerpt that explained it in concrete terms but I couldn't find it. Hopefully this will convince people. Although I think the OP has already realized he is wrong, which is why he stopped posting.

Edit: Thank God


----------



## ravenight (Jul 2, 2008)

Mourn said:


> You make two attacks against a single target. If you're wielding a light blade, spear, or flail, you get to make an additional attack (note that it doesn't say two attacks in the secondary attack section, like it does in the primary attack section) against the same (or a different) target.




Except you can actually take up to 4 attacks, assuming you hit with both initial attacks. see below.



Mourn said:


> *Primary Target: One creature
> Primary Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks*
> 
> One target, two attacks. Clear as day.
> ...




The "weapon" section of a power description modifies the immediately preceding "hit" "miss" or "effect" section (see silverstep for example). Therefore, the weapon section of Rain of Blows is a part of the "hit" section, which is applied each time the character hits with an attack roll indicated by the "Primary Attack" section. Thus, for each hit, someone with a light blade, spear or flail and at least 15 Dex gets a secondary attack.

The only reason anyone argues about this is because people think it is overpowered. It isn't unclear at all. If the power allowed two attacks against any targets (like twin strike does) and said "Weapon: If you're wielding a mancatcher, the target is immobilized", no one would argue that you only get to immobilize one target.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jul 2, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> Did you read my example earlier in the thread? How will you be handling it when the first target is hit by an attack and a minion wanders into the zone created by the attack? It is then preceded by a hit. Or with things such as firewall or cloudkill that create a larger zone that deals automatic damage.





Since neither "Firewall" or "Cloud Kill" require a to hit for them to function they are covered under the likes of the Paladins "Divine Challenge"

Now if a Minion was stupid enough to walk into the one square that had the "Cloud of Daggers" in it after it has been in place then I dont see why it would not take the damage.  I just would not give the damage to a Minion that was targeted and remained in the square.


----------



## ravenight (Jul 2, 2008)

That the power has an "Effect" which deals damage does not make it "an attack that would normally deal damage on a miss". In fact, it normally does not deal damage on a miss, it simply leaves behind a zone (regardless of whether any attack rolls hit, miss, or are even rolled), which happens to deal damage without an attack roll. The rules explicitly say that minions are subject to damage of that sort, so they die to CoD.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

You people are reading the wrong thing.

A MISSED ATTACK NEVER KILLS A MINION.

Period, point finale. The Cloud of Knives is an attack. If it misses, it is a missed attack. If it is a missed attack, the "Effect" entry is "damage from a missed attack", as it is Cloud of Knives, which is a missed attack. Minions are immune to damage from missed attacks. Hence, minions are immune to the Effect of a missed Cloud of Knives.

It's simple logic, reading it exactly as it's worded.



Doomhawk said:


> So, if I cast Spiritual Weapon and miss with the first attack, then since it's a missed attack, I can't kill minions with it in subsequent rounds, no matter how long I sustain the power?




Like I said, yes. As soon as it "hits", it stopped being a "missed" attack, as a "missed" attack is defined as "an attack that does not hit".


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

Mithreinmaethor said:
			
		

> Since neither "Firewall" or "Cloud Kill" require a to hit for them to function they are covered under the likes of the Paladins "Divine Challenge"
> 
> Now if a Minion was stupid enough to walk into the one square that had the "Cloud of Daggers" in it after it has been in place then I dont see why it would not take the damage. I just would not give the damage to a Minion that was targeted and remained in the square.




Cloudkill and Cloud of Daggers work IDENTICALLY. Both target an area, attack all enemies in that area for the "Hit" damage, and both leave an Effect(a zone) that deals automatic damage to enemies that start their turn in the area or enter the area. Even the wording is the same. One just has a sustain, deals more damage and has a larger area (which is why its not at will).



SadisticFishing said:


> You people are reading the wrong thing.
> 
> A MISSED ATTACK NEVER KILLS A MINION.
> 
> ...




Once again, an effect is not an attack. There are powers with attacks, powers with attacks and effects, and powers with just effects. 

Please respond to how you will be running the example where cloud of daggers is used to attack an empty square, or succesfully hits and a minion wanders in. There is no non-absurd answer.


----------



## Mort_Q (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> You people are reading the wrong thing.
> 
> A MISSED ATTACK NEVER KILLS A MINION.




But that's not what it says.  

It says:  *... if a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.*

It doesn't take damage from the miss.  Fine.  It still, however, takes damage from the effect if it's still in the zone at the start of its turn.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

The minion dies. Because then the Cloud of Knives is not a missed attack.

This doesn't seem to make sense, but VERY LITTLE about minions does. This is easily fixed, too, as "a minion will not willingly take damage for the team, but standing in the cloud of knives and the taking 3 damage is not enough to make it run away". Because that's what minions are.



Mort_Q said:


> But that's not what it says.
> 
> It says:  *... if a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.*
> 
> It doesn't take damage from the miss.  Fine.  It still, however, takes damage from the effect if it's still in the zone at the start of its turn.




That's not what every minion says though. Specific beats general.


----------



## Switchback (Jul 2, 2008)

It's not the 'miss' that is killing him. It's the auto damage "Hit" that begins on the start of his next turn for that square. 

Using your logic that same minion could endlessly tramp back and forth through that square on his turn, ignoring the knives that no other creature in the game ignores, and not take damage. 

This isn't that hard.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> You people are reading the wrong thing.




I think we disagree on that point.  



> A MISSED ATTACK NEVER KILLS A MINION.
> 
> Period, point finale.




You are defining "attack" far to broadly.   No period.  no point finale.  Sorry.



> The Cloud of Knives is an attack. If it misses, it is a missed attack. If it is a missed attack, the "Effect" entry is "damage from a missed attack", as it is Cloud of Knives, which is a missed attack.




And this is where we disagree with you.   Cloud of Knives is a power.   It is a power that includes and atttack and an effect.   If the attack misses, it does no damage (to anyone, minion or otherwise in this case).   

The effect doesn't care whether the attack misses or not, and neither do the minions.   They take damage because there is no attack involved in the damage caused by the effect zone.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

It is an Attack Power. Hence, it is an attack. Are you saying that the attack powers that don't have an attack (Wall of Fire) are not attacks? Of course they are.



Switchback said:


> It's not the 'miss' that is killing him. It's the auto damage "Hit" that begins on the start of his next turn for that square.
> 
> Using your logic that same minion could endlessly tramp back and forth through that square on his turn, ignoring the knives that no other creature in the game ignores, and not take damage.
> 
> This isn't that hard.




That's absolutely allowed, by RAW. Who cares? No minion is going to do that.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jul 2, 2008)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> Since neither "Firewall" or "Cloud Kill" require a to hit for them to function they are covered under the likes of the Paladins "Divine Challenge"



Maybe you missed the errata:

Cloudkill [Deletion/Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 166
Add “Attack: Intelligence vs.
Fortitude” above the Hit line.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatePH20080610.pdf (PDF)


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> That's not what every minion says though. Specific beats general.




You've got to be kidding. So they just wrote that rule down for fun, and intended it to be ignored because EVERY minion has the "a missed attack never damages a minion" line next to the hp. That is intended as a reminder of the full rule (and honestly unless you are purposely misinterpreting it it actually summarizes it quite well, it is still damaged by effects).

At this point I am lead to believe that you either REALLY don't want to admit your wrong, or you made this entire post just to annoy people.


----------



## Mort_Q (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> That's not what every minion says though. Specific beats general.




They all say: *HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion.*

I disagree that this is the specific.  This is shorthand for the specific, which is in the MM Glossary. 

YMMV.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

This is not a troll post.

The reason I post this is mostly because people misunderstand what a "minion" is. 1 damage does not kill a minion, and that is why Missed effects never damage a minion.

So why would this kill one? It's even LESS damage than a missed attack.

RAW and RAI, I'm absolutely sure that I'm right.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jul 2, 2008)

I find this thread is even more ridiculous then the "minions can be killed by cats" complaints.  By your logic if a wizard casts cloudkill and at the time of casting can only attack the BBEG, and misses, then the Cloudkill from then on can kill every living thing except minions.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> That's not what every minion says though. Specific beats general.




What is an example of a minion that says something different?


----------



## Mort_Q (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> RAW and RAI, I'm absolutely sure that I'm right.




Open your PH to page 59, and read the *Effect* section again.

I don't question your motives.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> This is not a troll post.
> 
> The reason I post this is mostly because people misunderstand what a "minion" is. 1 damage does not kill a minion, and that is why Missed effects never damage a minion.
> 
> ...





Is there anything that will convince you? I'll ask customer service if you want. Right now it seems like nothing except a designer coming up to you directly and saying no is going to convince you, including a passage that even you admit explicitly disagrees with you(but is somehow overruled by all minion entries).


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> This is not a troll post.
> 
> The reason I post this is mostly because people misunderstand what a "minion" is. 1 damage does not kill a minion, and that is why Missed effects never damage a minion.
> 
> ...




And I, and a bunch of people, are absolutely sure you are wrong. 

So I have to ask what productive discussion you are trying to further by declaring you are right and nobody understands the rules as well as you understand them?


----------



## Switchback (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> This is not a troll post.
> 
> The reason I post this is mostly because people misunderstand what a "minion" is. 1 damage does not kill a minion, and that is why Missed effects never damage a minion.
> 
> ...




The damage from the cloud of knives does not require an attack. It's not part of an attack. 

If you think its part of an attack, then where is the attack roll for other monsters that walk into it on the next turn?


----------



## Caliban (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> This is not a troll post.
> 
> The reason I post this is mostly because people misunderstand what a "minion" is. 1 damage does not kill a minion, and that is why Missed effects never damage a minion.
> 
> ...




I don't think you are troll, but I don't think we are the ones who are misunderstanding it.    A missed attack is just part of a power, it does not make everything about the power an attack. 

Being absolutely sure just means that you don't listen to things that disagree with you, it doesn't mean you are right.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> The Cloud of Knives is an attack. If it misses, it is a missed attack. If it is a missed attack, the "Effect" entry is "damage from a missed attack", as it is Cloud of Knives, which is a missed attack. Minions are immune to damage from missed attacks. Hence, minions are immune to the Effect of a missed Cloud of Knives.
> 
> It's simple logic, reading it exactly as it's worded.




"The Cloud of Knives is an attack. If it misses, it is a missed attack."  

"Missed attack" is not a clearly defined game term.  "Attack" is a defined term; attacks can hit or miss.  Attacks can deal damage. "Effect" is a defined term; conjurations and zones (such as the one created by Cloud of Knives) are examples of power effects.  Effects can deal damage.  "Power" is a defined term; a power can include one or more attacks, and one or more effects.  For a power that has both an attack and an effect, the effect could be created if the attack hits, if the attack misses, or without reference to the power's attack.  Utility powers are examples of powers that create effects without reference to the power's attack (there is no attack).  Cloud of Knives is also a power that creates an effect without reference to the power's attack.

Imagine that Cloud of Knives is a utility power - delete its Target, Attack, and Hit lines, leaving only its Effect line.  Could this power damage a minion?  I think you'd say yes.  Now, imagine a power that instead deletes the Effect line leaving only the Attack related stuff.  Would this power kill a minion on a miss?  Everyone would agree that it would not.  What people are saying is that the actual Cloud of Knives is like these two imagined powers rolled into one.  Each of the two powers has its own rules about how it works in relation to a minion.

[D]![/D]
SadisticFishing, it seems pretty clear that no one is going to convince you to change your mind - I won't try again after this post.  I'd just like to point out that out of the dozen-plus people who have posted to this thread, you are the _only one_ who holds the position you do.  Customer service also subscribes to the other position.  

While those facts do not absolutely establish that you are wrong and they are right, they do suggest that you might want to rethink your postion and make an extra effort to understand what everyone is trying to tell you here.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> RAW and RAI, I'm absolutely sure that I'm right.




As someone who has worked on the game and talked about the rules with people at WotC, I'm absolutely sure that you're wrong.

The "effect" line is 100%, totally separate from the "attack," "hit," and "miss" lines. If an attack deals damage "on a miss," that's under the "miss" line.

The "effect" line is something that happens _regardless_, and is not affected in any way by whether the attack hits or misses.

4E has a very specific definition for "attack" when used in a mechanical rules sense. It refers to the _attack roll_ and the repurcusions thereof. By the rules, _cloud of daggers_ *includes* an attack, but it is not, in and of itself, the attack being referred to in the rules.

_Cloud of daggers_ kills minions who start their turn in its area.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 2, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> "
> "Missed attack" is not a clearly defined game term.QUOTE]
> 
> No, but it's quite logical to assume that an attack that misses is a missed attack.
> ...


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> No, but it's quite logical to assume that an attack that misses is a missed attack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then explain how Cloudkill, which after the errata is formatted exactly like Cloud of Knives, can kill every single living creature not immune to it, but will leave minions unharmed.  Do you really think thats how it works by RAW or RAI?  If so explain the logic.


----------



## IanB (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> ryryguy said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...


----------



## Caliban (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> No, but it's quite logical to assume that an attack that misses is a missed attack.




This much is true.  However,  you are assuming that if a power includes an attack  that the entire power and any related effects are an attack. 

That is not a logical conclusion based on the context in which it is used in the rules.   An attack is just one potential aspect of a power.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 2, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> It is an Attack Power. Hence, it is an attack. Are you saying that the attack powers that don't have an attack (Wall of Fire) are not attacks? Of course they are.




Actually, they aren't.  This came up with that Cleric power Seal of Binding.  It does not protect from things like Wall of Fire.  I don't have search so I can't find the post on here for you.  For something to be considered an attack, it requires an attack roll, according to WotC.  So, Wall of Fire, is not an attack according to the rules.  Yes, this is despite the fact that it is called a Wizard Attack power.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 3, 2008)

Oooh, ooh, I've got another stupid result!

Posted: 12:48 a.m. by Goku1440 I found an awesome loophole! On page 242 it says "Add oregano to taste!" It doesn't say how much oregano, or what sort of taste! You can add as much oregano as you want! I'm going to make my friends eat infinite oregano and they'll have to do it because the recipe says so! 

Oh, wait, wrong one. 

I meant the fact that under SadisticFishing's rule:

If I miss with any attack roll I make on a power that creates a zone, all minions become immune to the zones damage.

After all, it's a power that missed, right?

Or maybe it's determined on the attack roll that I made last?


----------



## Thasmodious (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> It's simple logic, reading it exactly as it's worded.




There's a big difference between "simple logic" and the "logic of simpletons".


----------



## Lurker37 (Jul 3, 2008)

As Mouseferatu pointed out, there's more than one component to Cloud of Daggers.

1) It makes an attack, 
then 
2) it creates what I'm surprised isn't defined as a zone effect. I'll refer to it as a hazard.

The initial attack can miss. The hazard however remains, since it is created regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. That hazard is independant of the initial attack roll. A creature takes the damage from that hazard regardless of whether the initial attack hits or misses, and regardless of whether it was the target of the initial attack.

So if the initial attack misses the minion, it is still standing in a hazard that will kill it at the start of its turn, unless someone slides it out of that square. If that happens, then someone else could still slide it, or another minion, into that square, to die at the start of its turn.


----------



## Boarstorm (Jul 3, 2008)

This thread amuses me to no end.


----------



## Andur (Jul 3, 2008)

Because I'm slightly masochist...

Minons don't take damage from powers which do damage on a Miss.  Note Miss is an actual definer of a power, it is not simply something that happens on an attack roll.  If the power has no Miss definer in it, then it does no damage on a Miss, so by extension they do have the Miss definer stating *Miss:*  Creature is dealt 0 hp of damage.  Effect has no bearing at all on whether a power hits or misses, it simply happens no matter what, no attack roll is even needed to make an Effect trigger.

Now let's get to a power which actually has all three definers; Icy Storm Hit: 2d8 + Int + balh blah, Miss: half damage and target is slowed.  Effect:  Burst creates a difficult zone that last until end of encounter.

So a minion hit with Ice Storm dies, no problem.  A minion missed by Ice storm takes no damage, but is still slowed (because minions are only immune to damage in the Miss field), and all creatures must treat the area as difficult terrain, whether they were hit, missed, or not even in the target area.

Stinking Cloud is another great example, because it causes a bigger problem for the OP's logic, Burst 2, no Miss field, so if there were 3 minions, two were caught in the inital casting of the spell, one hit and one missed, hit one dies, missed one doesn't.  The missed one then is moved by the BBEG so he doesn't start his turn in the zone, the caster then moves the zone to cover the missed minion, the minion who wasn't in the initial zone, and the BBEG, does the OP argue that neither minion will take any damage from teh effect, but the BBEG will?

Bottom line, the period, pointe finale is this:

If a power does not have a *Miss:* field defined, then a minion has no immunity to a missed attack roll.  

Really:  Effects happen regardless of a hit, miss, or anything inbetween, and if an Effect deals damage, minions die...

(On a slightly off tangent, what does the OP do for powers which have a secondary attack which is only triggered on a miss versus the same creature?)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> You people are reading the wrong thing.
> 
> A MISSED ATTACK NEVER KILLS A MINION.
> 
> Period, point finale. The Cloud of Knives is an attack.




Actually, the only one reading the wrong thing is you:



> Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s divine challenge or the fighter’s cleave) also destroys a minion. However, if a minion is missed by an attack *that normally deals damage on a miss*, it takes no damage.




Cloud of Daggers is not an attack that deals damage on a Miss. It's an attack with an additional Effect.

And by the way, it's Cloud of Daggers, not Cloud of Knives.

Reading really is fundamental.


----------



## Victoly (Jul 3, 2008)

Premise A is faulty.

 Cloud of Daggers is _not_ an attack.  Cloud of Daggers is an _arcane power_ or _"spell_" which, when activated, has two consequences:

-An attack
-A persistent effect

The persistent effect has no attack roll and thus its damage would automatically kill a minion beginning its turn in the affected square.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:


> I meant the fact that under SadisticFishing's rule:
> 
> If I miss with any attack roll I make on a power that creates a zone, all minions become immune to the zones damage.
> 
> ...




The heck with whether it's a power that creates a zone. Say it's a Fireball making an area attack. I roll a miss against one of the targets in the area. So now it's a "missed attack", so it can't hurt minions? Even if my attack rolls against them succeed? If I hit the first minion and kill it, then miss the second, it's now a "missed attack" and the first one comes back to life? 

Or how about this... if I have some power that says, "Effect: push the target one square", or even "Miss: push the target one square", use it against a minion and miss the primary attack, I still push the minion one square. Say that pushes it off a cliff (and it misses its saving throw). The minion takes no damage from the fall because it's a "missed attack"? 

Actually, this is sort of fun. Bizarre minion miss physics!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, the only one reading the wrong thing is you:
> 
> Cloud of Daggers is not an attack that deals damage on a Miss. It's an attack with an additional Effect.




He's not relying on that paragraph for his argument; he's relying on the note on the hit points line in any given minion's stat block:

"HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion."

So there are two rules:
1. If a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage. 
2. A missed attack never damages a minion.

1 does not apply to Cloud of Daggers, because Cloud of Daggers is not an attack that normally deals damage on a miss.

SadisticFishing isn't claiming that rule 1 applied to Cloud of Daggers.  He's applying rule 2, which doesn't require an attack to normally deal damage on a miss in order to have a special clause for minions.  According to rule 2, an attack which missed cannot damage a minion whether or not it would normally deal damage on a miss.

His error comes from considering an attack power to be a single attack, rather than, as is shown by Fireball or Spiritual Weapon, an entity which can incorporate one or more attacks, as well as one or more things which are not attacks.

Fireball might be an attack power, but it incorporates a discrete attack on each creature in the burst.  Fireball is not an attack; rather, using the Fireball power allows the caster to make potentially multiple attacks.

There's a difference between:

Power 1 Attack * Encounter
Attack: Int vs Will
Hit: Slide target 2 squares, and target takes 1d6 damage.
Miss: Push target 1 square, and target takes 1d6 damage.

and

Power 2 Attack * Encounter
Attack: Int vs Will
Hit: Slide target 2 squares.
Miss: Push target 1 square.
Effect: Target takes 1d6 damage.

If Power 1 misses a minion, the minion takes no damage.  If Power 2 misses a minion, the 1d6 damage from the effect still applies, because while the attack permitted by Power 2 missed, the effect of Power 2 is separate from the attack.

It's SadisticFishing's conflation of 'attack power' and 'attack' which is in error.  An attack power is not, in itself, an attack; rather, an attack power often (but not always) allows the user to make one or more attacks.

Once this difference is understood, there is in fact no difference between Rule 1 and Rule 2 for minions, because under Rule 1, no attack which normally deals damage on a miss damages a minion on a miss, _and also_ no attack which normally deals no damage on a miss damages a minion on a miss, by definition... and the combination of the two is the same as Rule 2.

-Hyp.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

Well put, Hyp.



Hypersmurf said:


> Power 1 Attack * Encounter
> Attack: Int vs Will
> Hit: Slide target 2 squares, and target takes 1d6 damage.
> Miss: Push target 1 square, and target takes 1d6 damage.
> ...




Agreed, but the minion is still pushed 1 square, right?  If this pushes him off a cliff or into a damage dealing zone, does it still kill the minion?  (I think yes, because the missed attack is not dealing the damage, the fall or the zone is dealing the damage.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> Agreed, but the minion is still pushed 1 square, right?




Absolutely.



> If this pushes him off a cliff or into a damage dealing zone, does it still kill the minion?  (I think yes, because the missed attack is not dealing the damage, the fall or the zone is dealing the damage.)




The damage dealing zone, sure.  The fall - I'd need to check the minion rules again (I'm away from the book), but I'd assume so.

The attack that missed deals no damage, but the pit of lava is not the attack that missed.

-Hyp.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

You created a power and worded it extremely carefully to try and win the argument.  

Look, this imaginary power does immediate damage as its effect, therefore if you miss with this power, and a power that misses cannot damage a minion, you miss with that power and the minion lives.

It's clever.  I'll admit.

But that just isn't how powers are worded and it isn't an accident.  Effects are ongoing, separate components of a power.  They are not part of Hit or Miss.  They have their own distinction.


----------



## GoLu (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> a *power* that misses cannot damage a minion



(emphasis mine)
Nope.  Try again.  That's not how the minion rule reads.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

The entire statement is sarcastic.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> Look, this imaginary power does immediate damage as its effect, therefore if you miss with this power, and a power that misses cannot damage a minion, you miss with that power and the minion lives.




An _attack_ that misses cannot damage a minion.

Power 1 consists solely of an attack.  If the attack hits, the minion dies.  If the attack misses, the minion doesn't die.

Power 2 consists of an attack and an effect.  If the attack hits, the minion dies.  If the attack misses, the attack doesn't kill the minion... but the effect does, and the minion dies.



> Effects are ongoing, separate components of a power. They are not part of Hit or Miss. They have their own distinction.




Er, right.  Isn't that what my example was intended to illustrate?

They're separate components of a power; they're not part of Hit or Miss, or, indeed, part of an attack at all.  Hit and Miss are both results of an attack; Effect is not the result of an attack, whether or not it is produced by an 'Attack Power'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

Your post was a little confusing Arbitrary. It seemed to be contradictory, even if it was intended to be sarcastic.

If there is a point you are trying to make for others to respond to, could you reword it?  

If you were just trying to funny, then alls well that ends well I guess.


----------



## GoLu (Jul 3, 2008)

Ah.  I missed that.  To be honest, I'm still not seeing it.  But I'll happily take your word for it.  I am, right now, likely to miss things like that.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

1 - Minions
*
Damage from* an attack or from *a source that doesn’t require an attack roll* (such as the paladin’s divine challenge or the fighter’s cleave) also *destroys a minion*. However, if a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.

2 - Effects

Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required.

3 - Conclusion

The Effect component of Cloud of Daggers is a source of damage created that doesn't require an attack roll.  Such things do kill minions.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> You created a power and worded it extremely carefully to try and win the argument.
> 
> Look, this imaginary power does immediate damage as its effect, therefore if you miss with this power, and a power that misses cannot damage a minion, you miss with that power and the minion lives.
> 
> ...




What about Cleric 19 Fire Storm then, Radiant Brilliance 20, Paladin 19 Righteous Inferno, I'm sure there are more.  I'm sure there are more.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

The Effect of the attack power Firestorm creates a zone.  My point with the other, confusing post, was that the power created for the argument was worded in such a way that does not exist.  

Effects either provide bonuses, penalties, impose a condition, create a conjuration or create a zone

Hit - Do one thing
Miss - Do something different
Effect - Do 1d6

is not a valid power.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> The Effect of the attack power Firestorm creates a zone. My point with the other, confusing post, was that the power created for the argument was worded in such a way that does not exist.
> 
> Effects either provide bonuses, penalties, impose a condition, create a conjuration or create a zone
> 
> ...




Ah, I understand. I think why people were confused was that you seemed to argue with Hyp, and then agree with him. This is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but it came across really confusing for some reason.

I do have to agree that that power is unlikely to ever exist. But it was created as an example, and to be as clear cut as possible, and I think it works in the context of the example.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> Effects either provide bonuses, penalties, impose a condition, create a conjuration or create a zone




Effects do lots more things than those.  Read some of the fighter powers, or even Radiant Brilliance, the one I mentioned above.  There is no set thing that effects are limited to in the rules.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

But it doesn't work because the thing in the Effect column is never, and would never, be in that column.

That particular argument is really just disguised nonsense.  Something crazy was put in the third row that seemed acceptable but actually isn't.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> He's not relying on that paragraph for his argument; he's relying on the note on the hit points line in any given minion's stat block:
> 
> "HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion."
> 
> ...




Actually, they really are the same rule Hyp and neither #1 nor #2 apply to Cloud of Daggers.

The first is from both the DMG and MM. The second is the Reader's Digest Condensed version of the same rule in the creature descriptions in the MM.

The one liners in the creature descriptions do not trump the entire Minon sections in both the DMG and the MM. They are just there to remind the DM that damage on a Miss does not damage a minion. No more, no less.

One can opine that they are different rules, but the one in the Minion creature writeups really is just a reminder of the real rule. Stating that these are separate rules where the one liner Minion sentence trumps the entire Minion rules section is like stating that a table entry on a feat trumps the entire feat descriptive paragraph.

Err, no.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, they really are the same rule Hyp...




If you read to the end of my post, I said the same thing.

I was reconstructing SadisticFishing's processes, which differentiated the two, and later showed they were in fact the same.

-Hyp.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

DMG, pg 55 - Minion

A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage.  Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn't require an attack roll (such as the paladin's _divine challenge_ or the fighter's _cleave_) destroys a minion.  *If a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, however, it takes no damage

*There.  That's when a minion _doesn't_ take damage.  That's it.  Everything else?  Right to the dome.  "A missed attack never damages a minion" is reminder text.  Period.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

I think we've begun to argue with ourselves.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Your arguments have as much merit as mine - no more though. We are both reading the same rules, but I consider the "reminder" text in the Minion box as a rule, whereas you read it as a reminder of a rule. That is the only difference between our opinions.

I humbly retire, thank you Hyp. I'm probably going to play it my way, I'll run it past my group.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

Expanding what the keyword Miss means is an error.  It has a specific mechanical function and what has happened is that additional definitions of the word beyond the scope of the keyword have caused a strange interaction.  Interpretations of the word "never" are also send things awry.

What a word means in the system is what matters.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> Expanding what the keyword Miss means is an error.  It has a specific mechanical function and what has happened is that additional definitions of the word beyond the scope of the keyword have caused a strange interaction.




I wasn't expanding the meaning of "miss", I was using the definition of "Missed attack."

Is a missed Cleave not a missed attack?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> I humbly retire, thank you Hyp. I'm probably going to play it my way, I'll run it past my group.




Remember to tell your party members to never aim at a minion with cloud of daggers then. They should always aim at his square to avoid the chance that they'll miss him.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Your arguments have as much merit as mine - no more though. We are both reading the same rules, but I consider the "reminder" text in the Minion box as a rule, whereas you read it as a reminder of a rule. That is the only difference between our opinions.
> 
> I humbly retire, thank you Hyp. I'm probably going to play it my way, I'll run it past my group.




So you are still of the opinion that the full minion rules on page 55 of the DMG are never intended to be used?


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> So you are still of the opinion that the full minion rules on page 55 of the DMG are never intended to be used?




They are, but they aren't the "full" minion rules, because minions clearly state "a missed attack never damages a minion".


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Your arguments have as much merit as mine - no more though. We are both reading the same rules, but I consider the "reminder" text in the Minion box as a rule, whereas you read it as a reminder of a rule. That is the only difference between our opinions.




Actually, I not only read it as a reminder, I also see no way in which it is significantly different. The difference you claim is artificial and forced. IMO.

The actual rule you are quoting does not explicitly indicate what you claim it does. What you are doing is called making an inference (as opposed to an explicit interpretation). And, it's not a very solid one at that.

We all understand how you are making the inference, it just seems that based on all of the Minion and other rules concerning To Hit, Miss, and Effect, the inference is in error.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

There is no inference.

A missed attack never damages a minion.

I rest my entire argument on that statement.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

--------------

pg 4, Monster Manual

Level and Role

The level of the monster and the role it fills are given in the top right-hand corner of the statistics block.  The _Dungeon Master's Guide_ explains more about monster level and role and how to build encounters with them.

---------------

The Monster Manual _doesn't even have minion information in it.  _Want to know about minions?  Go pick up your DMG.  We'll tell you all about them there.  The Monster Manual lacks the full text rules.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> There is no inference.
> 
> A missed attack never damages a minion.
> 
> I rest my entire argument on that statement.




And an effect is not a missed attack.

Your argument is null and void.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> They are, but they aren't the "full" minion rules, because minions clearly state "a missed attack never damages a minion".




But one says that "Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s _divine challenge _or the fighter’s _cleave_) destroys a minion." Effects don't require attack rolls ; as in, you can use them without making any attack roll. This contradicts your interpretation of the "missed attack never damages a minion."


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> --------------
> The Monster Manual _doesn't even have minion information in it.  _Want to know about minions?  Go pick up your DMG.  We'll tell you all about them there.  The Monster Manual lacks the full text rules.




Monster Manual page 282.

With regard to actual rules, the rest of the Minion text in the DMG is mostly fluff.

The rules are in both books.


----------



## Iceman75 (Jul 3, 2008)

*This thread sadens me*

It is really sad when people refuse to read how to use powers and fail to understand the basics.  A power is made of one or more of the following sections, Hit, miss, and *EFFECT.  *(Among others)They are seperate and they are defined in what they mean.  Each happens to have a paragraph or more on say page 54.  If people refuse to read and then try to teach others based on ignorance then I can't help but to feel sorry for those that learn for this kind of teaching.  
EFFECT: Many powers produce effects that take place regardless
of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required.​


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

Ok.

I use Stinking Cloud.  There are two targets that are brutes.  One is hit and the other is missed.  The next turn a Minion moves and enters the cloud.

The Stinking Cloud was an attack that missed.  It hit too, but it also missed, and a missed attack can NEVER damage a minion.  Never!

Are you willing to accept an absurd situation like that?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jul 3, 2008)

Arbitrary said:


> Ok.
> 
> I use Stinking Cloud.  There are two targets that are brutes.  One is hit and the other is missed.  The next turn a Minion moves and enters the cloud.
> 
> ...




Same thing with Coudkill.  Cloudkill!  The OPs interpretation is simply absurd.


----------



## GoLu (Jul 3, 2008)

edit: that was unnecessarily snarky on my part.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> But one says that "Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s _divine challenge _or the fighter’s _cleave_) destroys a minion." Effects don't require attack rolls ; as in, you can use them without making any attack roll. This contradicts your interpretation of the "missed attack never damages a minion."





WHAT!? Where does it say this? If that's an exact quote, that SHATTERS my argument. Actually, not as bad as I first though, as it's still talking about Utility and odd powers, not Attacks. Which does in fact change the way the rules interact. Still, if you can give me a page, that's pretty damn strong evidence against my case. 

Otherwise, you're all still misinterpreting what I'm saying, mostly.

As for Stinking Cloud, THE MINION WILL NOT ENTER THE STINKING CLOUD. The rules allow for some silly things, the DM has to abjucate. But, yes, that is INDEED how it should work.

Unless that is a direct quote.

EDIT: Actually, that being a quote changes nothing. I take it back, that doesn't change anything. Cloud of Knives requires an attack roll, if you're targetting a minion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> But one says that "Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s divine challenge or the fighter’s cleave) destroys a minion." Effects don't require attack rolls ; as in, you can use them without making any attack roll. This contradicts your interpretation of the "missed attack never damages a minion."




You're considering Cloud of Daggers to contain an attack (a source of damage that requires an attack roll), and an effect (a source of damage that doesn't require an attack roll).

SadisticFishing considers Cloud of Daggers to be a source of damage that requires an attack roll, some of which applies on a hit, and some of which applies to creatures in the area.

Since, under his reading, the source of damage is the power, not the effect, both the "Hit" and the "Effect" are both consequences of Cloud of Daggers, a source of damage which requires an attack roll.  The Effect, taken in isolation, might not require an attack roll, but the power does.

Once you decide that "Cloud of Daggers" is an attack, SadisticFishing's argument parses.  It leads to bizarre and non-intuitive results, like Arbitrary's Stinking Cloud example, but _once we accept Cloud of Daggers as 'an attack'_, bizarre and non-intuitive doesn't make it wrong.

That's the crucial error.  If SadisticFishing can be convinced that Cloud of Daggers is not 'an attack', but rather that Cloud of Daggers is a power that incorporates both an attack and an effect as discrete entities, everything else falls into place.  But until he can be convinced of that one piece of the puzzle, everything else in his argument follows logically from the original incorrect assumption.

-Hyp.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Cloud of Knives is an At-Will attack. That makes it an attack, I think. Yay words, this is complicated >_<

Thank you HyperSmurf though, you seem to actually be taking my argument seriously, though it seems silly and absurd - the whole idea of minions is silly and absurd.

EDIT: I love minions. I just wish Burning Blood or whatever it's called didn't kill every minion within 10 squares. That's just silly. This is just an example of something that SHOULDN'T kill minions that I have actual rules backing for. At least, semantically.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

Why wouldn't a Minion enter it?  Why wouldn't they jump into it in swarms?  They are immune.  

Ok, they don't.  Fine.  That's great until the Wizard takes a move action and moves the Stinking Cloud up to six squares.  Then you get to explain why all the minions are immune.

Sorry Mr Wizard, remember you hit 4 out of 5 times when you cast it?  That one missed attack actually made Minions immune to the power.

Sorry.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Nah, I'd still qualify the Stinking Cloud as a hit attack, as a missed attack is an attack that didn't hit, not an attack that missed. Or is it? Yay semantics.

The ruling is absurd, I'll admit it, but it's also COMPLETELY logical. You're setting up straw men, and knocking them over. The fact that Stinking Cloud follows the same rules and seems less logical doesn't mean that I am wrong, just that Stinking Cloud is not Cloud of Knives. This is the reason I used Cloud of Daggers (whoops, stupid 3.5 making me keep saying Knives) as it is the simplest way to check the rules. Everything else falls into place from there.

Note: I'd also have Stinking Cloud kill minions. But that'd be a House Rule.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Cloud of Knives is an At-Will attack.




It's an At-Will Attack Power.  When you use that power, you make an attack (which can hit or miss), and you also have an effect.

If the attack misses, the attack deals no damage to the minion.  The effect, on the other hand, is a separate element of the At-Will Attack Power, and is not an attack; therefore, it cannot be a missed attack, and the minion is not immune to the damage dealt by the effect.

-Hyp.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

But an Attack Power is an Attack by definition.

Mostly, do you really think (wis) damage should kill a minion, where (3d6+int)/2 doesn't? Even though the attacks follow virtually identical principles?


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> The ruling is absurd, I'll admit it, but it's also COMPLETELY logical.




Those words don't go together.  Anyway - 

-----
Effects, pg 59

Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required.

-----

I submit that the Effect component of Cloud of Daggers creates a zone that occurs without an attack roll being required.  As no attack roll is required it is incapable of either hitting or missing.  

or

I submit that the Effect component of Cloud of Daggers creates a zone that occurs regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds.  As such it is disconnnected from anything that is supposed to happen on a miss and it is disconnected from anything that is supposed to happen on a hit.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But an Attack Power is an Attack by definition.
> 
> Mostly, do you really think (wis) damage should kill a minion, where (3d6+int)/2 doesn't? Even though the attacks follow virtually identical principles?




Being that cleave damage kills a minion when it's not even targeted, yeah, I have problem with an effect killing a minion.

That's what they are there for.


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But an Attack Power is an Attack by definition.
> 
> Mostly, do you really think (wis) damage should kill a minion, where (3d6+int)/2 doesn't? Even though the attacks follow virtually identical principles?




Do you think a Cleave should, or a dagger flung for 1d4?

You're thinking too hard about this. The spell has its purpose, among other things killing minions. Have fun with it. If the spell working the way it's intended ruins your fun, then don't use the spell. All the thought required.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Cloud of Knives is an At-Will attack. That makes it an attack, I think. Yay words, this is complicated >_<
> 
> Thank you HyperSmurf though, you seem to actually be taking my argument seriously, though it seems silly and absurd - the whole idea of minions is silly and absurd.
> 
> EDIT: I love minions. I just wish Burning Blood or whatever it's called didn't kill every minion within 10 squares. That's just silly. This is just an example of something that SHOULDN'T kill minions that I have actual rules backing for. At least, semantically.




I understand that you WISH this is how the rules were. Others(including WotC) feel that this is balanced. All of this has no effect on what the rules actually are(besides WotC, they have a pretty big effect on them). I think its perfectly fine for you to run your game saying that minions are invinceable to several abilities and lead to many strange effects. If thats how your players want play, that is a perfectly fine way to play.

But look, both customer service and the minion definition EXPLICITLY disagree with you. The section next to HP in the minon entries doesn't explicitly disagree with you. Your interpretation leads to several strange and even contradictory results. The opposing interpration does not. You have to see the evidence stacking up against you.

Also, the stuff I put in quotes in my post was word for word, the other stuff was paraphrasing. Not that it matters to you, as you changed your mind about it.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

First - at least with the flung dagger, or a cleave, you can say "oh crap, I've been hit! run away!". No one flings daggers for 1d4, later in the game (when minions become the sorta "I'm higher level than I deserve, so kill me fast!" instead of the "there are lots of me" of the game) anyways.

The missed fireball or cloud of knives leaves the minions going "okay, okay, I'm fine, phew". Or does just the missed fireballs?

Next, Arbitrary, you still completely misunderstand the argument. Yes, the Effect happens either way. But it does not do damage, as every single minion explicitly says "takes no damage from a miss".

Until someone can truly use the rules to seperate the Attack (not the attack, the "At-Will Attack") from the Effect, my point is valid, logical, and the only way to interpret the rules properly.

EDIT: Sorry 'bout changing my mind, arguing with several very smart people is not the easiest thing to do. Especially since I didn't have my books on me at the time.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

If you are willing to house-rule away some of the more absurd situations than why bother holding the position in the first place?


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Because that's RAW, and I also believe it's RAI that an at will that causes minor scratches should not remove minions from combat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But an Attack Power is an Attack by definition.




No, it isn't; there are Attack Powers that have no "Attack", "Hit", or "Miss" line.

I'm away from my books, but check around p269-271 of the PHB; it says that an attack is something that uses an attack roll.  You'll find there are Attack Powers that don't use an attack roll, so not all Attack Powers are attacks.

-Hyp.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

That doesn't follow. Attack rolls are attacks, but no where does it say that Attack Powers are NOT attacks. All fligs are flugs, but are all flugs fligs?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm tired, and going to bed, so I forgot to mention..

Things like Wall of Fire are INDEED attacks. Attack Powers.

G'night, we'll settle this tomorrow! ... I hope. If someone finds something that defines Attack Powers as NOT attacks, please post it though, this isn't worth arguing over if I'm wrong.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> No, it isn't; there are Attack Powers that have no "Attack", "Hit", or "Miss" line.
> 
> I'm away from my books, but check around p269-271 of the PHB; it says that an attack is something that uses an attack roll. You'll find there are Attack Powers that don't use an attack roll, so not all Attack Powers are attacks.
> 
> -Hyp.




This is just what I was about to bring up. It is page 269. It says "Making an Attack" and then it goes about the process of attack rolls versus defenses. 

Sadistic, don't you think it could be at least _possible_ that this "attack" is what is referred to in the minion entry?

Afterall, it is an attack, and all attacks of this type have the ability to miss. Not all attack powers can miss, many make no roll at all.

Ignoring the other factors(customer service responses, etc.), besides that there are two things that could be named attacks (attack powers, and the definition of attack displayed on page 269) what way could you have of determining which one the minion entry it is referring to?

I think, as you do seem to be logical, you would want the definition that produces the least contradictions.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jul 3, 2008)

You still havent explained Cloudkill.  With the errata Cloudkill is formatted *exactly *like Cloud of Daggers.  By your logic a Cloudkill that misses a BBEG, but latter on ends up kill him, wouldnt even scratch a minion.  How is that logical?

The key to this thread though, is one aspect that the OP seems to miss.  The Wizard is a controller. The controller role is pretty much defined as a minion sweeper.  It makes no sense to have such powerful controller powers that work great against normal monsters, but simply dont work against minions.  Its absurd, illogical, not RAW, and obviously not RAI.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Until someone can truly use the rules to seperate the Attack (not the attack, the "At-Will Attack") from the Effect, my point is valid, logical, and the only way to interpret the rules properly.




Only way? This is a false statement, otherwise, everyone would be agreeing with you.



> A missed attack never damages a minion.




That's the general minion rule. It applies to all minions.



> *Any creature* that enters the area or *starts its turn there takes force damage* equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1).




Any creature includes Minions. That's the specific rule. It only applies to Cloud of Daggers.

Specific beats general



> If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.




Your logic is not as valid as you claim.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 3, 2008)

That really is the simplest argument.


----------



## Dormain1 (Jul 3, 2008)

Pg 54 PHB shows how a power is to be read, the wizard attack 1 in cloud of daggers(knives) is the Name and level of the power


Pg 57 PHB under Attack
"Most *attack powers* that deal damage require you to
make an attack roll. The “*Attack*” entry specifies the
kind of attack you make and which of the target’s
defenses you check against."

A *missed attack* never damages a minion, not missed *attack power*

Pg 59 PHB
Many powers produce effects that take place regardless
of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other
powers have effects that occur without an attack roll
being required

Pg 58 PHB
Miss
Sometimes the dice are against you, and you miss
your target. Missing isn’t always the end of the story,
however. A miss can indicate a splash effect, a glancing
blow, or some other incidental effect of a power.

Some people have a hard time getting over the effect damage, one person in my group keeps going ??? when ever it is in effect

Just make sure you and your players are having fun with the game that is all that matters rules are there to be broken

hope this helped


----------



## Lurker37 (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But an Attack Power is an Attack by definition.




No, and this is the heart of the disagreement. 

An attack power is a power that includes an attack, but can have other components.

This goes way beyond Cloud of Daggers.

Check out the paladin power Righteous Inferno. The 3x3 zone of fire created can be sustained, and damages any enemy that enters it (something that can happen thanks to an unfriendly push, pull or slide) or starts their turn there, without any attack roll.

It strikes me as ridiculous to state that the _entire zone_ is somehow nullified if none of the targets within are hit by the initial attack rolls. The zone even does a different amount of damage to the initial attack roll. 

Even more ridiculous to claim that any target, minion or not, could somehow become permanently  immune to that zone simply by being missed by the initial roll, even if some of the other targets in that area were burned or even slain. 

And most ridiculous of all to claim that a weak minion with no fire resistance is able to thrive where its stronger counterparts, and other minions with identical stat blocks, burn and perish.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> That doesn't follow. Attack rolls are attacks, but no where does it say that Attack Powers are NOT attacks. All fligs are flugs, but are all flugs fligs?



It also doesn't say that Utility Powers aren't attacks. And doesn't say that magical healing isn't an attack. And doesn't say that your second wind isn't an attack. It doesn't say a weapon isn't an attack. Oh no, any minion instantly dies when it picks up a weapon(since it got hit by an attack!)

Are they also attacks?

A: No.
An attack is very clearly defined by the PHB on page 270, and walls are attacks(by that definition). But so are effects.(its a type of area attack that requires no success roll)

So CoD has two attacks

One that is an effect that creates a Zone. And requires no attack roll, and automatically succeeds(I.E. hits).

And one that requires an attack roll. Just because the attack roll fails does not mean the Zone fails. 

See page 59

ED: Of course, according to page 56 and 57, walls aren't attacks because they have no "attack:" portion in their description and I am want to agree with that because it makes time stop a whole lot more powerful.


----------



## ST (Jul 3, 2008)

He's reading the reminder text to a rule as itself a rule (that supercedes the rule it's reminding you of). I got confused by this when I first read it too, I think the actual rule is short enough that they probably should have put the actual full text there instead. 

That interpretation just makes any spell with an effect make the DM have to track whether it started with a hit or a miss, and then minions are immune to it if it was a miss. Nothing else in the game makes you track something that funky for that long, so it's obviously not how it's supposed to work. He admitted to how it would make Spiritual Weapon work, which is just funky.

Edit: Interesting. The new Artificer playtest has a level 5 spell with Hit: Miss: and Effect: listed, and it's Effect creates a zone that does damage.


----------



## Oompa (Jul 3, 2008)

We are already on page 6.. and it is still debated???

Holy cow..

Its so simple.. 

Inititiative:

- Wizard
- BBEG
- Fighter
- Minion 1 
- Minion 2
- Minion 3

Wizard casts CoD on minion 1, the attack misses, nothing happens.. 
BBEG and Fighter take theire turn, doing nothing..
Minion 1 starts his turn in the square and takes an minimum of 1 damage and DIES..
Minion 2 sees that and go's help his friend and DIES!!!
Minion 3 sees that and go's help his friend and DIIIIIIEEEESSSSSS!!!!


----------



## Aloïsius (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> It is not curious at all. It is a straight forward reading of the rules.
> 
> My only assumption is that the effect is part of the attack. Which it is.




Nope. Because, if iit was, then you would deal the attack against ANY creature that enter the square or starts its turn there. Which is not the case, as they only receive the AUTOMATIC damage. 

Thus, those are entirely unrelated damage and cloud of dagger kills minions.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 3, 2008)

The sad thing is that no progress has been made in 6 pages. SadisticFishing just keeps repeating the same argument over and over again, and mostly ignoring everyone else's responses (which may be reasonable given the sheer number of responses he has to deal with).  But I think we knew long ago that no progress will be made on this issue. SadisticFishing is dug in and simply defending a position, not trying to resolve a question he has.


----------



## Oompa (Jul 3, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> The sad thing is that no progress has been made in 6 pages. SadisticFishing just keeps repeating the same argument over and over again, and mostly ignoring everyone else's responses (which may be reasonable given the sheer number of responses he has to deal with). But I think we knew long ago that no progress will be made on this issue. SadisticFishing is dug in and simply defending a position, not trying to resolve a question he has.




I think he doesnt want to give in because he finds it funny to let people discuss obvious rules..


----------



## Jhulae (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> There is no inference.
> 
> A missed attack never damages a minion.
> 
> I rest my entire argument on that statement.




And that statement, taken alone, is correct.

The fact that some Attack Powers *also* have attached Effects that don't require attack rolls and will kill minions is the part you're missing.  Even with the fact that everyone else has been trying to say this.

And, if you won't even take the word of someone who worked on the game that you're misinterpreting the fact that attached Effects that don't require attack rolls kill minions, well, you're free to house rule your game any way you want.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> An attack is very clearly defined by the PHB on page 270, and walls are attacks(by that definition).




Hmm.  That's an interesting point.

Reading the description of "Attack" on p269, it says "When you attack, you make an attack roll", and it also says "All attacks follow the same basic process... 3. Make an attack roll."

Under Area Attack on p271, it says "When you make an area attack, you make a separate attack roll against each target in the area of effect."

All of this makes it sound as though an attack requires an attack roll, and if there's no attack roll, there's no attack.

However... one of the examples on p271 states "A magical wall of fog that springs from the ground to obscure a dungeon corridor is another example [of an area attack]".

Wall of Fog (Wizard Utility 6) has the Area keyword, and has the Effect keyword but not the Attack, Hit, or Miss keywords.

So does this mean that:
a/ the example is incorrect, and a magical wall of fog that springs from the ground to obscure a dungeon corridor is not, in fact, an example of an area attack?
or
b/ the example is correct; the Area keyword is sufficient to define a power as an area attack, despite it being a utility power that requires no attack roll, and all the references to attacks requiring attack rolls are general principles that don't necessarily apply to certain specific attacks?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

Lurker37 said:


> An attack power is a power that includes an attack, but can have other components.




Not all attack powers have the Attack line.

I'd phrase it as "An attack power is a power that _may_ include an attack, but can have other components."

Of course, the Wall of Fog example has me perplexed.

-Hyp.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 3, 2008)




----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Of course, the Wall of Fog example has me perplexed.




Why?



Hypersmurf said:


> All of this makes it sound as though an attack requires an attack roll, and if there's no attack roll, there's no attack.




Precisely.

That's the general rule of how attacks with the Attack keyword work. Attack keyword attacks require attack check rolls. That is the general rule of how all attacks work.

Wall of Fog is not an Attack keyword attack. It is an area effect obstacle creation (see page 56, no Attack keyword, no attack check roll). Page 271 does not apply to it and the example there is in error as an attack, it is merely an area effect. That entire section should not be labeled as Area Attacks, just Areas. Ditto for page 272.

Blade Barrier is not an Attack keyword attack. Neither of these have attack check rolls, hence, no Attack keyword. Ditto for Mass Cure Light Wounds.

But, an effect does not need an Attack keyword in order to affect creatures. Obstacles can affect creatures. Obstacles can damage creatures. Areas can heal allies.

Just because some Area Effects have the Attack keyword and hence an Attack check does not mean that all Area Effects have the Attack keyword. That general section about Area Attacks on page 271 seems to be ignoring this basic fact found in other places in the PHB.


----------



## Zelc (Jul 3, 2008)

I solidly agree that ATTACKS are not the same thing as ATTACK POWERS in the same way that ROCKETS are not the same thing as ROCKET LAUNCHERS.  Also, there is added confusion in that the word "attack" has two different meanings: one that is normal in colloquial English and one that is specifically defined in the PHB for D&D.  There seems to be quite a bit of equivocation going on.  You can attack (colloquial English version) someone with an attack power, but it doesn't have to be an attack (D&D version).

By the way, I'll add to the reductio ad absurdum with this.  Suppose he's right, and "A missed attack never damages a minion."  If an attack misses at least one target, it's a missed attack, since by his definitions of "attack" the whole power is an attack.  That means that if you're trying to kill a minion, area powers are actually counterproductive because you'd have to hit every single target in the area in order to kill even one minion.  Any miss and the minions won't die from your power.  Since your chance of missing at least once goes up with the number of targets, you should generally only aim for one minion at a time.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing's position is that any power which contains an "Attack" line means that everything else in the power is also considered an "attack" and subject to the minion miss rules. Of course he has nothing really to support this contention, and it's pretty well demolished by the stuff about how to read a power that people have been posting - pretty much the first lines under "Attack", "Hit", "Miss", and "Effect" in the How to Read a Power section. 

But this obviously become an idee fixee for him. The plain evidence of those definitions cannot get through. 

The only thing I can offer that may not have been already said (who can tell in this crazy fog of a thread)... SadisticFishing has scoffed at the notion of a distinction between "attack power" and "attack" - "an attack power is an attack by definition".  This is a definition he's made up, I guess because it has the word "attack" in it.

Check the very first entry under How To Read A Power, page 54. "Name and Level". "The first line of a power description gives the name of the power... [and] the kind of power it is (attack or utility)." Thus, the fact that Cloud of Daggers first line reads "Wizard Attack 1" means that "attack" is the _kind of power._ That is how the plain text of the PHB defines it.  There is nothing in the text that defines "Cloud of Daggers", the power, as an "attack".   

PS - I am also starting to read into the meaning of his screen name a little bit...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Page 271 does not apply to it and the example there is in error as an attack, it is merely an area effect.




That's a vote for option a, then?

-Hyp.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 3, 2008)

Zelc said:


> I solidly agree that ATTACKS are not the same thing as ATTACK POWERS in the same way that ROCKETS are not the same thing as ROCKET LAUNCHERS. Also, there is added confusion in that the word "attack" has two different meanings: one that is normal in colloquial English and one that is specifically defined in the PHB for D&D. There seems to be quite a bit of equivocation going on. You can attack (colloquial English version) someone with an attack power, but it doesn't have to be an attack (D&D version).
> 
> By the way, I'll add to the reductio ad absurdum with this. Suppose he's right, and "A missed attack never damages a minion." If an attack misses at least one target, it's a missed attack, since by his definitions of "attack" the whole power is an attack. That means that if you're trying to kill a minion, area powers are actually counterproductive because you'd have to hit every single target in the area in order to kill even one minion. Any miss and the minions won't die from your power. Since your chance of missing at least once goes up with the number of targets, you should generally only aim for one minion at a time.




I like this one and Andors 

As described time and time again, an "attack" is just part of an "attack power" 

lets give a basic example of english, brought to you using the letter a mostly.

basic attack is not in itself an attack, it is a power that lets you make an attack.
an attack bonus is not an attack, it is merely the name of something.
an attack power is not an attack it is merely the name of a power which includes something that lets you make an attack.
an oppurtunity attack is not an attack, it is just an action that allows you to use the basic attack power.

Now your assumption is the missed "attack" (from minion description) = missed "attack power" this isn't true.

Now after your missed "attack" which is given from the "attack power", the "attack power" has another line to it, an effect takes place a zone which damages any creature stood in it at the start of its turn or who moves into it.

I've tried hard to make this make sense, I hope it works.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 3, 2008)

The reason why most powers are called attack powers is because of utility powers. Utility powers can be daily, encounter or at-will. If they didn't make the distinction it would make choosing powers when you level very messy. The only powers that aren't called attack powers are utility powers. So the portion of a power that says "attack power" or "utility power" is only used for when you are picking your powers.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> That's a vote for option a, then?




Obviously.

b is not an option if one stays consistent with the rest of the rules (like page 56). It's an unintentional typo.

It's not that the editors at WotC are not careful in their reviews, it's that people like you and I and the rest of the forum community have years and years in which to focus on nearly every section of the books and analyze them to death. This is not the first "unintentional error" found, nor will it be the last.

No set of nearly 1000 pages of text will hold up completely in terms of consistency with that level of manpower and scrutiny.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> It's not that the editors at WotC are not careful in their reviews, it's that people like you and I and the rest of the forum community have years and years in which to focus on nearly every section of the books and analyze them to death. This is not the first "unintentional error" found, nor will it be the last.
> 
> No set of nearly 1000 pages of text will hold up completely in terms of consistency with that level of manpower and scrutiny.




Slightly off-topic, but I can't help but think of the bible when you say that... 

But yeah - you can't really expect everything to be written perfectly and with clear examples when you have only so many pages and so much cool content, and so you end up either choosing the interpretation that is the most fun (and usually RAI), or the other one (for whatever reason).


----------



## Xorn (Jul 3, 2008)

Oompa said:


> I think he doesnt want to give in because he finds it funny to let people discuss obvious rules..




I said that on page 2.  But people just keep feeding the troll.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 3, 2008)

ravenight said:


> Except you can actually take up to 4 attacks, assuming you hit with both initial attacks. see below.




No. It's three attacks. You get two attacks on a primary target, then a third attack on the primary (or another) target if you are wielding a particular weapon. That's it. There is no requirement for hitting with either of the first two attacks, or else the "make a secondary attack" qualifier would have been under the "Hit:" entry, not a "Weapon:" entry.



> The "weapon" section of a power description modifies the immediately preceding "hit" "miss" or "effect" section (see silverstep for example).




No, it doesn't.



> Therefore, the weapon section of Rain of Blows is a part of the "hit" section, which is applied each time the character hits with an attack roll indicated by the "Primary Attack" section. Thus, for each hit, someone with a light blade, spear or flail and at least 15 Dex gets a secondary attack.




No, it isn't. It's an entirely separate attack, unrelated to whether the primary attack(s) hit or not. If it was dependent on hitting, then "Make a secondary attack." would be under the "Hit:" section, just like every other power that requires you to hit to make a secondary attack.

The following powers all have secondary attacks that require you to hit with the primary attack in order to get a secondary attack. They all directly specify under the "Hit:" section that you must hit with the primary attack to gain the second attack.

Arc of the Righteous (67), Battle Pyres (74), Passing Attack (78), Giant's Wake (81), Fangs of Steel (84).



> Giant’s Wake      Fighter Attack 13
> You lay about with heavy, sweeping blows, hewing your enemies left and right.
> Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
> Standard Action      *Melee* weapon
> ...




The above is exactly how it's formatted when you are required to hit with your secondary attack. The qualifier is under the "Hit:" entry.

The following powers all have secondary attacks that do not require you to hit with the primary attack in order to get a secondary attack, as the requirement for the secondary attack is not specified under the "Hit:" section, but rather the "Effect:" or "Weapon:" section.

Rain of Blows (79), Devastation's Wake (84), Cruel Reaper (85), Weaponsoul Dance (87).



> Rain of Blows      Fighter Attack 3
> You become a blur of motion, raining a series of blows upon your opponent.
> Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
> Standard Action      *Melee* weapon
> ...




The above is exactly how it's formatted when you don't need to hit to gain the secondary attack, because the qualifier is under the "Weapon:" entry and only requires you to be wielding a particular type of weapon.



> It isn't unclear at all.




Yeah, it's perfectly clear. You get two attacks against one target. If you have the right weapon, you get a third attack, against any target within range.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*indentation*

Devastation's Wake does not have Weapon keyword for different weapons. Rain of Blows does, indented, under hit. implication: weapon keyword kicks in _after _target is hit. Rain of Blows does not have an "effect" keyword at all. So, you need to hit to get a secondary attack at all, by this reading.

Whereas, with the other 3, no indentation is present, and the secondary attacks are all specified in "Effect"

How many fighter powers have Hit, and underneath, an indented Weapon? A lot. And generally, whatever the Weapon bonus, whether blinding, dazing, stunning, bonus on damage roll, you actually have to have Hit.

Sometimes, weapon is under Attack instead of hit: Paralyzing Strike: scores criticals more easily. So, if you were intended to always get the Secondary Attack in rain of Blows, it would have been under Attack, not Hit.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 3, 2008)

hamishspence said:


> Devastation's Wake does not have Weapon keyword for different weapons.




Doesn't matter.



> Rain of Blows does, indented, under hit. implication: weapon keyword kicks in _after _target is hit.




Indentation does not make it a part of the "Hit:" section. All attacks that require you to hit with the primary attack have "Make a secondary attack." except for one (which requires you to reduce the enemy to 0 HP to get a secondary attack).



> Rain of Blows does not have an "effect" keyword at all.




Irrelevant.



> So, you need to hit to get a secondary attack at all, by this reading.




No, you don't, or it would say under "Hit:" that you can "Make a secondary attack." It doesn't say that, therefore you do not need to hit with it in order to make a secondary attack.



> Whereas, with the other 3, no indentation is present, and the secondary attacks are all specified in "Effect"




Again, indentation is not indicative of a direct relationship between the "Hit:" and "Weapon:" section. The only qualifier for the secondary attack is the proper weapon (and Dexterity score).

All four of those abilities not not require a successful primary attack to gain the benefits of the secondary attack. The reason that Rain of Blows has the secondary attack qualifier under "Weapon:" instead of "Effect:" is because it *requires* particular weapons in order to gain the extra attack, but does not require a successful hit at any point.

The general rule is that an effect that relies on a successful attack is noted under the "Hit:" entry, and there is no specific rule that trumps that.



> And generally, whatever the Weapon bonus, whether blinding, dazing, stunning, bonus on damage roll, you actually have to have Hit.




Because all of those abilities are directly keyed off of a hit, but the ability to make a secondary attack is not. It merely requires you to be wielding the weapon.



> Sometimes, weapon is under Attack instead of hit: Paralyzing Strike: scores criticals more easily. So, if you were intended to always get the Secondary Attack in rain of Blows, it would have been under Attack, not Hit.




It's not under hit. That's why the "Hit:" section lacks a "Make a secondary attack." qualifier like every other attack that requires a hit to make a secondary attack.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*weapon*

Weapon is under Hit. It doesn't say you can make a secondary attack under hit because, you can't, unless you have the right weapon.

While it is the _only_ power with Secondary attack as a component of Weapon, rather than Hit, or Effect, it is _not_ the only power with special effects as a consequence of hitting with a weapon.

Go through all the other powers for the fighter, for those with Weapon indented under hit, you do not get the special properties of the weapon unless you hit with that weapon. 

So why should Rain of Blows be any different?


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*attack vs hit vs Effect*

Weapon keyword can appear in multiple locations. For some, its under Attack: weapon does something different for making the attack.
For some, its Hit: weapon does something different if you Hit.
For some, its Effect: you get the Weapon effect always, hit or miss.

For Rain of Blows, its under Hit. The secondary attack comes from the weapon, and the weapon property keys off actually hitting the target. Works the same for other formatted fighter powers.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

Just a quick pedantic note... people are using the term "keyword" too much.  A power's keywords are only the things that appear in bold in the first 2 (?) lines of the power.  The bold words after that, followed by a colon and then non bolded text, are not keywords.  They don't have a name that is explicitly called out in the PHB, but they are generally referred to as "lines".  

e.g., "Attack" never appears as a keyword, only as a line (or power type).

This is double confusing in the case of "Weapon", which can be both a keyword and a line.  I guess powers with the Weapon keyword do not have to have a Weapon line, but powers with a Weapon line must have the Weapon keyword.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 3, 2008)

hamishspence said:


> Weapon is under Hit.




Repeat after me: Indentation has no rules.

Unless you can point to an actual rule in the text that states that "Weapon:" being indented under another section means that it is fully dependent on that section, then the rule you're claiming does not exist. Even under the Fighter and Melee Weapons section, it doesn't say anything about attacking or hitting, merely that particular weapons grant particular bonuses based on particular ability score (some of which obviously rely on successful attacks, such as bonus damage, since you can't deal damage with the power unless you hit).

If Rain of Blows does require a successful primary attack, then it needs to be specified in either the "Hit:" entry ("Make a secondary attack (see below).") or the Weapon entry ("If you’re wielding a light blade, a spear, or a flail and have Dexterity 15 or higher, make a secondary attack if the primary attack hits."), because otherwise there is no general rule that requires it (and there's no specific rule in the power either).



> It doesn't say you can make a secondary attack under hit because, you can't, unless you have the right weapon.




And it doesn't say it requires the primary attack to be successful in any part of the power, at all. If it required a successful hit, this would be spelled out clearly in either section, like every other power in the game.



> While it is the _only_ power with Secondary attack as a component of Weapon, rather than Hit, or Effect, it is _not_ the only power with special effects as a consequence of hitting with a weapon. Go through all the other powers for the fighter, for those with Weapon indented under hit, you do not get the special properties of the weapon unless you hit with that weapon.




Go through all the powers that grant a secondary attack. Note that they all explicitly spell out the requirements of gaining those secondary attacks, whether it's a successful primary attack, or condition (reduce the primary attack's target to 0 hp; all adjacent opponents until the end of your next turn; etc).



> So why should Rain of Blows be any different?




Because we're talking about an exception-based design, which is all about making specific powers different than others.


----------



## naturaltwenty (Jul 3, 2008)

Below is a template for a power from the GSL - Each entity; Attack, Hit, Miss, Effect has it's own separate entry.  Lumping Effect into Attack (as Sadistic Fishing is attempting to do) is where I see the problem laying.

The attack can hit or miss but the effect occurs no matter what.  

@Flavor
At-Will &#56256;&#56321; [Keywords]
[Action Type] Action [Range] [Range modifier]
Special: @Effect
Target: @
Attack: [Ability Score] vs. [Defense]
Hit: @Damage expression and/or effect
Miss: @Damage expression and/or effect
Effect: @Effect
Sustain [Action]: @Effect


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*its a matter of plausibility*

Lots of powers have special effects, dependant on the weapon, on a hit. When the special effect is not dependant on hitting, it is listed under Effect, or attack. 

If it was the only power in the game with an effect that always happens, yet isn't listed under effect, it would be very odd.

By contrast, if it was a power with an unusual effect dependant on hitting, its format would match that of many other powers.

Indention is not a rule, it is a format. How common are exceptions to that format?

Silverstep: multiple attacks, a hit-line (push) and an indented-line (weapon, improved push)
It also has an effect-line (shift), with indented-line (weapon, improved shift)

The format is clear, every hit benefits from the weapon property. And there is an additional property, not dependant on hitting. Also improved with the weapon.

By the Silverstep format, and that of many other powers, special properties for Weapon, indented under Hit, key after every hit. And if you don't hit, that particular special property doesn't activate.

Saying "Format is irrelavent" would basically make for alot of confusion. Why say "This power is formatted wrong" if it is consistant with other powers.

Weapon: Can do many things. Its not that much of a stretch to say that it can grant a secondary attack.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Okay, let me argue Rain of Blows. Rain of Blows is CLEARLY only two attacks. In the hit line, it doesn't say "1[W]+strength per attack", it says "1[W]+strength". So, even if it is two attacks, it only does the damage once, by the rules. And that's silly.

The two attacks thing comes from the extra bit below, the Weapon thing. No way a level 3 encounter power was meant to attack three times, possibly four with your reading. My main question is, do you need to hit to get the second attack? And the only answer I could come up with is "yes", because every other "Weapon:" section that happens on a hit OR miss comes before the Hit: line. There are only two or three, and it's almost obvious, though not quite.

Okay, back to the argument at hand - this is semantics, and the reason I continue arguing using the same premises is that... No one has disproven the premises, and if my premises are right, the rest of the argument is 100% logical.

Though you have definitely given reasonable doubt, and I'm not sure I'm right anymore, so much as that I'm not wrong. 

But also, using the odd minion rules to try to disprove me "but what if the minion dances around in the knives and runs in and out of the area over and over!" is not a valid argument, as minions DO NOT DO THAT.

Cloudkill and Poison Cloud don't disprove my argument in any way, shape, or form. They just cause odd exceptions that are all over the place in 4e. My assertion is that THEY are the weird exceptions, and Cloud of Daggers isn't.


----------



## Chen_93 (Jul 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> So does this mean that:
> a/ the example is incorrect, and a magical wall of fog that springs from the ground to obscure a dungeon corridor is not, in fact, an example of an area attack?
> or
> b/ the example is correct; the Area keyword is sufficient to define a power as an area attack, despite it being a utility power that requires no attack roll, and all the references to attacks requiring attack rolls are general principles that don't necessarily apply to certain specific attacks?
> ...




If you're looking at RAW, choice A is not really a valid choice, until an errata changes the example. 

Now, the clarifications in the minion article or whatever, as well as common sense, does imply that all the effect things SHOULD kill minions and the whole "A missed attack does not harm" or whatever that sentence is, is meant purely for things like fireball, reaping strike, hammer rhythm etc. This is however, RAI. 

By RAW, that one wall of fog example really does support the initial idea that a missed attack (regardless of its effects) does not damage a minion.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Wall of Fog doesn't do damage, does it?

So how is that relevant to minion killing? They don't die when they've been effected by an attack, they die when they take damage.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

Sadistic Fishing, I would ask that you respond to those who have pointed out that there exists at least one definition of the term "attack" different from the one you are using(that has no explicit definition in the core rulebooks) posited in the core rulebooks. Is there a reason(other than it supports your argument) that this isn't the attack being referred to in the minion entries?


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*to sadisticfishing*

Mourn appeared to be saying that, no matter what, Rain of blows gives you 3 attacks, because the secondary attack is listed as part of Weapon, not Hit.

I was saying that Rain of blows gives you 2 attacks, unless you hit, where you get a secondary attack for each hit. Because, Weapon is indented under Hit. reason for up to 2 secondary attacks? Fits with silverstep, which also has multiple hits and a weapon special ability. And so on. 


(I was convinced after much eloquent arguing, before, I thought 2, only 1 secondary attack, only on a hit with primary) 

If RoB ALWAYS granted you the secondary attack if you had the weapon, then the format would be inconsistant with the format of the other fighter powers.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Rith the Wanderer said:


> Sadistic Fishing, I would ask that you respond to those who have pointed out that there exists at least one definition of the term "attack" different from the one you are using(that has no explicit definition in the core rulebooks) posited in the core rulebooks. Is there a reason(other than it supports your argument) that this isn't the attack being referred to in the minion entries?




I'm using the only definiton of attack which makes sense. An attack. Either an attack power, or an attack roll. In this case, I'm using it as power, because attack rolls do not do damage on a miss, attack powers do. It's relatively easy to read "a missed attack roll never damages a minion" as "this statement means nothing", because attack rolls don't damage minions. Sadly, I don't have my books on me again, so I can't check how the full minion description thing is worded.

Because it supports my argument is a compltely valid reason for reading it that way. It makes sense that by "attack", they mean "attack".

EDIT: Once, Rain of Blows only does damage once. Even if you hit twice, if you're reading it as you are. Rain of blows is basically: Attack, if you hit, attack again.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*R.e RoB damage once? Why? Look at Vorpal Tornado*

That can hit multiple targets and has a single damage line.

while it is true that RoB can only hit on target with its primary attacks, it seems pretty clear that the Damage is per attack. And, by extrapolation to other powers, Weapon entry takes place for every attack. And Weapon entry says: You get a secondary attack.

maybe, compared to Twin Strike, it should have said Damage: X per attack, but the general rule is: mutliple attacks, damage applies to every hit.

Or Dragons Fangs. Says: two attacks against one target or one attack against each target. But gives fixed damage and doesn't say "per target"

Rain of blows just says "two attacks" But they work in a similar way. 

Hit "What happens when an attack roll succeeds" p57. And you are making two attack rolls.


----------



## NorthSaber (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> The two attacks thing comes from the extra bit below, the Weapon thing. No way a level 3 encounter power was meant to attack three times, possibly four with your reading.




Did you notice the power right beneath Rain of Blows, Sweeping Blow? It can grant up to 8 attacks, and is also a level 3 encounter power. Rain of Blows allows the X attacks it gives to be focused or spread around, which balances it out. 

For Rain of Blows to be clear, the Weapon: line should be included in the Hit: line, but that would go against the clear formatting. Also, I believe the Hit: line should say "1[W] + Strength modifier damage per attack", since obviously the power can be used to make several attacks. As I have figured it, "two attacks" in the Attack: line mean that resolve everything below twice from top to bottom. 

But I think people here are arguing two different things: some are arguing how the rules read when taken literally, others are arguing how the rules are probably intended to be read. This is probably why there's so much head-butting.


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

That'snot at all the same thing. Attacking multiple people is easy. Hitting one person four times? Not so easy. Also, being surrounded isn't really a good thing.

Specific beats general, and Rain of Blows specifically doesn't say "per attack". Nowhere in the rules is there the general rule "if you have multiple attacks, they each do damage as a base attack", and even if there were, Rain of Blows would not follow that rule, as it specifically doesn't.

Weird, isn't it? Rain of Blows is two attacks.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

the aforesaid Dragons Fangs: Attack: two attacks. Hit: 3(W) + Str damage. That didn't see the need to say: damage per target.


----------



## theNater (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> I'm using the only definiton of attack which makes sense. An attack. Either an attack power, or an attack roll.



An attack power is a power, not an attack.  The text is that a missed attack never damages a minion, not a missed power.

To convince yourself that an attack power is not an attack, please examine the following powers:  Guardian of the Faith(cleric 1) and Twin Strike(ranger 1).

Guardian of the Faith, while an attack power, is not an attack.  It is a summon or conjuration.

Twin Strike is an attack power that is quite clear in stating that it includes two attacks.

Edit:  Weapon of the Gods(cleric 5) is a better example.  It is not an attack, it is an enhancement.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

"Hit" entry explains what happens when a attack roll succeeds: p57 Two attack rolls: two hits, damage is for each hit.

Also Storm of Destruction, 29th level power, one or two targets. simply says: Hit: X damage. Miss, Half damage.


----------



## Chen_93 (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Wall of Fog doesn't do damage, does it?
> 
> So how is that relevant to minion killing? They don't die when they've been effected by an attack, they die when they take damage.




Perhaps if you actually read my post better you would realize A) what I was talking about and B) that it supported what you were saying. 

The example of a wall of fog being an "area attack" when it clearly has no attack roll or any damage component, supports that idea that the effect left by cloud of knives is the result of an "attack".

It is, as others have said, the definition of "attack" that is in question here. There is no glossary where we can just look this up and the other places it is mentioned do tend to imply it needs an attack roll but it does not come out and say it exactly. The wall of fog example in fact directly contradicts this "an attack needs an attack roll" thinking. And thus is there is merit, at least by RAW in what you are saying.

In terms of RAI you are absolutely wrong. The article about minions with the clarifying text about indirect effects killing minions clearly shows the intent of the "missed attacks dont kill minions" bit.


----------



## jdpacheco (Jul 3, 2008)

Re: Cloud of Sharp Objects:
It's true that Cloud of Daggers is an attack.  Both in "Hi, I'm an attack power" and in the "You have to roll to hit stuff" senses.  However, as soon it's your turn is over, it stops being a "missed attack".  When a creature begins its turn in within the cloud, the zone portion of it activates.  The cloud gets a free attack at that time, which always hits, and always does at least 1 point of damage.


Re: Rain of Blows
This one is *up to* four attacks.  2 primary attacks, and if you're wield the specified weapons and have the specified stat, you get a second attack with each hit, which is why they're indented, so's to indicate that you need to hit with the first one for the secondary to kick in.  That's why Devastation's Wake's secondary attack *isn't* indented.  It's not dependent on the Hit.

Rain of Blows is:
If you hit, and you're wielding this weapon, you get a secondary attack.

This will happen each time you hit on a primary attack.  Of which you get 2.


----------



## Khime (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> But also, using the odd minion rules to try to disprove me "but what if the minion dances around in the knives and runs in and out of the area over and over!" is not a valid argument, as minions DO NOT DO THAT.



Actually, they do.  p57 of the PHB says that whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed.  So the minions would KNOW that the daggers cannot hurt them, and could gleefully move in and out of the daggers at will.  Like, say, if being in the square with the daggers would also put them in cover or give them flanking.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> I'm using the only definiton of attack which makes sense. An attack. Either an attack power, or an attack roll. In this case, I'm using it as power, because attack rolls do not do damage on a miss, attack powers do. It's relatively easy to read "a missed attack roll never damages a minion" as "this statement means nothing", because attack rolls don't damage minions. Sadly, I don't have my books on me again, so I can't check how the full minion description thing is worded.
> 
> Because it supports my argument is a compltely valid reason for reading it that way. It makes sense that by "attack", they mean "attack".




It is possible that in the small little minion entry (the large entry completely refutes you, you have decided that it is just not including the part in each minion entry) they mean the colloquial term of attack. As in, dictionary definition, which would include an attack power. It is also possible they mean the DnD definition of attack, that is, an attack roll that when succeeds deals "Hit:" damage, and when misses deals "Miss:" damage. 

Using the second definition yields no contradictions and creates no need for rules adjudication.

Using the first definition creates many contradictions and requires adjudication in several instances.

In addition to this, if one were confused as to which version they were using, one should go read the full minion entry in either the MM or the DMG. This agrees with using the second definition.

There is absolutely no reason to continue assuming they use the colloquial version of the word "attack" even though, ignoring all other evidence, it is possible this is what they meant.

The section of the full minion entry that pertains to this conversation is as follows: (MM 282)
A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage. Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s _divine __challenge _or the fighter’s _cleave_) also destroys a minion.
However, if a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.


The section on effects that pertains to this conversation is as follows: (PHB 59)​Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required.


----------



## jdpacheco (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing:
One other thing of note.  Mouseferatu specifically said "Hi, I helped with the making of this game.  Oh, yeah, and I'm on good terms with the people who did all the big work on it.  Let me tell you how it works." and then told you "The damage from the zone will kill minions.  Tada." (Mouseferatu, if you're reading this, please ignore the flip manner with which I'm quoting you).

Whatever other ways you may happen to feel like spinning in your head to make the game more of a pain in the butt, or create arguments, or to make powers not work, or remove what limited advantages your players have over monsters....  Someone who WORKED ON THE GAME and KNOWS THE PEOPLE WHO DONE MADE THE DARNED THING is telling you "It works the way you think it doesn't, so say the people who really know."

You are welcome to house rule this power however you see fit.  But don't (a) ignore the word of someone who actually knows something or (b) try to claim something is true to RAW (and/or RAI) when, clearly, it isn't.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

jdpacheco said:


> SadisticFishing:
> One other thing of note. Mouseferatu specifically said "Hi, I helped with the making of this game. Oh, yeah, and I'm on good terms with the people who did all the big work on it. Let me tell you how it works." and then told you "The damage from the zone will kill minions. Tada." (Mouseferatu, if you're reading this, please ignore the flip manner with which I'm quoting you).
> 
> Whatever other ways you may happen to feel like spinning in your head to make the game more of a pain in the butt, or create arguments, or to make powers not work, or remove what limited advantages your players have over monsters.... Someone who WORKED ON THE GAME and KNOWS THE PEOPLE WHO DONE MADE THE DARNED THING is telling you "It works the way you think it doesn't, so say the people who really know."
> ...




Customer service has also completely and one-sidedly disagreed with him. He doesn't really trust anyone to understand how the rules are meant to be used except the actualy person who wrote it down.


----------



## Praesul (Jul 3, 2008)

Monster Manual page 282 "Minion" said:
			
		

> "A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage. Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s divine challenge or the fighter’s cleave) also destroys a minion."





			
				Player's Handbook page 59 "Effect" said:
			
		

> "Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required."





Based on the text there, I'd say that _Cloud of Daggers_ does kill minions.  To me, the statement next to a minions HP figure is a general rule stating something in a very broad and undefined way.  The Minion entry in the back of the MM is a much more specific definition of how Minion HP work, and therefore is the specific rule which trumps the general reminder at the minion's HP total.

The second definition states that effects take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds.  Since no effect states whether it goes of regardless of misses, *all effects* take place regardless of hitting.  

The minion definition says, specifically, that these types of effects kill minions as well.  

Lastly, page 276 of the PHB defines attack results and there is a grayed area which describes "Hit" and "Miss," which in my mind indicates that the attack result only determines whether you choose "Hit" or "Miss" in your power to resolve what is supposed to happen in game.  Since the "effect" section is not referenced in this "Attack Results" section, it isn't a part of teh attack.  At least in my mind.


----------



## Saitou (Jul 3, 2008)

Can't we let the deluded, possibly autistic or Asperger's afflicted guy alone? He _can_ play however he wants to, as long as he doesn't jam other threads with his version of the "correct" rules.

We have all determined that Effects are indeed separate from attacks. Maybe this thread should be closed.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> It makes sense that by "attack", they mean "attack".




Absolutely!



SadisticFishing said:


> I'm using the only definiton of attack which makes sense. An attack. Either an attack power, or an attack roll.




No. This is the sticking point, everything else is pretty much smoke.

"Attack" is specificially defined by the PHB to mean something that you make an attack roll for.

"Attack power" is not defined by the PHB to mean "attack". Can you point to a location where it does?

"Attack" in the first line of the power is in fact explicitly defined by the PHB to mean "kind of power". (It's the first section under "How to Read a Power.") "Attack" in "attack power" is an adjective, not a noun.

Example already given: a "rocket launcher" is not a rocket, it is a kind of launcher (that fires a rocket).

A tennis racquet is not tennis, it is a kind of racquet (that can be used to play tennis).

A picnic basket is not a picnic, it is a kind of basket (that can contain a picnic).

A baseball player is not a baseball, he is a kind of player (that uses a baseball).

_An attack power is not an attack, it is a kind of power (that involves an attack)._

SadisticFishing, can you give any support to your notion that "an attack power _is _an attack" beyond the fact that the phrase contains the word "attack"?


----------



## Zimri (Jul 3, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> A picnic basket is not a picnic, it is a kind of basket (that can contain a picnic).




I thought a picnic was an "event" the picnic basket can contain things you would use to have a successful picnic (like infinite oregano). be careful on the picnic though if you miss your attack roll it is inneffective against minions and the regular sized ants won't be affected by the aoe


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

You're right, I should have said it contains a "picnic lunch".  Minions can't throw a picnic on their own; however they can eat lunch.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 3, 2008)

Saitou said:


> Can't we let the deluded, possibly autistic or Asperger's afflicted guy alone? He _can_ play however he wants to, as long as he doesn't jam other threads with his version of the "correct" rules.
> 
> We have all determined that Effects are indeed separate from attacks. Maybe this thread should be closed.




I entirely agree with you, and yet I keep being attracted back to this thread, like a moth to flame.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 3, 2008)

Now on to the topic (again).

For those curious to see a power that is listed as an attack, but which does not involve an attack roll, see for example:



> Consecrated Ground (Cleric *Attack* 5)
> Daily, Divine, Healing, Radiant, Zone
> Standard Action, Close burst 1
> Effect: The burst creates a zone of sanctified ground that lasts until the end of your next turn.  You can move the origin square of the zone 3 squares as a move action.  Enemies that start their turns within the zone take 1d6+your Charisma modifier radiant damage.  You and any allies who are bloodied and start their turns within the zone regain hit points equal to 1+ your Charisma modifier.
> Sustain Minor: The zone persists




And, as mentioned earlier:



> DMG pg 54: Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn't *require *an attack roll (such as the paladin's _divine challenge_ or the fighter's _cleave_) destroys a minion.




Cloud of Daggers does not *require* an attack roll for it to deal damage.

So obviously you can have an attack that cannot involve a miss and which does deal damage and kills minions (Consecrated Ground), and a rule that says you can have a power deal damage to a mininion and as long as it doesn't require an attack roll for that damage the minion dies.  

So why couldn't you have an attack power with two aspects: 1) An aspect that involves an attack roll and damage from that successful attack roll, 2) An aspect which deals damage in a manner that doesn't require an attack roll, and which still kills minions?

To put a different way, SadisticFishing, how would you word a power if you wanted it to do both of those things (have an aspect that requires an attack roll and which does not kill minions on a miss, and an aspect that does not require an attack roll and which does kill minions)?


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

Now I know you have little trust of customer service, but I thought that maybe a question specifically asking about your issue might convince you. Note that though customer service does in some cases contradict itself, in this case it does not, ever.



> *Question:*
> 
> Would a minion still be affected (take damage and die) from the "effect" lines of spells such as cloud of daggers and cloudkill, even if the original attack missed?
> 
> ...


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

Hey, less of the Aspergers remarks  its not always that that's the issue, its whether you are prepared to change your opinion if you see many logical arguments agaisnt it.


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 3, 2008)

[Deleted by author due to redundancy.]


----------



## Morose (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing has already said he's using his own definition for something (ruling an Attack Power synonymous to an Attack) because it's the only one that makes sense to him.  There's nothing to be debated here.  It's called "house ruling".  If that's the way he wants to roll, and his group likes it, super duper.  As soon as you start claiming that your definition supersedes the definition in the rules, there's no longer a rules based answer for right or wrong.  It's become DM's discretion, and that's it.

Sorry, but I'm out of popcorn.


----------



## Thasmodious (Jul 3, 2008)

> Yes, effect damage kills minions. The only kind of damage that doesn't kill minions is 'miss' damage.




Can't get any clearer than that.

Not that it will make a difference to painguppy anyway.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 3, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> "Attack" is specificially defined by the PHB to mean something that you make an attack roll for.




... or Wall of Fog.



Mistwell said:


> For those curious to see a power that is listed as an attack, but which does not involve an attack roll, see for example:




Well, now, here's the question - is Consecrated Ground an attack?  The word you highlighted tells us for certain that it is an attack power.  Does it tell us it is an attack?

If you call Consecrated Ground an attack, you're actually supporting SadisticFishing's position, because it Consecrated Ground is 'an attack', then Cloud of Daggers (which also has the word you bolded) is also 'an attack', and if the attack roll for the attack 'Cloud of Daggers', then 'Cloud of Daggers' is a missed attack which can't damage a minion.  Since the Effect damage derives from Cloud of Daggers, and Cloud of Daggers is a missed attack which can't damage a minion, the Effect damage can't damage the minion.

So be careful defining Consecrated Ground as 'an attack', because it doesn't argue what you hope it does.

-Hyp.


----------



## silentounce (Jul 3, 2008)

Zimri said:


> I thought a picnic was an "event" the picnic basket can contain things you would use to have a successful picnic (like infinite oregano). be careful on the picnic though if you miss your attack roll it is inneffective against minions and the regular sized ants won't be affected by the aoe




Gazebos are vulnerable to Picnic damage.  This is important because they are immune to virtually everything else.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> ... or Wall of Fog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree, you're being more precise than I was, and I should be careful given what we are dealing with in this debate.

It's an "attack power".  That's all I meant by "power that is listed as an attack".

In my opinion, attack powers can be any of the following: 1) an attack, 2) a power that causes damage without being an attack, 3) have aspects of both an attack that causes damage and an attack power that does not involve an attack but which causes damage.


----------



## Wish (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Nah, I'd still qualify the Stinking Cloud as a hit attack, as a missed attack is an attack that didn't hit, not an attack that missed. Or is it? Yay semantics.




Wait, so if Stinking Cloud hits at least one target, it can kill minions, but if it misses all targets, it can't?  So an attack that hits at least one target can kill minions?

May I then cast a non-zone-creating area attack with a "Miss: half damage" entry on a group of minions, and as long as I hit at least one, they all die?  Since it's not an attack that didn't hit, so it's not a missed attack?

This is exactly the opposite of the intended rule.  It couldn't be more wrong, but it's the path your logic leads us down.  Because you're trying to define attack as an entire power, rather than as, well, an attack.  D&D has never been very good at avoiding confusion in terms, but you're deliberately confusing them and getting twisted around and backwards.  You end up making minions vulnerable to attacks that they clearly should be immune to by virtue of the contortions you make to make them immune to other attacks to which they clearly should be vulnerable.


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jul 3, 2008)

OMG, the phb, (already quoted) _clearly_ states that the effect happens regardless of whether the power hit or missed. The effect happens just by using the power. Therefore even if the attack roll missed, the effect is NOT part of a missed attack. If you don't like the way that works, houserule it, but don't try to distort the actual rule to make it mean what you want it to mean. A _miss_ only happens when something REQUIRES an attack roll, and that roll does not meet it's mark. Since _effects_ don't require attack rolls, they just happen. Period. The affect goes off cuz it doesn't give a crap what you dice say. The effect portion is that stubborn kid who just does whatever he wants without any regard for what anybody says, including you. Unless you houserule it, of course. Then you've traded in that kid for a sweet little girl who cleans her room, cleans your room, and brings you the remote and a beer without any argument. 

For those of you actually confused, I apologize for my tone. It was intended for those who insist that the rule says something that it doesn't....


----------



## Zimri (Jul 3, 2008)

Tripgnosis said:


> The affect goes off cuz it doesn't give a crap what you dice say. The effect portion is that stubborn kid who just does whatever he wants without any regard for what anybody says, including you.




So ummm not unlike someone believing a rule says one thing and clinging tenaciously to that belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary ? 

just saying 8)


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jul 3, 2008)

from MM: A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of
damage. Damage from an attack or from a source that
doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s divine
challenge or the fighter’s cleave) also destroys a minion.
However, if a minion is missed by an attack that normally
deals damage on a miss, it takes no damage.

An _effect_ to me falls into the category of "a source that doesn't require an attack roll"
If the _effect_ deals damage, than to me it doesn't fall under the category of an attack that deals damage on a _miss_, cuz we're not dealing with the _miss_ portion of the power. If a power had an _effect_ that dealt damage and a _miss_ that deals damage, the _miss_ woudln't hurt the minion, but the _effect_ still would.


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jul 3, 2008)

You know I didn't realize this until just now, cuz I really didn't feel like reading 7 pages of an argument which, to me, has a clear and and unavoidable resolution, but SadisticFishing is the ONLY person supporting the notion that effects don't kill minions isn't he? Pretty much everyone else seems to be trying to help him see the errors of his ways, with a few posting their own confusion spawned from his stubborn heresy. REPENT, SadisticFishing, REPENT. This has gone on long enough


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 3, 2008)

Tripgnosis said:


> from MM: A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of
> damage. Damage from an attack or from a source that
> doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s divine
> challenge or the fighter’s cleave) also destroys a minion.
> ...




Psst.  You use of illegally downloaded copyrighted documents is showing!


----------



## SadisticFishing (Jul 3, 2008)

Bwahaha, finally people are starting to argue on my side.

Though it's all by mistake. Many of you don't understand the argument, because you're looking at it from a closed-minded view. Which I am too, but in a different way - I am assuming that I am right and giving my reasons for it. Until someone gives me a reason other than "you're reading it wrong", which I'm not, I'm going to continue to assume that I am right.

I checked. NO where in the PHB does it say an "attack" requires an attack roll. "Attack" is never clearly defined, so I'm defining as "an attack". Anything that is an Attack Power, basically - including Basic Attacks (grab and the like are still Attack Powers, but everyone knows them - matter of fact, in my opinion they should have given a section on powers that everyone has, including basic melee, basic ranged, grab, and second wind... but they didn't).

I have no reason to repent. Galileo didn't, and no one believed him at first, did they?

By the way, I'm having the slight problem that I recently stopped seeing this as a rules question. It's become a logic problem, too many of you who are trying to convince me that I'm wrong because either I'm the only one on my side, or because I'm "not reading it right".


----------



## theNater (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> I checked. NO where in the PHB does it say an "attack" requires an attack roll.





			
				4th edition PHB said:
			
		

> *ATTACK*
> To make an attack, roll 1d20 and...



If you make an attack, you roll 1d20.  If you do not roll 1d20, it is not an attack.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Bwahaha, finally people are starting to argue on my side.
> 
> Though it's all by mistake. Many of you don't understand the argument, because you're looking at it from a closed-minded view. Which I am too, but in a different way - I am assuming that I am right and giving my reasons for it. Until someone gives me a reason other than "you're reading it wrong", which I'm not, I'm going to continue to assume that I am right.
> 
> ...




Attack is implicitly defined on PHB pg. 269. "All attacks follow the same basic process:..." It describes an attack roll, followed by descriptions of Hit: and Miss:. I take it by your not mentioning it at all, you are choosing to ignore the completely definitive customer service response?


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jul 3, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Psst.  You use of illegally downloaded copyrighted documents is showing!




How so?? I'm assuming that YOU'RE assuming that I cut and pasted that excerpt from a PDF that I illegally obtained. We should both stop assuming things, you know what happens when you assume things don't you....the old saying...


----------



## Psychman (Jul 3, 2008)

theNater said:


> If you make an attack, you roll 1d20.  If you do not roll 1d20, it is not an attack.




 And an Attack Power is defined as any power that can be used to do harm to your enemies in combat, more or less directly (PHB pg 54).  Which to my mind confirms that attack powers do not necessarily need an attack roll to do damage, therefore do not come up against the "no damage from a miss effect" rule for minions.  Does this help at all?


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Bwahaha, finally people are starting to argue on my side.




Who's arguing on your side? Closets thing I see are people being confused and misled by you're twisted and convoluted perception of reality. Or more accurately, the perception of reality which you would have us believe to be your own. I think you're trying to defend a side of an argument that you yourself don't actually believe. I've done that msyelf. It IS fun....


----------



## Praesul (Jul 3, 2008)

Did you even read my post, SadisticFishing?  The PHB does define what an attack is by defining what an attack result is.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2008)

Tripgnosis said:


> How so?? I'm assuming that YOU'RE assuming that I cut and pasted that excerpt from a PDF that I illegally obtained. We should both stop assuming things, you know what happens when you assume things don't you....the old saying...




Care to explain the odd line breaks  that exactly match up with the line breaks in the book then? From the other part of your post you don't put in artificial line breaks. Are you trying to say that you deliberately went to the effort of formatting the text you quoted from the MM with exactly the same line breaks?

Because frankly I don't believe that.


----------



## theNater (Jul 3, 2008)

Psychman said:


> And an Attack Power is defined as any power that can be used to do harm to your enemies in combat, directly or indirectly (PHB pg 54).  Which to my mind confirms that attack powers do not necessarily need an attack roll to do damage, therefore do not come up against the "no damage from a miss effect" rule for minions.  Does this help at all?



You are correct.  An attack power need not include an attack.

It may include an attack and things that are not attacks.

It may include multiple attacks.

Being included in an attack power is not enough to make something an attack.

The d20 roll is a necessary part of an attack.  Any part of the power that doesn't include an attack roll is not an attack.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 3, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Care to explain the odd line breaks  that exactly match up with the line breaks in the book then? From the other part of your post you don't put in artificial line breaks. Are you trying to say that you deliberately went to the effort of formatting the text you quoted from the MM with exactly the same line breaks?
> 
> Because frankly I don't believe that.




It's entirely possible he does have a PDF he copied from, but it's a legit copy from WotC. Playtesters might have such things, developers working on GSL products--heck, I've got PDFs legit from WotC because I work at a company that makes D&D video games, and we regularly get early-access PDFs of D&D books.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2008)

SadisticFishing said:


> Bwahaha, finally people are starting to argue on my side.
> 
> Though it's all by mistake. Many of you don't understand the argument, because you're looking at it from a closed-minded view. Which I am too, but in a different way - I am assuming that I am right and giving my reasons for it. Until someone gives me a reason other than "you're reading it wrong", which I'm not, I'm going to continue to assume that I am right.
> 
> ...




I have the slight problem that I'm starting to see your comments in this thread as trolling - specifically maintaining a contrary view which flies in the face of all the evidence put up against you.

The original poster had a full and accurate answer back on page 1, and I don't think trolls need feeding.

Now it may be that you are not actually trolling and genuinely can't understand the answers that people are giving you. However, you clearly don't intend to change your mind now.

So I think this thread is ready for closure.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> It's entirely possible he does have a PDF he copied from, but it's a legit copy from WotC. Playtesters might have such things, developers working on GSL products--heck, I've got PDFs legit from WotC because I work at a company that makes D&D video games, and we regularly get early-access PDFs of D&D books.




It is conceivable although unlikely.

Nonetheless, given the ENworld stance on copying from illegal PDFs, common sense would suggest that even if you have a legitimate copy you ought to disguise text that you copy from it by, say, eliminating the line breaks. Thus eliminating the likelihood that your character is besmirched.

Regards


----------

