Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Bag of Rats ruling RAM; you don't get the beneficial effects of an attack if you do not attack a threat.

This is to prevent exactly what you just described, amongst other things.


'Adopting a Combative Posture' is Total Defense. That's what it's there for.

[RAM]

Do you have a reference for Bag of rats? I am curious as to the implications of such a term...

I always kind of assumed that Total Defence was there to let people Use a full round action to get more AC than they could with a standard action. Currently I see no option for advancing cautiously...(unless you count 5 foot steps...)

I just... I just don't see why my ability to generate AC is lessened when I have no distractions.

[Neruz]

The Bag of Rats ruling is thusly named to prevent people getting a bag of rats and killing them for phat bonuses.

The example that it specifically references is a Fighter with Great Cleave iirc, he uses whirlwind attack on the bag, and gets hundreds of cleaves from killing the rats

[RAM]

Ah, yes, I see, hundreds of attacks would be an issue, possibly a slightly different issue to accessing combat feats out of combat however. Which would be more akin to using spells like prayer(there are, no doubt, much more grievous examples), which is a combat spell, to enhance social interactions. (possibly openly praying for doom to befall your trading partners should not grant bonuses to winning their favour...)

*sighs* I will go see if I can dig anything up on the wizards boards, must have been years since I went there...

[Neruz]

There are some stackable buffs that trigger when you kill stuff, the Bag of Rats ruling applies to them as well.


Basically, it's there to prevent that kind of cheese. And i fully agree; DnD is, first and foremost, a game, and a Bag of Rats ruling is vital for gameplay.

[RAM]

My mistake, Total defence is a standard action, but the lack of AOOs still makes it more restrictive than fighting defensively, but it is possibly to advance cautiously.

It occurs to me that invisible opponents present occasions when a player may make a completely legitimate attack against an empty square, and, indeed, an opponent that has already fled combat. And indeed, someone could, given the right circumstances, legitimately become paranoid(Yes, I know its an oxymoron, I stand by my statement...) and make attacks against places that they think might harbour an opponent they are not yet aware of.

The rules specifically state that you can attack _into squares, and that you are specifically not permitted to target the specific creature.

You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

So far the boards have only been useful for inspiration...


P.S.
 Found a good thread on the boards, going to try and find something that is't blatantly insulting in there...
 Hmmm, seems to refer to 4E, but I could be wrong, is the bag of rats rule also from 4E?

[Neruz]

Under those circumstances, we'll see.

[RAM]

I reviewed the thread I found, it was firmly rooted in fourth edition so I can't be certain of its relevence...

I come to that conclusion because the feat relies on the player making an attack, not making a hit.  Next, on pg 272 of the PHB under the "Choosing Targets" section, it states that you can target a square instead of an enemy.

That doesn't look like my PHB, so I am guessing that this is a fourth edition thing. But this sounds like the sort of reference I would bring up.

Spoiler: some examples (click to show/hide)

This is no different that using Beacon of Hope (or Otherwind Stride, as someone else pointed out) without using the attack in terms of the BoR rule.  The only difference is it has individual targets, and that is covered by the targeting rules.

IMO, balance-wise, it's fine too, you just gave up an attack.  I'd allow it as a DM if the player put some time into describing it the first time he did it.

Possible examples in which the rule would not be appropriate(again, I don't have 4E so I can't vouch for their validity).

But I'd run in on a point by point basis. to me, it would seem dumb not to allow it, but if it was something like astral seal or recovinger strike.. then i wouldn't allow it. Unless you could attack the exact piece of air that they attacked.

Possible examples of what would be going too far...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Well, you can target a square you suspect may contain an invisible opponent.  Asside from that, the DMG advises not allowing characters to use an attack in the absence of an actual opponent to get some beneficial rider.
   

See, my ranger has twin strikes and has "exotic fighting style" which allows him to shift between twin strikes attacks. If I end up one square short of being able to hit a target after a move, can I do an attack on empty air, then shift to within range of the target and attack again with my second attack?

In this case, your DM wouldn't be out of line letting you get away with it.  For one thing, the benefit is slight - you shift one, there are ranger powers let you shift before or after attacking, and they're all significantly better than half a twin strike, which'd be all you'd be getting out of this.  Secondly, there /is/ an actual opponent involved in the attack, you're just only able to get at him with part of it.

But, it's still up to your DM, and he'd be within his rights to let you pull that trick once in awhile, but not allow you to attack nonexistant foes in other circumstances or with other powers.

I would argue that if I am bothering to call combat expertise then I have a valid target, it just isn't in melee range, visible, hostile or even definite yet.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

...but he's not getting a rider from hitting a target.  He's not actually hitting the target in the first place.  Nothing about his hitting is generating anything at all.  It's an effect, not an on-hit.



Agreed.  Which is why I'm asking Tony for a quote.  Because I don't think anything in the DMG advises against allowing a player to attack nothing to gain the benefit of an effect.  And the PHB specifically allows it.

Is there such a quote?

"If you want to use a power against an enemy, the enemy must be within the range of your power, and you have to be able to target the enemy. Many powers allow you to target multiple enemies. Each of these enemies must be an eligible target.
When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This
tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location."

"When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."

I want to attack an empty square.
Combat expertise does not involve hitting anything or reducing any HP at all.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yes I would allow it, only once between short rests (5 minutes).

are you saying i cannot use my reaping strike to bust down a door faster than basic melee attacks?
Can an Eladrin not use his fey step to sneak past an open doorway outside of combat?

you can target inanimate objects to deal damage to them, why couldn't you target the floor/wall or space infront of you?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

  Now, while the PHB1 does state that melee and ranged attacks have to target individuals (PHB p.270, "Melee Attack" & "Ranged Attack" ruleboxes) and that close and area attacks target an area and the effect just happens to target the creatures inside the affected squares (PHB p.271, "Close Attack" & "Area Attack" ruleboxes) which renders the "Beacon of Hope"-argument invalid, p.281 ("Targeting what you can't see") specifically states that when you are in combat with a creature that is hidden from you (that you can neither hear nor see) you are allowed to "guess", which means target an empty square with a power.

This sounds pretty bad, but I do not believe that any such rule exists in 3.5, and 4e has a very different way of handling melee and ranged attacks.

  Now, I don't know about you, but doing this every time a player wants to use the effect of one of her character's powers to have some fleeting roleplaying aid or even waste a perfectly fine standard action to more or less shift an additional square or what have you seems kind of tedious to me. Kinda running counter to any form of logic too, but that may very well just be me indeed - seems awfully strange that the guy who can teleport all over the place and/or shift around like a madman when there are enemies around and in range suddenly can't any longer just because there is no one to attack. What, does he need an audience?

From the previous source, but this is a purely roleplaying consideration.(I think my character does rather apprecite the audience though...)

The above suggests that there are rules that specifically forbid this, and offer page references that I cannot currently confirm.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

   Nov 22, 2009 -- 10:13PM, Alyri wrote:

    I read it as players cannot hiptoss powers all willy nilly to gain their effects.

    ymmv

   

Nov 23, 2009 -- 8:54AM, Alyri wrote:

You mean like
 "When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy. This tactic is useful when an enemy has total concealment (page 281) and you have to guess its location." page272phb
It's already there.  The difference is it's two sentences instead of the one sentence you are wanting.

I read the relevant sections in both phb and dmg and came to a conclusion.

Then personally I think you came to the wrong one, although you certainly have the right to house-rule based on it.  The reason I think that is the PHB quote first says that attacking a square is allowed, then gives you a helpful hint as to a time it is useful.  As opposed to what I presented, which would *only* allow it if you thought there was an invisible creature there.

Similarly on the legitimate targets rule.  People seem to think that it was designed to prevent anything from happening if there isn't a legitimate target.  But it specifically addresses itself to hitting legitimate targets, it doesn't care about Effects.

You read what as that?  I was commenting on the targeting of empty squares rule, which is explicitly allowed in the PHB and doesn't in any way imply that players can't gain effects when doing so.  The Legitimate Targets rule can be read to imply the hiptossing of powers all willy nilly shouldn't be allowed to gain effects ... but only if you intentionally ignore the fact that it only addresses hitting targets.

I'll address the same to DS.  It's not rules lawyering of a failure in english.  They were incredibly specific in the way they addressed the issues in each rule.  One straight up says that you can target empty squares.  The other clearly states you can't gain beneficial riders when you hit illegitimate targets.

If they had wanted to, they could have easily changed the meanings of both rules with a small change in the language.  The first could have said you can target squares "when you suspect there is an invisible creature there", as opposed to being the absolute statement it is now.  The Legitimate Targets rule could have easily said "when you attack" a target that isn't a threat "or no target at all".  {Note: "when you attack" would be sufficient, but "or no target at all" would make it absolutely clear.}

An example of what seemed to be the most common argument supporting me. The alternative viewpoint didn't seem as firmly developed, but I am biased...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I love all this debate. I appreciate all the responses. Since my original question was whether this seemed a reasonable interpretation of the rules, and there are at least half of the responders saying that it is, then I will conclude that it is, in fact, a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Here's where I am ending up.

As a player I can see that this might be a useful tactic to attempt. Not a common situation, but not a completely bizarre situation either. So I can see times I might request it.

As a DM my only real questions are:
1. Is it cool? I think the answer is "sort of, yeah."
2. Does it exhibit original thinking from the player? "Yes."
3. Does it violate any RAW? "No."
4. Is it cheesy? "I think not."
5. Can I use it for NPCs? "Why not?"
6. Does it provide incentive for other players to be inventive? "Probably."

Conclusion: "Go for it!"

Topic creator returned and made a summary, the first post queried if attacks against empty squares were legal, so may have shared my bias...

I do not believe that the 'Bag of rats' rule, as written, specifically applies.

The single most abusive uses of this that I can think of are to make an attack prior to closing with an enemy and provoking attacks of all kinds, and to raise AC against traps and ambushes. I don't think that these are particularly damaging to the game...

Finally, this seems to be a 4th edition rule in a 3rd edition game. I believe that the rule exists because it specifically is possible to do this in 3.0 and needed to be fixed. I don't believe using combat expertise without an opponent in range is something that needs to be fixed.


P.S.
 This is about my limit. I don't think it is an unreasonable advantage(there aren't any stats involved that I don't regularly achieve via uncontroversial means). And I don't see it causing any problems for the game or being out of character. If you still dislike it I will basically have to accept your ruling.

[Neruz]

If i remember correctly the Bag of Rats ruling was codified into the DMG in 4e, but existed as a WotC FAQ answer and sort of 'general piece of info' for years since it was discovered in 3e. WotC actually 'fixed' the initial Whirlwind Attack issue by making it impossible to do more than WWAttack in 1 turn.

It was one of those 'while technically legal, you have to be stupid to actually do it, and your DM has to be even stupider to let it fly' things.

Finally, this seems to be a 4th edition rule in a 3rd edition game. I believe that the rule exists because it specifically is possible to do this in 3.0 and needed to be fixed. I don't believe using combat expertise without an opponent in range is something that needs to be fixed.

Combat Expertise allows you to sacrifice potential to hit, to get AC instead. You take a disadvantage to gain an advantage.

By attacking an empty square with no enemy in range, you get the advantage (extra AC) but completely negate the disadvantage; because there's no-one to hit. This, to me, feels like cheating a bit, you're taking advantage of the letter of the rules, rather than the intent of the rules.


Basically, you're rules lawyering here. If you really want i can rules lawyer right back at you, but i would advise against it, as i'm better at it than you are.


For example; by default, a Melee Attack can strike at any opponent within 5 feet.

So unless you have a rule that specifically alters this, you can only make Melee Attacks against an opponent within 5 feet.

The link you provided from the SRD is under the Total Concealment menu, it also mentions attacking opponents with Total Concealment, and striking the square you think said opponent occupies. Ergo it only applies when Total Concealment is in effect, and only when you have an opponent who is totally concealed from you.



Fun fact: By a strict ruling of the RAW, you may only attack opponents, you can't actually attack objects. The exception is you may Sunder weapons or shields held by an opponent. The only time you may attack anything other than opponents or objects held by an opponent is when using a thrown splash weapon, in which case you may target a grid intersection. It gets a little murky as the exploration section mentions attacking objects being similar to sundering, but by strict RAW, you are never given the ability to attack objects, even though that is the clear intent of the rules.

I assure you, i've actually had this argument before, and it is absolutely not RAW legal to attack empty space for any reason other than you believe there to be a totally concealed creature there.


Fortunately, 3.5 lacks 4e's clarification on hidden and unaware, but there you go.



Now quit the munchkinning and rules lawyering. I don't like clamping down, but i will do so under such circumstances. If you absolutely must have your Combat Expertise AC bonus but can't reach an enemy, ready an action to attack the first enemy to come within weapon range, and apply expertise to that.

[Shoruke]

You can't just wander around using Total Defense? It's just holding your arms up in front of your face, basically, right? Doesn't make sense to me that you need opponents (specifically life-threatening opponents) to look at to walk around, shield up, sword ready, and tensed for action...

[Heron TSG]

If I had the adamantine body feat, would that make my gauntlets adamantine?

And if so, would that make me able to punch through stuff without hurting my hands too much?

[tehstefan]

Hrrm, we better encounter something soon, so I can get 170 XP necessary for my next level up. heh.

[Neruz]

If I had the adamantine body feat, would that make my gauntlets adamantine?

And if so, would that make me able to punch through stuff without hurting my hands too much?

Are the gauntlets part of your body?

[CJ1145]

Hey! What are you doing in here when the server isn't up?

[Neruz]

Er, gaem is tomorrow?