Should Defensive Blast be altered in Conan 2nd?

[slaughterj]

Magic Missile is a spell, and spells are attacks that Wizards or Sorcerers can make a sa standard action in Dungeons and Dragons. Therefore it is an attack.

Character A can attack Character B on Character B's action as a free action, if Character B does something that triggers an AOO. Hmm, there's a free action attack on the other person's turn! Defensive Blast is the same thing.

 

[Sutek]

Defensive BLast is not an AOO. It is a Free Action that is allowed to be taken by the spellcaster on either his round or another character's.

That's probably why it's written that way so as to emphasize that it is not an attack.

Have you considered the fact that, in the nearly 3 years this game has been out and considering all the debate over Opp Sacrifice (which presumably implies many people reading the feat) that you would be the first person to suggest this alternative reading? Does that not suggest that most english readers have a different intrepretation of the passage than you?

So, because I'm the first to notice it, I must be wrong? I don't follow you.

Occam's Razor, man. If DB is not an attack, and if Opportunistic Sacrifice must follow some sort of attack, then a lot of problems (other than aesthitc and conon issues) are instantly solved.

Are you resistant because you don't think I'm right or because you want to be? It's a simple solution and makes the buring of the PP to pull of a DB end right there. Nothing more. It becomes the "last ditch" action that it says it is, because there's no recovery possible, and that was one of the biggest flaws without the interpretation I've come up with.

An example of my interpretation being correct:
page 90, Handle Animal skill, explanation of "Untrained" useage -

"Untrained: If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals but you cannot teach, rear, or train animals."

That does not mean that your character, if untrained in Handle Animal can neither teach nor rear nor train animals. It means he can neither teach animals nor rear animals nor train animals. The commas separate the series in the same way as the attack types listed under Opp.Scrifice.

 

[Netherek]

Here's the PE write up...

A defensive blast is a free action. It may be taken either on the sorcerer's turn, or any other time he is eligible to act or attack, such as an attack of opportunity or unleashes a readied action.

There is nothing in there to suggest it's not an attack. Quite the contrary in the passage preceding the quote it is called a counter attack.

DB is a magic attack, it just happens to be one you don't roll...

 

[Sutek]

No, he can release a DB during the same times when he can do those other things. It is not an attack, an AOO or any other sort of attack.

The clarifications are for timing purposes so that he cannot take an AOO and release a DB at the same time, for example.

 

[Netherek]

Personally, it's all a little ambiguous.

You do contradict yourself here though, if it's not a magic attack, then why couldn't you use an AoO at the same time. Nothing is really stating you can't.

The fluff, though says that sorcerer have plenty of close range spells ideal for counter-attacks. Then gives a general description of fiery doom and ends yet again calling it a counter attack.

Lastly, one should rule it as a magic attack for it's fluff, it's application, and lastly, it's use of PP.

Also, Opportunist clearly uses the word attack, not attack roll, since we're going to play with exact wording. Not all attacks require a roll.

 

[argo]

Have you considered the fact that, in the nearly 3 years this game has been out and considering all the debate over Opp Sacrifice (which presumably implies many people reading the feat) that you would be the first person to suggest this alternative reading? Does that not suggest that most english readers have a different intrepretation of the passage than you?

So, because I'm the first to notice it, I must be wrong? I don't follow you.

Merely an observation.... :roll:

Occam's Razor, man. If DB is not an attack, and if Opportunistic Sacrifice must follow some sort of attack, then a lot of problems (other than aesthitc and conon issues) are instantly solved.

But there are so many solutiouns which are so much cleaner and more elegant and which don't require us to mangle the english language.

Are you resistant because you don't think I'm right or because you want to be?

You ought to know better. You know I agree that the DB/Opp Sacrifice feedback loop is an obvious exploit. But there are easier ways to shut it down. I'm simply arguing that your claim to have a RAW answer is not in fact RAW. I don't mind house rules, I simply want them to be clearly labled as such.

 

[slaughterj]

Are you resistant because you don't think I'm right or because you want to be?

It's probably because you have been repeatedly wrong about the rules interpretation in the past, as well as you have contradictions as noted above, and finally, because what looks like, smells like, feels like, and sounds like an attack is likely an attack without a compelling reason to think otherwise.

 

[slaughterj]

Defensive BLast is not an AOO. It is a Free Action that is allowed to be taken by the spellcaster on either his round or another character's.

From p. 185 of the Atlantean edition:

"Any character with at least one sorcery style is also able to unlease a defensive blast, as follows, as a last-resort counter-attack."

Hmmm, sounds like an attack.

Further:

"A defensive blast is a free action. It may be taken either on the sorcerer's own turn, or any other time he is eligible to act or attack, such as when he takes an attack of opportunity or unleashes a readied action."

So, to do it in response to the person moving adjacent to him, the person moving adjacent to him must do something to trigger an AOO (e.g., trying to run past the sorcerer), or run up to him and shot an arrow in his face (odd choice, but whatever)), or the sorcerer must be readied to unleash. It seems that as a triggered AOO, it would be an attack as well.

Just because something is a free action, doesn't mean it isn't an attack. Look at the extra attack for a cleave for instance or taking an AOO. Don't get hung up on that, because given situations like cleave or taking an AOO, it is clear that an attack doesn't always require an attack action in order to be an attack.

 

[Sutek]

Okay.

What page are the rules for "counter-attack" on.

"When John sat down in the chair, he didn't realize until he felt the slight pricking pain in his butt that he'd sat on a tack.

Gosh, that sounds like attack too... :shock:

The key words are not attack, as I'm said already, but "eligible" and "such as when" for the purposes of timing.

Just because something is a free action, doesn't mean it isn't an attack.

Um, yes it does. Free actions and Attacks are totally different things. Look at the table on page 155 AE. It clearly shopws what Free Actions are available, and where an attack falls as a Standard or full-round action.

You do contradict yourself here though, if it's not a magic attack, then why couldn't you use an AoO at the same time. Nothing is really stating you can't.

No, what I'm saying is that it'isn't a magic attack, but rather a Free Action that can occur in the "time slots" where you'd be able to make actual attacks.

Not all attacks require a roll, that's true, but if there's a cleaner RAW fix, I'd like to hear it. Simply finding that DB is not an attack instantly pulls it out of the OppSac controversy and deals it a huge blow as a anythiong other than a "final burn" of PP for a Sorcerer.

 

[slaughterj]

Okay.

What page are the rules for "counter-attack" on.

It's right in my post, just before the quote.

Just because something is a free action, doesn't mean it isn't an attack.

Um, yes it does. Free actions and Attacks are totally different things.

The fundamental problem with discussing the rules with you (here and in many past threads) is your apparent lack of logical reasoning. Yes, free actions and attacks are not the same things. But standard actions and attacks are not the same things as well. However, there is both some overlap and some lack thereof.

Attacks do not always take a standard action. For instance, the additional attack from a cleave or an AOO is not a standard action. Therefore, attacks do not require a standard action always. The chart is for reference, but also must be read in context, including matters which may contradict the default rule. Or do you only allow people to take the extra cleave attack and AOO as a standard action?

In case you misunderstood any of the foregoing, let me present it to you in the form of a few logical syllogisms:

Premise 1: Attacks take a standard action.
Premise 2: Attacks of opportunity are attacks.
Conclusion: Attacks of opportunity take a standard action.

Clearly we know this conclusion is incorrect, which must mean that one of the premises are incorrect - care to guess which one it is?

Premise 1: Some attacks are attacks of opportunity.
Premise 2: Attacks of opportunity do not require a standard action.
Conclusion: Some attacks do not require a standard action.

Care to argue against this logic?

 

[Sutek]

Logical Reasoning 101: There are no rules titled "Counter-Attack", either on page 185 or anywhere else. Therefore, that it descriptive text and not any direct indication of DB being an "Attack".

That's logic.

Going through the book to find instances where the word "attack" fits your argument isn't.

Quoting D&D rules to explain your points in Conan discussion isn't.

Elephants are gray.
You're making my hair gray.
You're making my hair an elephant.
...isn't logic. It's not paying attention to reality.

• The DB is refered to as a "last resort counter-attack", but there are no rules to describe what a "counter-attack" is. Therefore, it is ther for description of the type of action a DB is supposed to represent.
• DB is indicated to be a Free Action and not indicated to be any kind of attack, but it is described as requiring the eligibility as an act or attack, be that on the Sorcerer's turn or during the turn of another.
• The eligibility is explained as "when [the character] takes and attack of opportunity* or unleashes a readied action**".
• The DB has a blast radius, but is not mentioned to have a need for defeating DV or requiring a Saving Throw. Attacks do one or the other, therfore DB is not an attack.
• Opportunistic Sacrifice indicates that any enemy slain by a magic, melee or ranged attack may be so sacrificed. The list of possibilites is meant to be separate instances of attack that qualify, and oportunites of the same listing convention can be found elsewhere in the rule book (q.v. Handle Animal skill)

* = Reactive attack timed specifically on opponent turns.
**=Reactive act or action determined in a previous turn and timed to occur on a trigger event.

That's a logical progression of statements and facts. The same statements and facts I've been citing and making for pages now.

If there is concrete proof that you can cite that contradicts any of the above, please post it with appropriate page numbers. Terms like "counter-attack" don't count any more than the phrase "You automatically know you are at sea," as stated under the Navigation Feat. Clearly the character will have to be able to see the stars or something. Being locked in a box in the hold would mean that this feat could not be used just out of logic, even though this is not stated in the Feat.

 

[jadrax]

You know you may want to post "Is Defensive Blast considered an attack" in The Rulesmasters forum.

May clear it up one way or the other.

 

[Foxworthy]

You know you may want to post "Is Defensive Blast considered an attack" in The Rulesmasters forum.

May clear it up one way or the other.

That assumes rulemaster would answer it.

 

[jadrax]

You know you may want to post "Is Defensive Blast considered an attack" in The Rulesmasters forum.

May clear it up one way or the other.

That assumes rulemaster would answer it.

Only if i hadn't used the word "may"

 

[argo]

Logical Reasoning 101: There are no rules titled "Counter-Attack", either on page 185 or anywhere else. Therefore, that it descriptive text and not any direct indication of DB being an "Attack".

Conversely, have you considered that the use of the word "attack" in the "magic, melee or ranged attack" is descriptive text? As this thread has shown the term "attack" is not defined quite so well as other Game System Terms such as Staggered, Flat-Footed, or Feint.

Opp Sacrifice works when you slay an enemy. Says so right in the feat.

Here is a question. If you didn't use an "attack" to kill the guy... then what did you use? :?

Later.

 

[Krushnak]

well seeing as you have to make a magic attack roll to set the saving throw i dont see how db cant be taken as a magical attack.

 

[slaughterj]

well seeing as you have to make a magic attack roll to set the saving throw i dont see how db cant be taken as a magical attack.

Interesting observation, but I'm sure Sutek will bend logic to counter-attack that

 

[slaughterj]

Sutek, address my point about all attacks not requiring a standard action. If you don't, you will have clearly shown that your argument was wrong. You can try to change the discussion to another element, but that still won't mean that attacks do not require a standard action in all situations. Therefore, defensive blast as a free action can still be an attack.

Logical Reasoning 101: There are no rules titled "Counter-Attack", either on page 185 or anywhere else. Therefore, that it descriptive text and not any direct indication of DB being an "Attack".

I didn't say there was. But the language certainly suggests that DB is an attack, even if the language is not further defined.

Quoting D&D rules to explain your points in Conan discussion isn't.

Where did I do that? Or is this just another attempt at misdirection because you can't actually address the logical points I made above?

You've gotten yourself stuck here and can't admit it. That's fine, just simply stopping responding would be better than attempting these silly evasive tactics. This is yet another situation where you are the ONLY person who thinks something is the way you read it, so that should give you some pause, especially in light of the logic I presented above. But it clearly won't, because you are too bull-headed on these things - maybe you should change your username to the Minotaur? :lol:

 

[Sutek]

Sutek, address my point about all attacks not requiring a free action. If you don't, you will have clearly shown that your argument was wrong. You can try to change the discussion to another element, but that still won't mean that attacks do not require a standard action in all situations. Therefore, defensive blast as a free action can still be an attack.

Okay, attacks not requiring a free action? I;ll adress that by saying that it doesn't make any sense. Attacks DON'T require a Free Action, so I have no idea what I'm supposed to adress.

Now if you're actually asking about some attacks being Free Actions, I'm sure that's the case. I'don't intend to go try to look any of the up since we're just talking about DB here, and nowhere in it's description does it state that it's an attack. They use the term "counter-attack", which is a term undefined in the rules and therfore obviously there for flavor, adn you generate a Save DC, but it still isn't described as a "Magical Attack". There's more to this, which has apparently eluded everyone, but I'll get back to that in a moment.

You've gotten yourself stuck here and can't admit it. That's fine, just simply stopping responding would be better than attempting these silly evasive tactics. This is yet another situation where you are the ONLY person who thinks something is the way you read it, so that should give you some pause, especially in light of the logic I presented above. But it clearly won't, because you are too bull-headed on these things - maybe you should change your username to the Minotaur? :lol:

I'm not stuck, there's just no other way to explain it in simpler terms that you might be able to comprehend.

It's simple. If OppSac. is read such that it requires and attack, and since DB doesn't state that it is actually an attack, the two are therefore incompatible and cannot be used in conjunction with one another. It's really just that simple.

Now, to the point I was speaking of earlier.

You folks 'have made countless opinionated posts that have no actual citation of rules. Each time a passage was brought up by someone else, I either was able to redirect to an appropriate example that showed the assertion to be false (as in the case of commas and the list of types of attacks) and still there's been an inundation with comments about how stubborn, bullheaded, flawed in logic or rediculously selfish my assertion is here, all with no foundation at all, all based on the fact that "Sutek can't possibly be right because no one else has said this before."

You've all been obstinant and incredulous, when all I felt I'd done was solve a dilema for the general Conan playing public. It's a simple solution, it doesn't affect any other rules or deffinitions in the book, and it sure as hell doesn't affect your lives in anyway other than you get to be insulting to someone on the internet that you don't even know.

The solution I've noticed works and it solves the DB problem. The only issue left after my solution is with those people whoe feel that DBV shouldnt'be in the game on canonical grounds becuse it doesn't fit REHs stories.

I've defended this interpretation all I care to, and I truly resent the fact that I'm now bullied into feeling like I need to defend myself and my character.

I'm not bullheaded on this - I'm right.

Now you guys can continue, but I'm done with this crap.

 

[Krushnak]

well sutek all you ever do with spells is generate a dc with your magic attack roll so either that is a magic attack or you can never count as having killed some one with an attack by magic. which frankly doesnt make sense.

it's a nice try to avoid the problems of the ability but it still isnt covered by the rules, so it's really no different from any other houserules out there. personally i prefer just counting the damae as subdual instead fire and it solves pretty much all the problems i had with the ability.