D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Does Bigby's Icy Grasp provoke OA on subsequent attacks?
Okay, a wizard has a Bigby's Icy Grasp spell already in place. He sustains it, uses a Move action to move the hand to a new target, and then takes a Standard to attack that target. The wizard also happens to be adjacent to an enemy. Does the post-sustain Standard action to make a new attack with the Icy hand provoke an OA?
My thought was yes, but I was getting some push-back from my players.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
It depends on what the sustain does. If the sustain is an attack, then yes, it is considered a ranged attack and would provoke. If the sustain merely maintains a zone of some kind, then no. You're not making an attack, you're merely maintaining something (which does not).
Hmm. Looking at the recent threads on sustain, and CS's general confusion, I'm now thinking the opposite. Use a Power provokes, Sustain does not. Seems the most basic reading of the text.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
As Mort_Q pointed out, sustain by itself doesn't provoke, but if that sustain allows you to make an attack, and the type of the powers attack is ranged (as in this case) or area then the ranged attack provokes.
At least by a strict reading of the rules, as backed up by WotC Customer Service.
But even CS was contradictory on the issue. (In the recent thread here.)
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Yeah, we've gone round and round the mulberry bush on this one...
The worst part is, just because you got a CS ruling that says one thing, don't think other people haven't gotten CS rulings that conflict with that. Obviously CS can't figure it out any more than anyone on these boards can. So it is going to be a matter of personal DM preference, at least unless and until there is an errata of some kind.
My 2 cents worth is, if the sustain provides the caster with the ability to launch an attack (and it was a ranged or area power) then it provokes an OA. So the Bigby spells would all provoke OA I believe. On the other hand, sustaining a zone which causes damage, even if you have to roll to "hit" creatures in the zone to do the damage) will not provoke OA because in effect the caster is simply maintaining the zone, not directing an attack at whoever is in it. The distinction being it is the decision of the target to stay in the zone or move into the zone, and that is what is causing it to be attacked. The caster isn't specifically launching an attack at the target(s).
Granted, that isn't the simplest possible interpretation, but I think it most closely matches the RAI. I really don't think it was intended that you would provoke an OA simply because you sustained a power. Also my interpretation avoids some ugly problems like what if a power creates a zone which makes a to-hit roll on a creature in the zone during that creature's turn? Suddenly the original caster is subject to an OA due to another creature's action? Doesn't make the slightest sense to me.
Initiating a ranged power provokes, sustaining does not.
That's how we've always played it. Considering if it did provoke, who'd ever use it? Just to sustain my daily I'm going to get slaughtered by AoO? Seems to seriously weaken a Wizard/Warlock.
The phb says that Using Ranged/Area powers provokes. Sustaining a power is not Using a Ranged or Area power. So, that reason doesn't apply.
HOWEVER
The PHB -also- says that making a Ranged/Area Attack provokes. Are you making an attack? Yes. The attack type of that attack is the attack type of the power that permits it. That means that sustaining a ranged/area power that gives an attack is making a ranged/area attack, and therefore provoked.
So, the real question is: 'Is it ranged/area powers, or ranged/area attacks that provoke?' The answer is that it is both. Rules as written say both, and it is not contradictory, therefore, apply both rules.
So, the real question is: 'Is it ranged/area powers, or ranged/area attacks that provoke?'
I guess there is also the question of "does a sustain attack really have the same type as the power"? I don't believe it is stated in the rulebook, so we only have CS word on it. And clearly in some cases it's kind of silly... mordenkainen's sword, zone attacks, etc.
I've decided to go with the simplest reading of the text (which has been working for us so far), i.e., use = OA, sustain = no OA. That way, we can always just say, "If it's part of the Sustain entry for a power, you are safe."
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Looking at it logically and turning from the RAW: The hand occupies a separate square. The attack comes from that square and would force the creature being attacked to pay some attention to it. If the wizard is also adjacent to the target and sustaining the action, I believe that he/she can still defend themselves and not receive an attack of opportunity because they left themselves open for attack.
I'd rule that since they are sustaining and not casting a ranged/area attack, they would not be a target of OA.
I try to avoid using in-game simulation arguments. With all the abstractions in D&D, I think it usually causes more problems than it solves. I prefer to just study the text.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
One of the problems here is that there are three definitions of the word "attack" in 4e:
- Attack powers are called Attacks ("Rogue Attack 3"),
- The entirety of an attack-hit-damage line.
- The roll which you use to attack. Abilities with more than one target have more than one roll
If we had a hypothetical Area Burst attack:
Hypothetical Class Attack 3
Attack: Int vs Ref
Target: Each enemy in Burst
Hit: 2d6+3 fire damage
Effect: Make a secondary attack
Attack: Int vs Fort
Target: Each enemy in burst
Hit: The target is dazed (save ends)
It's an Attack with two Attacks which each have a variable number of Attack rolls.
It seems everyone has a valid argument for and against. Can I throw a different angle on the whole topic.
Bigby's is a conjuration, a whole debate can be opened up as to wether a conjured 'ally' that is directed to attack by the conjurer provokes attacks of opportunities against the conjurer. It would be quite reasonable for a conjurer to complain about unfair treatment if their instructions to attack provokes attacks of opportunities when maybe a rangers instructions to a beast ally does not.
Alternatively get the caster to wear that armour that automatically avoids opportunity attacks for range attacks and the whole debate goes away.
...Bigby's is a conjuration, a whole debate can be opened up as to wether a conjured 'ally' that is directed to attack by the conjurer provokes attacks of opportunities against the conjurer. It would be quite reasonable for a conjurer to complain about unfair treatment if their instructions to attack provokes attacks of opportunities when maybe a rangers instructions to a beast ally does not...
I believe that the more simple the read, the better, to avoid corner case confiusion. So, I like that Sustain =/ Provoke answer.
If you do want Sustain to Provoke when it is an Attack (as some propose here) then I think it matters when a power is a conjuration. That way, zones and Giant Ice Hands will not provoke when attacking, once they are conjured up. That dodges the whole problem of whether the Sustain Attack is in fact a Ranged Attack at all.
Bigby's is a conjuration, a whole debate can be opened up as to wether a conjured 'ally' that is directed to attack by the conjurer provokes attacks of opportunities against the conjurer. It would be quite reasonable for a conjurer to complain about unfair treatment if their instructions to attack provokes attacks of opportunities when maybe a rangers instructions to a beast ally does not.
Again, I think using in-game rationale like this is wrong way to go. If that hypothetical ranger power isn't ranged or area, it's moot, no matter how much the wizard's player wants to whine about it.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
The real irony is that rowport works in IT. Management, of course.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
