Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
L4W Discussion Thread IV
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 5009868" data-attributes="member: 64945"><p>Having looked at the PH combat chapter, I don't feel like it really resolves anything. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /> Basically, the <em>provoking</em> of opportunity attacks is pretty well conflated with the <em>making</em> of opportunity attacks.</p><p></p><p>All the blurbs under individual actions and attack types read more or less like this:</p><p></p><p>"* <strong>Provoke Opportunity Attacks</strong>: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."</p><p></p><p>or:</p><p></p><p>"* <strong>Provoke Opportunity Attacks</strong>: If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."</p><p></p><p>(The opportunity attack section on pg 290 is mostly about making the attacks, with a couple of blurbs that are basically restatements of the above.)</p><p></p><p>You could concentrate on the bolded part and say, "Yep, that action provokes, period. Therefore it triggers the Fire Hawk Attack." Looking at the non-bolded part, you could say either "that only means you have to be adjacent to <em>make</em> the attack, it still provokes". But you could reasonably say "No, it means the enemy has to be adjacent to provoke the attack in the first place".</p><p></p><p>There's one thing it might clear up though. I was wondering if, you go with the "enemy has to be adjacent" interpretation, what if the enemy is dazed or otherwise unable to actually make the attack? No matter how you read these rules blurbs, they don't indicate anything about the condition or the ability of the adjacent enemy. Just that they are adjacent.</p><p></p><p>Analyzing the "adjacent enemy not needed" interpretation - I'm still thinking that the potential 2d8 + 2xWis damage is not wildly out of line, when you consider 1) the first attack must hit to unlock the second (unlike, e.g., Twin Strike); 2) the druid must remain in human form (and within 10 squares, but that should be easy); and 3) the enemy often has at least some ability to deny the second attack by choosing a non-provoking action. </p><p></p><p>But on the other hand, I'm starting to pity the poor kobold slinger. For an artillery monster, who is not within shifting distance of melee range, there's just not really that much he can do that won't provoke. Total defense is about it, and that's no way to win a battle! (A controller at least has a hope of some sort of close attack or utility power option.)</p><p></p><p>So... I don't know. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ryryguy, post: 5009868, member: 64945"] Having looked at the PH combat chapter, I don't feel like it really resolves anything. :( Basically, the [I]provoking[/I] of opportunity attacks is pretty well conflated with the [i]making[/i] of opportunity attacks. All the blurbs under individual actions and attack types read more or less like this: "* [B]Provoke Opportunity Attacks[/B]: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you." or: "* [B]Provoke Opportunity Attacks[/B]: If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you." (The opportunity attack section on pg 290 is mostly about making the attacks, with a couple of blurbs that are basically restatements of the above.) You could concentrate on the bolded part and say, "Yep, that action provokes, period. Therefore it triggers the Fire Hawk Attack." Looking at the non-bolded part, you could say either "that only means you have to be adjacent to [I]make[/I] the attack, it still provokes". But you could reasonably say "No, it means the enemy has to be adjacent to provoke the attack in the first place". There's one thing it might clear up though. I was wondering if, you go with the "enemy has to be adjacent" interpretation, what if the enemy is dazed or otherwise unable to actually make the attack? No matter how you read these rules blurbs, they don't indicate anything about the condition or the ability of the adjacent enemy. Just that they are adjacent. Analyzing the "adjacent enemy not needed" interpretation - I'm still thinking that the potential 2d8 + 2xWis damage is not wildly out of line, when you consider 1) the first attack must hit to unlock the second (unlike, e.g., Twin Strike); 2) the druid must remain in human form (and within 10 squares, but that should be easy); and 3) the enemy often has at least some ability to deny the second attack by choosing a non-provoking action. But on the other hand, I'm starting to pity the poor kobold slinger. For an artillery monster, who is not within shifting distance of melee range, there's just not really that much he can do that won't provoke. Total defense is about it, and that's no way to win a battle! (A controller at least has a hope of some sort of close attack or utility power option.) So... I don't know. :( [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
L4W Discussion Thread IV
Top