Standing doesn't provoke an OA?

[JGulick]

The PHB text is vital.

Sorry, it's not necessary at all.

Everything you claim it is vital to be done, the MM text does by changing the range of Opportunity Attacks (and, most importantly, the Provocation thereof) from "adjacent" to "within combat reach". Simply take the Opportunity Attack passage you quote and make the change. All done, with no need to touch any other text.

Sadly, you are correct that the PHB does its best to confuse this by having its own not-exactly-the-same rules for Threatening Reach. Rules that lack the simplicity and elegance of simply changing the range and instead completely change the mechanic.

 

[Chen_93]

Sadly, you are correct that the PHB does its best to confuse this by having its own not-exactly-the-same rules for Threatening Reach. Rules that lack the simplicity and elegance of simply changing the range and instead completely change the mechanic.

Uh while you are correct in that simple re-wording and rules change would be more elegant, it is NOT what is done and consequently NOT what the rules say. With the convoluted way its written it implies different things than the simplifications you mentioned. Perhaps the elegant manner in which you simplified it is correct and what the developers intended. However, it is NOT as its written which leads to the more complex analysis presented by Hypersmurf.

 

[JGulick]

Uh while you are correct in that simple re-wording and rules change would be more elegant, it is NOT what is done and consequently NOT what the rules say. With the convoluted way its written it implies different things than the simplifications you mentioned. Perhaps the elegant manner in which you simplified it is correct and what the developers intended. However, it is NOT as its written which leads to the more complex analysis presented by Hypersmurf.

You may choose to believe that. But you are wrong in saying I am asking for rules to be written differently. I am merely pointing to one time that they are written IMO correctly while Hypersmurf is pointing to the functional descriptions of the rule's effect as if that is the rule itself.

I choose to believe that the correct rules, when two books say different things, are the ones in the more appropriate source (MM for Monster rules) and/or the ones leading to fewer contradictions. In this case, those are the same choice.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Everything you claim it is vital to be done, the MM text does by changing the range of Opportunity Attacks (and, most importantly, the Provocation thereof) from "adjacent" to "within combat reach". Simply take the Opportunity Attack passage you quote and make the change. All done, with no need to touch any other text.

Ahhh.

So what you're saying is that when the MM says "You may make opportunity attacks against any opponents within your reach", what it means is "This ability changes the definition of actions that provoke OAs so that, for you, those actions provoke OAs within your reach instead of merely adjacent"?

It's nice to know that an ability doesn't need to spell that out to have it implied.

IF Warpriest's Challenge said "This power changes the definition of Shifts so that, for you, Shifts by your Marked Target Provoke OA," then you would be right. But that isn't what it says. Instead, it provides a special new source of OAs, a Shift or Attack not against you by the marked target.

... say, lookathat!

-Hyp.

 

[JGulick]

... say, lookathat!

Still having trouble with the difference between "this power modifies an existing ability to do X" vs. "this power provides an additional ability to do X"? If you examine your alleged "gotcha", you'll find that this is the difference between them.

I think we both understand and disagree with each other's position, and continued posting won't change either unless you can find something far better than this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Still having trouble with the difference between "this power modifies an existing ability to do X" vs. "this power provides an additional ability to do X"? If you examine your alleged "gotcha", you'll find that this is the difference between them.

What difference?

Threatening Reach in the MM does not state that the way OAs are provoked is changed. Its benefit is the ability to make OAs within your reach. But unless the way ranged attacks provoke OAs is changed, someone only provokes an OA with a ranged attack if they're adjacent when they make it.

Now, if "You can make OAs under condition X" includes the understanding that "... and condition X provokes OAs", then fine - a ranged attack made within your Threatening Reach provokes an OA from you, and you can make that OA.

But by the identical logic, Warpriest's Challenge - "You can make an OA against an adjacent opponent who shifts" includes the understanding that "an adjacent opponent who shifts provokes an OA from you".

You can't say that "You can make an OA when..." changes what provokes an OA on one page, but "You can make an OA when..." doesn't change what provokes an OA on another page.

Threatening Reach and Warpriest's Challenge both say "You can make an OA", and neither of them explicitly extend the scope of what provokes an OA. So either both of them implicitly extend that scope, or else neither of them do. If the MM text for Threatening Reach doesn't implicitly extend the scope of what provokes, then the PHB text is required in order for the ability to be of any use. If it does, then so does Warpriest's Challenge, and the shift is what provokes the OA.

-Hyp.