A few rules questions

Incorrect.

Forced Movement and Teleportation restrict all opportunity actions, and get around Polearm Gamble and other triggered opportunity attacks. If the power in question forbids -all- opportunity attacks, they get around things like that. If they forbid all opportunity actions, they trump even more things. They don't, however, stop triggered non-actions like Booming Blade, or Dire Radiance, because these are not actions, nor are they opportunity actions.

Doesn't that come down to which more is more general and which is more specific?

Forced movement's rules are general referring to forced movement while the rules governing a specific power are specific and govern a special set of circumstances and how they interact with this power. So doesn't a power saying I get to attack you if you move closer to me override the general ruling that teleports or forced movement don't trigger Opportunity actions. Or do we not let it override since it doesn't not specifically say that it overrides the general ruling for those movement types.

Opportunity attacks and shift each say what happens when they collide due to them being both general, but when a specific is in play, doesn't it ignore both of those generals when it conflicts and go with it's own rules.

This is a problem of exception based systems really, I like 4th edition but these types of issues crop up because of how it's done, the alternative is worse though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Doesn't that come down to which more is more general and which is more specific?

Forced movement's rules are general referring to forced movement while the rules governing a specific power are specific and govern a special set of circumstances and how they interact with this power. So doesn't a power saying I get to attack you if you move closer to me override the general ruling that teleports or forced movement don't trigger Opportunity actions. Or do we not let it override since it doesn't not specifically say that it overrides the general ruling for those movement types.

The general on moving is irrelevant. What you need to look at is the general for opportunity actions. Here's how those layer in this case:

Nothing by default triggers opportunity actions other than the rules for opportunity attacks.
Cobra is an exception to this rule, allowing you an opportunity action.
Teleportation, et al. is an exception to -that-, disallowing all opportunity actions.
Nothing exists here that explicitly permits opportunity actions during teleportation/forced movement.

Opportunity attacks and shift each say what happens when they collide due to them being both general, but when a specific is in play, doesn't it ignore both of those generals when it conflicts and go with it's own rules.

You're misunderstanding what exception-based design means. When you're asking 'can I make an opportunity attack here?' the top level rule (most general) is that about opportunity attacks. Then shifting provides an exception to those rules. Shifting is not a general rule, it's the exception, in this case.

This is a problem of exception based systems really, I like 4th edition but these types of issues crop up because of how it's done, the alternative is worse though.

Bah. 3rd edition was exception-based as well--4th edition's only put language stating it outright.

So, to determine general, you ask 'what is it we're dealing with here.' Then apply exceptions... then apply exceptions to those exceptions, until you come out the bottom of the chain.

In this case, forbidding a type of action is an exception to rules that permit that type of action. If it weren't, immobilized wouldn't stop movement, shifting wouldn't stop opportunity attacks, and character death wouldn't stop you from playing your character until the Raise Dead.
 

The general on moving is irrelevant. What you need to look at is the general for opportunity actions. Here's how those layer in this case:

Nothing by default triggers opportunity actions other than the rules for opportunity attacks.
Cobra is an exception to this rule, allowing you an opportunity action.
Teleportation, et al. is an exception to -that-, disallowing all opportunity actions.
Nothing exists here that explicitly permits opportunity actions during teleportation/forced movement.
Why is teleportation an exception to cobra and not the other way around.

Teleportation is a way of moving achieved by several methods, cobra is a single power granding you an action. Specific vs General.

You can argue with me about this all you want, tell me I'm wrong but the truth is that when the statement of a specific rule overrides the general rule is made about the game mechanics, unless there is some grand overall specificity index for each rule there is more than one way to interpret which one is more specific.

To be fair though the entire thing is broken without a proper frame of reference anyway, anything that causes damage by way of nonaction when an opponent gets closer to me would also trigger on my own turn if I move closer to them, but I"m pretty sure they don't intend for that to happen either =P

Anyway, I think in my games I'm going to consider an individual power or feat to be the most specific ruling and it will override the general rules that conflict with what it says it does. I doubt anyone will find it broken or unfun so that's all that really matters as long as the rule is enforced consistantly.
 

Here's how that exception chain works.

Teleportation is movement. (one rule)
Cobra allows opportunity actions on enemy movement. (second rule)
Teleportation denies all opportunity actions (third rule).

Teleportation is a series of rules, not just a single one.
 

Anyway, I think in my games I'm going to consider an individual power or feat to be the most specific ruling and it will override the general rules that conflict with what it says it does.

You do understand that would cause all opportunity attacks to no longer work at all, right?
 

Basicly, exceptions are -explicit-. They aren't 'secret' or require rules fuddery.

Teleportation says, for example 'no opportunity actions.' Unless said opportunity action said 'this opportunity action can be used even if the target teleports' or explicitly reacted -to- teleportation and therefore can -only- be an exception, it is -not- an exception.

Cobra has none of those things. It does not make an exception to the teleportation rule.

However, teleportation's 'no opportunity actions' rule IS an explicit exception to Cobra, because it -explicitly- calls out ALL opportunity actions.
 

Ok so going by the rules for Opportunity actions...

Actions on other Turns PHB Pg 269
Opportunity Actions: You can take one opportunity action on each other combatant’s turn. An opportunity action must be triggered by an enemy’s action.

Ok this rules out forced movement since it is not an enemies action that causes it. Teleport however if done by the enemy would still apply from this rule so far.

Under Teleportation it says
No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.

SO in the end I change my mind again, yay, but not to agree with you.

Forced movement does NOT allow opportunity actions of any type, including opportunity attacks unless the power explicity states it does...

Teleportation on the other hand is ONLY safe from opportunity attacks NOT opportunity actions.

So cobra WOULD trigger if you teleport from within 5 square to a closer distance.

After all this I think that is the absolute truth about how it works if you read the rules and put them together properly.
 
Last edited:



No to thread hijack to harshly, but does this mean that if you shift from 2 squares away to 1 square away against a creature with Threatening Reach, you provoke anyway?

--
gnfnrf
 

Remove ads

Top