-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Armour of Bahamut
- Thread starter SableWyvern
- Start date
SableWyvern
Hero
It says different things, but given that both statements can be true without contradiction, it makes sense to assume that both are true. I agree that the first can be misleading if you don't spot the second, though.
That's an interesting way to try and fold up conflicting statements but it doesn't do it for me. As much as it pains me to say so the PHB just isn't written that well and time and time again people are running into some pretty serious conflicts.
Bolds are theirs, not mine -
----------
pg 15.
Every class gives you access to attack powers you can use to harm or hinder your enemies and utility powers that help you and your allies. Powers in each of these broad categories are further defined by how often you can use them.
----------
When you use ranged attack or area attack powers you provoke, pg 268.
When you use ranged powers or area powers you provoke, 290.
They already used the keyword of attack powers so why not combine both sentences into saying that? There was already an effort made to draw a distinction between utility and attack powers at the very start of the book and it was carried through about half-way. I'm not convinced this isn't just a case of a simple missing word or bad edit.
Bolds are theirs, not mine -
----------
pg 15.
Every class gives you access to attack powers you can use to harm or hinder your enemies and utility powers that help you and your allies. Powers in each of these broad categories are further defined by how often you can use them.
----------
When you use ranged attack or area attack powers you provoke, pg 268.
When you use ranged powers or area powers you provoke, 290.
They already used the keyword of attack powers so why not combine both sentences into saying that? There was already an effort made to draw a distinction between utility and attack powers at the very start of the book and it was carried through about half-way. I'm not convinced this isn't just a case of a simple missing word or bad edit.
Last edited:
SableWyvern
Hero
It's sloppy writing, no doubt, but the statements don't conflict.
The assertion "drinking wine can lead to drunkness" does not conflict with "drinking alcohol can lead to drunkeness." Similarly, "ranged attacks provoke" does not conflict with "ranged powers provoke." If the latter is true, then the former must also be true. That's not a conflict, it's just an example of a complete rule and an incomplete subset of the rule.
The section you originally quoted clearly should say "ranged powers instead of "ranged attacks in order to explain the full ramifications of the OA rules.
However, let's assume for the moment that p290 is a mistake, and p268 is the entire listing of powers that provoke. What, then, is the difference between a single-target, non-attack ranged power and a single-target, non-attack close burst power?
The assertion "drinking wine can lead to drunkness" does not conflict with "drinking alcohol can lead to drunkeness." Similarly, "ranged attacks provoke" does not conflict with "ranged powers provoke." If the latter is true, then the former must also be true. That's not a conflict, it's just an example of a complete rule and an incomplete subset of the rule.
The section you originally quoted clearly should say "ranged powers instead of "ranged attacks in order to explain the full ramifications of the OA rules.
However, let's assume for the moment that p290 is a mistake, and p268 is the entire listing of powers that provoke. What, then, is the difference between a single-target, non-attack ranged power and a single-target, non-attack close burst power?
Last edited:
There was an attempt early on to draw a distinction between attack powers and utility powers under their description on page 15. That distinction is maintained on 268 and then abandoned on 290.
To answer your question, I don't think any non-attack powers are supposed to provoke. I have to agree that the wording for is greater than the wording against. That said, I also believe the text to be so poorly written and that there have been so many large scale confusions already that I cannot trust the exact letter. If I stabbed someone for using Armor of Bahamut (a Cleric has it in the game I'm running) and he made the same argument that I made I would be forced to find the two sides both strong enough that it would be necessary to rule on what I think was intended, and if that failed, what was better for the game as a whole.
To answer your question, I don't think any non-attack powers are supposed to provoke. I have to agree that the wording for is greater than the wording against. That said, I also believe the text to be so poorly written and that there have been so many large scale confusions already that I cannot trust the exact letter. If I stabbed someone for using Armor of Bahamut (a Cleric has it in the game I'm running) and he made the same argument that I made I would be forced to find the two sides both strong enough that it would be necessary to rule on what I think was intended, and if that failed, what was better for the game as a whole.
"To answer your question, I don't think any non-attack powers are supposed to provoke."
Of course they are. Look at the vast majority of healing powers in 4e. They are either melee powers, or close bursts that let you target allies in the burst. If ranged non-attack powers weren't supposed to provoke AoOs, then there would be no reason to write powers like Healing Word and Inspiring Word as bursts. It is far more intuitive to have them be ranged powers. The only reason for the switch is to allow them to avoid AoOs
Of course they are. Look at the vast majority of healing powers in 4e. They are either melee powers, or close bursts that let you target allies in the burst. If ranged non-attack powers weren't supposed to provoke AoOs, then there would be no reason to write powers like Healing Word and Inspiring Word as bursts. It is far more intuitive to have them be ranged powers. The only reason for the switch is to allow them to avoid AoOs
True enough. But if there was a firm distinction between attack powers and non attack powers, why would all class features be typed as attack powers? Almost none of them allow you to make attacks.
That being said, with a quick glance through the PHB, I don't see any powers that replicate the mechanic healing/inspiring word use ( a burst to target a single creature at range) so maybe you are onto something.
That being said, with a quick glance through the PHB, I don't see any powers that replicate the mechanic healing/inspiring word use ( a burst to target a single creature at range) so maybe you are onto something.
Vayden
First Post
Shifting away from the endless "utility powers don't provoke" argument attempts (I'm fully in the "all ranged and area powers provoke" camp, btw, though I understand the other point of view) - if the paladin is up against one opponent, he can use this just fine, because you can't take opportunity attacks on your turn, which applies to monsters as well. If he's in a crowd though, it's a bad idea to try and use it.
Clarifying examples:
Party is fighting big bad solo monster, solo monster crits Pally or Pally's ally - Paladin uses Armor of Bahamut during solo's turn, solo can't take OA on its own turn, Paladin is happy.
Party is fighting a mixed group of monsters, Paladin is in the middle of the enemies, enemy A crits Paladin or Paladin's ally - bad idea to use AoB here in most cases, as all of the other adjacent enemies would get to OA the Paladin (though there would be some specific cases where it would be worth the risk).
Party is fighting swarm of minions - a minion crits, Paladin doesn't bother to use AoB, since minion crits don't do extra dmg, Paladin is unhappy due to not being able to use his feat.
So, generally, it's pretty rare that it'll be useful (kinda like most of the channel divinity feats).
Clarifying examples:
Party is fighting big bad solo monster, solo monster crits Pally or Pally's ally - Paladin uses Armor of Bahamut during solo's turn, solo can't take OA on its own turn, Paladin is happy.
Party is fighting a mixed group of monsters, Paladin is in the middle of the enemies, enemy A crits Paladin or Paladin's ally - bad idea to use AoB here in most cases, as all of the other adjacent enemies would get to OA the Paladin (though there would be some specific cases where it would be worth the risk).
Party is fighting swarm of minions - a minion crits, Paladin doesn't bother to use AoB, since minion crits don't do extra dmg, Paladin is unhappy due to not being able to use his feat.
So, generally, it's pretty rare that it'll be useful (kinda like most of the channel divinity feats).
