Bladesinger questions

[DarkLord Of DForce]

The catch is, all of that is happening on the leader's turn. The leader grants ACTIONS, not TURNS. Since it's all happening on that one turn, the bladesinger gets only one OA.

To echo Obryn, just ask yourself if you've moved to a new initiative step. If you haven't, no new OA. If yes, you can.

So going by this, if your party is fighting a very bad, high level boss, and this creature has an aura or stance that says he gets an OA against any creature that moves adjacent to him, and the Cleric in the party uses Valorous Charge and 7 of his team-mates charge the Boss, only one of the 7 will have the Boss use an OA against him?

May be right, just doesn't *feel* right...

PS and what happens in a game where the DM assigns -1- initiative roll to a group of monsters (which happens quite a bit)? That would seem really unfair.

 

[Mirtek]

So going by this, if your party is fighting a very bad, high level boss, and this creature has an aura or stance that says he gets an OA against any creature that moves adjacent to him, and the Cleric in the party uses Valorous Charge and 7 of his team-mates charge the Boss, only one of the 7 will have the Boss use an OA against him?

Correct.

May be right, just doesn't *feel* right...

In this case it's just a good tactic. Or bad design from whoever wrote this monster, since there was no reason to call these attacks OAs, if he has just written "gets to make a basic attack against each creature that moves adjacent" the monster could have attacked all of them. At the moment I can't actually think of any positive that comes from labeling these attacks as OAs, it only serves the purpose to weaken the aura (e.g. a creature could move adjacent, suffer the OA and then use a ranged attack without having to worry about a second OA)

PS and what happens in a game where the DM assigns -1- initiative roll to a group of monsters (which happens quite a bit)? That would seem really unfair.

Turns are not tied to initiative. If two PCs go at the same initiative value they still on two separate turns.

 

[Squire James]

Then there's us poor old-school people for whom 1 turn = 10 rounds. It's sometimes a little hard to get a hold of the idea that "turns" is now a SHORTER slice of time than a round is!

I've seen (and on occasion have been) a DM that rolled initiative once for all the monsters, and then when their turns came up the DM moved all the monsters before declaring any attacks. Of course, in 4e, the DM has to be aware that each monster still acts in a bunch of discrete turns, and that opportunity attacks due to movement can be triggered separately by each monster.

And don't even bother doing that "move all" approach with a Cunning Bard in the party (the one that lets allies shift a square when a monster misses). I don't know how many times I moved two guys to flank someone, rolled for both with one miss and one hit, and the Bard player asks if the miss was the first guy (because if it was, the PC can be shifted out of the flank and perhaps out of range of the other attacker). I resolved with a odd-even check, and assumed one was readying for the flank, so if the PC was slid out of the other's way he lost his attack unless someone else happened to be in reach. Needless to say, it would have been easier just to take the monster turns one by one!

 

[TwoSix]

For each participant in a battle, there is one turn in every round. A turn is the segment of time in each round that is alloted to that participant to take their three non-triggered actions (standard, move, minor).

Any other action that a character takes will occur during another participant's turn, due to events triggered by the actions taken by the active participant. (This trigger may be a function of the power held by the character, or an effect of the action by the active participant, i.e. leader granting a MBA.) None of these triggered actions are "turns". Some special cases of these triggered actions have limitations, such as the "once per turn" of OAs and the "once per round" of immediate actions. All triggered actions take place within the time frame of the action of the active participant that initiated the trigger. Triggers resolve in the order they are activated, with the exception of immediate interrupts, which resolve immediately before the action that triggered them.

Turn 1
Standard -> Leader grants MBA to 2 allies.
Trigger(1) -> Ally 1 takes MBA against Bladesinger.
Trigger(2) -> Bladesinger takes MBA against Ally 1 as OA.
Trigger(1) -> Ally 2 takes MBA against Bladesinger.
Trigger(2) -> Bladesinger would take MBA against Ally 2, but has already used an OA this turn.
Move -> Leader
Minor -> Leader

Turn 2
Standard ->
etc.

I don't believe there's a specific ruling as to how to resolve chains of triggers, or how to resolve actions that involve multiple parts (multi-attacks, leader powers where you attack and grant a move). I think, in general, for any power with multiple parts, you resolve one part, all triggers generated by that one part, and then the next part of the action. For example, if you use a power that lets an ally shift and make an attack. You can let the ally shift first, ally shifts into flanking position, and then you can make the attack with combat advantage.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I see and understand what everyone is saying about the turn being the Leaders who granted the MBA's. In my mind I"m having trouble associating the Leaders action being the *trigger* for Bladesong/Steely Retort. Its not the trigger, the MBA by each attacker is... <shrugs> I'll just have to deal with it.

I know you can't cross-reference real world scenarios with 4e, but if I was standing on a street corner, and a gang leader told 2 of his thugs to attack me, it would seem strange that I defended against the first attacker, and then stopped against the 2nd one because it was the gang leader who told them to attack me.

Like I said, its my problem balancing this out in me poor head but I will.

Thanks for all the great comments everyone.

 

[Mirtek]

I know you can't cross-reference real world scenarios with 4e, but if I was standing on a street corner, and a gang leader told 2 of his thugs to attack me, it would seem strange that I defended against the first attacker, and then stopped against the 2nd one because it was the gang leader who told them to attack me.

Both would attack you at the same time. The arm you raise to defend against thug 1 can't at the same time defend against thug 2.

In D&D all turns are supposed to be simultaneous too, we just execute them one by one because we would otherwise be unable to handle the resulting chaos.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's a matter of coordination. The leader issue would be the gang leader saying "Now. Together." And you would counter-attack only one because they were synchronised. On the other hand when each attacks you as normal you'd get to counterattack each.

 

[TwoSix]

I know you can't cross-reference real world scenarios with 4e, but if I was standing on a street corner, and a gang leader told 2 of his thugs to attack me, it would seem strange that I defended against the first attacker, and then stopped against the 2nd one because it was the gang leader who told them to attack me.

Well, try thinking of it as the Leader telling the first guy to distract you while the second guy sneaks in and lashes out at your unprotected back. While your magic makes you supernaturally fast, even you aren't fast enough to strike at 2 guys who are coming at you from opposite directions.

It's always important to remember that 4e is much more of a narrative game. Play out the mechanical part, figure out what happens in game terms, THEN narrate the outcome. Narrate in the middle of a turn, and you'll get messed up.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, narrating that way seems to make a bit of sense at least.

Thanks everyone, appreciate the discussion and being patient with me.