Combat Challenge and Opportunity Attack

[Saxit]

If a marked target close to a fighter decides to make a ranged attack against one of the fighter's allies - will the fighter be able to attack him both with his combat challenge and make an opportunity attack?

 

[Contents May Vary]

Interesting question. I'd say yes, since it doesn't say that you can't.

 

[FireLance]

Normally, you are restricted to a single opportunity action on another creature's turn.

However, the extra attack from a fighter's combat challenge is an immediate interrupt.

So yes, I'd say you can attack twice.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Normally, you are restricted to a single opportunity action on another creature's turn.

However, the extra attack from a fighter's combat challenge is an immediate interrupt.

So yes, I'd say you can attack twice.

Yeah, because you get one opportunity action, and one immediate action per turn.

 

[DNH]

Not in my campaign

No, not in my campaign. To all intents and purposes, the Combat Challenge is marking an opponent as "yours" and allowing you an Opportunity Attack if it does anything but attack you on its turn. IMO, it was an oversight not to actually cite the OA within the Combat Challenge description. Look at the descriptions of both (Combat Challenge and Opportunity Attack) and they are almost identical.

DNH

 

[Mouseferatu]

IMO, it was an oversight not to actually cite the OA within the Combat Challenge description. Look at the descriptions of both (Combat Challenge and Opportunity Attack) and they are almost identical.

Not at all. There are very specific abilities a fighter gets on an OA--specifically, the ability to stop the foe's movement--that would be broken if they were allowed on Combat Challenge. There's a very good reason for them not to be the same thing.

Now, if you want to rule that they can't both be triggered by the same action--that the fighter has to pick one or the other--I think that's a reasonable house rule. But that doesn't mean they should be the same thing.

 

[DNH]

Not at all. There are very specific abilities a fighter gets on an OA--specifically, the ability to stop the foe's movement--that would be broken if they were allowed on Combat Challenge. There's a very good reason for them not to be the same thing.

Now, if you want to rule that they can't both be triggered by the same action--that the fighter has to pick one or the other--I think that's a reasonable house rule. But that doesn't mean they should be the same thing.

Well no, OK. I never actually advocated classifying the Combat Challenge effect as an OA (merely citing it). I can see that that would cause all manner of problems, for a number of reasons. I do think however, that it should be one trigger or the other and not both.

In fact, I am house-ruling on OAs as it is. One per combatant turn, but any number per round can lead to some patently ridiculous situations, such as an army of opponents running past the character and him getting an OA on each one (hundreds? more?). Or the more likely situation of a character being surrounded by opponents, who all then turn and flee - that's eight straight free attacks in one round, in addition to the character's own actions. That's not right.

 

[Nikolai II]

Or the more likely situation of a character being surrounded by opponents, who all then turn and flee - that's eight straight free attacks in one round, in addition to the character's own actions. That's not right.

Aah.. the memories of moderately high-leveled fighters in 1Ed that would rush in among a bunch of kobolds and make a "sweep" attack, getting to roll attacks on them all..

Limiting to one OA per round works. Not limiting it works too, since your scenario won't come up that often. (Two, maybe three at once could happen with some regularity, but not eight. Besides which, smart fleeing people shift with their move action, then run away with a converted standard action )

 

[DNH]

Aah.. the memories of moderately high-leveled fighters in 1Ed that would rush in among a bunch of kobolds and make a "sweep" attack, getting to roll attacks on them all.

Aye, but you try telling the young gamers of today that, and they won't believe you!

Limiting to one OA per round works. Not limiting it works too, since your scenario won't come up that often. (Two, maybe three at once could happen with some regularity, but not eight. Besides which, smart fleeing people shift with their move action, then run away with a converted standard action )

It's true about the shift thing, but they might not always get the choice (fleeing in panic as the result of a spell effect, for one). Or you might argue that if the creature has reached the point where running away is the only option, then a prudent 5'-step first is the last thing on its mind. Then again (he said, pre-empting the obvious response), you could argue that if a creature is smart enough to run away before getting killed, then it is smart enough to do it sensibly. ... It's all down to the individual DM, really.

 

[jaer]

In fact, I am house-ruling on OAs as it is. One per combatant turn, but any number per round can lead to some patently ridiculous situations, such as an army of opponents running past the character and him getting an OA on each one (hundreds? more?). Or the more likely situation of a character being surrounded by opponents, who all then turn and flee - that's eight straight free attacks in one round, in addition to the character's own actions. That's not right.

Not that I'm trying to get you to change your mind, but I think it is right and is exactly what the designers intended, especially of the defender classes.

I think they wanted to have characters who could hold narrow passes or stand in front of their allies and cut down hordes of minions as they tried to rush past. It fits in with the cinimatic view of the game (Boromir protecting the hobits and all of that).

If the enemies are fool enough to all run by one person without dealing with him first, they deserve to be hit, in my opinion. How else do defenders do their job?