Coup de Grace and Charge

[MadLordOfMilk]

I'd say yes, with the caveat that it depends on how you read p268.

p271: "If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you"
and p290: "If an enemy adjacent to you uses a ranged power or an area
power, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy"
both make it clear that the use of a ranged power (like Nimble Strike) in an adjacent square provokes an OA.

p268 uses different wording:
"Opportunity attacks are triggered by an enemy leaving a square adjacent to you or by an adjacent enemy making a ranged attack or an area attack."

I personally believe that "make a ranged attack" is synonymous with "use a power with the Ranged keyword" in this instance, but if you read it differently, then you might rule that the Ranger who moves adjacent and then takes a shot with his bow is "making a ranged attack" in the adjacent square, even though he was non-adjacent when he initiated the use of the power.

-Hyp.

So ultimately, you have to make one of two decisions:
1.) Using nimble strike lets you back up to avoid OAs from making a ranged attack
2.) Using nimble strike lets you make a ranged attack from an adjacent position without provoking an OA, by letting you shift into that spot as part of the power. At least, so long as you started not adjacent.

So, we can look at the flavor text to try and guess which was intended: "You slink past your enemy's guard to make your attack, or you make your attack then withdraw to a more advantageous position."

Slinking past a guard? Sounds like #1. Going by the literal rules? #2 can be argued pretty heavily. The thing is, if p268 is correct and it has to be the attack to provoke, then non-threatening area/ranged powers won't provoke OAs whereas otherwise they would. Best solution? Probably errata both Nimble strike and the OA descriptions... blech.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So ultimately, you have to make one of two decisions:
1.) Using nimble strike lets you back up to avoid OAs from making a ranged attack
2.) Using nimble strike lets you make a ranged attack from an adjacent position without provoking an OA, by letting you shift into that spot as part of the power. At least, so long as you started not adjacent.

Well, I don't look at it that way... that decision is already made for me.

I decide whether or not I'm going to follow the rules for ranged powers, and once I decide I'm going to follow them, option 1 is no longer valid.

-Hyp.

 

[Larrin]

The thing is...nimble strike triggering an OA is a "hidden" RAW. 99% of people reading the power will see "shift, then attack" and read it as meaning "shift =no OA". Thus while Hypersmurf points out with his impeccable attention to detail that there really isn't any wiggle room when you get into the literal law as written, its irrelevant. Only people who talk to hypersmurf will ever even consider that the shift in nimble could trigger an OA, and that indicates to me that the best course of action is not to play that way. I would be flabberghasted to learn that the designers intended nimble strike to trigger an OA on the shift (or to put it another way, if i learned they didn't intend for the shift to avoid OA), and pretty darn disapointed in them too.

99% of people will read nimble strike and see that the shift doesn't trigger an OA. The rules are written in such a way that 99% of people (and this propably includes the people who wrote nimble strike) are wrong. Too bad for the rules, I say. There is no benefit to adhering to the rules in such a way. The reason nimble strike triggers an OA is 'hidden' and counter intuitive. Why would a shift, which normally doesn't provoke an OA, suddenly provoke an OA because sometime in the near future you're going to shoot your bow. Its nonsense.

So, dear smurf, I do admire your ability to read the rules as well as you do, you never cease to amaze (and at times, horrify) me with the completely true facts you present. I cannot fault your logic. It's just more fun (and makes more sense) to play the game wrong sometimes.

 

[DracoSuave]

Of course, there's the logical fallacy of applying 3rd edition-esque rules-tight logic to the more Gygaxian designed 4th edition.

Just sayin'

 

[deleteme123456]

So, Hypersmurf, if a Rogue uses Deft Strike to move 2, ends adjacent to enemy A (but started adjacent to no enemies), and throws a dagger at enemy B 3 squares away (maybe enemy A is a minion, or rogue doesn't have CA vs A, etc.)... would you really let him do that without taking an OA? That just seems crazy. It's an enemy using a ranged attack...

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

So, Hypersmurf, if a Rogue uses Deft Strike to move 2, ends adjacent to enemy A (but started adjacent to no enemies), and throws a dagger at enemy B 3 squares away (maybe enemy A is a minion, or rogue doesn't have CA vs A, etc.)... would you really let him do that without taking an OA? That just seems crazy. It's an enemy using a ranged attack...

Well, in that case it's a move, not a shift, so that would change things slightly. But yeah, if he merely ends adjacent and doesn't do a movement that'd provoke opportunity attacks, the attack wouldn't provoke an OA. It's certainly thinking outside of the box with powers (reminds me of stuff like using Elven Accuracy to try to miss an ally w/an area power whereas most people just use it for missed attacks).

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, Hypersmurf, if a Rogue uses Deft Strike to move 2, ends adjacent to enemy A (but started adjacent to no enemies), and throws a dagger at enemy B 3 squares away (maybe enemy A is a minion, or rogue doesn't have CA vs A, etc.)... would you really let him do that without taking an OA? That just seems crazy. It's an enemy using a ranged attack...

If a Rogue uses a move action to move 2, ends adjacent to enemy A (but started adjacent to no enemies), and throws six daggers at enemies B through G two or three squares away in order to blind them... would you let him do that without taking an OA?

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

I don't see it that way.

But then again, I see 4E as a return to (in some way) old school in that RULINGS are more important than RULES. I.e, the rules are guidelines.

I see a ranged attack as a ranged attack. So a power like Nimble strike lets you shift 1 and attack and the attack triggers an OA. But the shift is not the attack.

And that is the reason why the power exists.

If you start next to someone and use a Nimble strike to shift away - you do not suffer an OA because when you make the actual attack you are not adjacent.

If you start non-adjacent and shift to become adjacent (for whatever reason) - you do suffer an OA because when you make the actual attack you are adjacent.

It makes total and absolute sense and as I see it, to rule otherwise is to completely toss logic and consistency with the design philosophy behind 4E out the window in favor of taking strict adherence to the letter of the rule to its absurd extreme.

But the beauty of RPGs is that there is no reason why any of us need agree. All that matters is that your players see the rules the same way as you do.

Carl

 

[Hypersmurf]

I see a ranged attack as a ranged attack. So a power like Nimble strike lets you shift 1 and attack and the attack triggers an OA. But the shift is not the attack.

So let's consider the Warlord Level 2 Utility powers.

Crescendo of Violence, Ranged 5; Knight's Move, Ranged 10; Shake It Off, Ranged 10.

All three are ranged powers; none of them include an attack roll.
If the Warlord is adjacent to an enemy when he uses Shake It Off, does he provoke an OA?

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

So let's consider the Warlord Level 2 Utility powers.

Crescendo of Violence, Ranged 5; Knight's Move, Ranged 10; Shake It Off, Ranged 10.

All three are ranged powers; none of them include an attack roll.
If the Warlord is adjacent to an enemy when he uses Shake It Off, does he provoke an OA?

-Hyp.

Yes. They are ranged powers. They are not shifts.

I will concede that the word 'attack' in my post is somewhat oversimplistic. But the point is that the concept of a ranged power that is not an attack is logical and obviously due an OA. The concept of a ranged shift is not.

I think that the intent of the powers are crystal clear.

Nimble strike is intended to allow a ranged attacker to shift before or after their attack to manuever into position to avoid the OA.

The warlord powers mentioned above do not contain that intent and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

With that clarification, the issue is:

Some powers include a shift or move as part of their action. Is the shift that is included in those powers considered to be a 'ranged shift' or a 'ranged move' and thus an action that triggers an OA, or is only the remainder of the action (i.e. the part that involves 'action at a distance') separate from the movement.

If you want a semi-official ruling, ask CS what they think of Nimble Strike. It seems like a pretty cut-and-dried question: If a character starts adjacent to a target, and uses Nimble Strike to shift one space away so that it is no longer adjacent to any opponents, and then attacks - does the target get an OA upon the character?

Of course, I'll continue to rule the way I feel is correct (i.e. "No"). But at least you would have a semi-official ruling to point to.

Note: An alternative way to consider this is simply this:

The general rule is that a ranged attack or a move provokes.
The specific rule is that a shift prevents that OA.
The power includes a shift and the shift specific rule overrides the general rule (that is why it is a shift, rather than a move as in Deft Strike).

You end up at the exact same conclusions, albeit with different logic.

Carl