Couple of rules questions

[aurance]

It did leave the square, the front part of the ogre left the square diagonal to the the fighter. Sure, the back part of the ogre moved INTO that square as well, but so what? Good luck convincing him though.

In 4e, there is no "front part" or "back part." There is only "ogre." Has it left that adjacent space? I'd say no.

 

[DracoSuave]

In 4e, there is no "front part" or "back part." There is only "ogre." Has it left that adjacent space? I'd say no.

In terms of a technical reading, I'd agree.

I'd not run in this way, mind you.

 

[TDarien]

Not having the ogre provoke is needlessly constricting and un-fun. The arguments that it didn't actually leave an adjacent square are somewhat valid, but just mean.

2.) IMO, if the ogre is moving one square, not shifting, it does provoke an OA (and possible use of a Combat Superiority if a fighter).

Fixed

Combat Challenge deals with marked targets and shifting.

Combat Superiority deals with opportunity attacks.

 

[N0Man]

Oops, i misread the diagram... but I'd still probably allow the OA. Doing otherwise seems kind of like trying to exploit mechanics on the DM's part. The DM should be closing and preventing loopholes and exploits, not trying to find his own.

 

[aurance]

Oops, i misread the diagram... but I'd still probably allow the OA. Doing otherwise seems kind of like trying to exploit mechanics on the DM's part. The DM should be closing and preventing loopholes and exploits, not trying to find his own.

I don't know about the DM in the OP, but I for one wasn't trying to exploit anything. That's just how I read the rules. I'm probably as far from the "DM vs. Player" type of DM as you could get, in general.

 

[karossii]

I posed the question to Customer Service, and they responded that the Ogre would indeed provoke.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let me first point out that I'd have the ogre provoke as well.

It did leave the square, the front part of the ogre left the square diagonal to the the fighter. Sure, the back part of the ogre moved INTO that square as well, but so what?

aurance is correct about there being no facing, but even if you view each of the four squares as some discrete part of the ogre, there's nothing keeping the ogre from "rotating" on that one square. You can describe however it want, he spins on a foot, but don't let a particular description create the rule for you (which is what you do when you say the 'front part' left the square). So, in that case he never actually leaves that square, does he, discrete or not?

 

[N0Man]

I don't know about the DM in the OP, but I for one wasn't trying to exploit anything. That's just how I read the rules. I'm probably as far from the "DM vs. Player" type of DM as you could get, in general.

However, it sounds like an overly literal interpretation that completely ignores the obvious intent of the rules. The idea is clearly that if a creature moves within a square that you threaten (without shifting, teleporting, or other OA negating effects) then they provoke.

Furthermore, it certainly does seem like 'exploiting' the rules and playing the DM vs player game when the DM is using this interpretation to set themselves up with immunity from the OA, when the majority of 8 out of the 12 possible adjacent configurations with the PC *would* have allowed an OA.

To suggest that you can't take the OA indirectly because it's a diagonal, not because it is 'further' away or anything, but because they 'stayed' in the same place because a portion of their body is still in the threatened square is just silly.

It should be also pointed out, that if this were the precedence, then you are also effectively allowing Huge creatures to move 2 squares without shifting (from a corner) and Gargantuan to move up to 3 without the provokes. I don't know about you, but thoughts like this ring bells in my head that the interpretation is suspect.