Does moving a spell effect provoke opportunity attacks?

[Nullzone]

Sustain never provokes, it would be too easy to lock those effects out just by moving in threatening range. You want to lock down a sustain minor, then you daze the person.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Yup, they are definitely fuzzy

And there doesn't seem to be any clear system, either. We have some powers (eg Delayed Blast Fireball) that have a secondary attack power written within the main power. Although the main power doesn't provoke, using the second part clearly is meant to. It has it's own "area burst" label!

And then other (eg Bigby's Icy Grasp) that have a standard action within the 'sustain minor' text. That "extra attack" (which costs an extra standard action) should surely provoke, right? But then are you using the power again (according to Dr_Ruminahui)?

But what about Mordenkainen’s Sword The extra attack (which, being a ranged power, should provoke) is now not only within the 'sustain minor' text, but is part of the minor action. The initial attack provoked, why should the follow-up attacks not?

How about Feast of Destruction, which has a 'sustain standard' which includes an area burst attack? Would you not make that provoke?

(aside: no, I think that "one use" is only the initial use: the ongoing effects as stated within the power can indeed go on; thus Dr_Ruminahui's suggestion that any sustaining is negated by the daily label is incorrect)


Anyway, my point wasn't "sustaining any power provokes an OA", but "sustaining a ranged power, especially when the power does something further, definitely could be argued to still be using it, and thus would provoke an OA."

 

[OnlineDM]

Yup, they are definitely fuzzy

And there doesn't seem to be any clear system, either. We have some powers (eg Delayed Blast Fireball) that have a secondary attack power written within the main power. Although the main power doesn't provoke, using the second part clearly is meant to. It has it's own "area burst" label!

This one is pretty clear in my opinion - sustaining the power doesn't provoke; using the ranged attack secondary power does.

And then other (eg Bigby's Icy Grasp) that have a standard action within the 'sustain minor' text. That "extra attack" (which costs an extra standard action) should surely provoke, right? But then are you using the power again (according to Dr_Ruminahui)?

But what about Mordenkainen’s Sword The extra attack (which, being a ranged power, should provoke) is now not only within the 'sustain minor' text, but is part of the minor action. The initial attack provoked, why should the follow-up attacks not?

Both of these are conjurations. In my opinion, creating the conjurations provokes. Sustaining them / instructing them to make their attacks does not.

How about Feast of Destruction, which has a 'sustain standard' which includes an area burst attack? Would you not make that provoke?

This one isn't a conjuration. When you sustain it, you make a new attack. I would say that provokes.

I should be clearer in my opinion: "Merely" sustaining does not provoke. If sustaining causes the caster (and not the caster's conjuration) to make a ranged or area attack, that provokes. Having a conjuration do something does not provoke. Those are just my opinions and my interpretations of the rules.

 

[Nullzone]

This one is pretty clear in my opinion - sustaining the power doesn't provoke; using the ranged attack secondary power does.



Both of these are conjurations. In my opinion, creating the conjurations provokes. Sustaining them / instructing them to make their attacks does not.



This one isn't a conjuration. When you sustain it, you make a new attack. I would say that provokes.

I should be clearer in my opinion: "Merely" sustaining does not provoke. If sustaining causes the caster (and not the caster's conjuration) to make a ranged or area attack, that provokes. Having a conjuration do something does not provoke. Those are just my opinions and my interpretations of the rules.

Interesting, I find the opposite when I apply some abstraction. Bigby's Icy Grasp involves actually making the entire attack again; the Wizard is focusing his attention on the hand and the effect it invokes to attempt to grab another person. This would provoke.

Feast of Destruction's sustaining effect is "each creature within the zone" which indicates the area left behind by the initial attack. Despite being a sustain standard, it only requires you to focus energies on an area that was already hit; far less effort for an arcanist in my mind, especially given the flavor text which seems to imply that the fire itself is alive...and thus would not provoke.

Just an interesting contrast of opinion, and I guess it proves that there's no right answer for a lot of this stuff

 

[Ryujin]

Since the rules are rather vague, on the point, I only have movement of the CHARACTER provoke opportunity attacks, when appropriate. Using a ranged power, to place a zone or make an initial attack, also does, but moving a zone does not, in my campaign. There's already enough other stuff going on and, at mid-Paragon, we're frequently in danger of forgetting whose turn it actually was, after all of the interrupts and reactions have been completed.

More simple is more betterer.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I should be clearer in my opinion: "Merely" sustaining does not provoke. If sustaining causes the caster (and not the caster's conjuration) to make a ranged or area attack, that provokes. Having a conjuration do something does not provoke. Those are just my opinions and my interpretations of the rules.

Yup hence my initial comment that powers doing more than 'just' sustaining definitely could be argued to provoke OAs.

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually, the rule is:



That is, it's not the attack that provokes, but using a ranged or area power. Ranged utility powers (that are not attacks) still provoke.

Now - as to what "using" is, that is a much more fuzzy topic. Sustaining a ranged power, especially when the power does something further, definitely could be argued to still be using it, and thus would provoke an OA.

Using a power is a specificly listed action and is distinct from sustaining it. If sustaining a power were the same as using it, you could never sustain a non-at-will power because it can only be used once. As well, it would require the same action as it took to activate the power in the first place, as both these things are keyed to using a power.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Using a power is a specificly listed action and is distinct from sustaining it. If sustaining a power were the same as using it, you could never sustain a non-at-will power because it can only be used once. As well, it would require the same action as it took to activate the power in the first place, as both these things are keyed to using a power.

Ah, you are a bit late to the game, Draco

have a look back here, and specifically at the DBF, and ask if the rules on "using" a power are really that simple

 

[Matt James]

I know I'm an outsider here, but in cases such as this, I would just have the DM adjudicate it.

I know, I know! I'm weird.

 

[Nullzone]

What are these threads for if not to assist in the adjudication process? Answering every question with a "Let the DM decide" doesn't accomplish anything and would make discussion as a whole remarkably monochromatic.