Does moving a spell effect provoke opportunity attacks?

DracoSuave

First Post
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 ;)

Not at all. It's always been that way.

The following provoke:

Exiting an adjacent square,
Using a ranged/area power.
Making a ranged/area attack.

Moving a conjuration is none of the above. Using a power is an explicitly listed action on the list of actions in the PHB and in the RC, distinct from sustaining an action, and it uses the action type listed for the power, and expends the power if the power is not at-will.

If sustaining a power were using a power, then using the sustain action wouldn't be possible, as the power is expended by the time that sustained action pops up, thus making using that power non-permissible.

They cannot be the same thing under the rulesset, for both these reasons.

Not to mention, this is an old question that's been addressed before... i'm just reiterating what was said there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Matt James

Game Developer
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.

Ah, if only it were about that. What many end up being are the parsing of words rather than the spirit and intention of what's presented. It's very programmatic. Thus, encouraging DMs to apply their own logic to keep the flow, balance, and thematic scale of the game in check, you end up with a more rounded roleplaying experience. It works both ways however, and thus the DM should be held accountable for a fair experience--not chastised for the literal interpretation of a word, or combination there of.

This is why I usually say "Let the DM decide".
 
Last edited:

Ryujin

Legend
Ah, if only it were about that. What many end up being are the parsing of words rather than the spirit and intention of what's presented. It's very programmatic. Thus, encouraging DMs to apply their own logic to keep the flow, balance, and thematic scale of the game in check, you end up with a more rounded roleplaying experience. It works both ways however, and thus the DM should be held accountable for a fair experience--not chastised for the literal interpretation of a word, or combination there of.

This is why I usually say "Let the DM decide".

Except that many of us are DMs who are looking for assistance in formulating our logic, for such situations ;)
 

Nullzone

Explorer
Ah, if only it were about that. What many end up being are the parsing of words rather than the spirit and intention of what's presented. It's very programmatic. Thus, encouraging DMs to apply their own logic to keep the flow, balance, and thematic scale of the game in check, you end up with a more rounded roleplaying experience. It works both ways however, and thus the DM should be held accountable for a fair experience--not chastised for the literal interpretation of a word, or combination there of.

This is why I usually say "Let the DM decide".

Looking back on some of the recent threads regarding rule interpretations, there isn't a single one where RAW and RAI aren't compared fairly. Interpreting the RAW of it is every bit as important as the RAI, and to simply wave off the conversation with a comment that is equivalent to an offhanded "Make up your own mind, we can't help you" is shortsighted, at best.
 

hvg3akaek

First Post
I know I'm an outsider here, but in cases such as this, I would just have the DM adjudicate it.
Indeed! :)
However: as has been said, many of us are DMs, how should we adjudicate it? hence, discussion ;)


Not at all. It's always been that way.
You seem to have neatly dodged my comment ;)

Delayed Blast Fireball
You use the power (minor action). How do you actually fire it? You can't use the secondary power, else that would be using the power again, and you've already said that's not possible. Or does the power then create other powers?

Remember: exception based. Normally, using is indeed all you do with a power. but in this case, you have to use the power again (in it's second power form) to actually attack. And then, the power is no longer a personal power, it is an Area burst power, which provokes. but - we've already used it, and it didn't provoke! Oh noes, what happens?

;)

So, once again - some powers have further parts that should still provoke OAs. It is not, as you have suggested, a nice black-and-white situation, and it is, as Matt James has suggested, left up to the DM to decide.

When I'm a DM, DBF will provoke when someone attacks with it. When I'm using the power, I will expect it to provoke, too.

And indeed, if sustaining a spell causes more attacks, there may well be cause for that to provoke, too. I'll see when it happens.
 

Nullzone

Explorer
It's worth noting that these kind of fuzzy areas are why I always warn players "You're going to provoke an OA" when they take action, even if it's the obvious choice or the threatening creature(s) are marked.
 

hvg3akaek

First Post
Indeed, a good stance to have (until they are fairly confident with the rules / have been warned for an item many times). There comes a point where I just stop warning them that shooting a bow whilst standing next to an orc will provoke, or running past that soldier could cop an attack :p
 

pemerton

Legend
Looking back on some of the recent threads regarding rule interpretations, there isn't a single one where RAW and RAI aren't compared fairly. Interpreting the RAW of it is every bit as important as the RAI
My issue with this is perhaps a little bit different from Matt James, but tends to lead in a similar direction.

The alleged distinction between RAI and RAW is mostly spurious, in my view, because the best theory of interpretation is unable to exclude the relevance of intention (either authorial intention, or the intention/purpose that a reasonable interpreter would impute given his/her interpretive location - in constitutional theory, this roughly captures the contrast between originalist and progressivist approaches to interpretation).

So discussion can be useful for helping clarify the intention and purpose behind a rule, and therefore for working out what it says - but there is no "rules as written" that stands in contrast to this. (And the ideal of a logically closed and error-free ruleset is ludicrous - the law doesn't achieve this, despite the billions of dollars spent on it and the efforts put in by thousands of legislators, judges and administrators - so it's unreaslistic to expect any game publisher to achieve it.)

On the particular issue of "using a power" - Smith v. United States 113 S. Ct. 2050 (1993) is a well-known case in which the members of the US Supreme Court have significant disagreement on what "using a firearm" means in the context of a criminal aggravation statute. There's no reason to think that the notion of "using a power" is any more capable of precise definition. After hearing the reasons for and against various interpretive possibilities, each table is going to have to reach its own decision.
 

DracoSuave

First Post
Indeed! :)
However: as has been said, many of us are DMs, how should we adjudicate it? hence, discussion ;)


You seem to have neatly dodged my comment ;)

Delayed Blast Fireball
You use the power (minor action). How do you actually fire it? You can't use the secondary power, else that would be using the power again, and you've already said that's not possible. Or does the power then create other powers?

When a power creates a secondary power, then you'd be using that second power. Secondary powers have their own usages, parameters etc. The action taking with a secondary power is, in fact, the Use a Power action listed in the rules.

Secondary Attacks, however, are not secondary powers. They do not use the Use a Power action, but use an action unique to that secondary attack. If the attack is ranged or area, however, it will provoke OAs, because OAs are provoked by ranged or area powers OR attacks.

Remember: exception based. Normally, using is indeed all you do with a power. but in this case, you have to use the power again (in it's second power form) to actually attack.

No, you're using a second power. This is actually covered in the essentials rules, but even in previous powers that did it (warden's guardian forms) it tells you flat out that you're able to use a seperate distinct power. If the primary power says you can use a second power, it's obvious you can use a second power, cause it says that directly.

And then, the power is no longer a personal power, it is an Area burst power, which provokes. but - we've already used it, and it didn't provoke! Oh noes, what happens?

Secondary powers are themselves powers, according to the rules, and according to the power that creates them. You're using an Area power. It provokes. You're making an area attack. It provokes. You have two reasons why it provokes.

;)

So, once again - some powers have further parts that should still provoke OAs. It is not, as you have suggested, a nice black-and-white situation, and it is, as Matt James has suggested, left up to the DM to decide.

Sure it is. Delayed Blast Fireball follows the template of 'does this trigger' to a T.

The acid test is:
Did an enemy leave an adjacent space?
Did an enemy use an area or ranged power?
Did an enemy make an area or ranged attack?

So long as it satisfies one, it provokes. Delayed Blast Fireball satisfies two. Or are you suggesting a secondary power is not a power?

When I'm a DM, DBF will provoke when someone attacks with it. When I'm using the power, I will expect it to provoke, too.

I don't disagree with that, as if you apply the rule correctly, it's clear as day it provokes.

And indeed, if sustaining a spell causes more attacks, there may well be cause for that to provoke, too. I'll see when it happens.

I don't disagree with that either, but it is not the act of sustaining that provokes, it is the act of making those ranged or area attacks. No attacks, no provoke. Yes attacks, yes provoke. This is why moving a conjuration does not provoke, because it is not an enemy leaving a square, you're not using a power, and you're not making an attack.

It is actually very cut and dry: IF A or B or C, then D.

Also, let's not pretend Use a Power isn't a distinct action listed in the rules. It is as defined an action as Charge, Delay, Walk, or what have you.
 
Last edited:

Nullzone

Explorer
My issue with this is perhaps a little bit different from Matt James, but tends to lead in a similar direction.

The alleged distinction between RAI and RAW is mostly spurious, in my view, because the best theory of interpretation is unable to exclude the relevance of intention (either authorial intention, or the intention/purpose that a reasonable interpreter would impute given his/her interpretive location - in constitutional theory, this roughly captures the contrast between originalist and progressivist approaches to interpretation).

So discussion can be useful for helping clarify the intention and purpose behind a rule, and therefore for working out what it says - but there is no "rules as written" that stands in contrast to this. (And the ideal of a logically closed and error-free ruleset is ludicrous - the law doesn't achieve this, despite the billions of dollars spent on it and the efforts put in by thousands of legislators, judges and administrators - so it's unreaslistic to expect any game publisher to achieve it.)

On the particular issue of "using a power" - Smith v. United States 113 S. Ct. 2050 (1993) is a well-known case in which the members of the US Supreme Court have significant disagreement on what "using a firearm" means in the context of a criminal aggravation statute. There's no reason to think that the notion of "using a power" is any more capable of precise definition. After hearing the reasons for and against various interpretive possibilities, each table is going to have to reach its own decision.

You articulated in better terms with your second paragraph what my point was -- understanding the RAW of it can as often as not lead to a better understanding of the RAI of it, so to simply shut down a material discussion because the RAW is what's in contest is silly.

And in the case of your Supreme Court example, I'm pretty sure they didn't shrug their shoulders and say "Let the cop decide" just because they couldn't reach a unanimous decision; they continued discussing it until they reached a reasonable and amicable conclusion that could at least be understood by all parties in clear terms, even if it wasn't one that they were all in total agreement with.
 

Remove ads

Top