Does Opportunity Action + MBA = Opportunity Attack?

[Prestidigitalis]

How is it difficult?

An opportunity action is a type of action, like immediate, move, free, or standard. Opportunity attack is a specific action, like Crawl, Drop Prone, or Twin-Strike.

It's in the PHB. Lack of understanding is likely to have caused from a lack of bothering to look. Learning rules from hearsay is the source of the obscurity, not the actual rules themselves.

Um, harsh?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I think maybe you could be a little nicer there man. PERSONALLY I understand the rules fine, but it is still a pretty persnickity difference for MOST players, who do not spend hours pouring over rulebooks as a general rule, to understand. Unless you read that section quite carefully and study your powers you can EASILY not understand it. There was no reason for the distinction in PHB1 days, so it was a pointless distinction to add to the game.

 

[DracoSuave]

It's not harsh.

If there's a misunderstanding that can be easily cleared up by reading the pertinent rule, then the advice 'read the rule, it will clear it up' is not harsh at all.

And as for the 'no reason for the distinction' bit... again... that's not true--Opportunity Attacks require a special action type to cover what they do. They can't be 'No Action' and they aren't 'Immediate Actions' so an action type was created for them: Opportunity Action.

The Opportunity Action is the rules technology that Opportunity Attacks were built on, in the same sense that Immediate Action is the rules technology that Combat Challenge was built on.

Not to mention, the PHB's content was not the only thing being worked on at the time; much of PHB2 was under development* and so action types that certain classes in it needed to be defined in the core rule book... particularily those that share the action budget with Opportunity Attacks. Shaman springs immediately to mind.


*The barbarian was in development very early on, in fact, Barbarian Rages where the inspiration for the 4e daily power framework.

 

[Marshall]

How is it difficult?

An opportunity action is a type of action, like immediate, move, free, or standard. Opportunity attack is a specific action, like Crawl, Drop Prone, or Twin-Strike.

It's in the PHB. Lack of understanding is likely to have caused from a lack of bothering to look. Learning rules from hearsay is the source of the obscurity, not the actual rules themselves.

There is no difference between the two.
Generally, the only attack you can make as part of an opportunity action is an opportunity attack. So any effect that adds to an opportunity attack is triggered when you use a opportunity action to attack.
By definition, when you are granted an opportunity action you are granted an opportunity attack.

 

[abyssaldeath]

There is no difference between the two.
Generally, the only attack you can make as part of an opportunity action is an opportunity attack. So any effect that adds to an opportunity attack is triggered when you use a opportunity action to attack.
By definition, when you are granted an opportunity action you are granted an opportunity attack.

All Opportunity Attacks are Opportunity Actions, but not all Opportunity Action are Opportunity Attacks. It works just like Immediate Actions do. Seriously, thinking that Opportunity Actions and Opportunity Attacks are one and the same is like saying that Immediate Interrupts and Immediate Reactions are the same because they are both Immediate Actions.

The fact that the only Opportunity Actions most characters have access to are Opportunity Attacks has nothing to do with anything. It has no bearing on the mechanics what so ever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's not harsh.

If there's a misunderstanding that can be easily cleared up by reading the pertinent rule, then the advice 'read the rule, it will clear it up' is not harsh at all.

And as for the 'no reason for the distinction' bit... again... that's not true--Opportunity Attacks require a special action type to cover what they do. They can't be 'No Action' and they aren't 'Immediate Actions' so an action type was created for them: Opportunity Action.

The Opportunity Action is the rules technology that Opportunity Attacks were built on, in the same sense that Immediate Action is the rules technology that Combat Challenge was built on.

Not to mention, the PHB's content was not the only thing being worked on at the time; much of PHB2 was under development* and so action types that certain classes in it needed to be defined in the core rule book... particularily those that share the action budget with Opportunity Attacks. Shaman springs immediately to mind.


*The barbarian was in development very early on, in fact, Barbarian Rages where the inspiration for the 4e daily power framework.

It doesn't matter what was "in development" at what time. The only reason all Opportunity Actions cannot NOW follow the same rule is that different bonuses got written in. That would NOT have been a big deal to account for during design. The fact is that they simply could have had all the same bonuses apply to all Opportunity Actions. The Opportunity Attack didn't have to be distinguished, it could simply have been considered to be "any BA taken during an Opportunity Action" and the rules would have been simpler, cleaner, and worked just as well. It was a bad and confusing way for the rules to be structured, period. Honestly I doubt the designers even intended this at the start, it simply got codified that way and nobody really considered the implications until later.

YOU may not find it confusing and hard to understand. I might not find it hard to understand since I studied the rules carefully and have a good understand of rules. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the players I've had in my campaign had to have it explained to them. Several of them had to have it explained MANY times over and I am not sure they have ever really grasped the whole thing, they just look at the numbers on their sheets that came out of CB and occasionally complain that they think their number is wrong and have to have it explained again, lol. These are not idiots, they are simply players that aren't focused on 4e to that extent. 2 of them have been playing and DMing other editions of D&D for 20+ years, so they aren't exactly rules challenged. The rule is JUST EXTREMELY OBTUSE AND HIGHLY OBSCURE. I think I know when I see such a rule. What it seems like to you is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to us and since my opinion is based on observation of playing 4e since it came out I think it has a pretty reasonable basis. It is a real PITA. It isn't the only such thing and not THAT big a deal, but it certainly should have been thought out better to start with.

 

[DracoSuave]

It doesn't matter what was "in development" at what time. The only reason all Opportunity Actions cannot NOW follow the same rule is that different bonuses got written in. That would NOT have been a big deal to account for during design. The fact is that they simply could have had all the same bonuses apply to all Opportunity Actions. The Opportunity Attack didn't have to be distinguished, it could simply have been considered to be "any BA taken during an Opportunity Action" and the rules would have been simpler, cleaner, and worked just as well. It was a bad and confusing way for the rules to be structured, period. Honestly I doubt the designers even intended this at the start, it simply got codified that way and nobody really considered the implications until later.

They didn't want to, because they wanted those bonuses only to apply to the Opportunity Attack action, and the triggers that make it work. I figured that was obvious. They have a specific thing, and bonuses and effects that key off of only that specific thing... and they did that on purpose... it's reasonable to assume they wanted it that way by design.

YOU may not find it confusing and hard to understand. I might not find it hard to understand since I studied the rules carefully and have a good understand of rules.

Then you can see why it is the way it is.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the players I've had in my campaign had to have it explained to them. Several of them had to have it explained MANY times over and I am not sure they have ever really grasped the whole thing, they just look at the numbers on their sheets that came out of CB and occasionally complain that they think their number is wrong and have to have it explained again, lol. These are not idiots, they are simply players that aren't focused on 4e to that extent.

1- As an aside, I dislike the 'these are not idiots' defense. It seems to be used to justify all sorts of behavior, such as never cracking over the book, and never making an attempt to understand the rules. I never claimed it was a matter of idiocy... it's a matter of ignorance and that's a completely different thing.

2- If all they have to go by is just looking at numbers on their character sheet... then they're just learning the rules by hearsay. And my point still stands; they don't understand the rule, and they're relying on explanation first, rather than 'just go read it' followed by an explanation.

2 of them have been playing and DMing other editions of D&D for 20+ years, so they aren't exactly rules challenged. The rule is JUST EXTREMELY OBTUSE AND HIGHLY OBSCURE.

Obscure enough to have two separate index entries, one under triggered action types and the other under specific actions... the latter entry refering to the former entry in that Opportunty Attacks are explicitly described as Opportunity Actions, and under Opportunity Actions, Opportunity Attacks are described as one type of them all players have.

It's actually pretty clear. Both refer to each other as distinct kinds of game elements.

I think I know when I see such a rule. What it seems like to you is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to us and since my opinion is based on observation of playing 4e since it came out I think it has a pretty reasonable basis.It is a real PITA. It isn't the only such thing and not THAT big a deal, but it certainly should have been thought out better to start with.

I've seen some of the things you believe the rules do. Have you tried pointing out the rules in the book, especially to these players who have been playing for years and can understand how rule books are written? Hell, these players have been dealing with obtuse rules such as ability modifiers to varying saving throws, 3rd edition polymorphs, THAC0, the word 'level,' attack modifiers based on weapon and armor class (before dexterity adjustment), the rules for psionics, the other rules for psionics, the other other rules for psionics, the other other other rules for psionics, and so on and so forth.

In comparison, something that can be resolved simply by explaining 'This is a type of action, and this is a specific action of that type' isn't obtuse.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

They didn't want to, because they wanted those bonuses only to apply to the Opportunity Attack action, and the triggers that make it work. I figured that was obvious. They have a specific thing, and bonuses and effects that key off of only that specific thing... and they did that on purpose... it's reasonable to assume they wanted it that way by design.



Then you can see why it is the way it is.

No, actually I can't see why it is this way at all DS. It has BECOME codified as a meaningful distinction over time, it didn't START OUT as one. The same result could easily have been achieved by other means that were less confusing. We're only talking about a very few specific situations. I mean really, there are HOW MANY opportunity action powers which attack that aren't Opportunity Attacks? Seriously, this would have been trivial to write in a clearer and more straightforward way.

1- As an aside, I dislike the 'these are not idiots' defense. It seems to be used to justify all sorts of behavior, such as never cracking over the book, and never making an attempt to understand the rules. I never claimed it was a matter of idiocy... it's a matter of ignorance and that's a completely different thing.

2- If all they have to go by is just looking at numbers on their character sheet... then they're just learning the rules by hearsay. And my point still stands; they don't understand the rule, and they're relying on explanation first, rather than 'just go read it' followed by an explanation.

What I'm saying is it is an obtuse enough rule that even people who ARE experienced with RPGs and game systems CAN be confused by it. They are neither idiots nor lazy, they are simply ordinary 4e players, like you find at most tables. They have books, they have undoubtedly read them. They obviously didn't go over every bit of the rules with a fine toothed comb. That IS what it takes to unravel stuff like this. You can call my players lazy bums all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Now YOU may be playing with nothing but rules hounds that spend loads of time but you may want to unbend and learn to appreciate that this is not the usual situation.

These people play 4e once a week for 4-5 hours. They don't DM, they also play plenty of other games, and generally speaking they have a reasonable grasp of the rules. THIS particular rule tends to trip up pretty much everyone in that category. It IS a problem rule.

Obscure enough to have two separate index entries, one under triggered action types and the other under specific actions... the latter entry refering to the former entry in that Opportunty Attacks are explicitly described as Opportunity Actions, and under Opportunity Actions, Opportunity Attacks are described as one type of them all players have.

It's actually pretty clear. Both refer to each other as distinct kinds of game elements.

NO IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!! I have the actual observational evidence to prove it! You have theorycrafting and a hypothesis.

I've seen some of the things you believe the rules do. Have you tried pointing out the rules in the book, especially to these players who have been playing for years and can understand how rule books are written? Hell, these players have been dealing with obtuse rules such as ability modifiers to varying saving throws, 3rd edition polymorphs, THAC0, the word 'level,' attack modifiers based on weapon and armor class (before dexterity adjustment), the rules for psionics, the other rules for psionics, the other other rules for psionics, the other other other rules for psionics, and so on and so forth.

In comparison, something that can be resolved simply by explaining 'This is a type of action, and this is a specific action of that type' isn't obtuse.

Right, except the names for the two things are nearly identical and easy to confuse. The game uses plenty of 'terminology' so loosely in other places that such distinctions can easily seem meaningless. It is (and again I am citing evidence not opinion) OBVIOUSLY not that clear. An Opportunity Action which results in an MBA and an Opportunity Attack which results in an MBA, hmmmm, those aren't similar at all! ROFLMAO! It is hard to even take any attempt to call them easily distinguished seriously. Worse than this there is really no significant in-game reason for the two situations to call for different modifiers. They cover essentially exactly the same type of situation and the only distinction is how the ability to use them is granted, not what they do. Meaningless distinctions are NOT good RPG design.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, actually I can't see why it is this way at all DS. It has BECOME codified as a meaningful distinction over time, it didn't START OUT as one. The same result could easily have been achieved by other means that were less confusing. We're only talking about a very few specific situations. I mean really, there are HOW MANY opportunity action powers which attack that aren't Opportunity Attacks? Seriously, this would have been trivial to write in a clearer and more straightforward way.

Clearer than putting 'Opportunity Action' in bold letters with those powers and attacks?

What I'm saying is it is an obtuse enough rule that even people who ARE experienced with RPGs and game systems CAN be confused by it. They are neither idiots nor lazy, they are simply ordinary 4e players, like you find at most tables. They have books, they have undoubtedly read them. They obviously didn't go over every bit of the rules with a fine toothed comb. That IS what it takes to unravel stuff like this. You can call my players lazy bums all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Now YOU may be playing with nothing but rules hounds that spend loads of time but you may want to unbend and learn to appreciate that this is not the usual situation.

No, I just know how to use an index. Seriously- If I'm presented with some game rule I'm not sure about, the first thing I do is go to the index and go... oh. And if that rule references something else I'm not sure about, I go to the e index and go... oh.

Case in point: Opportunity Attacks. The first thing under that says: Opportunity Action. So I go 'What's an opportunity action?' and I go there it it tells me and says Opportunity Attacks are one type of them everyone gets.

Obtuse would be if I had to look for some sidebar in some secondary source that explains the difference.

These people play 4e once a week for 4-5 hours. They don't DM, they also play plenty of other games, and generally speaking they have a reasonable grasp of the rules. THIS particular rule tends to trip up pretty much everyone in that category. It IS a problem rule.

Has anyone tried the simple 'One is a type of action, the other is a specific action' explanation?

I mean, if the group can grok the difference between a move action and a Walk action... they should get this; it's the same difference.

NO IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!! I have the actual observational evidence to prove it! You have theorycrafting and a hypothesis.

I have actual observational evidence of the fact it's not that difficult, and a god damn index.

Right, except the names for the two things are nearly identical and easy to confuse. The game uses plenty of 'terminology' so loosely in other places that such distinctions can easily seem meaningless.

Other things are confusing. This is not.

It is (and again I am citing evidence not opinion) OBVIOUSLY not that clear. An Opportunity Action which results in an MBA and an Opportunity Attack which results in an MBA, hmmmm, those aren't similar at all!

Of course they are similiar. Opportunity Attacks are members of the subset of Opportunity Actions, and of those that end in an MBA. But they're not the same thing. Most Opportunity Actions have different triggers, or different effects. Only one Opportunity Action, however, has the same trigger Opportunity Attack does, and ends in an MBA: It's name is Opportunity Attack.

ROFLMAO! It is hard to even take any attempt to call them easily distinguished seriously.

I just don't understand what you mean here: Opportunity Action is a kind of action. Your statement is as logically equivalent as saying that it's hard to distinguish between a Standard Action and a Melee Basic Attack because they both tend to involve attack rolls and so it's confusing.

Both are completely different KINDS of concepts.

Worse than this there is really no significant in-game reason for the two situations to call for different modifiers.

Other than the fact that one describes a general class of action, distinguished for the purposes of the action economy the game is based on, and the other is a specific action with a specific trigger and a specific result that also happens to be a member of the first type?

They cover essentially exactly the same type of situation

This is the part where I begin to believe you do not understand the difference as well as you think you do.

and the only distinction is how the ability to use them is granted, not what they do. Meaningless distinctions are NOT good RPG design.

It's not a meaningless distinction.

One is a very simple construct:

Opportunity Actions are actions that have triggers, cannot be used on your turn, interrupt the trigger, and can be used once per turn.

Opportunity Attack is a type of opportunity action that has the specific trigger 'When an enemy uses a ranged power, uses an area power, or leaves a square, while adjacent to you' and has the effect 'Make a melee basic attack.'

One is a template, and the rules that govern said template. The other is filling in the template. One is the superset, the other is an element of that superset. One is a resource, a currency in the action economy, and the other is an action that costs that currency. The difference between five dollars, and a five-dollar milkshake.

 

[Marshall]

All Opportunity Attacks are Opportunity Actions, but not all Opportunity Action are Opportunity Attacks. It works just like Immediate Actions do. Seriously, thinking that Opportunity Actions and Opportunity Attacks are one and the same is like saying that Immediate Interrupts and Immediate Reactions are the same because they are both Immediate Actions.

Yes.
Any attack made as part of an opportunity action is an opportunity attack. There is ALSO a game element that is called and Opportunity Attack.

The fact that the only Opportunity Actions most characters have access to are Opportunity Attacks has nothing to do with anything. It has no bearing on the mechanics what so ever.

WotC, nowhere in ANY rules source distinguishes between opportunity attacks and Opportunity Attacks. Your making a distinction that doesnt exist in the rules.