Figurines of Wondrous Power

[DracoSuave]

Er... what is the purpose of this power granting an ally something that is clearly an attack, but having it be an opportunity action?

+Wisdom to attack is a major difference.

Inability to use Heavy Blade Opportunity is a major difference.

Given this is a Fighter feat we're talking about, you can bet your ass that the difference is intentional.

---------------------------------------------------

Time to look at Figurines of Wonderous Power and flanking.

1) ARE THEY AN ALLY?

Well, are they creatures? Yes. Explicitly so.

Are they willing recipients of your powers? Yes.

Figurines of Wonderous Power are allies.

2) ARE THEY CAPABLE OF ATTACKING?

Well, looking at their stats in the AV, I see they have attacks.

Figurines of Wonderous Power are capable of attacking.

3) ARE THEY UNDER AN EFFECT RENDERING THEM INCAPABLE OF OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS?

Now, notice, this does not say 'Are they incapable of OAs?' The -specific- onus is that it be an -effect- that renders them such.

Now, having something present or not present in a stat block is NOT an effect. Having vulnerable 5 fire in your stat-block is not an effect. Not having resistance to fire is NOT an effect.

Similiarly, not having basic attacks is not an effect.

HOWEVER, there is a caveat.

Conjured creatures lack basic attacks and therefore cannot make opportunity attacks.

is part of the rules text for conjuring a figuring of wonderous power, and therefore -is- part of the effect that produces them.

Therefore...

Figurines of Wonderous Power ARE being prevented from making opportunity attacks because of an effect.


Thusly, it fails the third test for flanking eligability, and therefore, by default, FoWP cannot flank.

---------------------------------

Lastly:

The power that you use to conjure a creature with FoWP does not have an attack type. Attack types are necessary to have a range, therefore any question about in range, or out of range, cannot be asked of a FoWP.

Therefore, the exemption on moveable conjurations and range cannot apply to a FoWP.

 

[DracoSuave]

I've got the same problem. I realize the text specifying that summons are allies is missing from the list of conjuration rules, but I think this is mostly because conjurations are usually spell effects, and not creatures. Not considering them allies seems a bit stupid, and not considering them the enemies' enemy seems even more so. But if we need to find some text saying so and there is none, then that stupidity becomes implemented.

Conjurations don't have that rulestext because not all conjurations are allies. Why is that the case?

Most conjurations are not allies because they are not creatures. That's not a blanket rule stating that all conjurations are not allies.

If they are creatures, then you can apply the 'are they willing recipients' test and see they are generally allies.

Must be allies, you can only flank with allies.
2) Opposite sides, yeah OK we know about this one...
3) Must be able to attack. Both allies must be capable of attacking.
4) Must not be under a condition which disallows opportunity actions.

Conjurations fail test #1 as they are not allies, they are spell effects.

Conjurations only fail test 1 if they are not creatures. That's what stops them from being allies. Most conjurations are not creatures. But the ones that are do not fail test 1.

Summons generally fail test #3 as they have no attacks of their own.

If summons mention an attack in the power, then they are capable of attacking. Having no actions of their own is not an inability to attack.

 

[Ferghis]

I didn't know about the "willing recipient" test to determine whether something is an ally. Is this in the books somewhere?

As for what do they remember when re-summoned? I hope not much. Our Swordmage has an Obsidian Charger, and the duration of its summons is something like '8 hours or until slain', and we made quite a few jokes about having to kill it every time you summoned it. Beheading even a stone horse with a Fullblade is a messy proposition. Sad, sad, constantly murdered horse. . .

I think you're being funny, but just in case you don't know, you can also use a minor action to dismiss the creature.

3) ARE THEY UNDER AN EFFECT RENDERING THEM INCAPABLE OF OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS?

Now, notice, this does not say 'Are they incapable of OAs?' The -specific- onus is that it be an -effect- that renders them such.

Now, having something present or not present in a stat block is NOT an effect. Having vulnerable 5 fire in your stat-block is not an effect. Not having resistance to fire is NOT an effect.

Similiarly, not having basic attacks is not an effect.

HOWEVER, there is a caveat.

Conjured creatures lack basic attacks and therefore cannot make opportunity attacks.

is part of the rules text for conjuring a figuring of wonderous power, and therefore -is- part of the effect that produces them.

Therefore...

Figurines of Wonderous Power ARE being prevented from making opportunity attacks because of an effect.


Thusly, it fails the third test for flanking eligability, and therefore, by default, FoWP cannot flank.

Just so I can follow your logic, I have to ask, what, exactly, is an effect?

The power that you use to conjure a creature with FoWP does not have an attack type. Attack types are necessary to have a range, therefore any question about in range, or out of range, cannot be asked of a FoWP.

Therefore, the exemption on moveable conjurations and range cannot apply to a FoWP.

What about the second part of that movable conjuration limitations, wherein it states At the end of your turn, the movable conjuration ends [...] if you don’t have line of effect to at least 1 square it’s in?

 

[DracoSuave]

I didn't know about the "willing recipient" test to determine whether something is an ally. Is this in the books somewhere?

I think you're being funny, but just in case you don't know, you can also use a minor action to dismiss the creature.

Just so I can follow your logic, I have to ask, what, exactly, is an effect?

An effect is what any power does. Some of the effect is inherent in the text of the power itself (Hit: Deal 1d6+Strength damage and knock prone), while others are the result of rules text that clarify what classes of powers can do. (The Rattling keyword's giving -2 to attack rolls). So, the text stating that Figurines don't have basic attacks and cannot make attacks of opportunity is a part of the general rules for 'How to Conjure a Figurine'. It therefore inherently part of their powers, and therefore, an effect.

What about the second part of that movable conjuration limitations, wherein it states At the end of your turn, the movable conjuration ends [...] if you don’t have line of effect to at least 1 square it’s in?

That's not range related, so it still applies.

 

[Ferghis]

Thanks. I agree that the figurines shouldn't be able to flank.

As for the range thing, I waver. It seems like the AV figurines were meant to replicate the AD&D figurines, which could do everything a normal creature could, including survive being around the corner for a bit. I can't untangle the technicalities of conjurations (or summonings, for that matter...) with certainty, but it really does seem to say you can't send a conjuration around the corner for a turn or two. I'm not clear on exactly why you think that paragraph isn't range related, but I don't want to pester you about it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Thanks. I agree that the figurines shouldn't be able to flank.

As for the range thing, I waver. It seems like the AV figurines were meant to replicate the AD&D figurines, which could do everything a normal creature could, including survive being around the corner for a bit. I can't untangle the technicalities of conjurations (or summonings, for that matter...) with certainty, but it really does seem to say you can't send a conjuration around the corner for a turn or two. I'm not clear on exactly why you think that paragraph isn't range related, but I don't want to pester you about it.

It's Line of Effect related.

Range has nothing to do with Line of Effect; Range is attack type + words after it, like Melee weapon or Area burst 3 in 10.

FoWP don't have that, so the 'must remain in range' clause cannot apply. The 'must remain in Line of Effect' does, because it has nothing to do with that.

 

[Colmarr]

3) ARE THEY UNDER AN EFFECT RENDERING THEM INCAPABLE OF OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS?

...

Conjured creatures lack basic attacks and therefore cannot make opportunity attacks.

is part of the rules text for conjuring a figuring of wonderous power, and therefore -is- part of the effect that produces them.

Therefore...

Figurines of Wonderous Power ARE being prevented from making opportunity attacks because of an effect.

You misphrased #3. You used the word "attacks" instead of "actions".

Even assuming that the text from the power you quoted is an "effect", it's an effect that prevents the FoWP from taking opportunity attacks, not an effect that prevents it from taking opportunity actions. Thus #3 isn't satisfied.

FoWP can flank.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Conjurations don't have that rulestext because not all conjurations are allies. Why is that the case?

Most conjurations are not allies because they are not creatures. That's not a blanket rule stating that all conjurations are not allies.

If they are creatures, then you can apply the 'are they willing recipients' test and see they are generally allies.

The problem is that while conjurations aren't excluded from being creatures they ARE treated in the general rule in PHB2 in a specific way. At no time are they said to be creatures. We could consider the very non-standard format of the FoWPs to be indicative of a special status as both conjurations and creatures, but the question really isn't answered by RAW. This is going to have to be a call made by the DM. IF they are creatures, then they are by definition either allies or enemies, agreed. In that case they would pass the first criteria for being able to flank.

Honestly from a standpoint of pure opinion I think the intent was that an FoWP acts like a creature, but it could certainly use clarification to say the least.

If summons mention an attack in the power, then they are capable of attacking. Having no actions of their own is not an inability to attack.

This is incorrect. NO summons have attacks. The rules on summons clearly state that some summons list attacks which the summoner can make THROUGH the summons. There is no facility by which a summons can make an attack of its own and in fact they entirely lack any sort of powers whatsoever. Thus summons cannot flank, categorically due to failing criteria #3.

The comparison made earlier to Beast Companions is irrelevant as they are neither summons nor conjurations. They are certainly creatures and in fact they DO have a melee basic attack listed for them and in fact are capable of making a melee basic attack, thus they meet all the criteria to flank. Indeed the possession of a separate pool of actions is not a criterion for being able to flank and I never stated it was.

2) ARE THEY CAPABLE OF ATTACKING?

Well, looking at their stats in the AV, I see they have attacks.

Figurines of Wonderous Power are capable of attacking.

This is an uncertain point. Even summons lack their own independent attacks as I said above. FoWP seem to fall into a grey area in that they are listed as stat blocks, yet they are also a power effect and the caster is required to utilize his or her actions to make attacks. In some ways this is very similar to how summons work, but it is a debatable point. Again the problem is that FoWP in effect seem to follow their own unique set of rules. The question is to what degree are those rules really independent of the general conjuration rules? Are they really a different set of rules or do they simply represent a unique presentation? I think they were originally intended to be a type of creature once conjured, but it is unclear whether or not this is still true in the wake of PHB2.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm not sure that we can "solve" the RAW issue about flanking... I can see either argument as reasonable, but not definitive. While waiting hopefully for some official clarification, I'd like to change the question: do you think that they should flank? How would this item fit best the overall "balance" of the game?

 

[Colmarr]

I'm not sure that we can "solve" the RAW issue about flanking... I can see either argument as reasonable, but not definitive. While waiting hopefully for some official clarification, I'd like to change the question: do you think that they should flank? How would this item fit best the overall "balance" of the game?

Speaking from very limited experience (my battle cleric has a Jade Macetail), I would say they should flank, and I would also go further and say that I think that was the intention.

WotC went to the trouble of statting them as creatures, and I would suggest that it was intended that they have all the benefits and drawbacks of creatures unless specified otherwise.

One observation I will make is that it can be very difficult for some characters to effectively use a FoWP. My cleric for example often doesn't have a spare minor action to command the Macetail. In those circumstances, it's just handy to have around filling four squares and providing plenty of flanking opportunities.