Is Fighter's Combat Challenge an OA or not?

[MasterGarrow05]

My group has been playing that the Fighter's Combat Challenge is NOT an opportunity attack for purposes of such things as the combat superiority. Now I have my doubts. First because the Potent Challenge text on the feat table says it grants bonuses to opportunity attacks and requires Combat Challenge. Second because this would seem simpler and more synergistic with some fighter powers and feats.

I have thus far not found an official ruling from WotC. What's everyone else doing?

 

[tiornys]

My group is pretty sure the wording in the table is either a typo or a relic from a previous version of Combat Challenge. As written, it's clear that Combat Challenge does not grant opportunity attacks. Instead, it grants a melee basic attack as an immediate interrupt. Since that paragraph has already been errata'ed once without any reference to OA's, I think we can assume we won't see errata applied to this (although it'd be nice to have the table entry errata'ed).

t~

 

[Reaper Steve]

I think it is intentionally written that way. It seems like its an OA, but it's not. (removed the rest since it was wrong)

 

[PHGraves]

I think you have that backwards.
You can make one OA per opponent's turn, but you only get one Immediate action per turn.
You could make many more OAs than Immediate Interrupts.

 

[Insignia]

Since it's an immediate interrupt basic attack without being labeled OA, the fighter is not limited by constraints placed on OAs (such as one per turn.)

Actually it's more limited than an OA, since an immediate action can only be used once per round.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Thanks for the correction. That'll teach me to post from memory without reference.

 

[Reaper Steve]

OK, now that I have properly referenced the PHB, I agree that it should allow an OA instead of a 'basic melee attack as an immediate interrupt.'

If it truly were supposed to be the latter, with the intent of allowing this only once per fighter's round, then they could have reinforced that with better language, like:
'Once per turn when an enemy marked by you...'
The phrasing 'Whenever an enemy marked by you...' implies the fighter can do this everytime a marked adjacent enemy shifts/moves. That doesn't synch with immediate interrupt.

 

[wayne62682]

It's written like that intentionally, sadly. So it does not apply to Combat Superiority, or to feats that grant bonuses to OAs, or worst of all to the feat which lets you use an At-Will power in place of an OA.

What doesn't make sense is that, as an Immediate Interrupt, you can only do it once per round. So if 2+ creatures are marked by you and both shift away, you can only attack one, not both which seems to be the whole intention of marking in the first place (make it difficult for monsters to move away once they engage you).

 

[Stalker0]

So if 2+ creatures are marked by you and both shift away, you can only attack one, not both which seems to be the whole intention of marking in the first place (make it difficult for monsters to move away once they engage you).

Well you can stop one of them, and the other has a -2 to attack rolls against anyone other than you.

I think the point is that the fighter is supposed to be a roadblock, not a solid wall. If the enemies want to attack the other party members they will, but because of the fighter its a lot harder to do.

 

[MasterGarrow05]

Thanks for the responses. Given that the fighter we've had is a little TOO sticky for the DM's liking, I think we'll keep the combat challenge separate from the opportunity attacks. It's more complicated, but I don't like the idea of a fighter being able to attack 4 enemies who try to shift away from him in one round or try to attack the wizard next to him. Apprecitate the input.