Knight's move question

[Negflar2099]

Knights move is listed as a Range power. Does that mean it provokes an attack of opportunity? I thought it might since it is a range power but it seems a little silly that the warlord would provoke an AoO in addition to losing an action just to be able to let someone else move. If I ignored that and had it not provoke an AoO in my game would that make the power too powerful? Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

 

[Tale]

It's a ranged power, so yes, it provokes an OA. It basically lets you gift your standard to someone else as a move. Taking a potential OA for that doesn't seem unreasonable.

Edit: I was wrong about it being "forced movement."

 

[Khime]

The Warlord is basically focusing his attention on someone other than the enemy adjacent to him. Whether it's to shoot an arrow at that other person or to give him tactical advice, he's still giving his foe an opportunity that wouldn't be present if the Warlord had his eyes forward.

As for it being silly in the sense of "why would he want to do that?" I can see the Warlord beckoning the Rogue over into a flanking position opposite him just before the Rogue's turn in the initiative order, and that might be worth an OA he thinks he can take.

 

[SableWyvern]

Every single utility power that effects a single target at range is listed as a Ranged power. It makes little to no sense in many cases that they should draw attacks of opportunity. Thus, I have been convinced that only Attack Powers can provoke OAs, despite one rule that states all ranged and area powers provoke.

That a few single-target class features are written as close bursts indicates to me that at some point all powers were intended to provoke, but either this was an earlier rule that should have been completely removed, or a late introduction that was not properly incorporated.

Note that the OA rules on p290 indicate that all ranged and area powers provoke, while the OA rules on p268 single out area attacks and ranged attacks. At first I believed that the the p268 rule was simply a subset of the full rule on p290, but closer study of the Utility powers led me to believe the two different wordings do in fact represent different iterations of the rule, of which one is correct and the other in error.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Note that the OA rules on p290 indicate that all ranged and area powers provoke, while the OA rules on p268 single out area attacks and ranged attacks.

A Utility Power with the Area keyword is an area attack, despite not being an attack. "Area" and "Ranged" are both "attack types", and per p56, they apply to both attack powers and utility powers.

Consider that one of the examples of an "area attack" is Wall of Fog, which is a utility power with the "Attack type" of "Area".

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

Note that the OA rules on p290 indicate that all ranged and area powers provoke, while the OA rules on p268 single out area attacks and ranged attacks. At first I believed that the the p268 rule was simply a subset of the full rule on p290, but closer study of the Utility powers led me to believe the two different wordings do in fact represent different iterations of the rule, of which one is correct and the other in error.

If all ranged and area powers provoke, then by definition all ranged and area attacks provoke.

There's no contradiction.

 

[Arbitrary]

The lack of consistency is not insignificant. There is a contradiction. A specific rule takes precedence over a general rule and ranged attack power is certainly more specific than ranged power.

But that isn't my full reason for taking the opposite position.

Given that Concentration does not exist, and given that 4th edition was supposed to have far far less attacks of opportunity than 3rd or 3.5, and given the insanely large number of powers that then provoke even if it doesn't make any sense for them to provoke, I just can't say that it is intended for non-attack powers to provoke. There are just too many situations that leave me scratching my head.

 

[Tale]

The lack of consistency is not insignificant. There is a contradiction. A specific rule takes precedence over a general rule and ranged attack power is certainly more specific than ranged power.

That was so nonsensical that it tasted delicious.

I could say odd numbers aren't divisibly by 2 without producing a fraction. Then I say 3 is not divisble by two without producing a fraction. Odd and 3 do not now contradict.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If a power useable against a single ally X squares away is not meant to provoke, it will be written up as "Close Burst X" with "Target: one ally in burst." There are numerous examples, including healing/inspiring words.

House-ruling Knight's move (and some other ranged utility powers) that way probably wouldn't break the game.

 

[DracoSuave]

The lack of consistency is not insignificant. There is a contradiction. A specific rule takes precedence over a general rule and ranged attack power is certainly more specific than ranged power.

But that isn't my full reason for taking the opposite position.

Given that Concentration does not exist, and given that 4th edition was supposed to have far far less attacks of opportunity than 3rd or 3.5, and given the insanely large number of powers that then provoke even if it doesn't make any sense for them to provoke, I just can't say that it is intended for non-attack powers to provoke. There are just too many situations that leave me scratching my head.

Except for the existance of powers that aren't attacks, target a single creature, but are Close burst X so that they don't trigger OA. Almost as if they know full well what the rule says...


But no, there is no contradiction.

If I tell you, for example, no food is allowed, and someone else walks up with a bag of chips and I say 'No chips are allowed' I didn't contradict myself.

And you're completely misunderstanding what Specific Beats General means. Specific is when something specifically does other than a rule says. For example, attack powers specifically go against the rule that all attacks are basic attacks. You have them, so you have the exception. Weapons don't deal extra crit damage, but high-crit weapons are an exception, and specific, so they do.

There's no specific beating general in this case. It's specific being the same as general. Like if somewhere said 'Encounter powers are used once per encounter.' and somewhere else says 'Force Orb is used once per encounter' to then conclude 'So then all other encounter powers are not once per encounter' is a total collapse of logic.