Knight's move question

[Arbitrary]

Those statements have different meanings given the mechanics of the game. The nature of simple editing mistakes and typographical errors should preclude anyone from automatically picking one over the other.

Three different pages say two different things. The wording is not consistent. That worries me. What worries me more are the sheer number of powers that would then provoke that have no business provoking in a game system what was supposed to (as an improvement) have many less attacks of opportunity.

Given the differences in wording and spirit of the game system I am sticking with "not intended."

 

[DracoSuave]

a game system what was supposed to (as an improvement) have many less attacks of opportunity.

Fighter class's class features contradict this statement, and terribly so.

They -don't- say different things. One says attacks trigger OAs (and they do) and the other says powers trigger OAs (and they do)

You're saying that one must be true and the other must be false, but the rest of us are saying that both can be true. If both can be true, then by logical definition there is no contradiction.

Premise: Ranged Powers and Area Powers trigger OAs.
Premise: All Attacks are Powers.
Conclusion: Ranged Attacks and Ranged Attacks trigger OAs.

See. Both can be true, and therefore, a contradiction -does not exist-.

Unless this is some new meaning of the word 'contradiction' that I've never heard before.

 

[Arbitrary]

One class that may get additional attacks that are similar to opportunity attacks does not undo the change in direction relating to attacks of opportunity from 3 and 3.5 to 4th.

After all of the arguments and confusions so far in this edition I cannot simply ignore inconsistent use of language. The strictest interpretations are only appropriate if the system is sufficiently polished and this one is not.

 

[Mengu]

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.

In 3.x casting a spell provoked an AoO unless you made a Concentration check. I see using utility powers as casting spells. In that context it's possible this is the intended behavior.

Having said that, I'm not totally convinced this is so. Healing Word for instance is very carefully worded to be a single target close burst. I might think perhaps this was a late change, and they forgot to carry it over to utility powers. But that would be a giant oops. Powers such as Knight's Move, Crescendo of Violence, and Shake It Off being ranged makes absolutely no sense to me.

The worst offender though is Corellon's Grace. Say someone spends an action point, and I want to use Corellon's Grace to shift away from a swarm before the beginning of my turn. Good use of the power yes? Except I just provoked an opportunity attack from the swarm by using a ranged power.

So for the moment, I'm going with the "giant oops" theory, that these non-attack ranged powers should be bursts instead of ranged.

 

[Mort_Q]

What worries me more are the sheer number of powers that would then provoke that have no business provoking in a game system what was supposed to (as an improvement) have many less attacks of opportunity.

Where did that come from?

It's the number of things that provoke that was lowered.

• Ranged or Area Powers
• Leaving a threatened square (Not including shifts and forced movement)

The number of actual OAs has increased, since you can get one per opponents turn.

 

[SableWyvern]

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...

I had this argument with Arbitrary. I was on your side, and used the exact same arguements that are being used in this thread. They do appear to be good arguments.

But, you know, those powers written as Close Bursts, so as to prevent provoking? There are a bare handful of them. And not a single one is a Utility Power. Just a couple class featuers like Inspiring Word and Healing Word. As I mentioned in my post, it seems to me that those few single-target close bursts are either: 1. The beginnings of integrating non-attack powers into a wider OA rule (a task which was never completed) or 2. holdovers from before a change.

The thing that eventually changed my mind was that there is not one single, lone, solitary Utility Power which targets a single ally at range that is a close burst. Not one. On the other hand, I have spotted only a single Utility that targets multiple allies at range which is not a Close Burst. That's Evade Ambush, and it seems to me that it is written as Ranged only because Ranged Sight is a simpler expression than Close Burst Sight.

As a quick sample, the following powers draw OAs:

Armour of Bahamut (Channel Divinity Feat): Makes it not only useless, but actually detrimental to paladins and most Str Clerics.

Crucial Advice: Take an OA for advising someone on skill use, even though skill use itself does not attract OAs.

Evade Ambush: Prevent the enemy from getting the jump on you and your group. In return, the enemy gets the jump on you. Huh?

Knight's Move, as being discussed. Along with fully half of all warlord utilities. This is for a not-all-that-tough guy that's meant to be up at or near the front lines. It just doesn't make any sense to me, in the context of the wider rules, that these powers would all be drawing OAs.

I would suggest that you take a look through the utility powers yourself. If you're comfortable with so many of them drawing OAs, then keep playing as you have been. But you, may, like I was, be surprised at what you find, and begin to sense that there is something not quite right going on...

 

[SableWyvern]

Double Post.

 

[SableWyvern]

Where did that come from?

It's the number of things that provoke that was lowered.

• Ranged or Area Powers
• Leaving a threatened square (Not including shifts and forced movement)

The number of actual OAs has increased, since you can get one per opponents turn.

Seriously. Take a close look at the utility powers. You may decide I'm over-stating the issue, but the utility power listings are full of powers that provoke. As mentioned in my previous post, that includes fully half of all Warlord Utilities, and many of them really don't seem like they should. Especially when you consider that any utility that effects multiple targets is typically a close burst. How come multiple-target at-range Utilities never provoke, but single-target at-range Utilities always do?

Also, consider this: was Evade Ambush (one exception to the "multi-target utilities don't provoke" standard) written as Ranged Sight because they wanted it to provoke, or because it was more awkward to write a LoS power as a Close Burst?