Quick question: Shimmering Blade, rogue 23 encounter

[abeattie]

My view is naturally enough that my interpretation is the simpler one that leads to the most reasonable result in the OPs question above and is closest to RAW. If my argument does not convince you, I think we have to agree to disagree. As long as you can get your game to work with another interpretation of opportunity action, its not really important what I think. What IS interesting is that the rules, even in the 4th editions, can be so unclear on so many points and would dread being the judge at a competitive event where these rules came to the test.

On page 268, under triggered actions, the PH clearly states that while OAs and Immediates REQUIRE a trigger, free and non actions can also be triggered actions. So, no, I don't think you can RAW in a rule that all triggered actions must be OAs or Immediates.

To put it another way, If OAs and Immediates are squares, and triggered actions are rectangles the PH says:

All squares must be rectangles.

From which you appear to have derived the rule that all rectangles must be squares.

...

On the next page under Action on Other Turns that free actions are allowed (as many as you want actually) on another's turn, and it explicitly lists free actions alongside oppourtunity actions and immediate actions as another and seperate type of action which can take place on another players turn.

So the general rule is that free actions can occur on another players turn. Here a specific power creates a specific rule that there is an attack, which is a free action, that must be triggered before it can be used. It is a triggered free action, which means many of them could take place on an opposing creatures turn. Thus -- the general rule that you could use that free action that the power grants you over and over is limited by the specific rule (the trigger requirements) ... but that's it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

An opportunity action or an immediate action must have a trigger. A free action does not require one. It can have one, though. The difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, or the subtilities of a logical implications...

It is necessary for an opportunity action or an immediate action to have a trigger. But having a trigger is not a sufficient condition to have either an opportunity or an immediate action.

[sblock=Logic Rules]
A v B => D
A = Opportunity Action
B = Immediate Action
C = Free Action
D = Trigger

D => A v B v C
-D => (-A ^ -B)
[/sblock]

 

[Starfox]

Honestly, I can't say what the last two posts are trying to argue for or against - I can't say if you agree with me or not. There is no clear conclusion, which makes the arguments hard to follow.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Honestly, I can't say what the last two posts are trying to argue for or against - I can't say if you agree with me or not. There is no clear conclusion, which makes the arguments hard to follow.

A free action with a trigger is not an opportunity action or an immediate action. An opportunity action or an immediate action must have a trigger, a free action can have a trigger.

 

[Starfox]

Agreed. Does this mean you agree with the basic presumption that you can only make only one triggered action (aka Opportunity Action) on each creature's turn? Regardless of whether that opportunity action is an opportunity attack, immediate action, triggered free action, or triggered "no action" event?

I'll try to explain this using mathematical sets, which I am somewhat familiar with. See the wikipedia article on mathematical sets, but I must admit I am not at all familiar with the terminology in English and havn't studied this for thirty years (I actually studied this in second grade, believe it on not - Swedish schooling was quite radical back then).

{Opportunity actions} are a set. {Immediate actions} and {opportunity actions} are subsets of the {Opportunity action} set. {Free actions} and {No Actions} each have an intersection with the {Opportunity Action} set, but are not subsets; there are {free actions} and {no actions} that are not {Opportunity Actions}. I think that's what you are trying to tell me above, and so far I think we all agree.

Let me call the intersection of {Opportunity actions} and {Free actions} {Free Opportunity Actions} and the intersection of {Opportunity actions} and {No actions} {No-Action Opportunities}, just to give them names.

What I am claiming is that {Actions with Triggers} = {Opportunity Actions} and thus subject to the one opportunity action per turn rule. {Opportunity Actions} are the following:

• Opportunity Attacks
• Immediate actions
• Free Opportunity Actions
• No-Action Opportunities

What I think abyssaldeath was saying was that {Actions with Triggers} != {Opportunity Actions}, but so far, no-one has explained on what kinds of actions they are or expounded this argument. ("!=" means "not identical sets" here.)

Phew, this became very theoretical with many long words, and probably about as hard to understand to most of you as Mustrum_Ridcully formal logic was to me. And so far, we only really POSED the question; we haven't really discussed it yet.

 

[abyssaldeath]

{Opportunity actions} are a set. {Immediate actions} and {opportunity actions} are subsets of the {Opportunity action} set. {Free actions} and {No Actions} each have an intersection with the {Opportunity Action} set, but are not subsets; there are {free actions} and {no actions} that are not {Opportunity Actions}. I think that's what you are trying to tell me above, and so far I think we all agree.

I know this is not directed at me, but no where in the Opportunity Actions block is there any mention of Free Actions or No Actions. You are making the assumption that Free Action and No Action have to be a subset of Opportunity Action or Immediate Action. In no way is this true or even implied.

Let me call the intersection of {Opportunity actions} and {Free actions} {Free Opportunity Actions} and the intersection of {Opportunity actions} and {No actions} {No-Action Opportunities}, just to give them names.

What I am claiming is that {Actions with Triggers} = {Opportunity Actions} and thus subject to the one opportunity action per turn rule. {Opportunity Actions} are the following:

• Opportunity Attacks
• Immediate actions
  [*Free Opportunity Actions
• No-Action Opportunities

Triggered Actions != Opportunity Action. Oppotunity Actions are a subset of Triggered Actions. Your list should look like this

[B]Triggered Actions[/B]
*Opportunity Actions
     *Opportunity Attacks
*Immediate Actions
     *Immediate Interrupt
     *Immediate Reaction
*Free Actions
*No Actions

What I think abyssaldeath was saying was that {Actions with Triggers} != {Opportunity Actions}, but so far, no-one has explained on what kinds of actions they are or expounded this argument. ("!=" means "not equal to" here.)

That is what I'm saying. It appears that since Opportunity Action are listed first that makes you think that all other actions are a subset of them. This is not true. They are all different Triggered Action Types with their own rules. Unfortunitaly, Free Actions and No Actions were never given any rules for how they work when they have triggers.

 

[Starfox]

An opportunity action or an immediate action must have a trigger, a free action can have a trigger.

To say what I say above in different words: I claim that some free actions an some no actions are Opportunity actions. Not all, but a subset of each.

A free action with a trigger is not an opportunity action or an immediate action.

This is the statement I am disputing, and it does not logically follow from my first quote here.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed. Does this mean you agree with the basic presumption that you can only make only one triggered action (aka Opportunity Action) on each creature's turn? Regardless of whether that opportunity action is an opportunity attack, immediate action, triggered free action, or triggered "no action" event?

No.

I'll try to explain this using mathematical sets, which I am somewhat familiar with. See the wikipedia article on mathematical sets, but I must admit I am not at all familiar with the terminology in English and havn't studied this for thirty years (I actually studied this in second grade, believe it on not - Swedish schooling was quite radical back then).

{Opportunity actions} are a set. {Immediate actions} and {opportunity actions} are subsets of the {Opportunity action} set.

{Triggered actions} are a set. {Immediate Actions} and {Opportunity Actions} are both subsets, but {Immediate Actions} U

Spoiler

nion

{Opportunity Actions} is not the same as {Triggered Actions}. In essence, there are triggered actions that are neither immediate nor opportunity actions.

{Free actions} and {No Actions} each have an intersection with the {Opportunity Action} set, but are not subsets; there are {free actions} and {no actions} that are not {Opportunity Actions}. I think that's what you are trying to tell me above, and so far I think we all agree.

No. {Free Actions}, {No Actions} and {Opportunity Actions} have no common elements at all. They are all seperate things, their intersection is empty.

Let me call the intersection of {Opportunity actions} and {Free actions} {Free Opportunity Actions} and the intersection of {Opportunity actions} and {No actions} {No-Action Opportunities}, just to give them names.

The intersetion of {Opportunity Actions} and {Free Actions] is empty. As is the intersection of {Opportunity Actions} and {No Actions}.

What I am claiming is that {Actions with Triggers} = {Opportunity Actions} and thus subject to the one opportunity action per turn rule.

And this claim we say is wrong.

Phew, this became very theoretical with many long words, and probably about as hard to understand to most of you as Mustrum_Ridcully formal logic was to me. And so far, we only really POSED the question; we haven't really discussed it yet.

Set theory also works.
I only (re)learned most of this stuff at the university, which is not that long ago...

To go back to the PHB quote:

Two action types—opportunity actions and immediate actions—require triggers. A trigger is an action, an event, or an effect that allows you to use a triggered action. (Some powers require a trigger but are free
actions or aren’t actions at all.)

This quote doesn't say that only opportunity actions or immediate actions can have triggers. Note that the sentence in brackets is about powers, not actions. Some powers require a trigger, e.g. they have a Trigger entry and without it, you cannot use the power and spend its required action. But the action you need to use them can be a free action or no action (or an opportunity action or an immediate action).

If a power is an opportunity action or an immediate action, it must have a trigger. If it's a free action or no action, it can have a trigger, but it doesn't need one.

 

[Starfox]

That is what I'm saying. It appears that since Opportunity Action are listed first that makes you think that all other actions are a subset of them. This is not true. They are all different Triggered Action Types with their own rules. Unfortunately, Free Actions and No Actions were never given any rules for how they work when they have triggers.

Yes, now we are discussing the prime issue. I inserted the word trigger in your quote above, and now I can agree with the quote "Since Opportunity Action are listed first that makes you think that all other triggered actions are a subset of them." . I still do not agree with your conclusion. I can see how you arrive at your reading, but I still maintain my own, and in this case my reading produces a much more reasonable and consistent result, in which Free Actions and No Actions do have rules.

Saying that "They are all different Triggered Action Types with their own rules. Unfortunately, Free Actions and No Actions were never given any rules" is too much of a contradiction for me to accept and implies ineptitude among the designers. I like to say "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence", but here I have to say "do not ascribe to incompetence that which can be explained by misunderstanding" instead.

But this is not logical reasoning, it is common sense reasoning. If it fails to convince, I cannot prove anything. I still think we have to agree to disagree.

PS: Sadly, with my reading, the phrase (from PH1 p 169) "Two action types—opportunity actions and immediate actions—require triggers." becomes meaningless too, and this supports your argument. I think we are both over-reading the rules looking for logic and finding copy-paste errors instead. In the end it is a matter of taste. DS.

 

[Davachido]

Wow, this thread has quickly changed into a discussion about oppurtunity actions, triggers and free actions. Should I change the title? Good discussion though.