Snarling Wolf Stance = negates melee attacks for an encounter?

[UngeheuerLich]

I also agree that the OA can´t invalidate, because the attack has happened... this is why it triggers on a hit or miss, not on the attack itself.

 

[Samir]

I also agree that the OA can´t invalidate, because the attack has happened... this is why it triggers on a hit or miss, not on the attack itself.

OAs interrupt their trigger like immediate interrupts, so the OA would happen before the attack hits.

The shift would not, however, since it's not part of the opportunity action, so you still get hit.

 

[Amaroq]

OAs interrupt their trigger like immediate interrupts, so the OA would happen before the attack hits.

The shift would not, however, since it's not part of the opportunity action, so you still get hit.

Yeah, I support this interpretation.

Attack roll hits, triggering this sequence.
Before damage is applied, the opportunity action (MBA) occurs.
Damage is applied, if the opponent survived the OA.
Then the user shifts.

That seems to fit the spirit, the wording, and the power level of an L5 power.

 

[Samir]

Yeah, I support this interpretation.

Attack roll hits, triggering this sequence.
Before damage is applied, the opportunity action (MBA) occurs.
Damage is applied, if the opponent survived the OA.
Then the user shifts.

That seems to fit the spirit, the wording, and the power level of an L5 power.

Well, technically, the user shifts before damage is dealt by the triggering attack.

However, the shift doesn't affect the outcome of the triggering attack. Only opportunity actions and immediate interrupts can "roll back time" to do that, and the shift is neither. If the triggering attack hit, you can shift out of range before the damage is dealt, but you still take the damage.

 

[interwyrm]

Well, technically, the user shifts before damage is dealt by the triggering attack.

However, the shift doesn't affect the outcome of the triggering attack. Only opportunity actions and immediate interrupts can "roll back time" to do that, and the shift is neither. If the triggering attack hit, you can shift out of range before the damage is dealt, but you still take the damage.

Using it with a MBA that slides enemies out of melee works though. (i.e. warlock with eldritch strike)

 

[Otterscrubber]

It does not invalidate the triggering attack. The trigger happens when the enemy hits or misses you, not when they attack you. The opportunity attack does not occur until the triggering attack is resolved.

This is also how I interpret this. The attack still happens, hit or miss and gets resolved before the ranger gets his Opp Attack and shift in. Will not negate the original attack, but if it's the first attack from a string of attackers he might be able to shift away from the subsequent attacks and save himself some hurt.

Edit: I love this stance on my ranger. I dont even shift away, I just like it as it lets me hit more. Great for taking out a ton of minions if you have a ton of them to take out.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I fully expect that at some point "are hit by" will become "are damaged by", which would make the power semi-balanced.

 

[Samir]

I fully expect that at some point "are hit by" will become "are damaged by", which would make the power semi-balanced.

I doubt that will happen, since the stance also triggers off misses, and this would completely change the functionality of the power.

It's more likely that the shift will have "after the triggering attack is resolved" tagged onto it to clarify that it doesn't negate the attack.

 

[Incendax]

Isn't that the intent of readied actions? Not that I would have thought that you could pick "at the start of their turn" as a trigger. You risk losing the action if the stated trigger never happens, don't you?

I wonder if you can ready your action for the moment the next enemy takes its 'Standard Action'. Such a readied action might work well if there is only one adjacent enemy.

 

[the Jester]

Well, technically, the user shifts before damage is dealt by the triggering attack.

Again, I disagree. There doesn't quite seem to be a consensus that this is the case.