Snarling Wolf Stance = negates melee attacks for an encounter?

[the Jester]

I wonder if you can ready your action for the moment the next enemy takes its 'Standard Action'.

I wouldn't allow this; you need a specific trigger for a ready action. You're ready for something.

 

[Samir]

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

Why? The power does not say "after the triggering attack is resolved" and it's not an immediate reaction, so you must resolve the shift when it triggers, which is when an enemy hits or misses you.

This is consistent with triggered free actions. If they are triggered in the middle of another action, they don't wait until the end of that action to resolve.

 

[kerbarian]

Why? The power does not say "after the triggering attack is resolved" and it's not an immediate reaction, so you must resolve the shift when it triggers, which is when an enemy hits or misses you.

This is consistent with triggered free actions. If they are triggered in the middle of another action, they don't wait until the end of that action to resolve.

Yes, if the shift is a separate, free action, it would resolve after the triggering hit or miss but before damage is dealt. I believe the argument is that free actions don't invalidate the triggering action unless they have specific text that says so. In this case, you'd be hit by a melee attack, shift away, and then take damage (because the hit was not invalidated).

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Why? The power does not say "after the triggering attack is resolved" and it's not an immediate reaction, so you must resolve the shift when it triggers, which is when an enemy hits or misses you.

This is consistent with triggered free actions. If they are triggered in the middle of another action, they don't wait until the end of that action to resolve.

Yes, if the shift is a separate, free action, it would resolve after the triggering hit or miss but before damage is dealt. I believe the argument is that free actions don't invalidate the triggering action unless they have specific text that says so. In this case, you'd be hit by a melee attack, shift away, and then take damage (because the hit was not invalidated).

Bringing in this talk of free actions is confusing the matter unnecessarily. The stance causes two separate events: 1) a hit or miss with a close/melee attack grants an MBA as an OA 2) after the OA is resolved, you can shift. You still take damage if the MBA was triggered by a hit, since an MBA doesn't invalidate the hit even though it was 'interrupted' by the OA.

Reading this power the way you are makes this way over-powered for a 5th daily (and arguably for a daily of any level) which makes it, to my mind, obviously not RAI.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Definately the "negate the first melee attack each foe makes against you" is a RAW argument, but in this case, RAW probably means rules are wrong...

 

[Samir]

Bringing in this talk of free actions is confusing the matter unnecessarily. The stance causes two separate events: 1) a hit or miss with a close/melee attack grants an MBA as an OA 2) after the OA is resolved, you can shift. You still take damage if the MBA was triggered by a hit, since an MBA doesn't invalidate the hit even though it was 'interrupted' by the OA.

Reading this power the way you are makes this way over-powered for a 5th daily (and arguably for a daily of any level) which makes it, to my mind, obviously not RAI.

I think you are misinterpreting our position. We are arguing against the ability for SWS's shift to invalidate attacks.

Though the shift granted by the stance occurs before damage is dealt by the triggering attack, shifting out of range doesn't prevent the damage you're about to take because free actions and no-actions don't have the ability to invalidate actions post facto. Interrupts and opportunity actions do, but the shift is neither of those.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I agree it could be clearer, but I think saying "as an opportunity attack" refers to how often you can do it (once each emnemy's turn) indstead of "as an XXX interrupt) which would be once per one of your turns.

I don't think "as an opportunity attack" grants the Immediate interrupt speed.

But the rules are unclear. It is sure the pwoer works a lot better with my interpretation, though.

Negating all attacks, or many of them, for a whoole encoutner is obviously overpowered.

And if it is obviously overpowered....

 

[Fifth Element]

Though the shift granted by the stance occurs before damage is dealt by the triggering attack, shifting out of range doesn't prevent the damage you're about to take because free actions and no-actions don't have the ability to invalidate actions post facto. Interrupts and opportunity actions do, but the shift is neither of those.

I think that's the questionable part - should the shift be treated as part of the opportunity action, or as a separate free or no action? The wording is unclear. I don't think you can definitively state the shift is not part of the opportunity action, since the wording can be interpreted both ways.

For instance, there is no mention of a separate action type for the shift, which implies it might be intended to be part of the same opportunity action as the attack.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't think "as an opportunity attack" grants the Immediate interrupt speed.

But the rules are unclear. It is sure the pwoer works a lot better with my interpretation, though.

I agree that the power works better this way, but it's pretty clear what an "opportunity action" allows. Opportunity actions are interrupts. The wording of the shift needs to be clarified.

 

[Aulirophile]

Eh-hem. "As an Opportunity Action." <----It isn't just an attack. It is an attack and then a shift, both of which happen at Interrupt speed. The difference matters. One can't, for instance, use Heavy Blade Opportunity to Twin Strike. Indeed, making it an Opportunity attack would mean the attack went off, the attacker's attack resolved, and then the shift happened. And the hit would benefit from a whole boatload of pretty amazing feats and class features.

Thankfully it doesn't say that. I imagine at some point it'll get the same or similar errata that Spitting Cobra Stance did. And someone has already been kind enough to ask CS and post the answer, which is indeed identical to the answer I've seen posted elsewhere, so one can assume the question has been asked so frequently they literally copy/paste it at this point.

You also cannot negate the attacks if you do not want to move (guarding a choke point) or if you are surrounded, or if you are immobilized, it doesn't work at all if you are dazed, or if you are attempting to shift away from an enemy that can punish shifting the way fighters can, etc. The power is very good, but it primarily cranks up your DPR or saves you some healing surges. The positioning benefit is fairly minimal.