Snarling Wolf Stance = negates melee attacks for an encounter?

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

What makes you think that both the MBA and the shift happen 'at interrupt speed'? The text says that the MBA is made as an opportunity action. The following sentence states that then the shift is made i.e. after the opportunity action.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

Sorry, was going from your quote immediately preceding my post which seemed to intimate the opposite. That's what I get for drive-by posting!

 

[Fifth Element]

What makes you think that both the MBA and the shift happen 'at interrupt speed'? The text says that the MBA is made as an opportunity action. The following sentence states that then the shift is made i.e. after the opportunity action.

It's open to interpretation. It could be that both events happen as part of the same opportunity action, but the attack must be made before the shift (attack then shift). Since there is no action type listed for the shift, it can be inferred that it's intended to be part of the same action.

It requires clarification. Or DM interpretation, either one.

 

[firesnakearies]

When reading the rules, it is often possible to interpret specific cases like this in more than one way, depending on how you choose to look at it or apply the nuances of the text.

I find that when there is more than one possible interpretation that could be reasonably argued for based on "RAW" reading, it becomes incumbent upon the DM (and players) to decide which interpretation appears to best fit the spirit of the rules, and matches up best with other rules, powers, and game balance as seen in the rest of the game.

In other words, if one interpretation seems clearly overpowered, or underpowered, compared to the obvious game design and spirit in general, it's an easy call (and I would say the "right" call) to choose the possible interpretation that isn't patently ridiculous vis a vis the rest of the game.

I consider this the difference between just being a good rules lawyer, and actually being a good DM (or a good player).

 

[Mallus]

Hmmmm... this looks easy to resolve.

If the counterattack+shift acts like an interrupt, then the power is too good for a 5th level Daily.

If the counterattack+shift acts like a reaction, and does *not* prevent potential damage from the triggering attack, then it seem okay for a 5th level Daily.

Ergo, it doesn't work like an interrupt. Like I said, easy-peasy!

 

[Fifth Element]

What about the attack being an interrupt, and the shift being no action after the triggering attack is resolved? Is that right for a 5th-level daily?

 

[firesnakearies]

What about the attack being an interrupt, and the shift being no action after the triggering attack is resolved? Is that right for a 5th-level daily?

That seems most reasonable to me. That's how I'd rule it. So, IF you manage to kill the attacker with your OA from this power, then you can invalidate the triggering attack. If not, you're still taking the damage, even if you shift away.

(Although this does raise the possibility of various feat/power combinations that might let someone use an at-will as their basic attack, and having an at-will that pushes or slides the attacker away. Which would invalidate the attack, and thus make that combination really powerful, again.)

 

[Aulirophile]

Hmmmm... this looks easy to resolve.

If the counterattack+shift acts like an interrupt, then the power is too good for a 5th level Daily.

If the counterattack+shift acts like a reaction, and does *not* prevent potential damage from the triggering attack, then it seem okay for a 5th level Daily.

Ergo, it doesn't work like an interrupt. Like I said, easy-peasy!

Yeah, because determining if something is "too powerful" in any given persons opinion is clearly the metric by which a game full of people who can kill whole towns should be measured. Or, how about this, I think it isn't powerful enough for a level 5 daily. You ought to be able to use an At-Will on the attack. Who is right now? Oh, I am, of course, because apparently all you need to be right is an opinion.

CS says it works at interrupt speed. Given the confusion I'm sure the wording will be clarified at some point (and probably nerfed in the process), but for the moment that is just how it works.

 

[mneme]

There's no sane precedent for deciding to turn a single opportunity action into multiple actions each with their own timing.

It's pretty clearly too good -- though monsters can play around it just like PCs can play around monster's opportunity attacks (until they group up, anyway), but it's not the end of the world.

 

[Aulirophile]

There's no sane precedent for deciding to turn a single opportunity action into multiple actions each with their own timing.

It's pretty clearly too good -- though monsters can play around it just like PCs can play around monster's opportunity attacks (until they group up, anyway), but it's not the end of the world.

Sudden Bite. Uses what is in fact a completely separate power (Wildshape) and then allows you to make an OA. Care to make any more false statements about how there aren't any precedents for things already in the game for more then a year?

There isn't any precedent for a power saying "do something at x speed and do y (but no speed is listed specifically for y)" and interpreting that to mean y does not happen at x speed, as well, either.

And "pretty clearly too good" is, again, just an opinion. Not relevant to a rules discussion. Which I think is what this, since the original question was a rules question. Which has been answered by CS, which is the closest thing to an official answer you get till errata and/or a FAQ. If you don't like their answer, great, I'm happy for you. It doesn't change the RAW.