Something "Shifty" Going On (Spoiler Warning!!!)

[Alvoros]

Hey, thanks all for humouring me on this post...I see the other one now (on the main page even!), and we should let this one die an embarrasing death.

Though....still confused on the issue as it appears many are.

Alvo

 

[Kyrail]

"Spoiling" the charge would be an accurate assessment imo.

It's not a case of a monster thwarting the PC cleverly, it's just the PC getting screwed out of his action. No matter how the rules turn it out, I wouldn't use it that way.

It's very useful for maintaining flanking, which I think is how it was intended to be used, trying to be super clever and find ways to annoy the PCs is rarely a good DM move.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

It's very useful for maintaining flanking, which I think is how it was intended to be used, trying to be super clever and find ways to annoy the PCs is rarely a good DM move.

It's supposed to provide a "Mastery" experience to the PC's. They'll likely get screwed out of an action or two but then they'll learn and overcome it and feel awesome. That's the whole point.

The table cheered last night when the rogue moved into flank, the Shield sidestepped and then the Rogue Deft Striked back into flank. That is what it's meant to encourage.

 

[IanArgent]

It's supposed to provide a "Mastery" experience to the PC's. They'll likely get screwed out of an action or two but then they'll learn and overcome it and feel awesome. That's the whole point.

IMHO, from both sides of the GM screen, "Mastery" experiences SUCK when they're based on mechanics. In far too many cases, this ends up substituting the player's experience for the PCs knowledge. It always seemed to me to be a "gotcha" moment. I had a player who may quite literally never play D&D again from the cumulative effects of one too many of these in 3.0/3.5; most of which were unintentionally provided my me as DM because I internalized the aspects of the rules that she had not; and more importantly, I had been able to do so because of 20 years of generalized RPG and wargaming experience that she had not had. I had a mix of experience in this group: I had another player with more experience than I had, and who was actually much more aware of the D&D tropes (and was a better rules-parser than I was), 1 player with around 10 years of shadowrun experience but very little D&D experience outside of the Gold Box games; 1 player with plenty of 1E/2E experience, but nothing newer; one player who had only started a couple of years back but was amazing in her ability to sop up gaming knowledge, and finally the lady who I mentioned above.

IMHO, almost anything would be better than the deliberate mastery-reqarding D&D 3E ruleset from that point of view.

 

[Dausuul]

Oh yuck... so 'action' does not mean 'action'? This gives me a very bad feeling...

(edit) But now having read the original (thanks for tracking it down!) I take encouragement from his "I *think*..." (emphasis his). I'm earnestly hoping he's wrong. Misusing defined terms would really be terrible precedent to set.

I agree. The rules as written are crystal clear:

A reaction lets you act immediately in response to a triggering action. The triggering action is completely resolved before you take your action.

That's not even slightly ambiguous. The move action resolves and then the reaction happens. So the kobold can avoid a move-then-attack, but not a charge. What this means is that you can't use at-will melee attacks on Dragonshields unless you can drive them into a corner (or unless you're a fighter with Combat Superiority, in which case you whack the Dragonshield as he tries to shift back, then laugh at him).

It's simple, clean, easily understandable. Logan's response is muddying the waters and opening the door to all kinds of rules arguments.

Is it a house-rule if you're ignoring a WotC ruling to follow the rules as written?

 

[functionciccio]

That's not even slightly ambiguous. The move action resolves and then the reaction happens. So the kobold can avoid a move-then-attack, but not a charge. What this means is that you can't use at-will melee attacks on Dragonshields unless you can drive them into a corner (or unless you're a fighter with Combat Superiority, in which case you whack the Dragonshield as he tries to shift back, then laugh at him).

Amen to that.

 

[Markn]

Is it a house-rule if you're ignoring a WotC ruling to follow the rules as written?

Is it a house rule to be following a module produced before the 3 core books are out? I can see both sides of the argument and can easily agree with both. Logan, may or may not be right. One poster in another thread spotted some different terminology in one of the web articles that changes it from triggering action to triggering condition.

 

[ZetaStriker]

I had planned to run Dragonshields as shifting at the end of the action, but this has thrown some doubt on that... but the ruling clarified in the e-mail is, frankly, stupid, so I'd prefer to compromise and say the Dragonshield can shift at the end of the player's turn to prevent flanking. Still wobbling between that and my original interpretation though.

 

[Bayuer]

Go to immediate reaction in Quick Rules.

A reaction lets you act immediatly in response to a triggering action. The triggering action is completely resolved before you take your reaction.

So maybe logan was have in his mind immediate interupt not reaction. In any case that's realy clear to me. Someone charges on you. He moves adjacent and attack. Action is completly resolved now. Kobold can shift. Someone is moving adjacent and stops and want to attack. Move action ends. Now the kobold can shift couse triggering action is completly resolved and its ended. If someone will come near kobold and then go away I think kobold still will have his shift for action after this move is done.

It's seems to be very powerful but keep in mind that you can only take one immediate action in turn!

 

[gribble]

It's simple, clean, easily understandable. Logan's response is muddying the waters and opening the door to all kinds of rules arguments.

Is it a house-rule if you're ignoring a WotC ruling to follow the rules as written?

This isn't the first "WotC ruling" I've seen on these forums which seems iffy to me (the minions gain temp hp thing, which totally contradicts the whole point of minions in the first place!)

While I appreciate the WotC staff coming here and helping us out with rule questions, I just wish they would be clearer about their statements when guessing or making something up on the spot (as opposed to giving answers from unreleased rules or errata/clarifications).