It's a matter of defining "action" I suppose.
Action = one of the three, Move, Standard, or Minor
action = some sort of movement, act, or event which could be part of a larger Action.
The action that triggers the reaction is the moving into the adjacent square, which is a part of the larger Action. Thus the kobold reacts to the action, not the Move Action.
pinbot said:
Which is exactly what reactions cannot do. Only an interrupt could be DURING the move action.
I disagree that the kobold is interrupting rather than reaction.
If the Kobold were interrupting the action, that would mean he could BEFORE the PC moved into the square. If it was an interrupt, as soon as the PC tried to enter the square, the kobold could shift...which would allow the kobold to move into the square himself because the PC isn't there yet.
Since it is a reaction to the "move into adjacent square" trigger, the Kobold has to wait until that action is complete before he reacts to it.
The kobold is
interrupting the player's Move Action, but he is still only
reacting to the triggering action, the action of the player moving into the adjacent sqaure.
Here, note that you have changed how you are using 'action'. Actions are not something new, we have actions in 3x and are all familiar with the distinction between 'during' and 'after' a move action. I'd like to think it is very unlikely that the designers would flub such a well established and clear idea--especially considering that the very existence of interupts and reactions makes it clear that they are designing around this important distinction.
I don't see this is a flub at all. There is to me a difference between saying "reacting to the action that provoked the trigger" and "reacting to the Move Action or Standard Action that provoked the trigger."
In this case, the reaction is to an action, that of entering the sqaure, not to a move action, which is the entirety of the player's move.
You could be correct that, by saying "action" they meant one of the three Actions available. But then you are limiting reactions to only those events and nothing else.
For example, if there was an interrupt to the action of taking fire damage to give you fire resist, it would interrupt any fire damage no matter the source. If you can only interrupt Standard, Move, and Minor Actions, then something other than a PC or NPC dealing fire damage not as Standard, Move, or Minor could not be interrupted because it was not an Action, just something that happened.
Uh...yes exactly. Muddling the trigger event by referring to 'trigger action'. Not that I'm pointing any fingers
(and I'm well aware that the people include wotc reps)
I agree that word-use could have been better!