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

[Jack Colby]

In far too many cases, this ends up substituting the player's experience for the PCs knowledge.

This is bad? As a player or DM, this is exactly what I'd want. After all, we are the ones playing the game, our characters are just sheets of paper. They won't feel a thrill of victory from coming up with winning tactics like a human will.

So you're saying you prefer a die roll or skill rating or something to trump player ingenuity? How odd. Not that I'm saying you're not entitled to your opinions or should stop. I just can't imagine how that is fun or entertaining. Sounds more like a mathematical or fact-checking exercise than an engaging game.

 

[Jack Colby]

So the kobold can avoid a move-then-attack, but not a charge.

That not only follows the rules, it makes the most sense. I'm not sure how this is even a question, much less a debate.

 

[Vaeron]

That not only follows the rules, it makes the most sense. I'm not sure how this is even a question, much less a debate.

I agree. The wording of the ability is clear. A PC moves next to the Dragonshield. When the move is complete, the kobold can scamper away. Bad news for the kobold if it's marked. This can only be done once per round tho; so charging, the fighter's mark, and ranged attacks can completely negate it. In play, this ability made the Dragonshields quite fun (for me, anyway). But a fighter could do some real damage to a kobold who was stupid enough to keep shifting away. a) charge -hit b) kobold shifts - since marked, hit c) fighter steps away as a move, then charges as a standard - hit. d) kobold shifts away - since marked, hit. I guess they'd probably catch on by the second or third time it happened.

 

[Emirikol]

There is a house rules section in these forums It should be full by June 8th.

 

[Longrifle]

That not only follows the rules, it makes the most sense. I'm not sure how this is even a question, much less a debate.

I completely agree here. It seems this is just part of the new dynamics of play, with the intent to breathe new life into combat and make it more interesting and more interactive. Rather than the old style of: roll, hit, damage.

I read the rules, just as some others have mentioned above, that the intent is to allow the DS to avoid at least one melee swing each round. Not a big deal. I think this is where you have to look at the combat round as they have explicitly broken it into component phases, just as it is in Magic: The Gathering. Once the player moves up to the DS's face and begins to swing (the movement phase of his round is thus completed and the player then moves on toward his standard action phase) and the DS shifts away. Since his movement phase is done (the player declared that himself by using a stardard action), he cannot go back and use his unused movement squares. Any unused movement points are then forfeit (unless he uses a standard action to move again, thereby losing his attack that round).

It just makes you have to think a little bit harder about how to kill such a weak and low-level monster. It's like playing D&D again for the first time. The fighter's mark and the rogue's deft strike will will negate this ability with no problem. I would assume ranged attacks would have no problems either.

I think we're all in store for much, much more of this kind of rules clarification after the books are released.

 

[jaer]

Actually I think Logan wasn't thinking of it like an interrupt, but rather looking at the trigger event.

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

Dragonshield Tactics (immediate reaction, when an adjacent enemy shifts away or an enemy moves adjacent; at will)

Emphasis mine.

The Trigger is when an eneny moves adjacent to the kobold, not when an enemy ends it movement adjacent.

This means this trigger can occur and the reactionis completed DURING a PCs move action. If the PC moves 2 squares and is next to the DS (and is planning on continuing past him to the minions, for instance) the moment the PC gets into a square next the DS (thus completeing the trigger action of moving adjacent to the DS), the DS can shift away. The PC still has 4 sqaures of movement left and can continue moving to where he wanted to go.

The Trigger happens when the PC enters a square next to the DS, not when the PC ends his movement in a sqaure next to the DS. It is the movement into the square, not the final destination of the move action, that triggers the shift. So the RAW do seem clear, but people are muddling the Trigger Event.

 

[pinbot]

This means this trigger can occur and the reaction is completed DURING a PCs move action.

Which is exactly what reactions cannot do. Only an interrupt could be DURING the move action.

If the PC moves 2 squares and is next to the DS (and is planning on continuing past him to the minions, for instance) the moment the PC gets into a square next the DS (thus completeing the trigger action of moving adjacent to the DS)...

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.

The Trigger happens when the PC enters a square next to the DS, not when the PC ends his movement in a sqaure next to the DS. It is the movement into the square, not the final destination of the move action, that triggers the shift. So the RAW do seem clear, but people are muddling the Trigger Event.

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)

 

[jaer]

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.

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!

 

[trystero]

See also this thread, which includes a clarification from Mike Mearls and also includes (on p. 2) the wording from the 4e PHB.

Both are fairly clear: reactions and interrupts can be resolved after each square of movement in a move action...

Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before you take your reaction, except that you can interrupt a creature’s movement. If a creature triggers your immediate reaction while moving (by coming into range, for example), you take your action before the creature finishes moving but after it has moved at least 1 square.

That last sentence would have been good to have in KotS.