Sustain Provokes?

[gribble]

That's a ruling that I could live with.

As could I - in fact it's currently the way we play. The assumption is that the initial use of the power has a range, and any subsequent attacks don't (they just make an "untyped" attack roll, in essence).

There rules are however unclear, and it's open to interpretation either way. Until there is an "official" ruling on this situation, it'll remain that way.

 

[Ryujin]

As could I - in fact it's currently the way we play. The assumption is that the initial use of the power has a range, and any subsequent attacks don't (they just make an "untyped" attack roll, in essence).

There rules are however unclear, and it's open to interpretation either way. Until there is an "official" ruling on this situation, it'll remain that way.

Call it a mental link to the effect like a control 'teleport', if you will.

I think that in cases like this (and in the case of things like the 'untyped extra damage' thread) it's likely best to err on the side of ease of play. The more extra things that you have to do, because of things that may or may not be intended, the more things drag out.

 

[Artoomis]

...There rules are however unclear, and it's open to interpretation either way. Until there is an "official" ruling on this situation, it'll remain that way.

FWIW: I have asked Customer Service for clarification.

 

[Artoomis]

In an attempt to help formulate a more defintive answer, I have checked and only the following powers with ranged attacks grant an attack as part of using a minor action to sustain the power:


Crown of Stars: "Sustain Minor: Make a Charisma vs. Will attack against any target in range..."

Flaming Sphere: "Sustain Minor: You can sustain this power until the end of the encounter. As a standard action, you can make another attack with the sphere."

Dancing Weapon: "Sustain Minor: When you sustain the power, repeat the attack."

Spiritual Weapon: "Sustain Minor: When you sustain the power, repeat the attack. ..."

Bigby's Icy Grasp: "Sustain Minor: A target grabbed by the hand takes 1d8 + Intelligence modifier cold damage when you sustain this power. As a standard action, you can attack another target with the hand..."

Radiant pulse: "Sustain Minor: When you sustain this power, you can repeat the secondary attack (the primary target is the same each time)..."

Summons of Khirad: "Sustain Minor: Make a Constitution vs. Will attack against the target..."

Thief of Five Fates: "Sustain Minor: Make a Charisma vs. Will attack against the target. ..."

Mordenkainen’s Sword: "Sustain Minor: When you sustain the sword, it attacks again."

Delusions of Loyalty: "Sustain Minor: When you sustain this power, you can repeat the attack against the target..."

Curse of the Dark Delirium: "Sustain Standard: Repeat the attack against the target as long as the target is within range..."

Well, I think maybe that puts a different spin on things... maybe.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would suspect that it depends on what action is required on the sustain line.

Sustain minor = no
Sustain move = no
Sustain standard = yes

But using a ranged or area power provokes, whether that power requires a standard, move, minor, or even immediate action. Why would sustaining provoke on a standard action but no other action?

Not quite sure where you're getting this from:

p271 and p290 state that using a ranged or area power provokes an OA; the only reference to 'attack' is p268.

So either a/ p268 is restating p271 and p290 using an alternative phrasing - the term 'area attack' is used to describe any area power, even utilities (p271 again, for example), so there's a case for "make an area attack" being synonymous with "use an area power"; or b/ p268 is defining an entirely separate circumstance under which an OA can be provoked.

Under a/, you provoke an OA when you use an area or ranged power. Under b/, you provoke an OA when you use an area or ranged power; also, when you make an area attack; also, when you make a ranged attack.

When I made that post, I was firmly in the a/ camp; since then, I've had conversation with CustServ where they indicated that b/ is the intention - using a ranged power provokes, making a ranged attack also provokes.

They said that the ranged attacks made in subsequent rounds after sustaining Flaming Sphere and Spiritual Weapon provoke; I also put the Freezing Cloud question to them:

Q: So if a wizard uses Freezing Cloud (an area power), and some time before his next turn, a creature enters the cloud, the creature 'is subject to another attack'. This is an area attack that the wizard's player rolls - does the wizard provoke an OA when the creature enters the cloud?

A: That is the way the power is worded, I am not sure if that was the intent since it does not say that you make another attack. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

I would not think so. This is pretty obviously an on-going effect and requires no sustaining action.

But it's still an area attack that the wizard rolls for.

But, is not using a Minor Action to sustain a power still using that power? I would think so.

1. You can only use an encounter power once per encounter.
2. When you activate the power, you've used it once.
3. If sustaining the power counts as using it, then the "once per encounter" rule will prevent you sustaining it...

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

But it's still an area attack that the wizard rolls for.

I would say that the player is rolling for it. The wizard isn't using an action to make the attack, so the wizard isn't the one attacking. As far as the wizard is concerned, it's just an effect they set in motion.

1. You can only use an encounter power once per encounter.
2. When you activate the power, you've used it once.
3. If sustaining the power counts as using it, then the "once per encounter" rule will prevent you sustaining it...

-Hyp.

Seriously Hype, that is just semantics. You yourself have pointed out how the rules use the term "attack" in different ways depending on context.

Why do you assume that they use the term "use" in only one way, when it's not even a defined game term?

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay, so first something we can all agree to: "Sustain" isn't its own action (like "Grab" or "Drop Prone"), so in one way, the answer must be that it's undefined, the rules don't say.

But that ignores the fact that the rules don't (and shouldn't have to) state each and every case where something doesn't apply.

In other words, unless you're told that some condition or effect applies, you should assume it doesn't apply. This is the principle where you grant the designers the benefit where any "omission" is assumed deliberate rather than accidental. And where we leave it up to errata in the (few) cases where it isn't.

So. Let's instead look at the definition of Opportunity Attacks. Does it say they apply to sustain actions?

No, they don't. Case closed. This isn't an instance where the RAW is "undefined" folks.

If you allow OAs for sustains, fine. But don't kid yourself into this being more than a house rule - the link between OAs and sustains simply isn't there, in the rules text.

Hyp: while I appreciate your rules fu in general, I think you've embarked upon the wrong road here. "Proving" a rules claim to be untenable by examining its cascade effects will never be more than circumstantial at best. In a case like this, the only answer is to ask those who make a claim to provide rules support themselves, rather than being goaded into trying to find proof against that claim (which, of course, is essentially impossible or rulebooks would all be bloated multi-volume listings of what the rules don't say...)

 

[jorrit]

So. Let's instead look at the definition of Opportunity Attacks. Does it say they apply to sustain actions?

No, they don't. Case closed. This isn't an instance where the RAW is "undefined" folks.

There is no doubt (at least to me) that the sustain itself doesn't cause OA. However, the sustain sometimes causes a ranged attack in itself and I believe that in that case the OA is provoked since OA are provoked by ranged attacks.

Greetings,

 

[Alamankarazieff]

I'm going to do something that borders on obscene in these walls, but if we set aside the Magic-style rule lawyering, and get back to the meaning in game of an opportunity attack, what does provoke attacks of opportunity ?
Ranged attacks and ranged powers, area attacks and powers (and I don't see any specific reason to think that both are interchangeable), and why so ?
Because, as it has been stated since 3ed, you provoke an area of opportunity when you shift your attention to the dangerous psychopath immediately next to you to try to affect something further away on the battlefield.
So does mere sustaining provokes area of opportunity ? Nothing in the rule says so, and it seems adequate to think that it doesn't require as much concentration.
So what about Freezing cloud or Flaming sphere ?
The customer service answers seem to side with my non-strictly-ruly interpretation to bring into the fold the question of intention.
Does the wizard participates in the attack of the Flaming Sphere ? Yes, it costs him a standard action, and the attacking is a separate effect of the passive damage received by everyone in the vicinity.
For Freezing Cloud, does the wizard have a choice to roll or not roll ? an intention to attack ? No, it happens automatically. It uses the wizard roll and stats, since he is the one who created the thing, but there is no indication in the power that the wizard is actively attacking.

I would settle down for a semantic and not grammatical interpretation of the powers based on an active/passive grid about the wizard's action.

 

[CapnZapp]

Edit: I've come to the conclusion the following is irrelevant. See my next post below.

Then, Jorrit, the question becomes: does that attack originate from you or the sustained effect?

"The “Sustain” entry tells you if a power has an effect that occurs
when you take the action to sustain it."
- PHBp59.

"Some effects do something, such as an attack, when you sustain them"
- PHBp278.

I had to look hard to find an example that explicitly supports the notion that these sustain attacks do trigger an OA. And I believe I have found (at least) one: "Delusions of Loyalty" (page 138).
Its sustain line say "When you sustain this power, you can repeat the attack against the target."
Here it's clear that you can make an attack, and it's equally clear that this attack is a ranged one. Thus it triggers OAs.

But there were a lot of powers where I don't see this support. I'll just take two examples (out of many):
* "Curse of the Black Frost" simply says "The target takes 2d8 cold damage." No attack is even mentioned.
* "Summons of Khirad" doesn't mention you making a (ranged) attack, so no OA. It only says "Make a Constitution vs. Will attack against the target." The rules doesn't explicitly define this attack to be ranged (even though it is a Con vs Will attack just like the main attack of the power, which is ranged). (Here however I am open to a possible rules clarification from WotC that say that such undefined attacks do use their main power's ranged/close/melee indicator)

In short, there is no one true answer. But those OAs trigger on a lot less powers than you'd think.

Hope this helps.