Sustain Provokes?

[jorrit]

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.

In this case I agree that it would probably not provoke OA.

* "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).

This is less clear (to me) and open to interpretation. It specifies that you are making an attack and since there is no way to make an attack that far (without reach) it has to be a ranged attack. The fact that it is not mentioned may either be an oversight, or something they choose not to mention because it is 'obvious' (which it apparently isn't), or else it is indeed not considered a ranged attack.

Without a clear official statement I would rule in my games that this would also be a ranged attack (and thus provoke OA) as the original attack was also ranged.

Greetings,

 

[Ryujin]

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?

My logic was that a minor sustain doesn't occupy you enough to give an opportunity to be attacked and in a move sustain you aren't actually moving, but a standard sustain would typically mean that you were attacking with the power. Sort of the difference between holding a bow and actively using it.

At this point though, as stated in a later post, I don't think that sustain should provoke at all. The opposition gets there kick at the can when the attack is first made and it eases play, to not have to worry about further AO.

 

[CapnZapp]

The nature of the action doesn't come into play.

If the rules on OAs said they were triggered off certain standard actions, I could see a case for this line of reasoning.

But they don't. They trigger off you doing a highly specified subset of "things".

Do you move (in certain ways)? An OA is provoked.
Do you use a (certain type of) power? An OA is provoked.

Sorry, but I have to retract my eariler opening that sustains provokes an OA.

That is because OA's are provoked by you using a ranged or area power, not by the attacks they cause.

So even if the sustain means you're making a ranged attack, I see no provision in the rules for this to provoke an OA: you're making an ranged attack, you aren't using an ranged power.

In effect, you've already used the power, now you're only sustaining it.

I can see that as an old 3E hand, there might be confusion. But there really is
nothing in the rules to indicate that an OA should be allowed for sustains.

 

[jorrit]

Do you move (in certain ways)? An OA is provoked.
Do you use a (certain type of) power? An OA is provoked.

Sorry, but I have to retract my eariler opening that sustains provokes an OA.

That is because OA's are provoked by you using a ranged or area power, not by the attacks they cause.

Hmm... Does this mean that a ranged attack using a bow also doesn't provoke OA? After all it is not using a power. It is just a basic ranged attack. Or is that also considered a power?

Greetings,

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd go with more or less the thought expressed by Alamankarazieff and CapnZapp on this. It IS ambiguous and the DM will have to decide based on various factors on a case by case basis.

Factors which might be taken into consideration:

Does it require a sustain at all? If not then the case is pretty much clear, the caster isn't doing ANYTHING and any further attacks by the power are simply consequences of the original attack which OA has already been granted on.

Is it a sustain where the effect is again an ongoing effect in an area already targeted by the spell? This would be the case for any sort of 'zone' kind of effect where the enemy has a choice to move out of the zone or suffer damage, or the enemy simply suffers the damage because they are in the zone. Usually these effects also apply to allies if they happen to be in the zone.

What does the rules text of the power say exactly? If it describes the sustained effects as being an attack, then it begins to make sense to grant OA. I would still consider the nature of the attack. Is it restricted to the original target? Does it have all the attributes of the initial attack? If it is restricted to the original target then I would be inclined to rule it is more along the lines of 'further consequences of the initial attack' and doesn't warrant an OA.

The type of action required for the sustain would also factor in to some extent. A sustain standard that allowed independent attacks with the same or similar attributes as the initial attack I would be inclined to grant an OA against. In this case the wizard is obviously well occupied making the attack and it doesn't really seem logical to grant an OA on only the initial attack in this case since it really is no different from the ongoing attacks.

As a general rule of thumb I would go for 'OA minimization'. If it isn't fairly clear that an OA should be granted, then it probably should not be granted.

I think the case of the Flaming Sphere and its ilk are the thorniest. It seems that the wizard is essentially using the sphere as a weapon. It even says under sustain that making an attack with the sphere is a standard action, and I would grant OA when the wizard takes that action, but I would definitely NOT grant OA simply because a monster happened to be next to the sphere and took the 1d4 + INT damage. That IMHO is a consequence of the existence of the sphere, not an attack by the caster (and in this case it also lacks a to hit roll).

Bigby's Icy Grasp also has some similar language. Thus my ruling there would be as long as the wizard maintains the grab on the original target, no OA is incurred. If he uses the standard action option of sustain to attack a different target, then OA are triggered.

I know it isn't an absolutely clear rule that can be stated without equivocation in terms of specific rules text, but IMHO it does address the spirit of the OA rules and produces a balanced outcome. Actively attacking distant enemies results in OAs. I think expanding the OAs to ALL cases where a wizard happens to cause damage simply because a sustained effect exists and someone takes damage from it seems to me too much of a penalty for those kinds of powers use.

 

[Fede]

Hmm... Does this mean that a ranged attack using a bow also doesn't provoke OA? After all it is not using a power. It is just a basic ranged attack. Or is that also considered a power?

Greetings,

A basic ranged attack IS a power, look at page 287 of the PHB.

 

[Artoomis]

...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.

Ah, but you are still using it, and it is nowhere near clear whether sustaining a power is using it or not.

Plain English (which may or may not have any bearing here ) would say yes, that's using the power. It's not a fresh, new use of the power, certainly, but it is most certainly using the power.

From my list of all ranged powers that give an attack when sustaining them, we can see that some are pretty clearly of the type that diverts one's attention from the attacker who is next to you and so, in that sense, would provoke an OA.

Perhaps Customer Service will give us an definitive answer soon?

 

[Caliban]

Perhaps Customer Service will give us an definitive answer soon?

They weren't too definitive last time this came up. I posted all my e-mail exchanges with them in the last thread on this topic.

 

[WalterKovacs]

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?

When a game does define terms in the english language to mean specific things, semantics are important. The entire reason this thread exists is because certain terms and words, when not defined, are ambiguous.

The ambiguous use of "using a power", and "attack" in the PHB, not to mention the different entries on OA where two say "power", and the other says "attack" (which could mean attack power, or could mean attacks that result because of a power) are the reason this thread exists in the first place. So, the only "definitive" answer to this thread is going to require a semantic argument. It may be that sustaining a power qualifies as "using" a power for the purposes of an OA (but not for daily/encounter restrictions). Or it may be that attacks, whether or not they are caused by using a power will provoke OAs. However, in any case, it means clarifying what using a power means and/or whether "attacks" (and what that means) provoke OAs.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That is because OA's are provoked by you using a ranged or area power, not by the attacks they cause.

So even if the sustain means you're making a ranged attack, I see no provision in the rules for this to provoke an OA: you're making an ranged attack, you aren't using an ranged power.

Except that p268 (unlike p271 and p290) states that making a ranged attack provokes.

-Hyp.