Sustaining a power provokes OAs?

[tiornys]

It's one per eligible combatant.

'But what if he uses a power that makes ninety consecutive ranged attacks?'

It's still one.

'But what if he uses a power that makes a ranged attack, then as an effect allows a ranged basic attack, and then he spends an action point and uses that power again, for a total of four seperate attacks, from four separate attack power uses?'

It's still one.

Once you've used your one opportunity attack on that opponent's turn, it's used up and you have to wait for the next turn to come up.

It helps to read all of the relevant rules before correcting someone in an abrasive manner. Read the Boneclaw entry in the MM, which is what Hypersmurf referenced. Pay particular attention to the ability "Relentless Opportunist". If you lack the MM, you can be forgiven, although for future reference you can also look up the Boneclaw in the D&D Insider Compendium (until the turn on payment, after which you'd need to subscribe). Here's the quote from the compendium:

Relentless Opportunist

If the boneclaw hits with an opportunity attack, it makes another opportunity attack against the same target the next time it provokes during its current turn.

t~

 

[DracoSuave]

Ah. In that case it still makes only one, except in the last case where it'd make four.

Excuse me for not memorizing the Monster Manual. It's not exactly 'Must know everything' information.

 

[tiornys]

Ah. In that case it still makes only one, except in the last case where it'd make four.

Excuse me for not memorizing the Monster Manual. It's not exactly 'Must know everything' information.

It's not that I expect you to have the rules memorized. It's that, if a poster references something specific, I expect you to check to see if that specific overrides the general rule they seem to be missing before you call them out on that rule. I was ready to post effectively the same thing you had when I was responding to Hypersmurf, but didn't because I checked the Boneclaw entry.

t~

 

[Hypersmurf]

Neither of these are attacks, actually. They are, however, powers, and therefore provoke per the rules for Using a Power, which were quoted earlier in this thread.

They're not attacks. But they are, respectively, an area attack and a ranged attack.

And the Opportunity Action section references 'ranged attack' (which Feather Fall is, despite not being an attack) and 'area attack' (which Wall of Fog is, despite not being an attack).

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

It's not that I expect you to have the rules memorized. It's that, if a poster references something specific, I expect you to check to see if that specific overrides the general rule they seem to be missing before you call them out on that rule. I was ready to post effectively the same thing you had when I was responding to Hypersmurf, but didn't because I checked the Boneclaw entry.

t~

And I corrected myself, thank you.

It's still -one- in all those cases, except for using a power that permits another power, because each individual use of a power is what provokes.

 

[tiornys]

They're not attacks. But they are, respectively, an area attack and a ranged attack.

And the Opportunity Action section references 'ranged attack' (which Feather Fall is, despite not being an attack) and 'area attack' (which Wall of Fog is, despite not being an attack).

-Hyp.

Fair enough, although if we're going to get this technical, I would say that Feather Fall is a "power of ranged attack type", thus keeping the distinction between attack types and attacks somewhat clearer. Am I correct in thinking that it doesn't make much difference except possibly in cases like the Boneclaw?

t~

 

[Caliban]

An example of specific wording overriding the usual limit on powers is Healing Word - an encounter power with the Encounter (Special) keyword, and the note "You can use this power twice per encounter".

Flaming Sphere is Daily, not Daily (Special), and can't be used multiple times per day. You can attack with it more than once, but you only use the power once.

*shrug* I'm not going to play semantic games with you Hype.

I'm willing to believe that attacking with a flaming sphere doesn't provoke after you have created it, I just don't buy this particular arguement for it.

 

[Caliban]

As an aside, personal is not an attack-type. There are no Personal Attacks in D&D.

Heh, you must be new here.

 

[Squire James]

There is a "power description" for a Basic Ranged Attack on page 287 of the Player's Handbook, and yes it has the Ranged keyword. The text is pretty clear on that part.

As for the main question, the rules are unclear on whether sustaining a power provokes an opportunity attack, since there is some confusion regarding whether "sustaining" and "using" both apply to the situation. So a DM could rule it either way and have a valid argument. Either way, the players can use the ruling to their advantage (by using a lot of "sustain" powers if they don't provoke, or surrounding a monster with such abilities if they do).

My gut feeling is that sustaining a power does not provoke.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fair enough, although if we're going to get this technical, I would say that Feather Fall is a "power of ranged attack type", thus keeping the distinction between attack types and attacks somewhat clearer. Am I correct in thinking that it doesn't make much difference except possibly in cases like the Boneclaw?

No, it makes a difference in the case of Flaming Sphere, because it changes the meaning of the passage on p268.

What I'm saying is that the ranged power, Feather Fall, is a ranged attack, based on the way the phrase is used in several places in the PHB... and so the phrase "make a ranged attack" and "use a ranged power" can be synonymous.

What I'm saying is that "Making a ranged attack provokes an OA" (p268) and "Using a ranged power provokes an OA" (p271, p290) are mechanically identical statements. They're not telling us two different things; they're telling us the same thing three times, using two different phrasings which have the same meaning.

I'm saying that the authors have, unfortunately, chosen to use the word 'attack' in four different ways, which leads to ambiguity, and that reading p268 in isolation could lead one to believe that Twin Strike can provoke two OAs from a Boneclaw and Flaming Sphere can provoke one OA per round... but that reading p268 in conjunction with pp56, 271, and 290 strongly indicates that the phrase 'ranged attack' on p268 does not refer to a single attack roll, but rather to a power with the Ranged keyword.

I'm saying that p268 could have been worded differently to avoid confusion (avoiding the word 'attack' and its derivative phrases), but that its existing wording is not actually incorrect.

-Hyp.