Sustaining a power provokes OAs?

[xCruelx]

So does he get the bonus from Warlord's Favor on the attack roll, if he's not making an attack?
-Hyp.

Thats a different discussion.

I concede your point, its a valid one. But it doesnt invalidate mine.

As to the whole warlords favor thing...I would likely rule yes at the table, he does get it, because favor specifically states +2 to "attack rolls". And the wizard would be rolling the attacks

Note that the wizard is not making an attack. He already made the attack (spent the action) during his turn (and provoked while doing it), its just resolving multiple times due to specific triggers (and not provoking per resolve)

 

[xCruelx]

and so, based on that perspective
your three key feats/powers

burning blizzard - yes... "damage rolls" ...check
Warlord favor - yes... "Attack rolls".....check
White raven onslaught - no .... "makes a successful attack" nope.. the wizard did not do that after the initial action. I would rule otherwise if it said, makes a successful attack roll"

 

[Hypersmurf]

Note that the wizard is not making an attack. He already made the attack (spent the action) during his turn (and provoked while doing it), its just resolving multiple times due to specific triggers (and not provoking per resolve)

And with Flaming Sphere, he already used the power during his turn, and in subsequent turns he's simply making the attacks that he's permitted by virtue of the fact that he used the power in the first turn.

If the wizard can make an attack roll in round 2 without making an attack (if the attack in round 1 permits it), why can't he make an attack in round 2 without using a power (if the use of the power in round 1 permits it)?

-Hyp.

 

[xCruelx]

If the wizard can make an attack roll in round 2 without making an attack (if the attack in round 1 permits it), why can't he make an attack in round 2 without using a power (if the use of the power in round 1 permits it)?

-Hyp.

This is why i specifically seperated the two discussions. and probably shouldnt have gone into detail with the warlords fervor thing.

They have nothing to do with each other

First this thread was discussing flaming sphere provoking opportunity attacks. Thats a question that needs to be defined and answered, my attempt at accurately defineing the base question would be something like
"does an effect granted by a ranged power which gives the wizard the ability to make ongoing attacks as a standard action during successive turns, include in the attack, by inheritance, the ranged keyword thus provoking an OA"
which ive stated my opinion on, i believe it does.


As to the other question

"Does an ongoing passive damage effect resulting from a zone created by a wizard power benifit from bonus's that trigger only when the wizard makes an attack (or attack roll)"
To the first question, I answer yes. because the wizard is spending a standard action to make an attack with a ranged power. He is provoking.

as to the second question, it is unrelated to the first. The answer could be yes, or it could be no. Attacks may be defined differently than attack rolls, (as game terms) or they may be identical or interchangeable. I have an opinion on that too... which ive shared above, but again, its a different rule issue.


they break down as two completley different scenarios, First one, the wizard is doing something. Literally making an attack using an action etc etc.

In the second scenario, the wizard is doing nothing, hes not attacking, hes not maintaining, sustaining, retraining, feigning, faking, hes not even choosing NOT to attack, hes not making any choices, hes not provoking, or choosing not to provoke... he doesnt even have to be there anymore. he is Irrelevant to the situation,
the situation is a damage effect caused by a zone that is represented in game terms by an "attack roll" .... whether or not that <edit>attack roll/damage</edit> is effected by the zone creators modifiers, is a different thread.

 

[Sunglare]

I'll be sticking to the only the initial use of the power causes a opprotunity attack. unlike the customer service response posted on here i saw one on the Gleemax boards awhile back that said the complete opposite and that sustaining and attacking with the flaming sphere does not generate opprotunity attacks because the sphere is doing the attacking really and not the wizard. This seems to be more in line with how the new Beastmaster ranger build is. I wouold post it but their search function sucks and it was awhile ago that i saw it.

There are many things to take into consideration here and the main one is, is this how the players would like it if they are the ones using the spells?

How will this effect summoning spells later in the game? The wizards get hit for telling the elemental to attack something but the new beastmaster buiild is just fine when directing his pet around the battle field. Seems to me the ranger should suffer more for trying to direct his pet then the wizard should for a simple mental command to attack with the flaming sphere.