Blurred Step Stopping Movement?

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
B=Battlemind
E=Enemy

XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXBEXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

Enemy attempts to move to the following postion:

XXXXXX
XXXEXX
XXBXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

Battlemind interrupts with Blurred Step:

XXXXXX
XXXBXX
XXXEXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

Enemy's move action attempts to resolve but can not.  Does the enemy lose his entire move action?
There is much debate about that. I really don't think there is a definite answer.
A fighter smacks his mark with an opportunity attack and negates his movement. That creature then doesn't get to say "oh well I'll just move again since you've had your OA now".

As a defender the battlemind would be crippled if this weren't the case also.
A fighter smacks his mark with an opportunity attack and negates his movement. That creature then doesn't get to say "oh well I'll just move again since you've had your OA now". As a defender the battlemind would be crippled if this weren't the case also.



Blurred step only triggers off of a shift, so it would make sense the enemy loses his shift rather than just being able to choose a new direction instead.  I guess the goal would be to position yourself so that shifting away from you is never beneficial.

Edit: What if the enemy is just starting a move action that allows him to shift 6 squares?  Since he wasn't able to move into the square he wanted, is the rest of his movement lost?

If I try to walk into a wall, is the rest of my movement lost?  Does it use up any of my movement?

What if I try to walk into an invisible enemy's square?  Or any enemy's square?

Edit: What if the enemy is just starting a move action that allows him to shift 6 squares?  Since he wasn't able to move into the square he wanted, is the rest of his movement lost?

That one was also mentioned in that Blurred Step debate.  It seems if you try to shift 6 squares but the Battlemind blocked your initial shift, you lose 1 square movement, but can still shift the remaining 5 squares.

I could easily see attempts to walk through invisible walls or opponents causing you to lose 1 square movement, but still able to move elsewhere.  Unless the DM rules something like you end up tripping or smashing your face into the invisible obstacle...



Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging

Enemy's move action attempts to resolve but can not.  Does the enemy lose his entire move action?



No. Actions are only lost if they are invalidated. The enemy's move action is Shift 1, not shift into that single specific square. Blocking that single square does not invalidate the action. 

In order to resolve their action, the enemy needs to be able to move into a legal square. Unless they are completely surrounded by creatures/blocking terrain/difficult terrain, there will probably be at least one square adjacent to them that they can move into.

As mentioned above this issue is contested. We're waiting for WotC to wake up to this.

Also mentioned above was that if Blurred Step works this way, the Battlemind will not be powerful enough. That is not a legitimate argument about how the rules work, but is rather about how the rules 'should' work. I'm not saying it isn't worth discussing, just that it should be taken to the houserules forum.

 

Enemy's move action attempts to resolve but can not.  Does the enemy lose his entire move action?



No. Actions are only lost if they are invalidated. The enemy's move action is Shift 1, not shift into that single specific square. Blocking that single square does not invalidate the action. 

In order to resolve their action, the enemy needs to be able to move into a legal square. Unless they are completely surrounded by creatures/blocking terrain/difficult terrain, there will probably be at least one square adjacent to them that they can move into.


 



So for it to cause his movement to be lost, it would need to be written as follows:

Shift: Move Action

Choose a square: Choose an adjacent square to move into.

Movement: Move 1 square into the chosen square.

Multiple squares: If a game element allows you to shift more than 1 square, choose 1 adjacent square at a time and then move into it.

etc.

Enemy's move action attempts to resolve but can not.  Does the enemy lose his entire move action?



No. Actions are only lost if they are invalidated. The enemy's move action is Shift 1, not shift into that single specific square. Blocking that single square does not invalidate the action. 

In order to resolve their action, the enemy needs to be able to move into a legal square. Unless they are completely surrounded by creatures/blocking terrain/difficult terrain, there will probably be at least one square adjacent to them that they can move into.

As mentioned above this issue is contested. We're waiting for WotC to wake up to this.

Also mentioned above was that if Blurred Step works this way, the Battlemind will not be powerful enough. That is not a legitimate argument about how the rules work, but is rather about how the rules 'should' work. I'm not saying it isn't worth discussing, just that it should be taken to the houserules forum.

 



This.  I go with Dire-Overdrive on this one.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I would go with one square of the shift is invalidated and lost.

The only thing I do agree with is that WoTC needs to wake up and make a ruling, that FAQ Q & A was horrible. Of course the enemy can't move into the square now occupied by the Battlemind. The question asked there wasn't the question anyone was truely confused over.
"Oh bother." sighed Pooh as he chambered another round.
There is no clear answer, but many views.

View 1: As the BS OA interrupts the enemy movement, the BS occurs first and the BS can move into the space into which the enemy wished to move, blocking the movement and ending the action of the enemy.  This, of course, means that the BM can't follow the enemy as the BM's BS occurs while the enemy has not left its square.

View 2: The trigger for the OA occurs after the enemy has moved.  Accordingly, the enemy occupies the new location when the BS OA begins (as nothing in the rules instructs you to undo things done when an II or OA occurs, but merely says that you perform the OA or II before the triggering event is resolved).  Accordingly, the BM moves after the enemy shifts, but before any other parts of the enemy's action.

View 3 through 47: Similar to 2, but with variations on the reasoning why the BM shifts after the enemy's new location is occupied by the enemy.

Personally, I hope they just clarify all II and OAs so that:

* Triggering events occur when a trigger condition is met.  Triggering events usually occur as part of an action.  When a trigger occurs within an action, the action is known as a triggering action.
* OAs and IIs begin after a triggering event occurs.
* OAs and IIs interrupt the triggering action after the triggering event.
* If there are still steps in the triggering action, they occur after the II or OA.
* If there are no steps left in the triggering action after the triggering event, an II or OA acts very similarly to an immediate response.

As powers were previously written under differnt understandings of how IIs and OAs work, some of them will need to be rewritten regardless of how we determine IIs and OAs work.  Regardless, this system seems like the easiest way to go and the least abusive.  Additionally, it involves less wonkiness as you never 'go back' before an event occurs.
D&D & Boardgames If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?

An OA is an Interrupt, meaning it triggers before the creatures resolves the action that trigerred it. Fighter's OA'ing an enemy getting away from them stop them still adjacent. Polearm Gambler Fighter's OAing those entering adjacent square stop them before they manage to actually enter.

So an enemy adjacent to the Battlemind that Shift sees him Shifting with Blurred Stepp before it even finishes Shifting, but after it started. Meaning if the Battlemind Shift into the intended destination space the enemy was going into originally, this becomes a non-legal move, since it can't enter in a space occupied by an enemy. It still Shift to any other square available to him.

The only known (Unconditioned) stop-moving Effect is the one from Combat Superiority IIRC. No others exist that i know of. Blurred Step is meant to follow a Shifting enemy and stay close, not as a canceling movement Feature.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

There is no clear answer, but many views.

View 1: As the BS OA interrupts the enemy movement, the BS occurs first and the BS can move into the space into which the enemy wished to move, blocking the movement and ending the action of the enemy.  This, of course, means that the BM can't follow the enemy as the BM's BS occurs while the enemy has not left its square.

View 2: The trigger for the OA occurs after the enemy has moved.  Accordingly, the enemy occupies the new location when the BS OA begins (as nothing in the rules instructs you to undo things done when an II or OA occurs, but merely says that you perform the OA or II before the triggering event is resolved).  Accordingly, the BM moves after the enemy shifts, but before any other parts of the enemy's action.

View 3 through 47: Similar to 2, but with variations on the reasoning why the BM shifts after the enemy's new location is occupied by the enemy.



View 1 is possible and relies upon WotC coming out and saying that determination of a destination for movement occurs prior to interrupts.

Views 2 and 3 do not fit in at all with current rules. It might be best if the Battlemind was altered to work this way, but this is definitely not how it currently works.  
View 1 is possible and relies upon WotC coming out and saying that determination of a destination for movement occurs prior to interrupts.



Its the exact same mechanic for interrupting an attack, why does the concept seem so odd now that movement is involved?

When you move from square "foo" to square "bar", that is the trigger. You interrupt the move and place yourself in the way. The move from foo -> bar is now an illegal move. The action is invalidated and lost. Its the exact same mechanic for all the various "I interrupt and avoid your attack" powers.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
 

Its the exact same mechanic for interrupting an attack, why does the concept seem so odd now that movement is involved?

When you move from square "foo" to square "bar", that is the trigger. You interrupt the move and place yourself in the way. The move from foo -> bar is now an illegal move. The action is invalidated and lost. Its the exact same mechanic for all the various "I interrupt and avoid your attack" powers.


Attacks require that you designate a target. This is in the rules.
If, after an interrupt, that target can no longer be reached or if, the attack is invalidated as you can't retarget another creature at this point. 

People repeatedly have suggested that the game requires that you state where you are going to move prior to being interrupted.  This is not in the rules.
Movement does not require a target, or a intended destination or a proclamation of "I Want to go There!"
If, after an interrupt, a square that a creature had hoped to be able to move into with their first square of movement can no longer be reached or is now occupied, they can just move somewhere else.


People repeatedly have suggested that the game requires that you state where you are going to move prior to being interrupted.  This is not in the rules.



Nor do I suggest this.


Movement does not require a target, or a intended destination or a proclamation of "I Want to go There!"
If, after an interrupt, a square that a creature had hoped to be able to move into with their first square of movement can no longer be reached or is now occupied, they can just move somewhere else.



Well, this is the heart of the discussion, I think: Can they "just" move somewhere else or not. I posit that the presence of a power/abilities that explicitly allows the user to invalidate the actions of another creature, this might not be the case.

I suppose a case could be made that you simply lose your first square of movement as the action that is lost. For instance, lets say you're hit by a Area attack. You and your friend Bob the PC are both targets. You use your Interrupt ability to invalidate yourself as a target. Is the entire action lost? I say not but I could see a literalist interpretation that would agree.

(edit) I mean, is it so wrong for PCs to have useful abilities?
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
I handle it as if no movement is lost and the opponent shifting can choose another square to move into.

reasoning ...

1- no place does it state that any movement is lost (unlike combat superiority)

2 - the business of how a charge is effected by a kobold moving has been debated at length and this feels so similar that i would say the same concepts apply.

 Is the entire action lost? I say not but I could see a literalist interpretation that would agree.




That would not be in anyway a 'literalist' interpretation as it is not written down anywhere.

2 - the business of how a charge is effected by a kobold moving has been debated at length and this feels so similar that i would say the same concepts apply.

What is WotC and/or CS stance on this?

"Oh bother." sighed Pooh as he chambered another round.
 Is the entire action lost? I say not but I could see a literalist interpretation that would agree.




That would not be in anyway a 'literalist' interpretation as it is not written down anywhere.



Well, it says, "the action is lost." One could say the action is the Move Action. How is that not written down anywhere?
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387


Well, it says, "the action is lost." One could say the action is the Move Action. How is that not written down anywhere?



'It' has qualifications.
'It' is referring to when actions have been invalidated.
'It' uses as its example an attack action, which explicitly requires as one of its steps a declaration of who it is going to be used against.  Thus when that creature is no longer a legal target, the attack is wasted.

One could 'say' the action is a move action, but they would then have to show that the move action had been invalidated. The are no requirements for laying out a plan of movement or being locked into such a plan. They are not written anywhere.

A move action of shift 1 is invalidated if the creature cannot shift into any adjacent square, i.e. if there were no legal moves that could be made. Only then would the action be wasted.


 

One could 'say' the action is a move action, but they would then have to show that the move action had been invalidated.



You're only required to invalidate the entire action, only the triggering action, to cause the action to be lost. What's not written anywhere is if the first square of movement is the action being lost or if the Move Action is the action being lost. The overloading of the term action here is rather unfortunate.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387

What's not written anywhere is if the first square of movement is the action being lost or if the Move Action is the action being lost.



Would this issue also applyif I used a power that allowed me to make an attack, on a hit I do damage, on a miss I do half damage, plus there is a separate effect line that allows me to teleport 3 squares.

If I hit with the attack, am then interrupted by a shift out of my range, and lose the hit portion, do I get to keep the miss portion?  Do I get to keep the effect portion?
Good questions. Perhaps that suggests that interrupts don't "balloon" to their parent actions. Or put another way, the action lost is not an Action lost.

Seems reasonable and in line with the whole shifting out of a charge scenario.

I'm certainly not trying to advocate one way or the other just yet, just examining the issue from all sides. 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387

One could 'say' the action is a move action, but they would then have to show that the move action had been invalidated.



You're only required to invalidate the entire action, only the triggering action, to cause the action to be lost. What's not written anywhere is if the first square of movement is the action being lost or if the Move Action is the action being lost. The overloading of the term action here is rather unfortunate.


There doesn't appear to be any reason to suppose a distinction between the 'triggering action' and the 'action'. 
There may be a distinction between the trigger and the 'action' as the trigger could be a part of a larger action. But triggers are not invalidated; actions are.

Movement does not get invalidated unless there are no legal moves to be made(i.e. the creature is surrounded, or the creature has been knocked prone and so cannot resolve its move action). A move action typically consists of a distance that can be moved, not a destination that must be moved to.

Shift 1: C = creature, X = empty space, 
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXCXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

With a shift 1, a move can be made into any adjacent empty square that is not difficult terrain.
Legal squares to move into are marked with 1s.
XXXXX
X111X
X1C1X
X111X
XXXXX
If any one of these squares are empty, the creature can resolve its shift 1.

Now introduce a Battlemind to the scenario: C = creature, B = Battlemind, X = empty space
XXXXX
XXXXX
XBCXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
The creature hopes to shift up one square but before the creature moves at all, with Blurred Step the Battlemind shifts 1 into the square the creature wanted to move into.
XXXXX
XXBXX
XXCXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
Now the creature resolves its shift. Let's review the legal squares available for it to move into. Legal squares will be marked with 1s.
XXXXX
X1B1X
X1C1X
X111X
XXXXX
The creature now resolves its shift.
XXXXX
XXBXX
XXXXX
XXXCX
XXXXX


 one of these squares are empty, the creature can resolve its shift 1.

Now introduce a Battlemind to the scenario: C = creature, B = Battlemind, X = empty space
XXXXX
XXXXX
XBCXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
The creature hopes to shift up one square but before the creature moves at all, with Blurred Step the Battlemind shifts 1 into the square the creature wanted to move into.
XXXXX
XXBXX
XXCXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
Now the creature resolves its shift. Let's review the legal squares available for it to move into. Legal squares will be marked with 1s.
XXXXX
X1B1X
X1C1X
X111X
XXXXX
The creature now resolves its shift.
XXXXX
XXBXX
XXXXX
XXXCX
XXXXX





Well, as to this specific example I disagree that the creature has the opportunity to redo its shift.

The trigger is the shift, not the intent to shift. That shift is then interrupted, invalidated and thereby lost. You're not allowed, by my read, to change your action simply because it was interrupted or not. You simply complete the resolution of the triggering action.

Where I think it is less clear is if you're allowed to shift more than one square. In the above scenario, is only the 1 square of movement lost (I'm leaning this way) or is the entire move lost.

In neither case do I think you get a do-over. 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387


Well, as to this specific example I disagree that the creature has the opportunity to redo its shift.

The trigger is the shift, not the intent to shift. That shift is then interrupted, invalidated and thereby lost. You're not allowed, by my read, to change your action simply because it was interrupted or not. You simply complete the resolution of the triggering action.

Where I think it is less clear is if you're allowed to shift more than one square. In the above scenario, is only the 1 square of movement lost (I'm leaning this way) or is the entire move lost.

In neither case do I think you get a do-over. 



There is no do-over. The movement does not occur till after the interrupt.

1)Shift action is begun
2)Interrupt occurs
3)Movement occurs

The trigger for Blurred Step is "shifts".
Interrupts occurs when their triggers arise, and before they resolve. For interrupts with triggers based on movement, this means that the interrupt occurs before any movement takes place. The 'shift' trigger arises as soon an the creatures decides to take the shift action (or takes another similar action that allows the creature to shift).
 
The shift is a move 1.  If the creature can move 1 square, they can resolve the action.
At no point do the rules require that the creature moving designate where they are going to move to, until the movement actually occurs. Nor do the rules ever suggest that portions of a move can be made invalid (i.e. that move 6 could be reduced to a move 5).

This is why the "A Battlemind can invalidate the creature's movement with Blurred Step" position is not a literalist interpretation. 

The trigger for Blurred Step is "shifts".
Interrupts occurs when their triggers arise, and before they resolve. For interrupts with triggers based on movement, this means that the interrupt occurs before any movement takes place. The 'shift' trigger arises as soon an the creatures decides to take the shift action (or takes another similar action that allows the creature to shift).

"shifts" is not taking the Shift action.  "Shifts" is moving from one square to another using a shifting mode of movement.  If you don't move into another square, there is no "shifts" trigger occuring.

Your point about the interrupt resolving before the trigger is correct, but that's because interrupts effectively rewind in terms of game mechanics.  The trigger occurs first to trigger the interrupt, then you go back and resolve the interrupt, then you reresolve the trigger.

The only question is if you must reresolve the trigger to the same location.  Which isn't clear, since unlike attacking there is no previous "targeting" step with movement.  Nothing indicates that the interrupt occurs in between choosing a square to move to and actually moving to it.  But by the same token, nothing indicates that an interrupt doesn't occur between choosing a square to move to and actually moving into it.  Personally I'm inclined to think choosing and moving occur simultaneously, but it's not clear.

As a compromise between the lack of rules defining movement -- apparently we have to use the English dictionary, should there be any lack of rules defining certain terms, like movement and effects (based on Customer Service reply) -- since we often determine movement on a per-square basis [you *can* after all, move back and forth between two squares, as well as move in a circular motion], Blurred Step would interrupt 1 square of shift.  Since normal shifts are only 1 square, the entire action is invalidated.


Movement is a change of position, in this case from one location to another.  Care to find another definition of movement where you don't determine where you move towards?


EDIT: Let's try this exercise: an avenger readies an action to shift towards any square that an adjacent enemy shifts into.  What happens?

Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
 

"shifts" is not taking the Shift action.  "Shifts" is moving from one square to another using a shifting mode of movement.  If you don't move into another square, there is no "shifts" trigger occuring.



Source?  
There is no 'shift' mode of movement, just a a shift action and other actions that include moving without provoking OAs. Modes of movement are things like swimming or flying or teleporting. The shift action even acknowledges this in its "Special Movement Modes" section. The Shift action is just a move 1 that does not provoke OAs. Shifting in general is just movement that does not provoke OAs.
The trigger for Blurred Step, like all other interrupts that trigger off of movement, occurs prior to any movement actually occurring. The movement trigger has arisen, is about to occur, but has not commenced yet.


Your point about the interrupt resolving before the trigger is correct, but that's because interrupts effectively rewind in terms of game mechanics.  The trigger occurs first to trigger the interrupt, then you go back and resolve the interrupt, then you reresolve the trigger.

 
They really do not rewind anything.  More accurately, they pause the triggering action before it does anything. The triggering action arises and before it can resolve, the interrupt takes place.


 The only question is if you must reresolve the trigger to the same location.  Which isn't clear, since unlike attacking there is no previous "targeting" step with movement.  Nothing indicates that the interrupt occurs in between choosing a square to move to and actually moving to it.  But by the same token, nothing indicates that an interrupt doesn't occur between choosing a square to move to and actually moving into it.  Personally I'm inclined to think choosing and moving occur simultaneously, but it's not clear.


There is no step in movement for choosing your destination. There is only movement, from square to square. The interrupt occurs prior to that movement.

Movement is a change of position, in this case from one location to another.  Care to find another definition of movement where you don't determine where you move towards?


EDIT: Let's try this exercise: an avenger readies an action to shift towards any square that an adjacent enemy shifts into.  What happens?



I find your dictionary game unhelpful to the discussion of the rules.
That having been said: gravity works pretty well without any forethought. I fall quite well without any preparation or intent.  I can also roll, float (upwards in water), slide, stumble, skid and careen without any direction whatsoever. My attempts at swing dancing have little to no correlation between my intended direction and the resulting movement. Moreover, if someone is attempting to shadow my movements, I can fake them out surprisingly well, 'juke' them if you will.

As for the Avenger with the readied action: readied actions behave as immediate reactions. The Avenger would move after the adjacent enemy. 

Movement is a change of position, in this case from one location to another.  Care to find another definition of movement where you don't determine where you move towards?


EDIT: Let's try this exercise: an avenger readies an action to shift towards any square that an adjacent enemy shifts into.  What happens?



I find your dictionary game unhelpful to the discussion of the rules.
That having been said: gravity works pretty well without any forethought. I fall quite well without any preparation or intent.  I can also roll, float (upwards in water), slide, stumble, skid and careen without any direction whatsoever. My attempts at swing dancing have little to no correlation between my intended direction and the resulting movement. Moreover, if someone is attempting to shadow my movements, I can fake them out surprisingly well, 'juke' them if you will.

As for the Avenger with the readied action: readied actions behave as immediate reactions. The Avenger would move after the adjacent enemy.


When I asked Customer Service what the definition of "effects" is, the reply explicitly stated that anything that isn't defined in the rule books, you look up in the dictionary.

Gravity might not need your consent, but it's always one direction: towards the center of the larger mass, in this case Earth.  Pretty much everything on Earth that isn't actively fighting gravity will always move towards the center of the Earth.  Which means your falling movement (falling, sliding, tumbling, careening, whatever) will always have a destination, which is the center of the Earth.


Again, where is movement defined in 4e, how is it defined, and does it supersede the English definition of movement, which (with regards to the definition related to the discussion) is a change in position?

Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Dirge, just to clarify, are you saying that shifts work like the following:

-----------
Orc declares, "I'm going to shift."  He doesn't indicate where or how many squares.

At this point, the Battlemind has the option to use Blurred Step as an opportunity action.

The Battlemind shifts.

Now the Orc gets to resolve his action.  As part of resolving his action, he chooses a square to shift to and then shifts into it.

------------

If I have the above assumption correct about how you are saying it works, would you say that the Orc 'must shift' after the Battlemind has shifted (short of there being no legal square to shift in to)?



If so, could I do the following:



X= empty sqyare.  L = Lava.  E= Enemy.  A= prone ally B = Battlemind


 


XXXXXX


XXXLLX


XXBELX


XXLLLX


XXXXXX


Enemy attempts to shift into the empty space. But the Battlemind interrupts.


 


XXXXXX


XXBLLX


XXAELX


XXLLLX


XXXXXX



Must the enemy now shift in to lava?



Edit: sorry the diagrams are so spaced out, I can't seem to undo it.



Must the enemy now shift in to lava?



That's an awfully tortured example...

Creatures never have to move. When an action lets them move, creatures can move the full distance, not at all, or anywhere in between.
A move 6 can be a used as a move 0, move 1, move 2, etc.
A shift 1 can be used as a move 0 or move 1 (that does not provoke OAs). 


Must the enemy now shift in to lava?



That's an awfully tortured example...

Creatures never have to move. When an action lets them move, creatures can move the full distance, not at all, or anywhere in between.
A move 6 can be a used as a move 0, move 1, move 2, etc.
A shift 1 can be used as a move 0 or move 1 (that does not provoke OAs). 


Say an enemy used a power allowing him to attack and then shift 1 square.  If after the attack, he chooses to not use the movement portion (shift 0 squares), would you say that the trigger for Blurred Step has still occurred?


Must the enemy now shift in to lava?



That's an awfully tortured example...

Creatures never have to move. When an action lets them move, creatures can move the full distance, not at all, or anywhere in between.
A move 6 can be a used as a move 0, move 1, move 2, etc.
A shift 1 can be used as a move 0 or move 1 (that does not provoke OAs). 


Say an enemy used a power allowing him to attack and then shift 1 square.  If after the attack, he chooses to not use the movement portion (shift 0 squares), would you say that the trigger for Blurred Step has still occurred?



Best. Question. Ever.

I eagerly await the response.

In an OA, the OA occurs in response to a trigger.  The OA interrupts the triggering action.  This is clear in the OA section of the compendium.

A trigger is not an action.  A trigger is an event, which usually occurs within an action.  This is clear because most of the triggers in the game are part of an attack action.  This is also spelled out clearly in the PHB.

When an OA interrupts, it interrupts the triggering action, not the triggering event.  Accordingly, we see the following chain of events:

1.) A triggering action begins (but we do not know it is a triggering action until the triggering event occurs within the action and the enemy responds with an OA).
2.) The triggering event occurs.
3.) In response to the triggering event, the opportunity action interrupts the triggering action.
4.) Once the opportunity action occurs, the triggering action continues.

There is no time travel.  There is nothing in the rules telling you to undue a trigger, but there are sections in the rules that say you can't begin an OA until the triggering event has occured (as you may only begin an OA in RESPONSE to a triggering event).

To me, this whole fiasco about timing of OAs and IIs is a product of poor rule writing.  In my mind, the original intent was that:

1.) In an OA or II, the triggering event was supposed to complete prior to the beginning of the OA or II, but the OA or II was supposed to occur before any additional steps in the action within which the trigger took place.

2.) An IR was intended to take place after the triggering action took place.

If you follow that chain of thought, the OA and II powers generally make a lot more sense.  However, the rules are hazy enough that people (including most people with a M:tG background (circa 1995 and earlier)) are reading ' interrupt' as 'precede' and undoing the triggering event. 

The rules are unclear enough that this idiocy will not end until WotC makes a formal clarification.  Until then, we're just going to continue arguing.  However, I'll stay on the side that matches what seems like the intent of powers like BS - which seems pretty clearly was intended to allow following, not blocking, enemies.

D&D & Boardgames If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?

The rules are unclear enough that this idiocy will not end until WotC makes a formal clarification.  Until then, we're just going to continue arguing.  However, I'll stay on the side that matches what seems like the intent of powers like BS - which seems pretty clearly was intended to allow following, not blocking, enemies.




How sticky is a Defender if all he does is follow his enemies around while they walk up to the squishies and hit them?

And you can undo triggers with Immediate Interrupts (and even some Free Actions). Second Chance undoes the trigger and makes the attacker roll again.


"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
If I hit with the attack, am then interrupted by a shift out of my range, and lose the hit portion, do I get to keep the miss portion?  Do I get to keep the effect portion?



That's a good question i was asking myself the other day. Contrary to trying to fire out of Range, which it is you can't, or atatcking out of Reach, it appears to me it's the targeting that matters. If your target is too far, you can't make the Power.

But if you attacked a Hidden creature and pick the wrong square, or got interrupted while attacking a creature and got Shield Pushed away from him and Out of Reach, i think you'd have a Miss still because it was a legitimate atatck you were able to launch originally.

I thought originally toy had to be able to hit in order to miss but it appears more like you have to be able to target in order to miss would be more appropriate. Especially with the wording provided in Attacking What You Can't See when picking up the wrong square. It's a Miss. For Shield Push, i think we have a CS answer that says the action is cancelled. But if you could initiated the attack with a possible chance of success Miss Effects should occur.

Good question. I'll try to find what the CS was saying exactly....more precisely If he evoked a Miss or not

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Here is my inquiry to CS:

dslatimore: "Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a /triggering action/, that /action/ is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s /attack action/ is lost.

What is a 'triggering action'? If I use a power that allows me to make a melee attack and then as an effect I can teleport 3 squares and as an immediate interrupt my target shifts away, what happens? I can no longer reach the enemy so the attack is lost. Do I also lose the ability to teleport 3 squares?

Basically, is the 'triggering action' considered the entire power I was using, or just the portion of the power that was unable to resolve?

On a related note, what happens if I am a battlemind, an enemy tries to shift from a square adjacent to me to another square adjacent to me, and then I interrupt with Blurred Step to shift into the square he was going to shift to? Did I invalidate his shift causing him to lose it? If he was just about to shift a total of 3 squares does he lose the whole move action or just 1 square of movement or can he change his mind and shift 3 squares in a different direction?

Any clarification would be helpful. "


Troy: "1. What is a 'triggering action'? If I use a power that allows me to make a melee attack and then as an effect I can teleport 3 squares and as an immediate interrupt my target shifts away, what happens? I can no longer reach the enemy so the attack is lost. Do I also lose the ability to teleport 3 squares?

A. It's any power with the word trigger, and then becomes triggered. If the teleport is an effect, you'll get the teleport regardless. Unfortunately, I can't make that an official answer without the power names.

2.1. Did I invalidate his shift causing him to lose it?

A. Yep.

2.2. just 1 square of movement

A. This one is correct, he'll lose that one shift of 3, and be able to shift 2 more.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!
"

He seemed to misunderstand my question about 'triggering actions' and said that any action with the word trigger in it is a triggering action... which doesn't make sense.   However, the intent of the rest of his answers are clear.
2.2 is where I was looking for some clarification and here it is.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387

Here is my inquiry to CS:

dslatimore: "Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a /triggering action/, that /action/ is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s /attack action/ is lost.

What is a 'triggering action'? If I use a power that allows me to make a melee attack and then as an effect I can teleport 3 squares and as an immediate interrupt my target shifts away, what happens? I can no longer reach the enemy so the attack is lost. Do I also lose the ability to teleport 3 squares?

Basically, is the 'triggering action' considered the entire power I was using, or just the portion of the power that was unable to resolve?

On a related note, what happens if I am a battlemind, an enemy tries to shift from a square adjacent to me to another square adjacent to me, and then I interrupt with Blurred Step to shift into the square he was going to shift to? Did I invalidate his shift causing him to lose it? If he was just about to shift a total of 3 squares does he lose the whole move action or just 1 square of movement or can he change his mind and shift 3 squares in a different direction?

Any clarification would be helpful. "


Troy: "1. What is a 'triggering action'? If I use a power that allows me to make a melee attack and then as an effect I can teleport 3 squares and as an immediate interrupt my target shifts away, what happens? I can no longer reach the enemy so the attack is lost. Do I also lose the ability to teleport 3 squares?

A. It's any power with the word trigger, and then becomes triggered. If the teleport is an effect, you'll get the teleport regardless. Unfortunately, I can't make that an official answer without the power names.

2.1. Did I invalidate his shift causing him to lose it?

A. Yep.

2.2. just 1 square of movement

A. This one is correct, he'll lose that one shift of 3, and be able to shift 2 more.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!
"

He seemed to misunderstand my question about 'triggering actions' and said that any action with the word trigger in it is a triggering action... which doesn't make sense.   However, the intent of the rest of his answers are clear.




Follow up to CS:

dslatimore: "It's probably my own fault for not including power names, but I just wanted to clarify the answer given for question 1:

1. As used in the definition of an immediate interrupt, what is a 'triggering action'? The definition says that if an interrupt invalidates a 'triggering action' the action is lost.


For instance, if I hit Enemy 1 with Battleborn Acuity and then Enemy 2 used Tactical Shift to allow Enemy 1 to shift away. Enemy 1 is now out of range, invalidating my attack. According to the rules, I lose the 'triggering action'. Is Battleborn Acuity considered the 'triggering action' (which would mean I also lose the Effect portion of the power), or is just the attack I made considered the 'triggering action' (meaning I would still get to use the effect portion of the power.


On a side note: even though the monster shifted away, would he take 1/2 damage due to the Miss portion of Battleborn Acuity, or is he out of range of the attack, so he doesn't even take the Miss damage?"


Troy: "Thank you for including power names, that helps a lot.


1. Interrupting a power with miss, effect (Entirely)?


A. Will void the entire power. It will still use it (Like counterspell from Magic). This will answer your follow up question as well.


Please let me know if you need anymore help!"

Laaaaaame.  In the above example, the entire effect of my daily is lost because the enemy moved out of range.   Edit: Not to mention, it uses up my daily for the day.