|
2 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2011 - 11:54AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Good thing it's a game, then?
They made a FAQ entry instead of an errata. The FAQ entry is equally valid. To illustrate the distinction, let's say some law has a provision that appears invalid for whatever reason. One option is to get the law amended to fix it, which would be an errata publication. The other option would be to get clarification from the courts on what the law actually does. That's a FAQ entry.
Your question is already covered by the FAQ entry, whether or not you consider it to be sufficiently distinct.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2011 - 3:07PM
#42
|
|
|
My "argument" isn't. You're wrong according to the people who write the rules. You are attempting to argue the Ten Commandments with God. It doesn't work, the person who literally is in charge of making up the rules is correct, by default they cannot be wrong.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2011 - 3:08PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2004
|
My "argument" isn't. You're wrong according to the people who write the rules. You are attempting to argue the Ten Commandments with God. It doesn't work, the person who literally is in charge of making up the rules is correct, by default they cannot be wrong.
The fact that this game needs continual Errata means that your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2011 - 3:09PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
You are attempting to argue the Ten Commandments with God. It doesn't work, the person who literally is in charge of making up the rules is correct, by default they cannot be wrong.
Given that they can and have been 'wrong' in the past when its directly contradicted a clear rule, that's not a reasonable position to take. Not that I think they are or even can be wrong in this case ... it's ambiguous and the FAQ is clarifying how the abiguity is supposed to be resolved, which is exactly what the FAQ is supposed to do.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2011 - 3:14PM
#45
|
|
|
You are attempting to argue the Ten Commandments with God. It doesn't work, the person who literally is in charge of making up the rules is correct, by default they cannot be wrong.
Given that they can and have been 'wrong' in the past when its directly contradicted a clear rule, that's not a reasonable position to take. Not that I think they are or even can be wrong in this case ... it's ambiguous and the FAQ is clarifying how the abiguity is supposed to be resolved, which is exactly what the FAQ is supposed to do.
It is a reasonable position to take. No matter how nonsensical the FAQ is compared to the source, the FAQ is correct. If you feel like the FAQ is wrong you can address it (and I believe in three years two FAQs have been changed), but that doesn't make the FAQ incorrect in terms of it being a rules source that is de facto correct, no matter what anyone on a forum says.
Barring something like a newer rules source contradicting the FAQ, of course (the Paladin Challenge FAQ is incorrect now for instance, because Challenge was changed). But that goes with the whole rule that the most recent rules source is the correct one.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2011 - 3:30PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
But that goes with the whole rule that the most recent rules source is the correct one.
Where is this rule? Because AFAIK it doesn't exist. However, I'll modify my position ... it's completely possible for the FAQ and the PHB (for example) to be in conflict, and when that is the case, there isn't a rule that makes the FAQ the 'right' one and the other book the wrong one. At best in that case, you've got two valid rules sources.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2011 - 6:25AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
Then if the target takes an action that can provoke an opportunity attack, it occurs. But the range of the Opportunity Attack is the same as the range of all Opportunity Attacks, i.e. adjacent. The Fire Hawk has to be adjacent to the target for an opportunity attack to occur.
It appears to me that you're all in violent agreement.
Instead of arguing semantic points let's envisage a situation:
1) The druid is seven squares from an orc barbarian. There are no other players nearby.
The orc shifts one square toward the druid. The druid can't do anything. The orc then charges. This triggers the firehawk.
2) The druid is ten squares from an orc archer. The orc shifts one square away from the druid and then makes a ranged attack against another PC. The druid can't do anything because the orc is out of range.
3) The druid is six squares from the orc barbarian. The druid attacks with firehawk and then moves another six squares further away. The orc moves and then charges the druid. The druid can't use firehawk for the first two squares of the orc's movement, because the orc is out of range. Once the orc has moved in range, the druid can now use an opportunity action to attack with the firehawk, because the orc is within ten squares of the druid and is doing something to trigger an opportunity attack (moving).
4) The druid is six squares from an eladrin archer. The eladrin archer teleports five squares to another square within ten squares of the druid. The eladrin makes a ranged attack. The druid gets to use firehawk.
5) The druid casts firehawk on an imp. The imp is in the same square as its master, the evil necromancer. The evil necromancer makes an area attack. The druid cannot use the firehawk on the necromancer, because the firehawk only attacks the imp. The imp shifts and makes a melee attack. Again, the druid cannot use the firehawk.
Note that the firehawk doesn't have a position. It isn't anywhere on the map. So there's no such thing as being adjacent to the firehawk. Neither is there any such thing as being within reach of the firehawk. The hawk made out of fire is just fluff with no rules effects.
The only things that matter are whether the target triggers an opportunity attack, whether the target is within ten squares of the druid, and whether the druid has already taken an opportunity action on the target's turn. (If the druid has cast firehawk on the target twice, presumably with an action point, then the secondary attack only goes off once.)
Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2011 - 10:19AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2009
|
Expanding a bit on what Dewi's last paragraph: To use the Fire Hawk Attack the Fire Hawk power must be activated (hit the relevant target with the initial at-will attack) Fire Hawk Attack is an Opportunity Action with a Range of 10 squares. Rules sources for Opportunity Actions are Essentieals Dungeon Master's Book pg 120; HotFL and HotFK pg 22; Rules Compendium pg 196; PH1 pg 268 There are no range limits on opportunity actions. The element granting an opportunity action defines its range, effect, and trigger. To trigger the Fire Hawk Attack the target must take an action that can provoke Opportunity Attacks - I find no source stating the target must provoke an opp attack, power only states it takes any action that can provoke opportunity attacks to trigger Rule sources for opportunity attacks are Essentials Dungeon Master's Book pp 133,159; Rules Compendium pp 215, 246; HotFL & HotFK pg 27; PH1 pg 290 Fire Hawk Attack is not an opportunity Attack, it is an opportunity Action, that mentions opportunity attack in its trigger. Threatening reach is only relevant to oportunity attacks. The FAQ response did not need to mention threatening reach, but it should have answered the first question.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 01, 2012 - 5:01PM
#49
|
|
|
Thread Necromancy..
Just wanted to point out that if you hit a monster with Fire Hawk and it decides to ready an action that can provoke an OA, that *will trigger* the Fire Hawk secondary attack. If you have a monster adjacent to you and you ready an ranged attack, that monster will get to smack you as soon as you ready *and* when you make the ranged attack.
|
|
|
