Community

Pixies also make good Swordmages, int as a primary, con secondary and cha/str as well (I put one together with a S 12, C 12, D 10 I 20 W 8 Ch 14 starting array, boost int/con when you can and it does suprisingly well, by 14th I had a 24 Int, 16 Con, and 15 cha, so my defenses were decent, picked up superior will and greater warding and improved shield feat to make up for the lower con and used a charge package with MBA from Int Blademaster.  

One thing to note about charging pixies is to pick up badge and boots of adept charging, you charge into their square and shift 1 back out of it so you are adjacent, next turn you just shift back one and charge again. 

Jan 5, 2012 -- 8:35PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Jan 5, 2012 -- 8:06AM, mellored wrote:

• There is some RAW debate as to weather you are adjacent to your own square.  Thus you might not get an OA if someone moved out of it.  I belive it is RAI to do so.

I'm not being argumentative here... but inquisitive. I preface my coment with that because it is easy to misunderstand online comments such as this...

How is there debate? RAW doesn't define adjacency between creatures and squares at all, unless I have missed something somewhere. Therefore by RAW you are left with two options;

1) As undefined, you are never considered adjacent to a square, and if never adjacent to any square then opportunity attacks don't take place ever.
2) As undefined, you use real-world definitions of adjacency (next to, or touching), and compare your space to the square(s) in question - in which case you are always adjacent to the square(s) you are occupying, as well as all squares adjacent to said square(s).

Am I missing a third option, or missing a rules source which counters this?

There's a few things to consider

RC201 does state you are adjacent to a creature occupying your own square, but does not state you are adjacent to your own square.
RC215 says "Oppurtunity Attack: The attacker takes an oppurtunity action to make a melee basic attack against an adjacent enemy that moves or uses an area or a ranged power"
But later, when it is 'in detail,' it states on RC246 where it actually lists the Oppurtunity Attack power, "Trigger: An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or uses a ranged or an area power while adjacent to you."

Here's what I get out of this:

1. Even though RC215 says what it says, I think RC246 having the power block overrides it with more specific text.
2. You can still take OAs against creatures that use a ranged or area attack while you occupy their square as they are still identified as adjacent.

Jan 5, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Jan 5, 2012 -- 8:45PM, IxidorRS wrote:

There's a few things to consider

RC201 does state you are adjacent to a creature occupying your own square, but does not state you are adjacent to your own square.
RC215 says "Oppurtunity Attack: The attacker takes an oppurtunity action to make a melee basic attack against an adjacent enemy that moves or uses an area or a ranged power"
But later, when it is 'in detail,' it states on RC246 where it actually lists the Oppurtunity Attack power, "Trigger: An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or uses a ranged or an area power while adjacent to you."

Here's what I get out of this:

1. Even though RC215 says what it says, I think RC246 having the power block overrides it with more specific text.
2. You can still take OAs against creatures that use a ranged or area attack while you occupy their square as they are still identified as adjacent.

I agree with everything except one conclusion you're drawing - what, anywhere, defines the square you occupy as non-adjacent to you? Where did that line of thinking ever even come from?

Where is it ever stated you are? In this game, if something doesn't say you are, then you aren't. The only thing about your own square that is brought up AFAIK is that you are adjacent to creatures that occupy your square. So you can't make OAs against creatures leaving your square but you can make OAs against creatures occupying your square that use ranged or area attacks.

Jan 5, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Jan 5, 2012 -- 9:06PM, IxidorRS wrote:

Jan 5, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Jan 5, 2012 -- 8:45PM, IxidorRS wrote:

There's a few things to consider

RC201 does state you are adjacent to a creature occupying your own square, but does not state you are adjacent to your own square.
RC215 says "Oppurtunity Attack: The attacker takes an oppurtunity action to make a melee basic attack against an adjacent enemy that moves or uses an area or a ranged power"
But later, when it is 'in detail,' it states on RC246 where it actually lists the Oppurtunity Attack power, "Trigger: An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or uses a ranged or an area power while adjacent to you."

Here's what I get out of this:

1. Even though RC215 says what it says, I think RC246 having the power block overrides it with more specific text.
2. You can still take OAs against creatures that use a ranged or area attack while you occupy their square as they are still identified as adjacent.

I agree with everything except one conclusion you're drawing - what, anywhere, defines the square you occupy as non-adjacent to you? Where did that line of thinking ever even come from?

Where is it ever stated you are? In this game, if something doesn't say you are, then you aren't. The only thing about your own square that is brought up AFAIK is that you are adjacent to creatures that occupy your square. So you can't make OAs against creatures leaving your square but you can make OAs against creatures occupying your square that use ranged or area attacks.

again, where is it ever stated you are adjacent to ANY square? By your above reasoning, you are never adjacent to any square, and therefore can never take opportunity attacks for movement.
In fact, I stated this a few posts up as option 1.

RC201 only says the squares are adjacent and then the creatures occupying those squares are adjacent.

This is a real humdinger.

Jan 5, 2012 -- 9:23PM, IxidorRS wrote:

RC201 only says the squares are adjacent and then the creatures occupying those squares are adjacent.

This is a real humdinger.

As I said, unless someone somehere has seen a ruling I haven't, adjacency between creatures and squares is never ever defined. Only between wo or more creatures, and only between two or more squares.

And I truly am curious who, besides someone trying to intentionally limit the power of pixies occupying an opponent's square, would rationalize that you are not adjacent to the square you occupy...?