|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 5:47PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2012
|
When a player in my case a mage uses a ranged ability to a monster (goblin) that is adjacent to the mage does this monster gets an opportunity attack ? or because the mage is targeting the goblin it cant get an opportunity attack ? Does it matter if the monster (goblin) gaining the opportunity attack is the target that the mage uses the ranged attack ? or it doesnt matter ?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 5:55PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
the goblin gets an AoO
the wizard used a ranged attack in melee
Spoiler:
Show
I still get bewildered by the idea of Good races and Bad races. I mean, D&D presents a world where there are literally dozens of sentient humanoid races. And then there's a line drawn down the middle, and some races, such as elves, dragonborn and humans, to name but a few, are put on one side and called Good Guys. And with that they are People. They have Rights. And on the other side go a bunch of other races, goblins, orcs, kobolds, and so on. These are called Bad Guys, and as such, they are not People. It is considered ok by many players to track them down and slaughter them. It shatters my suspension of disbelief to see someone who calls their character a hero, a noble sort of person who tries their damnedest to right wrongs and fight evil, making sure that those goblin women and children don't get away, because, you know, they're goblins.
They're not just stupid beasts. They have societies, culture and language. They have goals, and motivations. I can believe that someone would kill a drow or an orc at first sight, because they probably were up to something. But don't try to tell me that that was a Good act and that you did it because you are a Good Person.
When I'm considering what to do with a group of "bad" humanoids, and I come up with an idea, I mentally replace whatever the "bad guy" of the week is with humans. If it isn't ok to do it to a human, I won't do it to any sentient race.
My Views on the Alignment System: Spoiler:
Show
Killing something because it might be evil = evil
Killing something because it might do something evil = evil
Killing something because it is planning to do something evil = neutral
Killing something because has done something evil = neutral
Killing something because it is doing evil = good
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 5:57PM
#3
|
|
|
^Is correct.
Also tell the Wizard to take Staff Expertise.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:07PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2012
|
The monster gets the attack, because the OA interupts the trigger (the mage's range attack), and takes place before the before the mage's attack finishes. (Rules Compendium pg #196). The attack target doesn't matter, the mage's power's keyword (range, as opposed to melee, blast or close burst) does.
This is why many wizards take the staff expertise feat.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 11:07PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
And yes, this means that if the monster kills the PC with his opportunity attack, then the triggering attack doesn't go off and the monster doesn't get attacked.
Same thing can happen when a monster attacks a PC and grants the PC an OA.
Ranged and Area attacks generally provoke opportunity attacks, Melee and Close do not.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 2:57AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Does it matter if the monster (goblin) gaining the opportunity attack is the target that the mage uses the ranged attack ? or it doesnt matter ?
No it doesn't matter if the creature taking an OA is included in the attack or not.
What matters is if the creature can take Opportunity Actions when one is triggered.
Trigger: An enemy you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or uses a Ranged or Area Power while adjacent to you
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 9:42AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2012
|
Well thank you all for your reply. The dissagreement with the group was if the monster gets his OA or not cause the mage was targeting it with his ranged ability and i couldnt find something to say about targeted monsters and OA on compedium. Thanks for explaining it to me.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:37AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2012
|
one more question: When a monster (Goblin Archer) has an opportunity attack we assume he uses his Short Sword (standard, at-will) Weapon +6 vs AC; 1d6+2 to hit ? OR we need to assume he has his Shortbow (standard, at-will) Weapon Ranged 15/30; +6 vs AC; 1d8+2 Equipped and he needs to spend a minor action to put the Shortbow in his back and then need to spend one more minor action to equip his Short Sword so he cant use 2 minor action so he cant do an opportunity attack ? Can someone explain to me ?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:40AM
#9
|
|
|
one more question: When a monster (Goblin Archer) has an opportunity attack we assume he uses his Short Sword (standard, at-will) Weapon +6 vs AC; 1d6+2 to hit ? OR we need to assume he has his Shortbow (standard, at-will) Weapon Ranged 15/30; +6 vs AC; 1d8+2 Equipped and he needs to spend a minor action to put the Shortbow in his back and then need to spend one more minor action to equip his Short Sword so he cant use 2 minor action so he cant do an opportunity attack ? Can someone explain to me ?
Monsters don't generally have to sweat weapon-swapping; that's a PC thing. If you *want* to fuss with it, I suppose you can, but in general, you just have the monster swing the sword regardless of the last action it took.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 23, 2012 - 10:48AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
one more question: When a monster (Goblin Archer) has an opportunity attack we assume he uses his Short Sword (standard, at-will) Weapon +6 vs AC; 1d6+2 to hit ? OR we need to assume he has his Shortbow (standard, at-will) Weapon Ranged 15/30; +6 vs AC; 1d8+2 Equipped and he needs to spend a minor action to put the Shortbow in his back and then need to spend one more minor action to equip his Short Sword so he cant use 2 minor action so he cant do an opportunity attack ? Can someone explain to me ?
minor to put away bow(or a free action to just drop it)
convert move action to minor action(skip if the creature used a free action)
minor to pull out sword
standard to attack
end turn
im not sure what you mean by cant do an opp attack but none of the actions provoke or keep the creature from getting an opp if someone else provokes.
Spoiler:
Show
I still get bewildered by the idea of Good races and Bad races. I mean, D&D presents a world where there are literally dozens of sentient humanoid races. And then there's a line drawn down the middle, and some races, such as elves, dragonborn and humans, to name but a few, are put on one side and called Good Guys. And with that they are People. They have Rights. And on the other side go a bunch of other races, goblins, orcs, kobolds, and so on. These are called Bad Guys, and as such, they are not People. It is considered ok by many players to track them down and slaughter them. It shatters my suspension of disbelief to see someone who calls their character a hero, a noble sort of person who tries their damnedest to right wrongs and fight evil, making sure that those goblin women and children don't get away, because, you know, they're goblins.
They're not just stupid beasts. They have societies, culture and language. They have goals, and motivations. I can believe that someone would kill a drow or an orc at first sight, because they probably were up to something. But don't try to tell me that that was a Good act and that you did it because you are a Good Person.
When I'm considering what to do with a group of "bad" humanoids, and I come up with an idea, I mentally replace whatever the "bad guy" of the week is with humans. If it isn't ok to do it to a human, I won't do it to any sentient race.
My Views on the Alignment System: Spoiler:
Show
Killing something because it might be evil = evil
Killing something because it might do something evil = evil
Killing something because it is planning to do something evil = neutral
Killing something because has done something evil = neutral
Killing something because it is doing evil = good
|
|
|
