4e Specific Beats General

[Trog]

Yeah, yeah I know... another 4e thread. Since half the threads here last just a week or two I don't really consider any thread on here a big deal.

Anyways. My question. I know that 4e states that specific rules beats general rules in order to give an overarching way for DMs and players to adjudicate rule conflicts. But what about specific vs. specific?

Example:
If a monster gets to shift and not incur attacks of opportunity but is next to fighter who can attack anyone who shifts... who wins?

Maybe there are rules for this but I haven't come across them yet. Anyone know?

[Occasional Sage]

*snip*
Example:
If a monster gets to shift and not incur attacks of opportunity but is next to fighter who can attack anyone who shifts... who wins?

Maybe there are rules for this but I haven't come across them yet. Anyone know?

I haven't looked at too much 4e material; where did you find these specific items?

[Helgraf]

Yeah, yeah I know... another 4e thread. Since half the threads here last just a week or two I don't really consider any thread on here a big deal.

Anyways. My question. I know that 4e states that specific rules beats general rules in order to give an overarching way for DMs and players to adjudicate rule conflicts. But what about specific vs. specific?

Example:
If a monster gets to shift and not incur attacks of opportunity but is next to fighter who can attack anyone who shifts... who wins?

Maybe there are rules for this but I haven't come across them yet. Anyone know?

Exception beats specific.

In this case, the specific is that shift does not provoke Opportunity Attack.

And the fighter power is an exception. Thus the exception trumps the specific rule and the fighter gets the OA.

[Collin152]

4E rule:
Player wins.
No matter what the cost.

[North]

Id say the monsters rule trumps the fighters as the monsters seems to be more specific.

[Helgraf]

Id say the monsters rule trumps the fighters as the monsters seems to be more specific.

Except that shifts not provoking OAs isn't an exception of that monster - it's a specific rule related to shifting.

Whereas the fighter power(s) in question deliberately allow you to break that rule - thus qualifying as an exception, which by the ruleset definition, automatically trumps the specific rule.

[Enlong]

4E rule:
Player wins.
No matter what the cost.

?
???????????????????

[Collin152]

?
???????????????????

Given a conflict of rules (or any other conflict), rule in the Player's favor.

[Enlong]

Given a conflict of rules (or any other conflict), rule in the Player's favor.

General RPG rule to make sure the game goes smoothly, or mocking of 4th ed?

[Holocron Coder]

Looking at the book, it looks like shifting does not provoke a OA normally. So, for the monster power to mean anything, it'd have to be effective against the player's power, in this case.

Does that make sense?

[Collin152]

General RPG rule to make sure the game goes smoothly, or mocking of 4th ed?

Take your pick.

[Helgraf]

Looking at the book, it looks like shifting does not provoke a OA normally. So, for the monster power to mean anything, it'd have to be effective against the player's power, in this case.

Does that make sense?

The monster's power may allow it to shift x distance or under y circumstances, but it follows all the standard rules for shifting.

The fighter power in question deliberately calls out the fact that it permits an AoO when a target shifts - this is an exception to the specific rule on shifting, so, just like whenever the rules on a card in a collectable card game differ from the general rules, the rules on the card (or in this case, the power) trump the basic rules of the game.

[Enlong]

Take your pick.

... sorry if I sounded snarky or rude or something. Perhaps I overreacted.

[Holocron Coder]

The monster's power may allow it to shift x distance or under y circumstances, but it follows all the standard rules for shifting.

The fighter power in question deliberately calls out the fact that it permits an AoO when a target shifts - this is an exception to the specific rule on shifting, so, just like whenever the rules on a card in a collectable card game differ from the general rules, the rules on the card (or in this case, the power) trump the basic rules of the game.

I concur; I was assuming that the monster's power was to shift w/o OAs. If such was detailed as the case, it's the more specific rule (since they don't normally, so if it details that it doesn't, it must be for a reason).

[Helgraf]

... sorry if I sounded snarky or rude or something. Perhaps I overreacted.

No, it's not a general rule to make the game run easier. It was, in fact, a potshot - and an inaccurate one - at 4th ed combined with a slice of snark.

[Collin152]

No, it's not a general rule to make the game run easier. It was, in fact, a potshot - and an inaccurate one - at 4th ed combined with a slice of snark.

I suppose you're a mind reader, are you?

[Trog]

I haven't looked at too much 4e material; where did you find these specific items?

Well the rule I am referring to is on p. 11 of the PHB under Three Basic Rules:

Specific Beats General
If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins. For example, a general rule states that you can’t use a daily power when you charge. But if you have a daily power that says you can use it when you charge, the power’s specific rule wins. It doesn’t mean that you can use any daily power when you charge, just that one.

Then there is this rule... or definition, I guess from p 292 of the PHB:

SHIFT: MOVE ACTION
- Movement: Move 1 square.
- No Opportunity Attacks: If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack.

Which would be the general rule. Then there is this rule from the Fighter Class Features on p76

In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.

Also:
You gain a bonus to opportunity attacks equal to your Wisdom modifier. An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If it still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.

So here we have a specific rule that seems to trump the general rule.

But then there is this from the Angel of Battle in the MM:

Mobile Melee Attack (standard; at-will)
An angel of battle can move up to half its speed and make one melee basic attack at any point during that movement. The angel doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks when moving away from the target of its attack.

[RTGoodman]

Well, that Fighter ability doesn't say that it's an opportunity attack that's triggered by shifting - it's literally just a free regular attack (not an OA) if they shift. Rules about Opportunity Attacks don't apply to it. In fact, the Fighter could hit that Angel, too, if the Angel is meeting a qualification (hitting someone else while adjacent to the Fighter while marked) without being negated by the Angel's ability (ignores Opportunity Attacks).

At least, that's what it seems like to me.

[Helgraf]

Well the rule I am referring to is on p. 11 of the PHB under Three Basic Rules:


Then there is this rule... or definition, I guess from p 292 of the PHB:


Which would be the general rule. Then there is this rule from the Fighter Class Features on p76

So here we have a specific rule that seems to trump the general rule.

But then there is this from the Angel of Battle in the MM:

Ahh, well that's not a shift, then. It's a move, which normally does provoke. The Angel's rule makes it so it doesn't, therefore the angel's rule is the exception that applies here as long as it uses that at-will power. If it uses any other power, or even its basic attack (and certain conditions can force it to do so), then the standard rules apply and it will get OAed.

[HeirToPendragon]

At this point, I'd say don't worry about it and just make a gut call.

I'd rule in favor of the fighter though seeing as shifting never grants OA and that little bit of information was probably just tacked on as a reminder.

[Reinboom]

Combat Challenge nowhere states it's an Opportunity Attack.

Since what the angel doesn't provoke is opportunity attacks, and this isn't one, the fighter can slap her... that is, if the "shifts or makes an attack that does not include you" text include movement. Shifting is specific. The angel isn't shifting either.

So no, the fighter can't slap her. She isn't shifting. If she was shifting, then yes, the fighter can slap her since the fighter's attack isn't an opportunity attack.

But in this case, it's the "no".

[Mewtarthio]

Ah, but the Angel isn't shifting. The Angel is just making a move which explicitly renders him immune to OAs. Thus, the Fighter can't use his power against him (not the anti-shifting part, anyway; he could use the anti-attack part, since only the Angel's movement is immune from OAs).

EDIT: Wow. Lookit all the ninjas...

[Sir_Dr_D]

The fighter mark is supposed to prevent monsters from shifting. It is one of the key purposes of it. The fighter gets an OA when the monster tries to move away.

The general rule is that shifting allows you to move away form an opponent without provoking an attack of opportunity.

But the rule for a specific ability (marking) of a specific class (fighter), overrides that rule. In this case the OA happens.

[edit: I just noticed the part about the angel. In normal situations if a monster makes an attack and then moves away without shifting, oportunity attacks will happen against them. But since it is an angel it can do that withour provoking an attack. With those abilities it will be hard for the fighter to get close, and mark the angel. But if the fighter does succeed in doing so, the angel can not move away without the fighter attacking it. ]

[Holocron Coder]

The fighter mark is supposed to prevent monsters from shifting. It is one of the key purposes of it. The fighter gets an OA when the monster tries to move away.

The general rule is that shifting allows you to move away form an opponent without provoking an attack of opportunity.

But the rule for a specific ability (marking) of a specific class (fighter), overrides that rule. In this case the OA happens.

But, like the other posters have said, it's not a shift. It is a move; therefore, the fighters anti-shifting power does not come into play.

The portion of the power about attacks, however, is open.

Point being, shifting ≠ moving, technically speaking.

[Ryuuk]

From my understanding, if the angel is marked by the fighter and the angel uses its at will to hit the fighter then leave the adjecent square, the fighter wouldn't get an OA. The angel's movement isn't a shift, so the Marked ability wouldn't come into play. Its at will also protects it from the normal OA, as stated so as long as it starts next to the fighter, attacks and moves at half speed at most, it'll be fine.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I corrected my above post. I added the following.
..........
I just noticed the part about the angel. In normal situations if a monster makes an attack and then moves away without shifting, oportunity attacks will happen against them. But since it is an angel it can do that without provoking an attack. With those abilities it will be hard for the fighter to get close, and mark the angel. But if the fighter does succeed in doing so, the angel can not move away without the fighter attacking it.

The angel rules talk about an exception to the moving rule, not about shifting.

[skywalker]

No, it's not a general rule to make the game run easier. It was, in fact, a potshot - and an inaccurate one - at 4th ed combined with a slice of snark.

I disagree. While it is not technically stated in the DMG, having read the material, I find that if you asked WOTC what you should do in this case(or a similar case where it's a DM judgement call), I think they would say "rule in favor of the players."

I'm also not sure how you know there was snark.

It seems like a fairly good rule to follow to me(I've never put it into words, but I follow this rule, and like other DMs who do as well.)

[Justin_Bacon]

Which would be the general rule. Then there is this rule from the Fighter Class Features on p76

So here we have a specific rule that seems to trump the general rule.

But then there is this from the Angel of Battle in the MM:

(1) The fighter can make an attack as an immediate interrupt if the the marked opponent shifts or attacks a different target.

(2) The Angel of Battle avoids OAs as a result of moving away from the target of its attack.

The two abilities are, in fact, not interacting at all.

First, the fighter's ability is not described as an opportunity attack. Therefore, the Angel of Battle's immunity to OAs is irrelevant.

Second, even if you decide to interpret the fighter's ability as an OA, the Angel of Battle using that ability is not shifting. So the fighter's ability to attack a target shifting away from him is not triggered by the use of this ability (which is not a shift).

Third, the Angel of Battle's ability only prevents OAs from the target of its attack. Since the only trigger left for the fighter's ability is if the Angel of Battle doesn't attack the fighter, the Angel of Battle's ability is irrelevant to the fighter's ability to take the OA: Either the Angel of Battle attacked the fighter (in which case the fighter's ability is not triggered) or the Angel of Battle attacked somebody else (in which case the angel's ability won't prevent the fighter from taking his OA).

[marjan]

And how about Alertness and Seize The Moment? Attacked creature with Alertness doesn't grant combat advantage to enemies during surprise rounds, while attacker with Seize The Moment gets combat advantage against the foes with lower initiative during surprise rounds and first round of combat.

[TheLoneCleric]

And how about Alertness and Seize The Moment? Attacked creature with Alertness doesn't grant combat advantage to enemies during surprise rounds, while attacker with Seize The Moment gets combat advantage against the foes with lower initiative during surprise rounds and first round of combat.

Two different cases. Alertness is only in case of Surprises. You can still start a non-surprised combat and gain combat advantage.