※ 引述《LiouKen (小龟)》之铭言： : 标题: Re: [问题] 请教一个Martial_Power的Power : 时间: Thu Feb 19 00:13:40 2009 : : : → lueur:第一个问题，见PHB p290 Interrupsts Target's action条 02/19 00:00 : : 推 lueur:Interrupts Action是动作类别，指它会先於所触发的动作，而 02/19 00:04 : : 推 lueur:非中断该动作。 02/19 00:04 : : 先感谢回应 : : 那再请教一个问题,战士的Combat Challenge中有一段叙述与原发问者的stance内容相似 : 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. : : 我想举个例子问一下 : 如果小兵B在战士C的5尺威胁范围内且已被战士C mark : : BC : : A : : 然後小兵B往下shift 5尺,接着攻击法师A : : C : B : A : : 请问此时战士C可以用Combat Challenge攻击小兵B几次? : : -- :

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) : ◆ From: 61.59.12.169 : 推 lueur:一次 02/19 00:27 非常高兴的有人跟我的想法相同,不过这是错的 之前与朋友讨论OA跟Combat Challeng时他写信问WotC,官方回应如下 Q: does the fighter enjoy an "extra" attack of opportunity against the marked enemy, if the marked enemy shift and attack the fighter? --I should clarify the attack you make with Combat Challenge is a Melee Basic Attack, not an opportunity attack.If a marked enemy shifts then attacks someone other than your fighter, you would get to make a basic melee attack for the shift, and a basic melee attack for the attack that did not include you, providing the enemy is still within melee range after shifting 所以答案是两次,基本上应该要说只要能满足Trigger,就可以无限次 虽然我个人对这个答案并非十分信服,觉得PHB文字叙述上有瑕疵 但是我想主要是因为对英文语意的语感不同为主因 官方回应中强调Combat Challenge is a Melee Basic Attack 而後面的you can make a melee basic attack agains that enemy as an immediate interrupt, 是as an immediate interrupt而非is an immediate interrupt, 也就是Combat Challeng的动作方式比照immediate interrupt的处理方式,但是它并不是 一个immediate interrupt的动作而是一个Melee Basic Attack, 所以并不受immediate action once per round的限制 依照这样的逻辑回到原po的问题中 (上为Combat Challeng,下为Spitting-Cobra Stance) you can make a melee basic attack agains that enemy as an immediate interrupt you can make a ranged basic attack as an opportunity action against any enemy within 5 squares of you that moves closer to you. 那麽,Spitting-Cobra Stance应该也是只要能满足trigger就能无限次发动才是 不知这样的推论是否正确? --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.59.12.169