※ 引述《LiouKen (小龜)》之銘言： : 標題: Re: [問題] 請教一個Martial_Power的Power : 時間: Thu Feb 19 00:13:40 2009 : : : → lueur:第一個問題，見PHB p290 Interrupsts Target's action條 02/19 00:00 : : 推 lueur:Interrupts Action是動作類別，指它會先於所觸發的動作，而 02/19 00:04 : : 推 lueur:非中斷該動作。 02/19 00:04 : : 先感謝回應 : : 那再請教一個問題,戰士的Combat Challenge中有一段敘述與原發問者的stance內容相似 : 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. : : 我想舉個例子問一下 : 如果小兵B在戰士C的5呎威脅範圍內且已被戰士C mark : : BC : : A : : 然後小兵B往下shift 5呎,接著攻擊法師A : : C : B : A : : 請問此時戰士C可以用Combat Challenge攻擊小兵B幾次? : : -- :

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) : ◆ From: 61.59.12.169 : 推 lueur:一次 02/19 00:27 非常高興的有人跟我的想法相同,不過這是錯的 之前與朋友討論OA跟Combat Challeng時他寫信問WotC,官方回應如下 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 所以答案是兩次,基本上應該要說只要能滿足Trigger,就可以無限次 雖然我個人對這個答案並非十分信服,覺得PHB文字敘述上有瑕疵 但是我想主要是因為對英文語意的語感不同為主因 官方回應中強調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的動作方式比照immediate interrupt的處理方式,但是它並不是 一個immediate interrupt的動作而是一個Melee Basic Attack, 所以並不受immediate action once per round的限制 依照這樣的邏輯回到原po的問題中 (上為Combat Challeng,下為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. 那麼,Spitting-Cobra Stance應該也是只要能滿足trigger就能無限次發動才是 不知這樣的推論是否正確? --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.59.12.169