Polearm gamble and shift; answer from Customer Service

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
With all the debate about how the two interact, I'm surprised no one asked wizards prior to me.





 Customer (XXXXXXXX)05/14/2010 06:44 PM
The core rules question is: does an effect stating that a creature doesn't provoke opportunity attacks have any effect on powers and feats that let a creature make an opportunity attack when a condition happens?

If you compare the text of Polearm Gamble and Halo of Warding, there is an implication that there is a difference between provoking an attack, and triggering an opportunity action.

* Is polearm gamble triggered by a shifting enemy?
* Is polearm gamble triggered by a halfling with Know When to Fold?
* Can an avenger with Halo of Warding attack a swordmage with combat casting when the swordmage uses a power that lets it move and attack?
* If an enemy triggers a combat challenge from a fighter with allied opportunity by shifting, can an adjacent ally use its opportunity action to make an attack of opportunity?
* If an enemy is knocked prone by Reaving Axe Tyrant (or Reaving Axe Slayer or Reaving Axe Brute), and stands from an occupied square, it shifts. Does it provoke the attacks of opportunity the feat specifies?





 Response (Support Rep)05/15/2010 08:36 AM
Hello XXXXXXXXXX,

1.1. Is polearm gamble triggered by a shifting enemy?

A. Yep, it's not triggered off of the type of move.

1.2. Is polearm gamble triggered by a halfling with Know When to Fold?

A. Yep, as it's triggered off entering a square, not leaving.

2. Can an avenger with Halo of Warding attack a swordmage with combat casting when the swordmage uses a power that lets it move and attack?

A. Yes, at it's triggered off of the movement, instead of the attack (which combat casting protects).

3. If an enemy triggers a combat challenge from a fighter with allied opportunity by shifting, can an adjacent ally use its opportunity action to make an attack of opportunity?

A. If you're asking if they can get two Opportunity actions against one guy in the same round. The answer is no, they'd only get that one.

4. If an enemy is knocked prone by Reaving Axe Tyrant (or Reaving Axe Slayer or Reaving Axe Brute), and stands from an occupied square, it shifts. Does it provoke the attacks of opportunity the feat specifies?

A. Yes it'd work, as it's an interrupt (Happens before they actually stand up/shift). The action just needed to be 'noted' before it activated.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Link Removed.

To login to your account, or update your question please Link Removed.

Troy
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST


Shift doesn't provoke OA's when leaving an adjacent square, but Polearm Gamble seems specific on how it triggers, letting you make an OA when a specific event occur. 

Wanna take this to the Customer Services Consolidated Answer Board for easy reference and everyone enjoyement fedyakin ?

EDIT I hadn't realised this, but it also means Shift still provoke an OA when not adjacent of a creature with Threatening Reach while moving within it. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

The latest updates changed the rules for shifting:

"No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."

Shifting no longer provokes opportunity attacks, regardless if you're entering or leaving a square.

1.1. Is polearm gamble  triggered by a shifting enemy?

A. Yep, it's not triggered off of  the type of move.

This is an interpretation of the Polearm Gamble rules that I disagree with.

In my opinion, Polearm Gamble adds an additional potential trigger for making opportunity attacks. However, you still can't use that trigger if the enemy is using a form of movement that specifically prevents opportunity attacks (such as shifting, teleporting, or forced movement).

EDIT: Corrected quote attribution.

The latest updates changed the rules for shifting:

"No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."

Shifting no longer provokes opportunity attacks, regardless if you're entering or leaving a square.



logopolis, i can't find the changes your mentioning in the May Rules Update. Where did you get that from ?

 PS  I didn't write what you quoted me on. I don't know if you can delete that.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Odd, it is indeed missing from the May 2010 update PDF.  But it is present in the Compendium and on page 20 of the compiled update PDF (www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatesArchive...).

EDIT: Ah, I see why.  The change to shifting was in the January 2010 updates, not the May 2010 updates.

Apologies, I was quoting fedyakin for the second part of the post.

Odd, it is indeed missing from the May 2010 update PDF.  But it is present in the Compendium and on page 20 of the compiled update PDF (www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatesArchive...).

EDIT: Ah, I see why.  The change to shifting was in the January 2010 updates, not the May 2010 updates.


Apologies, I was quoting fedyakin for the second part of the post.



Thanks It's okay. Ha i see.  I forgot that one. So no OA's on Polearm Gamble or any Threatening Reach then.

fedyakin, finally, don't post this yet in the CustServ. Laughing
If your answer is recent, can you ask a follow-up question and bring this Rule Update to light ? This answer is clearly wrong.

Here's what it fully says on the Errata to Shift:

Rule Update Jan2010 P. 15 
Shift Page 292: In the “No Opportunity Attacks” section, replace the current text with “Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.” The former text did not take into consideration abilities that allow a creature to make opportunity attacks beyond adjacent squares, such as with threatening reach.

-
No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.




Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I asked the question 5/14/2010, and recieved this answer 5/15/2010 (The dates are in the op).  The shift wording change has nothing to do with the polearm gamble class of feats / powers.  The key thing to notice is that these feats allow someone to make an attack of opportunity.  They don't say the creature provokes an attack of opportunity.  If they didn't want it to trigger on shift, they would have said so; witness the Halo of Warding feat (listed below).  If they wanted it to provoke they would have said so as well; witness the Beast Protector feat(listed below). 

Consider an Invoker with Divine Protection power active moving adjacent to an Avenger with Halo of Warding feat.  Should the avenger get to make its opportunity attack?  Why or why not?

Halo of Warding
Benefit: While you are adjacent to your oath of enmity target, you can make an opportunity attack against any other enemy that moves into a square adjacent to you, provided the enemy does not shift or is not moved into that square by teleportation or forced movement.

Beast Protector
Benefit: If an enemy makes a melee attack against your beast companion, doing so provokes an opportunity attack from you. If you are adjacent to your beast companion, you can make this attack even if you can’t reach the attacker (you attack the attacker’s reaching limb, for instance).


I asked the question 5/14/2010, and recieved this answer 5/15/2010 (The dates are in the op).  The shift wording change has nothing to do with the polearm gamble class of feats / powers.  The key thing to notice is that these feats allow someone to make an attack of opportunity.  They don't say the creature provokes an attack of opportunity.  If they didn't want it to trigger on shift, they would have said so; witness the Halo of Warding feat (listed below).



Shift's new take has everything to do with it i think.

The Feat Polearm Gamble is almost identical to Threatening Reach for triggerring OA's off of a movement. Only the distance differ. Both kick off when one leave a square within your reach with the difference that PG is specific as to where the creature will end his movement.  With your take on the absence of the word provoke, a Forced Movement would trigger PG.

Shift never provoke an OA, nor Forced Movement do provoke OA's or Opportunity Action. If you have a specific Power triggerring as an Opportunity Action when a creature moves X squares, it won't kick off if a Pull is at the origin of the movement. Even if the Power is specific. Because it's specific to all Forced Movement. Nor would Polearm Gamble trigger on a Push.

If a Rogue uses Easy Target and now has the enemy granting CA (save end), he won't get Combat Advantage against it if he is Blind or otherwise cannot see the enemy because a specific Rule lies  within CA saying you must be able to see your target to have CA against it. Same thing. Shift never trigger OA's.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

You should read threatening reach; it's absolutely nothing like polearm gamble.
Threatening Reach
A creature that has threatening reach can make an opportunity attack against any enemy within its reach that provokes an opportunity attack.

The best refutation of your argument is Weapon Master's Strike (fighter at-will).  This power includes the following text: "Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts."  It seems very clear that this power allows an opportunity attack on a shifting creature.  The logical implication of this is that shift is not a blanket immunity to attacks of opportunity.  Specific powers and feats can allow atacks of opportunity against shifting creatures.  Therefore polearm gamble can be triggered off of a shift.
Specific powers and feats can allow atacks of opportunity against shifting creatures.

Correct. Since weapon master's strike specifically says that you can make an OA when an enemy shifts, it takes precedence. But Polearm Gamble does no such thing -- it does not specifically say anything about shifting.

Consider this example: As a general rule, you cannot take opportunity attacks while you are dazed. But Polearm Gamble says "when a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy (...)".

If the Polearm Gamble feat trumps everything, does this mean that you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy if you're dazed as well? No, because if a feat or power overrides a general rule it must specifically say so.
You should read threatening reach; it's absolutely nothing like polearm gamble.
Threatening Reach
A creature that has threatening reach can make an opportunity attack against any enemy within its reach that provokes an opportunity attack.



I've read it bro' . Re-read my post and you will notice the nuance i wrote with almost identical, movement, distance and destination. These factors differ but otherwise, it work the same way when a movement triggers both. Their triggers is different. But when both do trigger, you'll see that only the target's distance and destination may vary as one is more specific. That's it. So i would not say it has absolutely nothing like Polearm Gamble. But you're allowed your opinion.

I agree with you guys. Weapon Master's Strike is an exemple that clearly state a target Shifting will provoke an OA. It has all the components to make it a Specific beating the General Ruling. It explain something that will happen that otherwise wouldn't.  Polearm Gamble doesn't say that. The absence of the word provoke isn't concluding neither.

Shift makes it very clear.
Now do you consider Poelarm Gamble as an ability that allow a creature to make OA beyond adjacent squares or not ?

I consider it one. Hence why i think becomes very similar to Threatening Reach when his trigger arise.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Shifting does not provoke opportunity attacks. Polearm Gamble, however, has a trigger that allows you to make an opportunity attack against a non-adjacent creature entering a square adjacent to you.

And when you're dazed, you cannot make opportunity attacks. Where did you get that silly notion?
When i look at Weapon Master's Strike ability to make an OA's on a Shift, even if the Range of the Power is Melee Weapon, i don't know if it was intended to trigger off if not adjacent. Someone within your Reach would not Trigger an OA if not Shifting,  but otherwise it would to give you a Threatening Reach on any Shift. Weird...But since it doesn't say when adjacent i will deduce so....

Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

And when you're dazed, you cannot make opportunity attacks. Where did you get that silly notion?

I'm not claiming that you can, I'm just using it as an example.

As a general rule, you cannot make an opportunity attack against an enemy if you're dazed.  Also, as a general rule you cannot make an opportunity attack against an enemy if it shifts.  Everybody agrees that Polearm Gamble doesn't override the general restriction on OAs while dazed; so how is the shifting example any different?

My point is, if Polearm Gamble was meant to override the OA restriction on shifting, it would have to specifically say so.
And the arguments that was holding as to why PG was triggerring off on a Shift was that it was saying before that If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack and that with PG it wasn't adjacent. That was the heart of the debate.
 
Now that this was fixed to disallow any OA while Shifting regardless of your actual position, this debate is going nowhere except if you take the road of the absence of the word provoke. But if you do so, then PG triggers off of Forced Movement, Teleport , Shift etc...

PG is awesome enough it doesn't need all this extra cheese.

 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Imma have to agree with the CS ruling. I don't see anything in the shift rules that invalidate a Polearm Gamble attack. Is the enemy in a non-adjacent square? Check. Does the enemy enter an adjacent square? Check. Then you get an opportunity attack.  The act of shifting does not provoke its own opportunity attack, but Polearm Gamble gives the player a different trigger that doesn't seem to care.

Yes, this ruling would seem to indicate that forced movement and teleporting (only if you can reach the target before he moves) would trigger PG.

Unreasonable readers are another issue entirely; while we endeavor to make the game as, um, “idiot-proof” as we can, there’s a limit to the linguistic knots we’ll weave to make the rules 100 percent immune to willful misreading. At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see and focus our attention on more important issues.

--- Andy Collins, May 4th, 2010


If you're going to ignore Shifting and allow this feat to trigger off shifting creatures (because you say it's a specific that overrides the general), then you are also saying that it triggers off any type of forced movement, such as allies or environmental effects moving creatures to squares adjacent to you?

I don't think it that it is unreasonable to read it as the CS rep read it and I certainly would not call it 'willful misreading.' Say what you will about CS rulings, but I don't think any of them TRY to distort rulings or otherwise be unreasonable. This is the type of thing that could stand to be clarified with a couple of well placed words. As it stands, I can see that both rulings seem reasonable to me.

PG triggering off forced movement is probably not intended, but if CS is going to rule it as they did, perhaps a follow-up question is warrented. If there is enough confusion, they'll pass the issue on to the devs and maybe even we'll get a FAQ entry on it.
I don't think it that it is unreasonable to read it as the CS rep read it and I certainly would not call it 'willful misreading.' Say what you will about CS rulings, but I don't think any of them TRY to distort rulings or otherwise be unreasonable. This is the type of thing that could stand to be clarified with a couple of well placed words. As it stands, I can see that both rulings seem reasonable to me.

PG triggering off forced movement is probably not intended, but if CS is going to rule it as they did, perhaps a follow-up question is warrented. If there is enough confusion, they'll pass the issue on to the devs and maybe even we'll get a FAQ entry on it.


PG only breaks the rule it says it breaks- allowing you to make an OA based on enemy movement that isn't leaving an adjacent square.  It doesn't override any other general rule.  Shifting, teleporting, and forced movement can all cause an enemy to enter an adjacent square, but each form of movement includes a general rule that it can't cause an OA and PG does nothing to override that.

If you assume that PG overrides all general rules regarding OAs, you'd also have to allow OAs when the character with PG is dazed, stunned, unconcious, and so on.  You'd have to allow more than one OA per characters turn and even allow the character to make OAs on his own turn.  Fortunately, specific vs general only kicks in when a rule is actually specific; since PG doesn't say it does any of those things, it doesn't.  You need language like that in Weapon Master's Strike, that specifically allows an OA on a shift, to override the general rule that shifting can't trigger an OA.
I don't think it that it is unreasonable to read it as the CS rep read it and I certainly would not call it 'willful misreading.' Say what you will about CS rulings, but I don't think any of them TRY to distort rulings or otherwise be unreasonable. This is the type of thing that could stand to be clarified with a couple of well placed words. As it stands, I can see that both rulings seem reasonable to me.

PG triggering off forced movement is probably not intended, but if CS is going to rule it as they did, perhaps a follow-up question is warranted. If there is enough confusion, they'll pass the issue on to the devs and maybe even we'll get a FAQ entry on it.


PG only breaks the rule it says it breaks- allowing you to make an OA based on enemy movement that isn't leaving an adjacent square.  It doesn't override any other general rule.  Shifting, teleporting, and forced movement can all cause an enemy to enter an adjacent square, but each form of movement includes a general rule that it can't cause an OA and PG does nothing to override that.



See, I don't think it IS overriding the general rule that shifting doesn't provoke OA's. You don't trigger the OA for moving out of threatened squares. That's what I take the term 'provoking an opportunity attack' to mean. You instead make an OA using a different trigger, one that doesn't seem to care how you moved into the square at all. The errata document does mention that this change is meant to take into account abilities which allow opportunity attacks against non-adjacent targets, so I can see a strong case for shifting to invalidate the PG attack, but I don't think think it's a black and white case.

If you assume that PG overrides all general rules regarding OAs, you'd also have to allow OAs when the character with PG is dazed, stunned, unconcious, and so on.  You'd have to allow more than one OA per characters turn and even allow the character to make OAs on his own turn.  Fortunately, specific vs general only kicks in when a rule is actually specific; since PG doesn't say it does any of those things, it doesn't.  You need language like that in Weapon Master's Strike, that specifically allows an OA on a shift, to override the general rule that shifting can't trigger an OA.



I'm not assuming that PG overrides any general rule. An OA is still an OA. You just are allowed to make one under a new condition. The biggest problem I have with PG is that 'enters' is a very vague term. 'Moves' would be more precise and disallow forced movement. 'Moves without shifting' would cover pretty much everything unambiguously. As it stands, I can see how the CS rep came up with that answer and it seems like a viable way to read the rules. Obviously, some clarification would be useful at putting this thing to rest one way or another.
Polearm gamble is a feat that says when trigger x happens, you may perform action y.  The red-herring in this debate is that the action is an attack of opportunity.  If the feat instead said "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make a melee basic  attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn." we would not be having this debate.  It would be very clear that shifting creatures triggered polearm gamble.  Once you realize that this is how polearm gamble works, it should be obvious that customer service was correct.

In my personal opinion the designers chose to make the triggered action an attack of opportunity, and give it to fighters to make it possible for a paragon polearm fighter to keep non-reach enemies away.  It was clearly worded in the original PH to do exactly this.  That is why it's called polearm gamble and not polearm opportunity or something similar.  The fighter is gambling that he will stop the movement vs giving up combat advantage.

I also suspect that many of those arguing that shift doesn't provoke are doing so because they feel the combos that arise from it are overpowered.  However they should be aware that their interpretation does not prevent the combo.  For example Antipathy Gloves would make shifting adjacent to the character impossible for most creatures. 
I also suspect that many of those arguing that shift doesn't provoke are doing so because they feel the combos that arise from it are overpowered.

That may be, but the motivations of the participants in this debate, and your perceptions thereof, are not relevant to the discussion.

If the feat instead said "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make a melee basic  attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn." we would not be having this debate.

This is true. But that is not what the feat says, and the fact that the feat specifically mentions opportunity attacks and does not specifically mention shifting is of key importance here.

It is my opinion that the feat mentions opportunity attacks because it is intended to be limited by the standard restrictions of opportunity attacks.  That is: you can only use it once per round, you can't use it while dazed or stunned, and it is not triggered by movement types that avoid opportunity attacks.

Consider this scenario: Frank the Fighter, consummate Polearm Gambler, halberd at the ready, is fighting an enemy warlord.  The warlord uses ready the charge and three of his swordsman buddies charge Frank on the warlord's turn. How many of the swordsmen can Frank attack?
Consider this scenario: Frank the Fighter, consummate Polearm Gambler, halberd at the ready, is fighting an enemy warlord.  The warlord uses ready the charge and three of his swordsman buddies charge Frank on the warlord's turn. How many of the swordsmen can Frank attack?

Gah... It's like some sort of unholy union of D&D and the SATs.

Consider this scenario: Frank the Fighter, consummate Polearm Gambler, halberd at the ready, is fighting an enemy warlord.  The warlord uses ready the charge and three of his swordsman buddies charge Frank on the warlord's turn. How many of the swordsmen can Frank attack?

Gah... It's like some sort of unholy union of D&D and the SATs.




Oh I know I know...

D. None of the Above.
Gah... It's like some sort of unholy union of D&D and the SATs.

Laughing Sadly, some of the muddy D&D rules require it.

It is my opinion that the feat mentions opportunity attacks because it is intended to be limited by the standard restrictions of opportunity attacks.  That is: you can only use it once per round, you can't use it while dazed or stunned, and it is not triggered by movement types that avoid opportunity attacks.



While I disagree, I believe this is ruling makes some sense. I think shifting simply prevents OA's from triggering from the movement while moving out of an adjacent square. Polearm Gamble states a different trigger that doesn't care how it occured.

Consider this scenario: Frank the Fighter, consummate Polearm Gambler, halberd at the ready, is fighting an enemy warlord.  The warlord uses ready the charge and three of his swordsman buddies charge Frank on the warlord's turn. How many of the swordsmen can Frank attack?



You still get one OA per opponent's turn.

I don't think the debate is going to get anywhere without the devs coming out and saying what they mean, so if you're the DM, rule it how you see fit.
While I disagree, I believe this is ruling makes some sense. I think shifting simply prevents OA's from triggering from the movement while moving out of an adjacent square. Polearm Gamble states a different trigger that doesn't care how it occured.

In the January 2010 updates, shifting was changed to read: "No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks." Shifting no longer provokes OAs, regardless if you're entering or leaving a square.

Consider this scenario: Frank the Fighter, consummate Polearm Gambler, halberd at the ready, is fighting an enemy warlord.  The warlord uses ready the charge and three of his swordsman buddies charge Frank on the warlord's turn. How many of the swordsmen can Frank attack?



You still get one OA per opponent's turn.

I concur. So why is Polearm Gamble's opportunity attack limited by this general rule, but not the general rule that shifting doesn't allow opportunity attacks?

To clarify, I feel that 'provoking an opportunity' attack refers to moving out of an adjacent square (or to using a ranged or area attack in an adjacent square). That is what the text in the OA box is refering to it seems to me. Shifting protects you from that OA trigger. Polearm gamble allows you to make an OA under different circumstances and don't seem to care how the sqaure was 'entered' so long as it was entered from a nonadjacent square.

While this is the ruling CS and I favor, there is the issue of forced movement and short range teleports that start within your reach triggering it as well, which are likely unintended to trigger PG, but that's entering the realm of speculation.
While this is the ruling CS and I favor, there is the issue of forced movement and short range teleports that start within your reach triggering it as well, which are likely unintended to trigger PG, but that's entering the realm of speculation.

How so? I don't think that situation is speculative at all.

In your game, would you allow a Polearm Gamble opportunity attack if an enemy was pushed adjacent to Frank the Fighter?  Why or why not?

While this is the ruling CS and I favor, there is the issue of forced movement and short range teleports that start within your reach triggering it as well, which are likely unintended to trigger PG, but that's entering the realm of speculation.

How so?

In your game, would you allow a Polearm Gamble opportunity attack if an enemy was pushed adjacent to Frank the Fighter?  Why or why not?




Well, that would depend on what is meant by 'enter.' Like I said before, the use of this vague a term leaves this very open to interpretation. 'Enter' is not a game term that I am aware of, unlike the term 'move', which implies the target willfully walked, ran, crawled, slithered, or whatever else into the square. You could take it to mean that Frank would be able to attack someone who is pushed next to him.

Myself, if pressed, I would say that that forced movement wouldn't trigger PG, though I really don't have anything to back that up other than my own interpretation. As writen, whatever is meant precisely by 'enter,' whether it be voluntary movement into the square or anything that causes your position to change from non-adjacent to adjacent, is not clear.
Myself, if pressed, I would say that that forced movement wouldn't trigger PG, though I really don't have anything to back that up other than my own interpretation.

I wouldn't either. Except in my case, I feel that the ruling would be consistent and logically supportable.

Everybody seems to agree that you can't use a Polearm Gamble OA when:
  • an enemy enters an adjacent square and you're dazed.

  • an enemy enters an adjacent square and you're stunned.

  • an enemy enters an adjacent square, but it's invisible.

  • an enemy enters an adjacent square, but you already made an OA this turn.

  • (etc.)


So why the insistence that you can make a Polearm Gamble OA when an enemy shifts?  To disallow a Polearm Gamble OA in the above situations that prevent OAs, but allow it on a shift is in my opinion inconsistent and illogical.  That's why I think the Customer Support response in the OP is just plain wrong.
So why the insistence that you can make a Polearm Gamble OA when an enemy shifts?  To disallow a Polearm Gamble OA in the above situations that prevent OAs, but allow it on a shift is in my opinion inconsistent and illogical.  That's why I think the Customer Support response in the OP is just plain wrong.



Because, I believe provoking and OA refers to moving out of an adjacent square, which are aren't doing when you trigger PG. Shifting doesn't provoke an OA on its own. PG provides a different trigger. The movement section of the OA table on PHB 290 is refering to moving out of an adjacent square and does specifically forbid OAs when shifting. It seems to me to only be refering to that specific case.


Because, I believe provoking and OA refers to moving out of an adjacent square


What in the text brings you to this conclusion?


The movement section of the OA table on PHB 290 is refering to moving out of an adjacent square and does specifically forbid OAs when shifting. It seems to me to only be refering to that specific case.


Shifting originally said "No Opportunity Attacks:  If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack."  Under that original wording, PG could have triggered on a shift.  However, the errata in January changed this wording; it now reads "No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."  The purpose of the errata was to make it so that shifting from nonadjacent squares couldn't provoke OAs.  There's no longer any rule that limits the ability of shifting to prevent OAs; it doesn't matter if, as you say, the rule under OAs that prevents triggering on a shift is only refering to moving out of adjacent squares, because the rules on shifting itself have been changed to prevent shifting from triggering OAs.


Because, I believe provoking and OA refers to moving out of an adjacent square


What in the text brings you to this conclusion?



Because that is the only time I see that terminology used, to the best of my memory. Additionally, that is the scenario spelled out in the OA section. Shifting is mentioned underneath that bullet specifically as not provoking the OA. It also calls out forced movement and teleports.

Imagine that PG added a third bullet, with the same text as is contained in the feat description.

I looked up teleport and forced movement for completion's sake. Interestingly enough, the forced movement section mentions that you don't provoke OAs or any other opportunity action.


The movement section of the OA table on PHB 290 is refering to moving out of an adjacent square and does specifically forbid OAs when shifting. It seems to me to only be refering to that specific case.


Shifting originally said "No Opportunity Attacks:  If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack."  Under that original wording, PG could have triggered on a shift.  However, the errata in January changed this wording; it now reads "No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."  The purpose of the errata was to make it so that shifting from nonadjacent squares couldn't provoke OAs.  There's no longer any rule that limits the ability of shifting to prevent OAs; it doesn't matter if, as you say, the rule under OAs that prevents triggering on a shift is only refering to moving out of adjacent squares, because the rules on shifting itself have been changed to prevent shifting from triggering OAs.



The PHB entry also has a section for the special case of threatening reach that described how to interact with hydras and the like. It, however, does not specifically mention that shifting allows you to avoid OA's, despite that being the obvious intent. The errata fixed that.

Also, imagine the PG attack as an at-will power.

Polarm Gamble Attack
At-Will - Weapon
Opportunity Action, Melee reach
Trigger: An enemy enters an adjacent square from a non-adjacent square
Target: The triggering enemy
Effect: Make an opportunity attack against the triggering enemy.

I am also playing devil's advocate to a certian extent here, and really am just trying to make my posistion understood rather than convince you that mine is one true meaning of the sacred texts. I myself have backed myself on top of the fence. While I still think I would rule it as I have said I would before, to me it is not clear enough to say for sure how the rules interact. If the OP hasn't already, I really think he should bring up the points presented here to CS and see if we can't get a developer response at some point in the future.
Shifting does not provoke an OA.
The OA from PG isn't provoked, it's triggered.

"Oh bother." sighed Pooh as he chambered another round.
The OA from PG isn't provoked, it's triggered.

"Provoke" and "trigger" are synonomous.  And the distinction is meaningless because the text for Polearm Gamble does not use either the word "provoke" or "trigger".



Because, I believe provoking and OA refers to moving out of an adjacent square


What in the text brings you to this conclusion?



Because that is the only time I see that terminology used, to the best of my memory. Additionally, that is the scenario spelled out in the OA section. Shifting is mentioned underneath that bullet specifically as not provoking the OA. It also calls out forced movement and teleports.

Imagine that PG added a third bullet, with the same text as is contained in the feat description.

I looked up teleport and forced movement for completion's sake. Interestingly enough, the forced movement section mentions that you don't provoke OAs or any other opportunity action.


The movement section of the OA table on PHB 290 is refering to moving out of an adjacent square and does specifically forbid OAs when shifting. It seems to me to only be refering to that specific case.


Shifting originally said "No Opportunity Attacks:  If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack."  Under that original wording, PG could have triggered on a shift.  However, the errata in January changed this wording; it now reads "No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."  The purpose of the errata was to make it so that shifting from nonadjacent squares couldn't provoke OAs.  There's no longer any rule that limits the ability of shifting to prevent OAs; it doesn't matter if, as you say, the rule under OAs that prevents triggering on a shift is only refering to moving out of adjacent squares, because the rules on shifting itself have been changed to prevent shifting from triggering OAs.



The PHB entry also has a section for the special case of threatening reach that described how to interact with hydras and the like. It, however, does not specifically mention that shifting allows you to avoid OA's, despite that being the obvious intent. The errata fixed that.

Also, imagine the PG attack as an at-will power.

Polarm Gamble Attack
At-Will - Weapon
Opportunity Action, Melee reach
Trigger: An enemy enters an adjacent square from a non-adjacent square
Target: The triggering enemy
Effect: Make an opportunity attack against the triggering enemy.

I am also playing devil's advocate to a certian extent here, and really am just trying to make my posistion understood rather than convince you that mine is one true meaning of the sacred texts. I myself have backed myself on top of the fence. While I still think I would rule it as I have said I would before, to me it is not clear enough to say for sure how the rules interact. If the OP hasn't already, I really think he should bring up the points presented here to CS and see if we can't get a developer response at some point in the future.


For what it's worth, I understand your position; I just don't think it's supported by the text.  Claiming that provoke must only mean moving from or making a ranged attack in an adjacent square because that's the only time it's mentioned wouldn't be correct even if the premise were true (it's not; Champion of Order, for instance, also mentions provoking an OA when a marked enemy attacks someone else).  Since provoke isn't a defined game term, it's just being used in its normal english sense of evoke or cause.

If PG did give a basic attack as an opportunity action, then it would work as you say- because shifting only ignores opportunity attacks, not opportunity actions.  However, PG is an opportunity attack, so it doesn't get to ignore the general rules that affect opportunity attacks.  If it were an OAction rather than an OAttack it also wouldn't benefit from Heavy Blade Opportunity or Combat Superiority, so it's actually in a lot of characters' favor that it's an OAttack rather than an OAction.
I think the crux of the debate boils down to whether or not something telling you "If (condition) happens, you may make an opportunity attack," and "If (condition) happens, the target provokes an opportunity attack" is effectively the same.  I would tend toward agreeing with CS on this one, because, as written, the target isn't provoking an attack of opportunity, which shifting would preclude.  It is instead taking an action (by shifting), that, due to a feat, allows you to make an attack of opportunity even though the target didn't provoke one.  Also, the rules text for shifting only says you don't provoke attacks of opportunity.  There is nothing in there to be construed as to the effect that nobody can make opportunity attacks against you.  I hope the bolding helped you guys follow my logic and I apologize for the slight tl;dr of the post.
I think the crux of the debate boils down to whether or not something telling you "If (condition) happens, you may make an opportunity attack," and "If (condition) happens, the target provokes an opportunity attack" is effectively the same.



If you look at the question I submitted to customer service in the first post, that is what I was trying to have answered.  I then asked about multiple cases where a creature was doing something that prevented it from provoking attacks of opportunty, and then triggered the condition of a feat or power that granted an opportunity attack.

Customer service never explicitly answered the general question.  However, the specific cases were all answered in a manner that indicates provoking and triggering are different.
I agree...as written right now, you can make attacks against anyone entering a square next to you regardless of reason why.  Personally, I think they need to re-write the power slightly to either say "when an non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you by any means, you may make an opportunity attack against that target" or "when a non-adjacent enemy enters a square next to you, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you."  The first version would keep the power doing what it RAW does now, but make it significantly clearer in what it affects, while the second version would be a tremendous hit to the usefulness of the feat as about the only situation you'd be able to use it in would be if the enemy just walked right up to you. 
Personally, I think they need to re-write the power slightly to either say [1] "when an non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you by any means, you may make an opportunity attack against that target" or [2] "when a non-adjacent enemy enters a square next to you, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you."  The first version would keep the power doing what it RAW does now, but make it significantly clearer in what it affects, while the second version would be a tremendous hit to the usefulness of the feat as about the only situation you'd be able to use it in would be if the enemy just walked right up to you. 

I agree with juxtaboy, the power has been confusing since day 1.  However, in the absence of any errata, the best we can do is interpret the text as is.

I believe the second interpretation that juxtaboy mentioned is design intent, the most logically consistent, and is also the one best supported by RAW.

I think the crux of the debate boils down to whether or not something telling you "If (condition) happens, you may make an opportunity attack," and "If (condition) happens, the target provokes an opportunity attack" is effectively the same.

As ChaosMage was saying, "provoke" is not a game term -- it's not listed in the Player's Handbook index, and it's not listed in the Compendium glossary.

In the Opportunity Attack rules section, "provoke" is defined to mean that a condition occurs where you are allowed to make an opportunity attack:  "Moving Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy (...)" and "Ranged and Area Powers Provoke: If an enemy adjacent to you uses a ranged power or an area power, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

The language used in Polearm Gamble is exactly the same as the definition of "provoke" above: when X happens, you can make a an opportunity attack against that enemy.

The meaning is the same.