Shifting into Polearm Gamble

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Polearm Gamble feat states "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn."

1) If the enemy shifts into a square adjacent to you, does it provoke the OA from polearm gamble?  Shifting normally does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but the feat specifically states that you can make the OA when an enemy "enters" the adjacent square, which would seem to apply to any type of movement.

2) If an enemy is forced into your adjacent square by a push, pull or slide, do you get to make the OA from polearm gamble since its condition is only that the enemy has to "enter" the adjacent square?  Again, forced movement normally does not provoke OAs, but does the feat override that rule?
This is a source of considerable dispute, and has already been discussed at length here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Short answer:  Ask your DM, because you won't find consensus here.
Sorry, didnt do a search first.  Thanks.
Er...didn't they clarify "entering" a square as not being dependent on the method used to do so?  As written, you'd be able to Polearm Gamble someone who teleported next to you.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
@Mand12: Do you really want to restart this debate?
Yes?  The feat isn't unclear at all.  I really don't see what the problem is, and after reading through that thread I agree with the last poster - the feat says exactly what it does.

I'd rather restart a debate than let you claim an incorrect answer is a "agree to disagree" situation.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Er...didn't they clarify "entering" a square as not being dependent on the method used to do so?  As written, you'd be able to Polearm Gamble someone who teleported next to you.



Only if the square they teleported from is within your reach. The OA interrupts their movment, so the attack happens when they are in their original square, not the destination square.
Both shifting (and teleporting) and Polearm Gamble are specific rules.

Specific beats general, but which one is specific and which one is general?  We have no way to know.  Therefore we don't know whether OAs are prevented or allowed.  Therefore we don't know whether you get the attack or not.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Very well...

1) If the enemy shifts into a square adjacent to you, does it provoke the OA from polearm gamble?  Shifting normally does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but the feat specifically states that you can make the OA when an enemy "enters" the adjacent square, which would seem to apply to any type of movement.

2) If an enemy is forced into your adjacent square by a push, pull or slide, do you get to make the OA from polearm gamble since its condition is only that the enemy has to "enter" the adjacent square?  Again, forced movement normally does not provoke OAs, but does the feat override that rule?

Polearm Gamble grants you an additional situation where you may make an opportunity attack (you are using a polearm and an enemy enters an adjacent square).

Because this is an opportunity attack, it is limited by all other restrictions on opportunity attacks -- this means that the enemy does not provoke an attack from you if you are dazed, stunned, can't see the target, etc.  The rules for shifting (after the PH3 update), forced movement and teleportation all state that they do not provoke opportunity attacks.

So:

1) No, because shifting does not provoke OAs, and Polearm Gamble does not specifically override the shifting rules.

2) No, because forced movement does not provoke OAs, and Polearm Gamble does not specifically override the forced movement rules.
Both shifting (and teleporting) and Polearm Gamble are specific rules.

Specific beats general, but which one is specific and which one is general?  We have no way to know.  Therefore we don't know whether OAs are prevented or allowed.  Therefore we don't know whether you get the attack or not.



That's a pretty silly argument.  The general rule is that shifting, forced movement, etc do not provoke attacks of opportunity.  The specific rule is Polearm Gamble.  General rules apply to everyone - anyone who does shifting or forced movement near people use the general rules.  The specific rule applies only to people who have the feat Polearm Gamble.

Does anyone actually argue it the other way around?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The general rule is that shifting, forced movement, etc do not provoke attacks of opportunity.  The specific rule is Polearm Gamble.  General rules apply to everyone - anyone who does shifting or forced movement near people use the general rules.  The specific rule applies only to people who have the feat Polearm Gamble.

Specific vs. general does not apply here because Polearm Gamble does not specifically mention shifting, teleportation or forced movement.  Therefore, the standard rules for shifting, teleportation, and forced movement (they don't provoke OAs) still apply.

If you make the argument that Polearm Gamble gives you an OA in every situation that an enemy enters an adjacent square, this would mean that with Polearm Gamble causes enemies to provoke OAs from you while you are stunned or dazed -- which is clearly wrong.

I can't understand how you can be making this argument.  A couple points:


1)  Polearm Gamble does specifically and unequivocally mention shifting, teleportation and forced movement.  It does so by using the term "enters a square."  This term applies to all forms of movement.  Every single one of them that involves entering a square.

2)  Yes, it allows you to make an opportunity attack in every situation that an enemy enters an adjacent square.  What it doesn't allow you to do, though, is use an opportunity action while dazed, or stunned, or use more than one opportunity action per turn.  No available action means no attack.  Similarly, it would trigger an opportunity attack if a monster were to move adjacent to you, then walk away, then move adjacent again multiple times in the same turn.  Except that you've used your opportunity action, and can neither punish it for moving away from you nor for moving adjacent to you again.  That doesn't mean that the feat trigger doesn't happen.

3)  There are dozens of established precedents for bad things happening on "enters a square" triggering on all possible movement modes.  Just because the bad thing is an opportunity attack doesn't mean that "enters a square" loses its teeth.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Polearm Gamble does specifically and unequivocally mention shifting, teleportation and forced movement.

It does not.  In order to override the rules about shifting, for example, it would have to spcifically mention "shift".  "Enters" is not good enough.

This distinction is significant:  because Polearm Gamble says "enters", the feat is merely providing a new trigger for opportunity attacks, but all other existing rules about opportunity attacks still apply.  If the feat specifically said "shifts", only then it would override the rules about shifting not provoking OAs.

Enters includes shifts!

I can't understand how you say that polearm gamble doesn't cause an OA on a shift.  That's exactly what it says it does.  When you enter the square, opportunity attack.  Period.  Done.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I can't understand how you say that polearm gamble doesn't cause an OA on a shift.  That's exactly what it says it does.  When you enter the square, opportunity attack.  Period.  Done.

The "specific vs. general" argument cannot be considered so broadly, or it would allow you to make OAs in situations where they are clearly not allowed.

For example, consider the case of an invisible creature entering an adjacent square.  Invisibility avoids all OAs, but with your argument, you could make an OA against this creature with Polearm Gamble.

Except...that's what the feat says it does.  Maybe it needs an errata, but the RAW is eminently clear.

How can you interpret specific beats general as Polearm Gamble ever not winning over general rules?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Whoops.  Sorry if I opened up an old can of worms here. Tongue out

I read through the older linked thread, and think I have a good handle on what the argument is from each perspective.

We will probably stick with the CS answers for now since it seems a couple of them were consistant.  I may submit this to CS again just to make sure the answer I get is constant with those posted on that forum thread.  If so, I think I will recommend that our group go with that ruling.

Thanks.
How can you interpret specific beats general as Polearm Gamble ever not winning over general rules?

Because making the argument that Polearm Gamble is more specific that every other action or condition would allow you to stretch the rules to point of absurdity.

For example:

What if the monster enters an adjacent square multiple times on its turn?  I get to make an OA against it because Polearm Gamble says so, and it has no limits per turn.  Specific vs. general!

What if the monster enters an adjacent square when I'm dazed?  I get to make an OA against it because Polearm Gamble says so, and conditions are irrelevant for the purposes of the feat.  Specific vs. general!

See what I mean? That's why specific vs. general has to be considered in a... well, specific context.
I already covered both of those, thanks for ignoring it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
My point is:

If you are saying that feat is more specific than every other general rule, then it also more specific than than general rules about available opportunity actions, or the number of opportunity actions you can take during a turn.
Okay, so I was a little unclear before.  What I'm saying that enters a square is the specific rule.

Can someone else jump in here?  Clearly we aren't making any progress.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Polearm Gamble does specifically and unequivocally mention shifting, teleportation and forced movement.

It does not.  In order to override the rules about shifting, for example, it would have to spcifically mention "shift".  "Enters" is not good enough.

This distinction is significant:  because Polearm Gamble says "enters", the feat is merely providing a new trigger for opportunity attacks, but all other existing rules about opportunity attacks still apply.  If the feat specifically said "shifts", only then it would override the rules about shifting not provoking OAs.




Because the feat says "enters a square adjacent", it means that it grants the person with the feat  an action that happens to be an Opportunity Attack.

What you really have to keep in mind here is that the target entering the adjacent square is NOT provoking.  That's NOT what they are doing.  They are simply "entering a square adjacent" to the feat owner, shift or move doesn't matter.  That fulfills the conditions of the feat.  So that GRANTS the feat owner an OA.  As long as the owner is capable of making the attack (e.g. not dazed, has the reach) and the feat owner can see the target (e.g. the target isn't invisible, not around a corner), they get the OA.

The rules in shifting specify that you do not "provoke an opportunity attack" when you shift.  So if you REALLY want to apply that rule here, I can argue that it STILL works because the monster isn't provoking an OA.  Its fulfilling the conditions of the feat by "entering a square adjacent" to the feat owner, which just so happens to provide the feat owner with an OA.

Provoking and fulfilling conditions of feats/powers are very different.  You're trying to apply a set of rules here that do not fit because the target entering the square adjacent to the feat owner is NOT provoking.  Specific vs. generic is moot, you're applying a set of rules that don't mean anything in this situation because of the way the RULES for shifting are worded.

Provoking is just one way to grant a player an OA.  There are other methods, and this is one of them.  The feat has nothing to do with "provoking".  Based on your thought process, someone who shifts in shouldn't provoke an OA, and that statement is completely correct.  But the feat owner still gets the OA because the feat has NOTHING to do with provoking.  It has everything to do with fulfilling the condition of previously being "nonadjacent" and then "entering a square adjacent" to the feat owner.  The rules of shifting only say you don't "provoke" OA's.  It doesn't say you don't fulfill the conditions of feats that grant their owners OA's.  Your argument that the feat is not specific enough can also be turned around on the rules for shifting, even with this new bit from PH3.  The rule only states shifting doesn't provoke OA's.  Well, provoking an OA consists of moving away from an adjacent target or moving in to other squares around the target while you're adjacent to it.  Shifting AWAY from a target doesn't provoke OA's.

But if you shift INTO a target (a.k.a. ENTERING a square adjacent to the target) that fulfills the conditions of the feat and DOES NOT fulfill the conditions of the rule in which Shifting doesn't PROVOKE.



I apologize if none of that makes sense, I'm trying to string those thoughts together and work at the same time -.-
I tend to agree with Mand12.  Enters a square is clearly the specific text that overrides the general in this case.  If the authors had intended a more specific form of movement, they would have said that.  There are plenty of cases where the terms "moves" and "shifts" are applied.  They distinctly chose "enters", which encompasses all forms of movement.

THAT SAID, we must consider the remainder of the rules governing opportunity actions when adjudicating Polearm Gamble.  As a previous poster mentioned, for teleports, you would have to had reach to their starting square - otherwise they simply arrive too fast for you to react.  Hidden also would override Polearm Gamble for the basic reason that to attack an enemy you have to know what square they're in.  In a like manner, Dazed and Invisibility override your ability to utilize Polearm Gamble because they affect your ability to take OA in the first place.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I think Kahzuko explained it better.  Read Kahz's post, not mine

The real question, I think relates to forced movement.  To me, "enters" implies intent and as such I wouldn't think forced movement would apply.  Also, normally an opportunity attack will be initiated by the moment the movement starts.  I'm not sure how cleanly that applies to a situation where someone is forcably moved.  It could be argued that if the enemy were within your reach before the forced movement started, that you could use Polearm Gamble, but I'm not sure on this one.
Severion, you bring up good points.  If someone teleported in to the square adjacent to you, but they were not within your reach before, you wouldn't get the attack from Polearm Gamble.

But if for some reason the player was within your polearm reach, and then they teleported in right next to you, then yes, the feat's conditions would be fulfilled.


I'm sorry about my long winded-ness in explaining why I thought the feat still worked regardless of the rules for shifting.  Trying to talk on the phone and string two sentences together for that post took me about an hour XD.
"Enters a square" includes forced movement.  "Enters a square willingly" does not.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
After reading through the older linked forum thread, the couple CS answers, and the current applicable rules, here is my opinion... take it or leave it:

PHB defines Opportunity Attack and the two conditions that normally provoke an opportunity attack, which are:
  • You provoke an OA if you leave an adjacent square, or in the case where a creature has threatening reach if you leave a square within their reach, unless you shift or are forced.

  • You provoke an OA if you are adjacent to a creature and use a ranged or area power.


Shifting is defined such that it "does not provoke opportunity attacks".  Therefore, the Opportunity Attack normally provoked by leaving a square is not provoked when shifting.

Polearm Gamble states that when a non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack.  The enemy entering the square is not taking an action that would normally provoke an opportunity attack, whether they are shifting or not.  Instead, they are satisfying a trigger specific to the feat, in this case entering the square.  This trigger is satisfied regardless of how they enter the square.  That is the difference between "trigger" and "provoke"... provoke is something that normally happens based on the OA rules, and trigger is specific to a feat or power.  They are not synonymous or interchangeable in D&D.

So, while shifting out of an adjacent square or out of a square within threatening reach does not result in a normal OA since it is not provoked, shifting into an adjacent square of someone with polearm gamble does result in the opportunity attack because it satisfies the feat's trigger.

This is not a clear issue at all, but there are many of those in D&D.  It definitely would be much more clear if it simply granted you a melee basic attack as an immediate interrupt.  But then, it wouldn't have all the cool synergies with Combat Superiority and Blade Opportunist. Tongue out
My interpretation is similar to Kahzuko's above.
"Enters a square" includes forced movement.  "Enters a square willingly" does not.




Which is why if you force a monster in to an aura that deals damage upon entering, they take damage :D

What pisses me off about the new wording added to Shifting is that people are applying it to things it was not meant to be applied to.  The reason it was added was for clarification: you don't provoke when you shift adjacent to a mob.  You don't provoke when you shift away from a mob.

The feat says you enter a square adjacent after having previously been nonadjacent.  How would you provoke if you were nonadjacent before?  That's the part of the feat that is truly the important facet.  You have to have been nonadjacent before, and then you enter a square adjacent.  That completely removes the possibility for provoking to begin with.  And because the wording of the rules of Shifting say you don't "provoke" OA's, you would still get smacked with an OA if you shifted in to a square adjacent to a target with this feat because you're not provoking.

Let's set up the scenario:  There is 1 square in between me and you.  You have the feat Polearm Gamble.  I shift from my square, into the square adjacent to you that was in between us.  The feat's conditions have been fulfilled.  I was not adjacent, and then I entered a square adjacent to you.  I did not provoke.  So the rules of Shifting don't even come in to play.  Its impossible for me to provoke an OA from you and fulfill the conditions of that feat at the same time by Shifting.
Provoking is just one way to grant a player an OA.  There are other methods, and this is one of them.

That is not the case.  The only way for an attacker to get an opportunity attack is in response to a defender's action, when the defender provokes it.

Look at the wording for opportunity attacks (Compendium glossary):

Moving Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy. However, you can't make one if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide.
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.

Essentially, the Polearm Gamble feat is modifying one portion of the opportunity attack rules to be as follows:

Moving Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy. When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy's turn. However, you can't make one if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide.

All other parts of the opportunity attack rules remain in effect, including "you can't make [an opportunity attack] if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide."
They really need a FAQ update on this.

I'm rulling it the same as I was in the first thread. You get the OA from Polearm Gamble no matter how the target entered the square so long as you can legally target it (so no attack if the enemy teleported in from outside your reach). I have decided that it does not grant the attack from forced movement mainly because I think it's silly and abusable.

However, I have not been in a game DMing or playing where a player used Polearm Gamble yet, so I've never had to deal with it personally. I do have a polearm user in the builder for use eventually, but I have like eleventy billion others to choose from as well.
That is not the case.



Yes, it is.

Look at the Shaman opportunity action at-will powers, one here as an example:

Spirit's Prey


Your spirit companion lashes out at a moving foe, and an ally uses the distraction to fire on that enemy.


At-Will   bullet.gif     Primal, Spirit
Opportunity Action      Melee spirit 1


Trigger: An enemy leaves a square adjacent to your spirit companion without shifting


Target: The triggering enemy


Effect: One ally within 10 squares of your spirit companion can make a ranged basic attack against the target as a free action with combat advantage.


Published in Primal Power, page(s) 64.



There are TONS of things you can do as an opportunity action.  A garden-variety opportunity attack is one of them, but it is by no means the only one.  A Polearm Gamble opportunity attack is another.

You won't seriously try to argue that Spirit's Prey doesn't trigger off of a teleport, do you?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Don't mix Opportunity Atrtacks and Opportunity Actions. Spirit's Prey would have Triggerred on a Shift too if it wouldn't have excluded it.

Anyway, i can see how RAW it is written. But RAI tells me that Polearm Gamble shouldn't Trigger at least for a Shift because of the Errata to it and their explanations for doing so for i consider Polearm Gamble one of such abilities that allow a creature to make an OA beyond adjacent square.

RuleUpdateMar2010

Shift: 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.


Many don't want to assess, including the CS, that PG is an ability to make OA from beyond adjacent square, instead focusing on the fact that PG doesn't trigger an OA by being provoked.  

The is the reason why the Rule change took place. Shift doesn't provoke OA's now. Forced Movement doesn't provoke OA's, Invoker's Utility Divine Protection doesn't provoke OA's. In order to have one to still occur, there will need to be a Specific Ruling contained in the Feature or Power to overide this, such as Weapon Master's Strike or the Warpriest's Challenge ability.  (Even though the latter doesn't say it provkes one, but it clearly specify it work on Shifting)




Kelly's final reply in May was that they had received the incident and escalated it for further review. We never know what came out of this.

@Mand12: You are confusing opportunity actions and opportunity attacks.  Opportunity attacks are a specific type of opportunity action with special rules.

Spirit's prey can be used against a creature that teleports away because teleportation only prevents opportunity attacks, not all types of opportunity actions.  The rules for spirit's prey and the Polearm Gamble opportunity attack are not the same.

EDIT: I misread the teleportation rules.  The rules for teleportation state that it "doesn't provoke opportunity actions for leaving its starting position." (I thought it said "attacks" instead.) This means that spirit's prey is not triggered if a target teleports away.
Don't mix Opportunity Atrtacks and Opportunity Actions. Spirit's Prey would have Triggerred on a Shift too if it wouldn't have excluded it.

Anyway, i can see how RAW it is written. But RAI tells me that Polearm Gamble shouldn't Trigger at least for a Shift because of the Errata to it and their explanations for doing so for i consider Polearm Gamble one of such abilities that allow a creature to make an OA beyond adjacent square.

RuleUpdateMar2010

Shift: 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.



If Polearm Gamble was intended to work the same as threatening reach, it would have been worded the same to say "When wielding a polearm, you can make an opportunity attack against any enemy within your reach that provokes an opportunity attack."  However, they did not word Polearm Gamble that way, so it doesn't work that way.  It works instead as a triggered attack upon entering an adjacent square, rather than a provoked OA under the normal OA rules.

You cannot ignore the difference in how the abilities are worded and say they work the same just because they "kind of" do the same thing.

The change in the rules was made for threatening reach.  Before the eratta, the "Shift" rules simply said that you do not provoke opportunity attacks when leaving a square adjacent to a creature.  They realized that was a mistake because it should also not provoke OAs from a creature with threatening reach when leaving non-adjacent squares within their reach.  That was the reason for the change, and that was the explaination that was given.  That change does not affect how Polearm Gamble works, because the attack from Polearm Gamble is not an attacked normally provoked under the Opportunity Attack rules.

Besides, you cannot use "fluff" text as rules anyway.
I am not confusing the two, and that's precisely my point.  Polearm Gamble does not cause provocation of opportunity attacks.  It is a triggered opportunity-action attack.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Spirit's prey
 can be used against a creature that teleports away because teleportation only prevents opportunity attacks, not all types of opportunity actions.  The rules for spirit's prey and the Polearm Gamble opportunity attack are not the same.
Not true at all. Spirit's Prey can not be used if an enemy teleports because teleportation prevents all Opportunity Actions.
Teleportation: No Opportunity Actions: The target doesn’t provoke opportunity actions for leaving its starting position.

Shift, on the other hand, for better or for worse, only applies to Opportunity Attacks.
Shift: No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.

But, in a way that actually strengthens Log's argument, which I agree with. Polearm Gamble says you get to make an Opportunity Attack, shifting does not provoke Opportunity Attacks, therefore, shifting doesn't trigger Polearm Gamble. For Polearm Gamble to apply the specific beats general scenario it would need language more clear, like "provokes an opportunity attack even if the movement would not normally trigger one." Even that language could be better but I'm too lazy to draft something perfect.


Here's the issue that I have, and it's that of what it means to provoke.  In my reading, Spirit's Prey is a triggered action, not a provocation.  Teleport says it doesn't provoke opportunity actions.  Teleport does not say that it prevents all opportunity actions.   Spirit's Prey isn't triggered by the provocation of an opportunity action, it has a separate and distinct trigger.  The trigger is "leaves a square without shifting."  If it were triggered by the provocation of opportunity attacks, you'd be able to use it in response to a ranged or area attack, but it's not so you can't.

Similarly, Polearm Gamble says nothing about provoking an opportunity attack, so I can't agree that rules regarding provocation of opportunity attacks apply.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Mand12, you hit the nail on the head there.

The rules for shifting do NOT say that you are immune to all Opportunity Attacks when you shift.

"However, you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you shift or teleport or are forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide."

The key word in that sentence is away.  You don't provoke if you shift AWAY from the defender.  What happens if you shift in?

Nothing!  You don't provoke!  You're not provoking and the feat has nothing to do with provoking.  The feat specifically states that the nonadjacent aggressor enters a square adjacent to the defender.  Condition fulfilled.  It doesn't matter how you get in to that square.  (I still disagree with forced movement triggering it, because forced movement doesn't trigger anything ...).

If on your turn you take some type of move action, whether it a shift, a teleport, or a move, in to a square adjacent to the feat owner of Polearm Gamble, you are fulfilling the conditions of the feat.  You are NOT provoking so you are NOT fulfilling the conditions of the RULES for shifting.  Obviously, if the aggressor teleported in to a square adjacent to you from a square that was outside of your reach, you wouldn't get the OA.  It has to be within your reach.

The rules for Shifting do not make you immune to all Opportunity Attacks.  An attack granted as an "Opportunity Action" is technically an Opportunity Attack.  There are powers that aren't attacks that you take on Opportunity "Actions".  But the terms are interchangeable, because you only get one OA per round per target.  So whether its an Action or an Attack, it doesn't matter.  But because people are reading way too far in to this rule for Shifting, they think it means that whenever you shift anywhere, regardless of specific feats or other rules, you're immune to OA's.

The problem here is that they called the granted attack an Opportunity Attack.  Wizard's had no other choice but to call it an Opportunity Attack because if they called it an Immediate Reaction/Interrupt, it could be exploited way worse than people think it's being exploited now.  However, if they did call it an Immediate Reaction basic melee, this stupid argument wouldn't be occurring.
 
I've also dislike the specific > generic argument because both rules are specific.  It just depends on which order you apply the rule and feat.  For example:

Aggressor comes in and fulfills the condition for the feat the defender has.  So which rule applies first?  You shifted in, so you don't provoke an OA?  Or the defender gets an OA against you because you fulfilled the condition of the feat?  If we say the rules for shifting occur first, then the feat wins because it comes last.  If we say the feat conditions are fulfilled first, but then you apply the rules for shifting, the rules win out and the defender doesn't get his/her OA.

Just like when you're writing code for software, if you switch commands around, or switch around nested if-then statements, you're going to get different results.

The REAL question here is ... when do you apply which ruling?  Do you say shifting rules come before or after the feat's rules?


Edit:  After rereading all that I realized that none of what I said matters, the main point here is that you're not provoking to fulfill the conditions of the feat.  If the feat said "Someone provokes on OA from you by entering a square adjacent to you" then yeah, you wouldn't get it because they shifted in.  But because you're not provoking and the feat has nothing to do with provoking, the defender still gets the OA.
Why the need to be hung up on the term 'provoke'? Polearm Gamble says you get to make an Opportunity Attack. No matter how you slice anything else in the feat's language you are making an Opportunity Attack, it says you are. When someone shifts they don't provoke an Opportunity Attack. So, why should you get to make an Opportunity Attack through a feat when you an enemy is doing something that doesn't trigger Opportunity Attacks?

If Polearm Gamble granted an Opportunity Action then that would work in regards to a Shift because Shift's language refers to Opportunity Attacks, not Opportunity Actions in general. Polearm Gamble is simply expanding on when you can use an Opportunity Attack, nothing more, nothing less. 
So, why should you get to make an Opportunity Attack through a feat when you an enemy is doing something that doesn't trigger Opportunity Attacks?



The enemy actually is doing something that triggers the opportunity attack from polearm gamble: entering an adjacent square.  Shifting only prevents you from provoking opportunity attacks under the normal rules for opportunity attacks.  This is not a normal opportunity attack, it is a triggered action specific to the feat.
Re: forced movement question (FYI)

This isn't definitive, and I don't know what else the rules compendium will address, but according to another poster in the thread about falling and AO:


No opportunity Actions Triggered: When a creature falls past an enemy, the creature does not trigger opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks,  from the enemy that are triggered by movement."

Page 209, Rules Compendium.  If this isn't in the errata I imagine it will make it's way there soon, there are already several pages of updates based on heroes of the Fallen Kingdom's Land or whatever it's called.



This implies that falling is treated as forced movement.  And by the language, the suggestion is that forced movement doesn't trigger opportunity actions that are triggered by movement (note that they've fixed the language - using the word 'triggered' here and avoiding the issues related to 'provoking').
Sign In to post comments