|
3 years ago ::
May 26, 2010 - 8:34AM
#81
|
|
|
Well no answer yet, but they passed it on to the devs. At the very least it seems to indicate that they aren't so sure anymore. Spoiler:
Show
Hello XXX,
After further investigation, unfortunately we don't have an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!
Take Care and Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Sam
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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 26, 2010 - 8:39AM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Well no answer yet, but they passed it on to the devs. At the very least it seems to indicate that they aren't so sure anymore.
Good. Now that CustServ isn't agreeing with me, I *know* I'm right. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2010 - 1:57AM
#83
|
|
|
Ok: here's my opinion: i'm sorry if i'm rehashing at this point but i'm not sure that i understand certain people. **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, **The moving provokes tab of opportunity attack says: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,etc Now: IT says you can make an OA if an enemy leaves a square adj to you, however not if he shifts. I'm pretty sure just because they're two sentences, it doesnt' disqualify basic english taken out of context. THAT, is how you can trigger AN opportunity attack. Polearm gamble doesn't care if you shift, move, teleport,burrow or w/e...as long as you weren't subject to forced movment to get there, you entered. The first opportunity attack, the one that everyone gets, is useless versus a shift. Polearm gamble doesn't care how you get there, just that you did on your own steam. As a side note: i have a fighter in my LFR circle that is a polearm gamble/momentum spear fighter who insists that his combat superiority class feature also applies and that he can get +5 to OA's thru wisdom and item and basically always hit, as an interrupt that stops their movement before they finish it. He basically says he can keep enemies at bay unable to move up and attack as long as he hits them, as an OA versus each enemy that approaches within 1 square of him in any direction. I say combat superiority says that your OA stops their movement, *if* a move provoked it. And if you look at the 'moving provokes' section of oa's, that is states when an enemy *moves away* from you, you can make an oa but not if it shifts, tp's etc. So he'd still get the polearm gamble/momentum when something moves adjacent, but i dont' believe he gets to stop their movement as THAT part of his class feature wasn't triggered for the movement stopping OA because they didn't move from adjacent to non adjacent. They did it the other way around. Sorry bit of a wall of text. Have a read. Lemme know if anyone agrees with me/disagree with me just be civil, thanks  standardmode
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2010 - 8:18PM
#84
|
|
|
Has anyone heard back from Wizards with a ruling on this? I'm playing a Warden (MC Fighter) and hoping to make use of Polearm Gamble. My first reading of PG was that because the form of movement (i.e.: "Move" or "Shift") was not specified, by pure RAW, it seems any time an enemy enters an adjacent square I would be able to make an Opportunity Attack against it, including:
- Moving
- Shifting
- Crawling
- Running
- Charging
- Teleporting
- Burrowing
- Flying
- Phasing
as well as non-voluntary movement, such as:
- Pulling
- Pushing
- Sliding
- Falling
(did I get them all?)
I believe that allowing PG to trigger on forced movement would be insanely overpowered, and very likely not the intention of the designer (RAI). I can't imagine anyone honestly expecting to play it this way.
Letting PG trigger on any voluntary movement (including Shifting, Teleporting, etc.) makes it awesome (and is my personal preference), but not broken IMO.
Triggering on a "capital-M" Move only, the way the vanilla OA works when an enemy leaves a threatened square, still makes it valuable, just not outstanding. It's this third possibility that seems most likely to be the intended interpretation to me. |
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2010 - 1:27AM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2009
|
Its kind of hard to see where the confusion about the feat comes from, since the feat states "When a non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent." There's nothing about movement or what have you in there. The reason it's an Opportunity attack is because it then burns up your once-a-turn Opportunity action. So if the enemy triggers it, and you hit them, you can't then hit them AGAIN if they walk away, or cast a ranged attack, or what have you.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2010 - 6:02PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
The issue of whether one could use polearm gamble creatures which have shifted or focebly moved into an adjacent square is one where a reasonable person could hold either opinion. But think about this: what does mean when we say 'Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions' or in the case of a shift 'Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks?' In Player's Handbook 3, page(s) 222, movement is defined as follows: Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving, whether that move is done willingly or is forced.' Note that movement is defined not as leaving one square and entering another or entering another square, but is based all around leaving. This emphasis on leaving is repeated again in the section on oppotunity attacks in Player's Handbook 1, page 290: 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. This is the situation: 1. Movement is defined as leaving a square to enter another, not entering into another square. Opportunity attacks are provoked by leaving a threatened squre. 2. Forced movement or shifting does not provoke opportunity attacks. But opportunity attacks ordinarily arise from leaving a square adjacent to you. 3. Polearm gamble creates a condition whereby enemies entering an adjacent square now provokes opportunity attacks. My arguement is that as 'movement does not provoke' rule for shifting and forced movement does not apply to polearm gamble because it is not the movement that provokes the opportunity attack - it is the entering of the square. Movement is defined as leaving a square, not entering it. Forced movement or shifting only provides protection when it is the movement which provoked the opportunity attack. General and specfic rules do come come into this as there are no general rules governing opportunity attacks and entering squares. Personally, I don't think that polearm gamble was meant to apply to forced movement, but at the moment that is my interpretation of what the rules say.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 04, 2012 - 6:22AM
#87
|
|
|
As there been any official reply from the devs on this topic?
I'm currently DM'ing a campaign in which one of the players has picked Polearm Gamble feat and there has been a lot of discussion whether he can use PG on shifts, teleports and forced movement.
More than two years have passed since the original discussion but so far the PG description seems to remain unchanged... Is there any official FAQ that clarifies this?
I'm wondering if the OP got any further reply from CS or the Devs on this matter.
I've read a lot of threads about PG uses, many different opinions and arguments, but I haven't found yet an official answer from wizards on this... is there any? With such a polemic topic I would expect that there would be some clarification from them...
|
|
|
