|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 7:24PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 17, 2010 - 7:35PM
#32
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 18, 2010 - 8:53AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 18, 2010 - 10:23AM
#34
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 18, 2010 - 10:50AM
#35
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 18, 2010 - 11:11AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
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".
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 18, 2010 - 12:36PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 1:12AM
#38
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 1:40AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 2:55AM
#40
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
