|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 3:54AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 2:28PM
#42
|
|
|
I still think PG describes a separate case than those mentioned under the normal OA rules. I suppose my argument basically amounts to specific beats general. True, it doesn't specifically call out the shifting rules but nor does it mention any exceptions.
And to further fuel the fire, my own querry to CS...
***
I would like some clarification as to how the updated shift rules interact with the Polearm Gamble feat. The feat says,"When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy." However, the shift errata states,"Your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks." Some believe that this means that a shifting enemy does not trigger a Polearm Gamble (opportunity) attack. Others believe that because the attack is triggered from a different condition than what normally 'provokes' an opportunity attack, that a shifting enemy is still subject the attack from Polearm Gamble.
So, does an enemy shifting from a nonadjacent to an adjacent square trigger/provoke the Polearm Gamble attack?
Additionally, can Polearm Gamble be triggered from an enemy that was forced to move adjacent to someone with the feat, since it 'enters a square adjacent to you?"
***
Hello XXX,
Thank you for contacting us. Here are the answers I found:
1. Does an enemy shifting from a nonadjacent to an adjacent square trigger/provoke the Polearm Gamble attack?
A: Yes, you get the attack from any type of movement.
2. Additionally, can Polearm Gamble be triggered from an enemy that was forced to move adjacent to someone with the feat, since it 'enters a square adjacent to you?
A: Yes, you get the attack from any type of movement.
Please let me know if you need anymore help! 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.
Jamie
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
***
I have to get going, so no time for a too long response to this, but while I agree with the first answer and the second is technically correct, I'm not sure that was the intent of the feat.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 2:54PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
I have to get going, so no time for a too long response to this, but while I agree with the first answer and the second is technically correct, I'm not sure that was the intent of the feat.
While I'm glad to see that Customer Service is at least providing consistent answers, it's still just a repeat of the response in the OP, and it's still incorrect.
Perhaps you could follow up your question with a request as to how CS arrived at this decision?
I understand your position. When I first heard about this CS ruling some time ago, I took it at face value. However, after some further research and some discussion on the errata forums, I came to the conclusion that Customer Support's response was in error.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 3:10PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Why is it in error? The only time movement provokes an OA is if you leave an adjacent square, or non-adjacent if the creature has threatening reach. You can also provoke an OA by using a ranged/area attack. With PG, an OA isn't provoked. So the shift rule doesn't apply.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 3:52PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
With PG, an OA isn't provoked.
I see you haven't bothered to read the thread before responding, because this is the same argument that Tsuul made here, which ChaosMage and I subsequently replied to.
(To reiterate, "provoke" is not a game term. "Provoke an opportunity attack" and "can make an opportunity attack" are used interchangeably in the text, depending on if you're looking from the defender's or attacker's perspective. For example: PH 281 - "You don't provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can't see you."; PH 290 - "You can't make an opportunity attack unless you are able to make a melee basic attack and you can see your enemy.")
I still think PG describes a separate case than those mentioned under the normal OA rules. I suppose my argument basically amounts to specific beats general. True, it doesn't specifically call out the shifting rules but nor does it mention any exceptions.
Unfortunately, this is an incorrect application of "specific vs. general" that leads to absurd results.
Consider these three (flawed) arguments:
In the general rules for the dazed condition, it says that you can't take opportunity actions. But Polearm Gamble doesn't say anything about being dazed, and says I can make an opportunity attack when an enemy comes up to me. The feat is more specfic than the general rule, so I can attack it even if I'm dazed!
In the general rules for opportunity attacks/actions, it says that you can only take one opportunity action per combatant's turn. But Polearm Gamble doesn't say anything about limits per round, and says I can make an opportunity attack when an enemy comes up to me. The feat is more specific than the general rule, so this means that if a warlord commands three enemies to charge me at the same time, I can attack them all on the same round!
In the general rules for invisibility (and OAs), it says that you must see your target to get an opportunity attack against it. But Polearm Gamble's trigger doesn't mention anything about invisibility, and says I can make an opportunity attack when an enemy comes up to me. The feat is more specific than the general rule, so this means that I can attack an invisible creature with my OA!
See what I mean? It doesn't make sense that "specific vs. general" applies in the case of shifting, but not in the above situations.
"Specific vs. general" only applies if the specific rule explicitly calls out the general rule that is broken. For example, the Persistent Threat feat explicitly says that you can make one OA per round if you are dazed. Since Polearm Gamble does not mention shifting, the general rules about shifting still stand.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 4:14PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
With PG, an OA isn't provoked.
I see you haven't bothered to read the thread before responding, because this is the same argument that Tsuul made here, which ChaosMage and I subsequently replied to.
I read it, and your argument is wrong.
(To reiterate, "provoke" is not a game term. "Provoke an opportunity attack" and "make an opportunity attack" are used interchangeably in the text. For example: PH 281 - "You don't provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can't see you."; PH 290 - "You can't make an opportunity attack unless you are able to make a melee basic attack and you can see your enemy.")
Provoke is a game term. It is a term defined under Opportunity Attacks. Specifically, it is a term defined by it's application to Moving and Ranged and Area Powers, which are both provoked.
It doesn't apply to PG, because PG doesn't use the game term "provoke".
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 4:48PM
#47
|
|
|
With PG, an OA isn't provoked.
I see you haven't bothered to read the thread before responding, because this is the same argument that Tsuul made here, which ChaosMage and I subsequently replied to.
(To reiterate, "provoke" is not a game term. "Provoke an opportunity attack" and "can make an opportunity attack" are used interchangeably in the text, depending on if you're looking from the defender's or attacker's perspective. For example: PH 281 - "You don't provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can't see you."; PH 290 - "You can't make an opportunity attack unless you are able to make a melee basic attack and you can see your enemy.")
I still think PG describes a separate case than those mentioned under the normal OA rules. I suppose my argument basically amounts to specific beats general. True, it doesn't specifically call out the shifting rules but nor does it mention any exceptions.
Unfortunately, this is an incorrect application of "specific vs. general" that leads to absurd results.
Consider these three (flawed) arguments:
In the general rules for the dazed condition, it says that you can't take opportunity actions. But Polearm Gamble doesn't say anything about being dazed, and says I can make an opportunity attack when an enemy comes up to me. The feat is more specfic than the general rule, so I can attack it even if I'm dazed!
In the general rules for opportunity attacks/actions, it says that you can only take one opportunity action per combatant's turn. But Polearm Gamble doesn't say anything about limits per round, and says I can make an opportunity attack when an enemy comes up to me. The feat is more specific than the general rule, so this means that if a warlord commands three enemies to charge me at the same time, I can attack them all on the same round!
In the general rules for invisibility (and OAs), it says that you must see your target to get an opportunity attack against it. But Polearm Gamble's trigger doesn't mention anything about invisibility, and says I can make an opportunity attack when an enemy comes up to me. The feat is more specific than the general rule, so this means that I can attack an invisible creature with my OA!
See what I mean? It doesn't make sense that "specifc vs. general" applies in the case of shifting, but not in the above situations.
"Specific vs. general" only applies if the specific rule explicitly calls out the general rule that is broken. For example, the Persistent Threat feat explicitly says that you can make one OA per round if you are dazed. Since Polearm Gamble does not mention shifting, the general rules about shifting still stand.
What kind of BS are to talking about? This is a clear example of over-thinking and over-interpretation.
Basically, Shifting does not provoke opportunity attacks. When you are dazed you cannot make opportunity actions or immediate actions. When an enemy enters an adjacet square, you are granted an opportunity attack.
Polearm Gamble feat is a Specific vs General application in which the feat allows you to make an exception to the general rules. A Rogue using Roundabout Charge is a perfect example. In a charge you must attack from the nearest adjacent square to your target and each square of movement must be closer, but the feat allows you to pick any adjacent square to a target, even if it is farther from you. In this case if an enemy enters an adjacent square you, as specified by the feat, are allowed to make an opportunity attack. It's basically a free attack at the cost of an opportunity action.
I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that if you are dazed you can still make opportunity attacks because of Polearm Gamble. As for invisibility or blindness, you also need Line of Sight and Line of Effect.
Several things much occur for Polearm Gamble to work:
1) You must have the required stats and weapon.
2) You must have line of sight or line of effect to the target.
3) You must be able to make opportunity actions, or not suffer a condition that prevents you from taking such actions. (ie - Dazed, Stunned, Dominated, or other similiar conditions but not limited to)
4) Forced Movement does NOT trigger Polearm Gamble. ("No Opportunity Actions: Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions." according to the Compendium.)
Once you finish this checklist and everything checks out, you can proceed to beat on the enemy.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 5:00PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
4) Forced Movement does NOT trigger Polearm Gamble. ("No Opportunity Actions: Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions." according to the Compendium.)
Yes it does. PG's OA isn't provoked, so just as with the shift rule, this doesn't apply to PG OAs.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 5:15PM
#49
|
|
|
Wow. I'm impressed.  Where does "other opportunity actions" not register?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 19, 2010 - 5:24PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
CS are consistent. But i'll disagree with them. Any type of Movement ? Gosh, PG was already powerful, now it's overpowered. CS may be wrong here. With this Ruling they support, then anyone leaving a nonadjacent square would provoke an OA from someone having a Treatening reach this with any movement, Forced Movement, Teleport..... except the Shift newly's errated version. Same debate can go on. Do you let OA go on on a Push or Teleport within the Reach of a creature with TR ? I don't and i never did. PHB 290 Threatening Reach: Some creatures have an ability called Threatening Reach. This lets them make Opportunity Attacks against nonadjacent enemies. If an enemy leaves a square that’s within the creature’s reach, or if an enemy anywhere within the creature’s reach makes a ranged attack or an area attack, the creature can make an opportunity attack against that enemy.
Is PG an ability that allow a creature to make Opportunity Attacks beyond adjacent squares ? Yes. Then end of the story. It is such as Treatening Reach, for OA's in response to a movement from a non-adjacent square. Hence why they say such as.....to name one among a few possible abilities obviously.
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
|
|
|
