Community

Dec 16, 2010 -- 9:34AM, ChaosMage wrote:

In the meantime, I'm going to spell out the logical argument I'm using and label the steps of the argument so that they can easily be addressed.  I'm starting from Alcestis's stated position, "if a power or feat says you do something, you do it, and the general rule that may prevent you from doing so is ignored, because that that is fundamental to 4e's design," and calling that position A.  If someone else on his side wants to refine that position somehow, feel free.

Since the stated position isn't actually a part of fundemental 4e design, it's a flawed premise to begin with.

The same flawed premise is what leads people to incorrectly assume that something that says 'Make a Stealth check' allows you to ignore the requirements to make that stealth check (such as Total Concealment or Superior Cover).

(If you were attempting to demostrate that, I'll see that when I dig further into your complex post.)

Edit:
The actual fundemental 4e design is that a specific rule overrides a general rule.  For that to be true, the specific rule must directly or indirectly refer to the general rule or the situation the general rule covers.  PG doesn't refer to general rule that Shifts don't trigger OAs, so it doesn't override it.  Just as the statement 'make a stealth check' doesn't refer to the requirements to make a stealth check, so it doesn't override them.

Note that the common error made is people thinging that the situation the general rule covers in this situation is 'provoking an OA' and 'making a stealth check.'  That is not correct, the situations are 'shifting provoking an OA' and 'requirements to make a stealth check', neither of which are covered by the direct statements in PG and 'make a stealth check' powers respectively.

In other words, just being a direct statement doesn't make it a specific rule that overrides all general rules related in any way to the direct statement's subject matter.  It only overrides ones the direct statement or indirectly directly addresses.  In this case, the situations being addressed by the direct statements are 'you don't make an OA for someone moving into an adjacent square' and 'you don't make a stealth check when you use the power' respectively.

Dec 16, 2010 -- 2:24PM, ChaosMage wrote:

That is indeed what I'm trying to demonstrate- that the idea that a power or feat overrides everything even without a specific mention cannot be how specfic vs general works.  I don't agree with position A myself.

Yes you did, and it's quite thorough.  It seems to boil down to : If the statement (A) is correct, then Opportunity Attacks and all other Opportunity Actions also get to be used against shifts, because they are specific to the general rule that prevents shifts from triggering OAs.  I agree with your analysis as presented.

Dec 16, 2010 -- 2:43PM, Mand12 wrote:

But the problem is that nowhere is "specific vs general" defined - what makes a rule specific vs general, and how exactly do you decide.

It can't really be defined.  And specific vs general is usually pretty easy: which one refers directly or indirectly to the other rule and changes it?  The rule that is refered to is general, the rule that does the refering and changing is specific.


Polearm Gamble is specific to the OA general rule.  It specifically changes the trigger for an OA.
Shifting is specific to the OA general rule.  It specifically prevents the OA from triggering.

Polearm Gamble and Shifting are not specific or general to each other, because they are seperate non-interacting rules.  Neither refers to or overrides the other.  They both refer you to the OA rule.

Edit: I've been working way too long so my terminology on what exactly shift prevents is escaping me, so I went with 'preventing the trigger' even though I think it just prevents the OA flat out.