|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 11:52AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 12:34PM
#22
|
|
|
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 -.-
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 12:34PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 1:03PM
#24
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 1:12PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"Enters a square" includes forced movement. "Enters a square willingly" does not.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 1:34PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2009
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 1:45PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2009
|
My interpretation is similar to Kahzuko's above.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 2:03PM
#28
|
|
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 3:57PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 4:32PM
#30
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
