|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 5:02PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
That is not the case.
Yes, it is.
Look at the Shaman opportunity action at-will powers, one here as an example:
Spirit's Prey Your spirit companion lashes out at a moving foe, and an ally uses the distraction to fire on that enemy. At-Will  Primal, Spirit
Opportunity Action Melee spirit 1 Trigger: An enemy leaves a square adjacent to your spirit companion without shifting Target: The triggering enemy Effect: One ally within 10 squares of your spirit companion can make a ranged basic attack against the target as a free action with combat advantage. Published in Primal Power, page(s) 64. There are TONS of things you can do as an opportunity action. A garden-variety opportunity attack is one of them, but it is by no means the only one. A Polearm Gamble opportunity attack is another. You won't seriously try to argue that Spirit's Prey doesn't trigger off of a teleport, do you?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 5:25PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Don't mix Opportunity Atrtacks and Opportunity Actions. Spirit's Prey would have Triggerred on a Shift too if it wouldn't have excluded it. Anyway, i can see how RAW it is written. But RAI tells me that Polearm Gamble shouldn't Trigger at least for a Shift because of the Errata to it and their explanations for doing so for i consider Polearm Gamble one of such abilities that allow a creature to make an OA beyond adjacent square.
RuleUpdateMar2010 Shift: 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.
Many don't want to assess, including the CS, that PG is an ability to make OA from beyond adjacent square, instead focusing on the fact that PG doesn't trigger an OA by being provoked.
The is the reason why the Rule change took place. Shift doesn't provoke OA's now. Forced Movement doesn't provoke OA's, Invoker's Utility Divine Protection doesn't provoke OA's. In order to have one to still occur, there will need to be a Specific Ruling contained in the Feature or Power to overide this, such as Weapon Master's Strike or the Warpriest's Challenge ability. (Even though the latter doesn't say it provkes one, but it clearly specify it work on Shifting)
Kelly's final reply in May was that they had received the incident and escalated it for further review. We never know what came out of this.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2010 - 5:27PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
@Mand12: You are confusing opportunity actions and opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks are a specific type of opportunity action with special rules. Spirit's prey can be used against a creature that teleports away because teleportation only prevents opportunity attacks, not all types of opportunity actions. The rules for spirit's prey and the Polearm Gamble opportunity attack are not the same.EDIT: I misread the teleportation rules. The rules for teleportation state that it "doesn't provoke opportunity actions for leaving its starting position." (I thought it said "attacks" instead.) This means that spirit's prey is not triggered if a target teleports away.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 6:17AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2009
|
Don't mix Opportunity Atrtacks and Opportunity Actions. Spirit's Prey would have Triggerred on a Shift too if it wouldn't have excluded it.
Anyway, i can see how RAW it is written. But RAI tells me that Polearm Gamble shouldn't Trigger at least for a Shift because of the Errata to it and their explanations for doing so for i consider Polearm Gamble one of such abilities that allow a creature to make an OA beyond adjacent square.
RuleUpdateMar2010
Shift: 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.
If Polearm Gamble was intended to work the same as threatening reach, it would have been worded the same to say "When wielding a polearm, you can make an opportunity attack against any enemy within your reach that provokes an opportunity attack." However, they did not word Polearm Gamble that way, so it doesn't work that way. It works instead as a triggered attack upon entering an adjacent square, rather than a provoked OA under the normal OA rules.
You cannot ignore the difference in how the abilities are worded and say they work the same just because they "kind of" do the same thing.
The change in the rules was made for threatening reach. Before the eratta, the "Shift" rules simply said that you do not provoke opportunity attacks when leaving a square adjacent to a creature. They realized that was a mistake because it should also not provoke OAs from a creature with threatening reach when leaving non-adjacent squares within their reach. That was the reason for the change, and that was the explaination that was given. That change does not affect how Polearm Gamble works, because the attack from Polearm Gamble is not an attacked normally provoked under the Opportunity Attack rules.
Besides, you cannot use "fluff" text as rules anyway.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 7:14AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I am not confusing the two, and that's precisely my point. Polearm Gamble does not cause provocation of opportunity attacks. It is a triggered opportunity-action attack.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 7:44AM
#36
|
|
|
Spirit's prey can be used against a creature that teleports away because teleportation only prevents opportunity attacks, not all types of opportunity actions. The rules for spirit's prey and the Polearm Gamble opportunity attack are not the same.
Not true at all. Spirit's Prey can not be used if an enemy teleports because teleportation prevents all Opportunity Actions.
Teleportation: No Opportunity Actions: The target doesn’t provoke opportunity actions for leaving its starting position.
Shift, on the other hand, for better or for worse, only applies to Opportunity Attacks.
Shift: No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
But, in a way that actually strengthens Log's argument, which I agree with. Polearm Gamble says you get to make an Opportunity Attack, shifting does not provoke Opportunity Attacks, therefore, shifting doesn't trigger Polearm Gamble. For Polearm Gamble to apply the specific beats general scenario it would need language more clear, like "provokes an opportunity attack even if the movement would not normally trigger one." Even that language could be better but I'm too lazy to draft something perfect.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 8:02AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Here's the issue that I have, and it's that of what it means to provoke. In my reading, Spirit's Prey is a triggered action, not a provocation. Teleport says it doesn't provoke opportunity actions. Teleport does not say that it prevents all opportunity actions. Spirit's Prey isn't triggered by the provocation of an opportunity action, it has a separate and distinct trigger. The trigger is "leaves a square without shifting." If it were triggered by the provocation of opportunity attacks, you'd be able to use it in response to a ranged or area attack, but it's not so you can't.
Similarly, Polearm Gamble says nothing about provoking an opportunity attack, so I can't agree that rules regarding provocation of opportunity attacks apply.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 10:00AM
#38
|
|
|
Mand12, you hit the nail on the head there.
The rules for shifting do NOT say that you are immune to all Opportunity Attacks when you shift.
"However, you do not provoke an opportunity attack if you shift or teleport or are forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide."
The key word in that sentence is away. You don't provoke if you shift AWAY from the defender. What happens if you shift in?
Nothing! You don't provoke! You're not provoking and the feat has nothing to do with provoking. The feat specifically states that the nonadjacent aggressor enters a square adjacent to the defender. Condition fulfilled. It doesn't matter how you get in to that square. (I still disagree with forced movement triggering it, because forced movement doesn't trigger anything ...).
If on your turn you take some type of move action, whether it a shift, a teleport, or a move, in to a square adjacent to the feat owner of Polearm Gamble, you are fulfilling the conditions of the feat. You are NOT provoking so you are NOT fulfilling the conditions of the RULES for shifting. Obviously, if the aggressor teleported in to a square adjacent to you from a square that was outside of your reach, you wouldn't get the OA. It has to be within your reach.
The rules for Shifting do not make you immune to all Opportunity Attacks. An attack granted as an "Opportunity Action" is technically an Opportunity Attack. There are powers that aren't attacks that you take on Opportunity "Actions". But the terms are interchangeable, because you only get one OA per round per target. So whether its an Action or an Attack, it doesn't matter. But because people are reading way too far in to this rule for Shifting, they think it means that whenever you shift anywhere, regardless of specific feats or other rules, you're immune to OA's.
The problem here is that they called the granted attack an Opportunity Attack. Wizard's had no other choice but to call it an Opportunity Attack because if they called it an Immediate Reaction/Interrupt, it could be exploited way worse than people think it's being exploited now. However, if they did call it an Immediate Reaction basic melee, this stupid argument wouldn't be occurring.
I've also dislike the specific > generic argument because both rules are specific. It just depends on which order you apply the rule and feat. For example:
Aggressor comes in and fulfills the condition for the feat the defender has. So which rule applies first? You shifted in, so you don't provoke an OA? Or the defender gets an OA against you because you fulfilled the condition of the feat? If we say the rules for shifting occur first, then the feat wins because it comes last. If we say the feat conditions are fulfilled first, but then you apply the rules for shifting, the rules win out and the defender doesn't get his/her OA.
Just like when you're writing code for software, if you switch commands around, or switch around nested if-then statements, you're going to get different results.
The REAL question here is ... when do you apply which ruling? Do you say shifting rules come before or after the feat's rules?
Edit: After rereading all that I realized that none of what I said matters, the main point here is that you're not provoking to fulfill the conditions of the feat. If the feat said "Someone provokes on OA from you by entering a square adjacent to you" then yeah, you wouldn't get it because they shifted in. But because you're not provoking and the feat has nothing to do with provoking, the defender still gets the OA.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 1:16PM
#39
|
|
|
Why the need to be hung up on the term 'provoke'? Polearm Gamble says you get to make an Opportunity Attack. No matter how you slice anything else in the feat's language you are making an Opportunity Attack, it says you are. When someone shifts they don't provoke an Opportunity Attack. So, why should you get to make an Opportunity Attack through a feat when you an enemy is doing something that doesn't trigger Opportunity Attacks?
If Polearm Gamble granted an Opportunity Action then that would work in regards to a Shift because Shift's language refers to Opportunity Attacks, not Opportunity Actions in general. Polearm Gamble is simply expanding on when you can use an Opportunity Attack, nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2010 - 1:35PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2009
|
So, why should you get to make an Opportunity Attack through a feat when you an enemy is doing something that doesn't trigger Opportunity Attacks?
The enemy actually is doing something that triggers the opportunity attack from polearm gamble: entering an adjacent square. Shifting only prevents you from provoking opportunity attacks under the normal rules for opportunity attacks. This is not a normal opportunity attack, it is a triggered action specific to the feat.
|
|
|
