In the specific v. general argument, it specifically says you can make an OA when an enemy enters an adjacent square, which overrides the general rule that you can only make OA's when an enemy is already adjacent, then moves. It does NOT specifically say that you can override every other OA requirement, so you can't.
This sounds very clear to me, especially with the existence of powers like Weapon Master's Strike which DO specifically override the OA rules and allow an attack when an enemy shifts. WMS also just says the enemy provokes an OA when it shifts. It doesn't specify being adjacent, so would that be overridden? Could you build a fighter with huge reach, WMS from 4 squares away, and OA when that enemy shifts as if you had threatening reach? NO, because WMS doesn't specifically say it overrides that requirement.
Not that this hasn't been said before but it's nice to see the entire argument laid out in straightforward and simple form. Sleek and elegant because it truly is that simple.
And, Bingo bango bongo! Common Sense prevails!
Not that this hasn't been said before but it's nice to see the entire argument laid out in straightforward and simple form. Sleek and elegant because it truly is that simple.[/quote]And, Bingo bango bongo! Common Sense prevails!
In the specific v. general argument, it specifically says you can make an OA when an enemy enters an adjacent square, which overrides the general rule that you can only make OA's when an enemy is already adjacent, then moves. It does NOT specifically say that you can override every other OA requirement, so you can't.
This sounds very clear to me, especially with the existence of powers like Weapon Master's Strike which DO specifically override the OA rules and allow an attack when an enemy shifts. WMS also just says the enemy provokes an OA when it shifts. It doesn't specify being adjacent, so would that be overridden? Could you build a fighter with huge reach, WMS from 4 squares away, and OA when that enemy shifts as if you had threatening reach? NO, because WMS doesn't specifically say it overrides that requirement.
How is this still a question. This post lays out the answer to the question
How is this still a question. This post lays out the answer to the question
Ok *wince* I'll dive into this one again. To sum up my position, I originally was on the side that argued that shifting provoked Polearm Gamble. Then came the Rules Compendium change that Melos posted in this thread. Namely:
This is under the Shift heading of the rules on page 249:
No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks.
And I changed my tune. Why?
The arguments recently stated by Charybdis detail ways to provoke/trigger AO and note how Polearm Gamble specifies an exception to provoking an AO. I've no problem with that. The exception states a new condition: "entering an adjacent square" vs. the standard cases of "moving away from adjacent" and "enemy makes a ranged attack whilst adjacent." The problem is that the developers saw fit to write another rule about Shifting. This rule states very clearly the conditions that have to be met in order for it to be overruled: i.e. that strong explicit language is required. To my personal reading, the simple term "enters" is not explicitly stated enough to meet that criterion.
This doesn't mean that this criterion applies to the entire cannon --> only to Shifting and any any other cases in the rules where it's stated that explicit exceptions are demanded. In this sense, I think Charybdis is entirely correct. It's REDICULOUS to require this level of exactitude in our rule set across the board. The rules generally were not written with that level of liturgical attention and they certainly wouldn't have been a marketable product if they had been.
The Shifting rule is simply an example they identified in the overall rule set that required more attention (probably because of issues just like this where shifting was being abused in their judgement).
As such, my reading of Weapon Master's Strike is different. That rule states that when you hit with a polearm or spear, "Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts." This is an explicit exception to the Shifting rule AND it states a new condition that triggers/provokes an AO. Because the level of detail in the language has already been met by exactly stating here that shifts by the opponent will provoke, we've met our heavy-duty test. Beyond that, I don't think there's a need to say that the opponent HAS to be adjacent. Indeed, adjacency is a criterion of the trigger/provoke rules that apply to OTHER situations that are different than the trigger/provoke detailed by WMS. So, in my book, yeah, if someone has the reach to apply WMS to a non-adjacent enemy, and meet the other bearing rules for opportunity attacks in general (ie. that they could reach the target's origin square, that they not be dazed, the opponent not be invisible, etc.), then a shift by such an enemy would trigger an AO.
The BS test here is also relevant and applies. With Weapon Master's Strike, it make sense that you would have an attack with a POLEARM/SPEAR that pins your opponent. Thats the sort of thing those weapons do (ie. it's easy to bear your weapon vs. an opponent that moves within the weapon's reach). It doesn't make sense (ie. pass the BS test), that you could only do that with those weapons when an enemy was adjacent vs. one square away (this is especially the case considering the geometry of these weapons). From a rules standpoint, I can also see balance here because the damage of Weapon Master's Strike does not scale at paragon and beyond (ie. the control effect is the focus of the power vs. damage). If you want to pin someone, you'll be achieving a control effect on shifting, but the opponent can still move away if they're outside adjacency and not trigger (ie. it limits an opponent's options, but does not present too onerous of a lose-lose type choice).
And the BS test also applies to my new reading of Polearm Gamble. Phylosfyr brought up this very question earlier in post #71 of this thread:
The thing I've yet to see from the "shifting will trigger Polearm Gamble" is a belief the power level is appropriate for a feat.
For example: First, as long as PG user can shift 1, they will get at least 2 attacks per round. More if more bad guys attack them.
Second, 1/2 of melee minions will die before ever getting a swing due to OA (assuming a 50% miss rate).
Third, start maximizing the feat, for example, Forceful Opportunist (push 1 on OA). Now the monster shifts in... and gets pushed back 1, completely negating any potential attack.
Fourth, mix in Polearm Momentum and Spear Push and knock them prone on the OA they can't avoid in any way.
I consider all but the second one overpowered for a single feat with the correct weapon category. No other feat comes close to this power level.
Do those of you (the 3-4 people) that argue "shift triggers Polearm Gamble" believe that the above four examples are balanced? I know as a DM, there's no way I'd allow this, even if RAW specifically included shifting. It's just too powerful.
Essentially, the BS test presented relevant questions that helped guide me to the reading of the rules vis-a-vis Polearm Gamble and Weapon Master's Strike that I now maintain. But a realistic reading of what specificity means in regard to these rules really nailed it down.
Perhaps it would help us all if the developers offered a treatise on their approach to the rules especially in regard to the application of specific vs. general interpretations.
Ok *wince* I'll dive into this one again. To sum up my position, I originally was on the side that argued that shifting provoked Polearm Gamble. Then came the Rules Compendium change that Melos posted in this thread. Namely: This is under
Ok *wince* I'll dive into this one again. To sum up my position, I originally was on the side that argued that shifting provoked Polearm Gamble. Then came the Rules Compendium change that Melos posted in this thread. Namely:
This is under the Shift heading of the rules on page 249:
No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks.
... This doesn't mean that this criterion applies to the entire cannon --> only to Shifting and any any other cases in the rules where it's stated that explicit exceptions are demanded. ....
And the BS test also applies to my new reading of Polearm Gamble. Phylosfyr brought up this very question earlier in post #71 of this thread:
The thing I've yet to see from the "shifting will trigger Polearm Gamble" is a belief the power level is appropriate for a feat.
For example: First, as long as PG user can shift 1, they will get at least 2 attacks per round. More if more bad guys attack them.
Second, 1/2 of melee minions will die before ever getting a swing due to OA (assuming a 50% miss rate).
Third, start maximizing the feat, for example, Forceful Opportunist (push 1 on OA). Now the monster shifts in... and gets pushed back 1, completely negating any potential attack.
Fourth, mix in Polearm Momentum and Spear Push and knock them prone on the OA they can't avoid in any way.....
I consider all but the second one overpowered for a single feat with the correct weapon category. No other feat comes close to this power level.
Do those of you (the 3-4 people) that argue "shift triggers Polearm Gamble" believe that the above four examples are balanced? I know as a DM, there's no way I'd allow this, even if RAW specifically included shifting. It's just too powerful.
Essentially, the BS test presented relevant questions that helped guide me to the reading of the rules vis-a-vis Polearm Gamble and Weapon Master's Strike that I now maintain. But a realistic reading of what specificity means in regard to these rules really nailed it down.
Perhaps it would help us all if the developers offered a treatise on their approach to the rules especially in regard to the application of specific vs. general interpretations.
I understand the wincing And I agree with your logic. My only disagreements in this entire post fall under the Specific vs General and also the Shifting canon.
Personally, I believe that the term 'Enters' is specific over the general 'Shift = no OA'
- Shift I believe is a general rule that applies to most, if not all parties in combat 99% percent of the time. - Polearm Gamble is a specific rule that applies to the fractional subsection of PC's wiith the pre-requisite stats, level, weapon type and feat
Therein lies the lynchpin between Polearm Gamble Working vs Not-working on a Shift
You've said that Shifting won't work because of the explicit language required (pun intended), but the other movement modes will? Eg Teleport?
So, Opponent 1 starts 2 squares away, Shifts...no OA from Polearm Gamble. But, Opponent 2 starts 2 squares away, Teleports 1 square, then gets hit? Hmmm...doesn't pass my BS test :P
@Phylosfr I also believe that if a PC wants to spend 4-5 feats optimising their Opportunity attacks in the ways you presented, then more power to them. RAW as a Paragon DM, I'd definately allow it, as there would be drawbacks in other areas that I could exploit against that same PC (it's no different than watching a Striker optimise to do massive amounts of damage of a particular type or attack (Tiefling Fire Hell'lock anyone?, or how about a Rageblood supercharger?). It's a focus issue which any DM can exploit against the target.
1) since when were minions blindly all rushing the same target after watching their buddies die? 2) Since when are minions limited to Melee attacks? 3) Since when are Paragon PC's not subjected to Reach, Ranged, Burst or Blast attacks (none of which will trigger Polearm Gamble)
Hell, it's no different to PC's using pushing/immobilising tactics on enemies with Melee/Short range only attacks (like most brutes). I ran the Urthix encounter last night (from Revenge of the Giants), and the PC's managed to push and immobilise the solo dragon for two rounds, while staying 5+ squares away. Nothing the dragon could do but roar in annoyance...
RAW, Polearm Gamble is still ambiguous, but through either interpretation, it's not overpowered.
I too would like to hear the 4e research/dev team explain their definition of Specific and General, just so we can utilise the same mindset. That in itself might help clarify the intent and interpretation of the Polearm Gamble power.
Essentially, the BS test presented relevant questions that helped guide me to the reading of the rules vis-a-vis Polearm Gamble and Weapon Master's Strike that I now maintain. But a realistic reading of what specificity means in regard to these rul
You've said that Shifting won't work because of the explicit language required (pun intended), but the other movement modes will? Eg Teleport?
Good point, but I seem to recall someone discussing the teleport case earlier and I think there was reference under the teleport rules that they not provoke AO... I'd have to go back to see the exact language, but I'd be particularly interested in whether the Rules Compendium said anything on the topic since that's where we got the new language re: Shifting.
It may be that it doesn't help us at all - in which case we're probably still at odds. This is one of those cases where we'll all have to agree to disagree till we get that "specific/general" feedback from the research/dev team.
Good point, but I seem to recall someone discussing the teleport case earlier and I think there was reference under the teleport rules that they not provoke AO... I'd have to go back to see the exact language, but I'd be particularly interested in
You've said that Shifting won't work because of the explicit language required (pun intended), but the other movement modes will? Eg Teleport?
Good point, but I seem to recall someone discussing the teleport case earlier and I think there was reference under the teleport rules that they not provoke AO... I'd have to go back to see the exact language, but I'd be particularly interested in whether the Rules Compendium said anything on the topic since that's where we got the new language re: Shifting.
It may be that it doesn't help us at all - in which case we're probably still at odds. This is one of those cases where we'll all have to agree to disagree till we get that "specific/general" feedback from the research/dev team.
I'm happy to agree to disagree. It's not an argument I need to 'win'. I just want to make sure people are aware of a wider view
As for the Teleport, RAW PHB Teleporting does not Provoke AO's, however I'll be interested to see if it has the same explicit text wording as the new Shift definition....
Good point, but I seem to recall someone discussing the teleport case earlier and I think there was reference under the teleport rules that they not provoke AO... I'd have to go back to see the exact language, but I'd be particularly interested in
PHB rule:Shifting or Teleporting does not provoke OA's - This is a standard rule for all PC's and creatures in 4e, so it sounds like a general rule to me
Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that OAs are provoked by movement.
PHB Rule: Forced Movement does not provoke OA's - Again, standard for all 4e PC's and creatures. Again, sounds pretty general.
Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that OAs are provoked by movement.
PHB Paragon Feat for specific weapon grouping - Polearm Gamble - When enemy enters space you can make an OA. Limited to Paragon PC's using this feat and a limited weapon group? Sounds pretty Specific to me.
It is specific. It is modifying the general rule that OAs are only provoked by movement and ranged attacks. It adds a new trigger. It specifically overrides the general rule that OAs only trigger on ranged attacks/movement away from an adjacent square. It doesn't do anything to modify or contradict any of the other specific rules that modify that general rule.
PHB Rule: You can't make OA's when Dazed, Stunned etc Again, standard for all 4e PC's and creatures. Again, sounds pretty general.
Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that you can make OAs when they are provoked.
We have two specific rules modifying a single general rule. Do they conflict? Sort of. One adds a new trigger. The other adds an exception to the trigger. Both apply simultaneously. How do we resolve it? Easy, the exception must win. Otherwise it wouldn't have provided the exception even without the PG rule.
Thus, shifting does not trigger PG.
edit: To be more specific ... shifting only provides the correct exception to the trigger under the RC rules, not the PHB rules. Because the new trigger doesn't provoke, and the PHB rules only provide an exception for provoked OAs. Whereas the RC rules provide the exception regardless.
Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that OAs are provoked by movement.Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that OAs are provoked by movement.It is specific. It is modifying the general rule that OAs are only p
PHB rule:Shifting or Teleporting does not provoke OA's - This is a standard rule for all PC's and creatures in 4e, so it sounds like a general rule to me
Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that OAs are provoked by movement.
Who says which is general or specific?
What's your definition of the two? Seeing as this is part of the conflict, it seems a fair question to ask...
PHB Rule: You can't make OA's when Dazed, Stunned etc Again, standard for all 4e PC's and creatures. Again, sounds pretty general.
Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that you can make OAs when they are provoked.
Wrong... Errr, who says? You? Me? Group vote? For the record, I agree with you here. I'm just asking because there IS no strict definition, and common sense should apply...
Is there an index somewhere that lists rules and gives tham a tag of 'Specific' or 'general'? Until there is such a list, these very definitions are subjective, so labelling them Right, Wrong or Polka dotted suspension bridges is just an opinion, not an absolute (OK, maybe we can all agree they're not polka dotted suspension bridges...)
We have two specific rules modifying a single general rule. Do they conflict? Sort of. One adds a new trigger. The other adds an exception to the trigger. Both apply simultaneously. How do we resolve it? Easy, the exception must win. Otherwise it wouldn't have provided the exception even without the PG rule.
OK, so if the exception must win, what's the exception?
The Shift specific rule, or the PG 'Enter' specific Rule?
Who says who's right or wrong?
PHB Paragon Feat for specific weapon grouping - Polearm Gamble - When enemy enters space you can make an OA. Limited to Paragon PC's using this feat and a limited weapon group? Sounds pretty Specific to me.
It is specific. It is modifying the general rule that OAs are only provoked by movement and ranged attacks. It adds a new trigger. It specifically overrides the general rule that OAs only trigger on ranged attacks/movement away from an adjacent square. It doesn't do anything to modify or contradict any of the other specific rules that modify that general rule.
How do you know? PG specifically modifies the OA trigger to use the word 'Enter'. (Note, I'm not saying this is a defined keyword, which is definately part of the problem. But it is definately NOT using any other existing keywords) So, are you inside the Dev's head to know whether he meant 'Enter' to override 'Shift'? Personally, I'm not a telepath, so I don't know, but if you remove the shift option (because you believe that they won't trigger the PG), then ask yourself why didn't the Dev use the existing keyword of Move..ie if an enemy MOVE's into an adjacent space... PG wouldn't have any confusion about the trigger anymore...
But seeing as the Dev deliberately used a different word, and seeing as all movement modes, regardless of OA triggers, 'Enter a space', this strongly implies that the power is meant to work on any of the movement modes available, whether or not they provoke OA's by default.
If you want to say 'Strongly implies is not explicitly stating', then OK, that's your prerogative. But it means you open yourself up to all the other issues inherent in that logic (ie you can now make immedate reactions on invisible creatures via Agile opportunist, even if you're dead, as the power just says 'Make an MBA' and doesn't explicitly state the normally inherited conditions when you can't).
I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either: A) PG modifies the OA trigger to work on all movement modes (the important word is 'Enter'), or B) All movement modes and OA combinations need to be explicitly listed in every relevant feat or power, or C) There needs to be a list of Specific vs General rules somewhere to bounce between to make this ruling on a case-by-case basis
I choose A). It's the simplest, most elegant solution. B) and C) imply that we need the 4e Devs to hold our hands at the gaming table. I really don't think that's what they intended...
Do you?
Heya Fitz :) I was wondering when you were going to chime back in ;) I always respect your opinion.Wrong. This is a specific rule. The general rule is that OAs are provoked by movement.[/quote]Who says which is general or specific? What's your d
Heya Fitz I was wondering when you were going to chime back in I always respect your opinion.
I'll retroactively change all those to "Wrong, in my opinion." For some reason I managed to phrase my answers in arrogant mode, sorry about that. Assume the rest of this post is supposed to be in explaining my opinion mode.
Who says which is general or specific? My definition of the two is fairly simple: - If it applies to pretty much everyone, it's general. - If it only applies to select feats, powers or classes, it's specific.
What's your definition of the two? Seeing as this is part of the conflict, it seems a fair question to ask...
If it is a rule, as opposed to modifying a rule, it is general. If it modifies another rule, it is specific. It has nothing to do with what it applies to in terms of feats, powers or classes, but rather if it is creating a rule or modifying a rule.
Wrong... Errr, who says? You? Me? Group vote?
Is there an index somewhere that lists rules and gives tham a tag of 'Specific' or 'general'? Until there is such a list, these very definitions are subjective, so labelling them Right, Wrong or Polka dotted suspension bridges is just an opinion, not an absolute (OK, maybe we can all agree they're not polka dotted suspension bridges...)
The dazed rule, the shift rule, and the PG rule all modify a global rule: The OAs rule. The OAs rule doesn't modify any other rule, it defines how OAs occur. That means in context of OAs, the OAs rule is general and all the others are specific.
OK, so if the exception must win, what's the exception?
The Shift specific rule, or the PG 'Enter' specific Rule?
(Hopefully this will address the rest of your post, since its effectively an extension of this question in more detail)
The shift rule is an exception to if movement is allowed to trigger an OA, and applies to any trigger than includes movement that doesn't say otherwise (per the rule). The PG rule isn't an exception to the OA rules, it adds to them by defining another new trigger seperate from the others (that's a kind of exception, but its not a "unless" exception, it's a "as well as" exception). Because the PG rule inserts a new trigger into the list of triggers, without specifying that the shift exception doesn't apply to it, the shift exception must apply. (As before, talking about new RC shift wording here.)
Now, there is still an opening for them to errata PG, since the RC rules were just released. But until the PG rule specifically say that as a new OA trigger the shift exception doesn't apply, it does.
Who says who's right or wrong?
Me of course. Doesn't everyone know that.
I'll retroactively change all those to "Wrong, in my opinion." :) For some reason I managed to phrase my answers in arrogant mode, sorry about that. Assume the rest of this post is supposed to be in explaining my opinion mode.If it is a rule,
Heya Fitz I was wondering when you were going to chime back in I always respect your opinion.
I'll retroactively change all those to "Wrong, in my opinion." For some reason I managed to phrase my answers in arrogant mode, sorry about that. Assume the rest of this post is supposed to be in explaining my opinion mode.
The dazed rule, the shift rule, and the PG rule all modify a global rule: The OAs rule. The OAs rule doesn't modify any other rule, it defines how OAs occur. That means in context of OAs, the OAs rule is general and all the others are specific.
I like how you've classified rules into categories (ie the OA Global rule, plus specific exceptions), and they generally pass the logic test.
However, these are just your classifications (Fitznighteyes patented?), so while I'm sure they're well thought out, they're certainly not canon.
OK, so if the exception must win, what's the exception?
The Shift specific rule, or the PG 'Enter' specific Rule?
(Hopefully this will address the rest of your post, since its effectively an extension of this question in more detail)
The shift rule is an exception to if movement is allowed to trigger an OA, and applies to any trigger than includes movement that doesn't say otherwise (per the rule). The PG rule isn't an exception to the OA rules, it adds to them by defining another new trigger seperate from the others (that's a kind of exception, but its not a "unless" exception, it's a "as well as" exception). Because the PG rule inserts a new trigger into the list of triggers, without specifying that the shift exception doesn't apply to it, the shift exception must apply. (As before, talking about new RC shift wording here.)
Now, there is still an opening for them to errata PG, since the RC rules were just released. But until the PG rule specifically say that as a new OA trigger the shift exception doesn't apply, it does.
So, just to clarify my understanding of your mindset (Oh dear, this may lead to dark, dark places!) unless the feat/power explicitly says 'even if opponent shifts', then Shifting will not provoke these triggers. That's your take on it?
You've also identified an obvious gap between Shift getting an RC Clarification, but PG still waiting in the wings....
My concern is that PG uses a quasi-keyword that has not been clarified, which may/may not be more specific than even the Shift clarification. - If it IS more specific, then PG works on all movement modes - If it is NOT more specific, then PG won't work on Shift (check), but other movement modes are still up for debate (and the thread will continue forever! Arrrrggghhh!)
And as per my previous posts, I find it hard to believe that Shifting can be exempt from PG, but Teleporting isn't?
Further spanner-type query: Flyby attack powers .... "The creature flies up to it's speed making an attack at any point during the move. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks"
PG or not? What's MORE specific?
Who says who's right or wrong?
Me of course. Doesn't everyone know that.
Not yet, but I'm sure you'll keep advising accordingly!
I'll retroactively change all those to "Wrong, in my opinion." :) For some reason I managed to phrase my answers in arrogant mode, sorry about that. Assume the rest of this post is supposed to be in explaining my opinion mode.[/quote]No harm,
Thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the specific wording of the RC Shifting rule was meant as language to retroactively place an official stamp on powers like the at-will shaman spirit powers that trigger Opportunity Actions if "An enemy leaves a square adjacent to your spirit companion without shifting."
I think when the developers said No Opportunity Actions triggered by (1) Forced Movement, (2) Teleportation, and (3) Shifting - they meant it. None, Zip, Zilch, Nada - unless specifically excepted. The only real case where an exception existed to these rules (that I know of) are these shaman at-will spirit powers and Weapon Master's Strike. They didn't want to break the powers, so they stated clearly the only way an exception would be allowable.
Common sense applies here.
Teleportation is described in the rules as instantaneous. How exactly are you going to use a polearm to stop someone from teleporting? Really? When there's no way for someone who's grabbing you to prevent teleportation, you're going to do it with a long pointy stick?
Forced movement can be looked at the same way. There's a strong balance argument for ensuring that forced movement can always be applied and interpreted the same way. A pull is meant to be a pull. A slide is meant to be a slide. A push, a push. These create movement on the board all over the place that's meant for tactical effect, not as a means to trigger extra attacks. It's an extra layer of complication that I believe the designers were trying to limit as much as they could.
Shifting serves that same balance-purpose. It provides monsters and players means to always have an 'out' tactically - ie. to avoid no-win scenarios just like the one we're discussing here. However, because there were already powers in place that contained shift exceptions, they saw fit to describe what it took to set such a precedent.
The language of "Enters" just doesn't cut it in my book. One ambiguous word doesn't justify turning these strong rules on their head.
Thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the specific wording of the RC Shifting rule was meant as language to retroactively place an official stamp on powers like the at-will shaman spirit powers that trigger Opportunity Actions if "An enemy leav
I like how you've classified rules into categories (ie the OA Global rule, plus specific exceptions), and they generally pass the logic test.
However, these are just your classifications (Fitznighteyes patented?), so while I'm sure they're well thought out, they're certainly not canon.
I can do that? Sweet.
Well maybe one of us (whomever gets back to his PHB1 or DMG1 first, whichever it is in) needs to put the specific vs general rule from the book up for us to look at. Because I'm going from memory, but I was fairly sure I was paraphrasing the rule. There are rules, then there are specific rules that modify those rules. But maybe I was *way* off.
So, just to clarify my understanding of your mindset (Oh dear, this may lead to dark, dark places!) unless the feat/power explicitly says 'even if opponent shifts', then Shifting will not provoke these triggers. That's your take on it?
Yep. And as Severion says, I think they did it on purpose. I think they wanted to widen/clarify the shift rule to everything that didn't already say "even if you shift" or isn't an opportunity action triggered by shifting specifically.
You've also identified an obvious gap between Shift getting an RC Clarification, but PG still waiting in the wings....
Completely possible. It's happened before, they fix/update one area, and it takes an update or two before they fix/update some of the unintended consequences. If it was in fact unintended.
And as per my previous posts, I find it hard to believe that Shifting can be exempt from PG, but Teleporting isn't?
Me too. I think that teleporting absolutely should be exempt for "that's just wrong" reasons, regardless of the shift debate.\
I can do that? Sweet.Well maybe one of us (whomever gets back to his PHB1 or DMG1 first, whichever it is in) needs to put the specific vs general rule from the book up for us to look at. Because I'm going from memory, but I was fairly sure I was
Teleportation is described in the rules as instantaneous. How exactly are you going to use a polearm to stop someone from teleporting? Really? When there's no way for someone who's grabbing you to prevent teleportation, you're going to do it with a long stick?
Forced movement can be looked at the same way. There's a strong balance argument for ensuring that forced movement can always be applied and interpreted the same way. A pull is meant to be a pull. A slide is meant to be a slide. A push, a push. These create movement on the board all over the place that's meant for tactical effect, not as a means to trigger extra attacks. It's an extra layer of complication that I believe the designers were trying to limit as much as they could.
...
The language of "Enters" just doesn't cut it in my book. One ambiguous word doesn't justify turning these strong rules on their head.
So, just to clarify my understanding of your mindset (Oh dear, this may lead to dark, dark places!) unless the feat/power explicitly says 'even if opponent shifts', then Shifting will not provoke these triggers. That's your take on it?
Yep. And as Severion says, I think they did it on purpose. I think they wanted to widen/clarify the shift rule to everything that didn't already say "even if you shift" or isn't an opportunity action triggered by shifting specifically.
You've also identified an obvious gap between Shift getting an RC Clarification, but PG still waiting in the wings....
Completely possible. It's happened before, they fix/update one area, and it takes an update or two before they fix/update some of the unintended consequences. If it was in fact unintended.
And as per my previous posts, I find it hard to believe that Shifting can be exempt from PG, but Teleporting isn't?
Me too. I think that teleporting absolutely should be exempt for "that's just wrong" reasons, regardless of the shift debate.\
As per both of your posts, you're both stating the perfectly valid point that Shift has now been clarified as a No Exemption unless explicitly specified rule. I get that.
Also with Sev's post that this was meant to keep all OA-Immune modes out of the PG option, OK, let's run with that for a sec.
If we're going to progress on that line, then why did the DEV's for Polearm Gamble use the ambiguous term 'Enters' when the simple and consistent keyword of MOVES would negate all arguments?
If the normal OA-immune modes of Shifting, Teleporting, Forced movement etc were going to remain immune, why not use the word MOVES and thus stay consistent?
This means that the DEVs either: 1) Screwed up completely, and have not seen fit to edit this feat throughout the months and months of available errata 2) Intended for this power to work on other movement modes
I hold a high opinion of DEVs and their consistency, so I'm going with option 2.
Yep. And as Severion says, I think they did it on purpose. I think they wanted to widen/clarify the shift rule to everything that didn't already say "even if you shift" or isn't an opportunity action triggered by shifting specifically.Completel
Because if they said moves it would apply to creatures exiting an adjacent square too? (That's just off the top of my head, and obviously OAs already cover that. If you mean enters as opposed to moves into, fair enough.)
Because if they said moves it would apply to creatures exiting an adjacent square too? (That's just off the top of my head, and obviously OAs already cover that. If you mean enters as opposed to moves into, fair enough.)
Because if they said moves it would apply to creatures exiting an adjacent square too? (That's just off the top of my head, and obviously OAs already cover that. If you mean enters as opposed to moves into, fair enough.)
If the developers never made mistakes in the wording of the rules; if they weren't human but some highly-tuned liturgical D&D rules-making machine, then this forum wouldn't be anywhere near as active is it is. We wouldn't have so much erratta and updates and Customer Service would be more of a welcome wagon (*chuckle* at least then they'd be more popular!)
I agree that they do a good job. They catch a lot of stuff. But sorry, they make mistakes. *shrug*
I think it's fair to say this is one of them.
If the developers never made mistakes in the wording of the rules; if they weren't human but some highly-tuned liturgical D&D rules-making machine, then this forum wouldn't be anywhere near as active is it is. We wouldn't have so much erratta and u
Well there's also the consideration that under the previous rules, it may have been intentional that the PG wasn't provoked and therefore shifts didn't protect against it. OTOH, that seems more like a clinical reading of the word "provoke" that the Devs wouldn't have considered, in which case we're right back at considering if "enters" is supposed to cause an exception.
Well there's also the consideration that under the previous rules, it may have been intentional that the PG wasn't provoked and therefore shifts didn't protect against it. OTOH, that seems more like a clinical reading of the word "provoke" that the
Because if they said moves it would apply to creatures exiting an adjacent square too? (That's just off the top of my head, and obviously OAs already cover that. If you mean enters as opposed to moves into, fair enough.)
If the developers never made mistakes in the wording of the rules; if they weren't human but some highly-tuned liturgical D&D rules-making machine, then this forum wouldn't be anywhere near as active is it is. We wouldn't have so much erratta and updates and Customer Service would be more of a welcome wagon.
Sorry, they make mistakes.
I think it's fair to say this is one of them.
If the power said:"...a non-Adjacent enemy moves into an adjacent square..." I think we can all agree that Shifting, Teleporting, Forced movement etc would not Trigger PG. That's certainly my reading, as MOVES is a specific keyword.
But that's not the word.
A) Someone has a nice sig about errata....something like 2% of PHB rules have been errata'ed? I wish every design project I've ever inherited only had a 2% error rate. That would be fantastic! B) Moving from adjacent squares is a moot point. As you said, it's already covered by existing OA's, and the PC wouldn't need to grant CA to make that attack. C) Yes, the devs make mistakes, but as per my previous post, this would have to be a MASSIVE oversight if it wasn't deliberately intended? C)a) Has anyone seen the use of the word 'Enter' used in another feat/power in this context? I really can't recall any off the top of my head, which would make PG the single instance where this ambiguous word is used. I don't believe that the DEV's would screw up to THAT extent, and so I believe it's a deliberate use of the word.
If it works the way it's written, then how is this power a mistake? - 1) Target enters square (movement mode irrelevant) - 2) PC interrupts with an OA - 3) PC Grants Combat Advantage to Target until EoT
As written it's simple. - Powerful, yes. - Unbalanced, no (requires Polearm, Reach, Wisdom, Martial pre-req also if I recall, Paragon, and grants CA)
Compared to the redonkulously powerful feats starting to come out in Essentials, I'd say this is a very simple feat to manage.
{(edited for spelling and grammar. Damned Keyboard Dyslexia! )}
If the developers never made mistakes in the wording of the rules; if they weren't human but some highly-tuned liturgical D&D rules-making machine, then this forum wouldn't be anywhere near as active is it is. We wouldn't have so much erratta and u
Well there's also the consideration that under the previous rules, it may have been intentional that the PG wasn't provoked and therefore shifts didn't protect against it. OTOH, that seems more like a clinical reading of the word "provoke" that the Devs wouldn't have considered, in which case we're right back at considering if "enters" is supposed to cause an exception.
Your double negatives are breaking my brain.
Or maybe they aren't not breaking my brain? o.O
Your double negatives are breaking my brain.Or maybe they aren't not breaking my brain? o.O
The use of the word 'enter' is actually pretty clear. Regardless of Forced movement, Shifting, Moving, Teleporting or any other not-yet quantified movement forms, ENTERING a space means just that. All forms of movement ENTER a space.
You spelled out why the shift rule is more specific in your very first post in this exchange. Enter means any form of movement, while shift is one specific form of movement. Therefore, a rule on shifting will always be more specific than one on "entering" or "moving" that doesn't itself mention shifting. Likewise, a rule on teleport or forced movement will be more specific than one that only mentions entering or moving.
You spelled out why the shift rule is more specific in your very first post in this exchange. Enter means any form of movement, while shift is one specific form of movement. Therefore, a rule on shifting will always be more specific than one on "
The use of the word 'enter' is actually pretty clear. Regardless of Forced movement, Shifting, Moving, Teleporting or any other not-yet quantified movement forms, ENTERING a space means just that. All forms of movement ENTER a space.
You spelled out why the shift rule is more specific in your very first post in this exchange. Enter means any form of movement, while shift is one specific form of movement. Therefore, a rule on shifting will always be more specific than one on "entering" or "moving" that doesn't itself mention shifting. Likewise, a rule on teleport or forced movement will be more specific than one that only mentions entering or moving.
Re: the blue bit? Errr...doubtful
I think if you reread my post you'll find I'm being quite specific on the Polearm Gamble 'Enter' wording being more specific than the general Shift OA immunity.
Re: the orange bit, I agree with you.
However with the 'Entering' component, (which I don't think is used anywhere else on any other ruling), this looks like a deliberate catch-all that says: You come close, you're screwed.
Same points as before. If PG wasn't meant to work on OA-immune movements, it would just use the standard keyword 'Moves'.
It doesn't, ergo the power's intent implies that OA immune movement methods, aren't.
You spelled out why the shift rule is more specific in your very first post in this exchange. Enter means any form of movement, while shift is one specific form of movement. Therefore, a rule on shifting will always be more specific than one on "
The use of the word 'enter' is actually pretty clear. Regardless of Forced movement, Shifting, Moving, Teleporting or any other not-yet quantified movement forms, ENTERING a space means just that. All forms of movement ENTER a space.
You spelled out why the shift rule is more specific in your very first post in this exchange. Enter means any form of movement, while shift is one specific form of movement. Therefore, a rule on shifting will always be more specific than one on "entering" or "moving"that doesn't itself mention shifting. Likewise, a rule on teleport or forced movement will be more specific than one that only mentions entering or moving.
Re: the blue bit? Errr...doubtful
I think if you reread my post you'll find I'm being quite specific on the Polearm Gamble 'Enter' wording being more specific than the general Shift OA immunity.
Re: the orange bit, I agree with you.
However with the 'Entering' component, (which I don't think is used anywhere else on any other ruling), this looks like a deliberate catch-all that says: You come close, you're screwed.
Same points as before. If PG wasn't meant to work on OA-immune movements, it would just use the standard keyword 'Moves'.
It doesn't, ergo the power's intent implies that OA immune movement methods, aren't.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Enter just means move into a square using any form of movement. A rule specific to the form of movement you're using is still going to win.
Just to be clear, you're saying you wouldn't have a problem with shift overriding if they'd said "when a nonadjacent enemy moves into a square adjacent to you" rather than "enters a square adjacent to you?" Because the Rules Compendium defines "enter a square" as "move into a square." The phrases are synonymous.
You spelled out why the shift rule is more specific in your very first post in this exchange. Enter means any form of movement, while shift is one specific form of movement. Therefore, a rule on shifting will always be more specific than one on "
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Enter just means move into a square using any form of movement. A rule specific to the form of movement you're using is still going to win.
Just to be clear, you're saying you wouldn't have a problem with shift overriding if they'd said "when a nonadjacent enemy moves into a square adjacent to you" rather than "enters a square adjacent to you?" Because the Rules Compendium defines "enter a square" as "move into a square." The phrases are synonymous.
Re Purple: Really? Enter is actually a keyword synonymous with moving? I don't have RC yet, but this would certainly be an interesting spin....
Re Orange: Nope, not at all. The Keyword Move requires an actual action used on behalf of the target (whether it's a standard move action, combined with a power, or even an out-of-turn reaction/free action). Shift is a defined subsection of the Move rule, and doesn't normally provoke OA's. If PG said 'Move', then the PC would have to use the normal MOVE to trigger PG. Specific defined subsections of movement would naturally be exempted.
The word 'Enter' however, is a blanket word that by dictionary definition applies to all forms of movement and hasn't been defined otherwise in 4e anywhere that I've seen (see green point below ). Ergo until that happens, Enter trumps Shift.
{edit:} Also, what other forms of movement could they possibly be referring to? If you remove the normally OA-Immune modes (Teleport, Forced Movement, Shift), you're left with the standard OA-provoking modes (Walking, Flying running, Burrowing), all of which fall under the MOVE category. Ergo, the DEV's must have meant for something other than normal MOVE modes to trigger PG, hence the use of 'Enter' {/edit}
re Green: How very, very interesting. So is the word 'Enter' defined as a keyword anywhere in regards to how it applies to other movement (Teleport, Forced movement etc)?
{edited, again, for fumble keyboard fingers}
Re Purple: Really? Enter is actually a keyword synonymous with moving? I don't have RC yet, but this would certainly be an interesting spin....Re Orange: Nope, not at all. The Keyword Move requires an actual action used on behalf of the target (whet
My, you are the most colorful poster I've ever seen (watch out for colorblind debaters - I'm sure they're out there ).
*chuckle*
You should see my spreadsheets
Usually it's just for my sake. I hate having to sift through lines and lines of near-identical text/code, so I highlight key points to make it easier to skim back.
However, I've recently found it easier to highlight quoted sections rather than make a doubly large multi-quote response.
Would you believe I'm colourblind? Nah...me either.
Cheers!
You should see my spreadsheets ;)Usually it's just for my sake. I hate having to sift through lines and lines of near-identical text/code, so I highlight key points to make it easier to skim back.However, I've recently found it easier to highlight qu
Re Orange: Nope, not at all. The Keyword Move requires an actual action used on behalf of the target (whether it's a standard move action, combined with a power, or even an out-of-turn reaction/free action). Shift is a defined subsection of the Move rule, and doesn't normally provoke OA's. If PG said 'Move', then the PC would have to use the normal MOVE to trigger PG. Specific defined subsections of movement would naturally be exempted.
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that idea. It's not a rule anywhere, nor has it ever been- it was based on a CS response. In fact, the Rules Compendium also has a handy definition for move: "move: Any instance of movement, whether it is done willingly or unwillingly. Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it's moving. Shifting, teleporting, and being pushed are all examples of moves." The text on move from PHB3 is pretty much the same, so this isn't new to RC.
So, now that it's clear that move includes any instance of moving from one square to another, and enter just means "move into," do you see why a rule on shifting is more specific than a rule on entering?
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that idea. It's not a rule anywhere, nor has it ever been- it was based on a CS response. In fact, the Rules Compendium also has a handy definition for move:"move: Any instance of movement, whether it is don
Re Orange: Nope, not at all. The Keyword Move requires an actual action used on behalf of the target (whether it's a standard move action, combined with a power, or even an out-of-turn reaction/free action). Shift is a defined subsection of the Move rule, and doesn't normally provoke OA's. If PG said 'Move', then the PC would have to use the normal MOVE to trigger PG. Specific defined subsections of movement would naturally be exempted.
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that idea. It's not a rule anywhere, nor has it ever been- it was based on a CS response. In fact, the Rules Compendium also has a handy definition for move: "move: Any instance of movement, whether it is done willingly or unwillingly. Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it's moving. Shifting, teleporting, and being pushed are all examples of moves." The text on move from PHB3 is pretty much the same, so this isn't new to RC.
So, now that it's clear that move includes any instance of moving from one square to another, and enter just means "move into," do you see why a rule on shifting is more specific than a rule on entering?
Hmmm... so it does seem that "move" and "enter" are identical for all intents and purposes when discussing transport into a square - just in the broader sense of the term. Unfortunately, we also have gotten into the habit of using "move" in the more specific sense. We should probably do what we can to adjust our own language and make more use of the term "walk" - even though it's not a game term yet.
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that idea. It's not a rule anywhere, nor has it ever been- it was based on a CS response. In fact, the Rules Compendium also has a handy definition for move:"move: Any instance of movement, whether it is don
Re Orange: Nope, not at all. The Keyword Move requires an actual action used on behalf of the target (whether it's a standard move action, combined with a power, or even an out-of-turn reaction/free action). Shift is a defined subsection of the Move rule, and doesn't normally provoke OA's. If PG said 'Move', then the PC would have to use the normal MOVE to trigger PG. Specific defined subsections of movement would naturally be exempted.
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that idea. It's not a rule anywhere, nor has it ever been- it was based on a CS response. In fact, the Rules Compendium also has a handy definition for move: "move: Any instance of movement, whether it is done willingly or unwillingly. Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it's moving. Shifting, teleporting, and being pushed are all examples of moves." The text on move from PHB3 is pretty much the same, so this isn't new to RC.
So, now that it's clear that move includes any instance of moving from one square to another, and enter just means "move into," do you see why a rule on shifting is more specific than a rule on entering?
*laughs* A) Wow, I was unaware that these things had already been lumped together.. HTF did I miss that?! B) BUGGER! %$#@!
Yes, to my mind, that now clarifies that PG does not trigger for Shifting, Forced Movement, Teleporting or any other normally OA-Immune methods of movement. If the word 'Enter' is not not some DEV catch-all quasi-keyword, and is already defined as synonymous with 'Move', and then I am now firmly in the Does not Trigger camp....
Which BITES as I was just about to retrain my Paragon barbarian to take advantage of this feat (plus Glaives, Heavy Blade opportunity and Pressing Strike)
Bugger. Crap and other non-postable words %$#@!
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that idea. It's not a rule anywhere, nor has it ever been- it was based on a CS response. In fact, the Rules Compendium also has a handy definition for move:"move: Any instance of movement, whether it is don
*laughs* A) Wow, I was unaware that these things had already been lumped together.. HTF did I miss that?! B) BUGGER! %$#@!
Yes, to my mind, that now clarifies that PG does not trigger for Shifting, Forced Movement, Teleporting or any other normally OA-Immune methods of movement. If the word 'Enter' is not not some DEV catch-all quasi-keyword, and is already defined as synonymous with 'Move', and then I am now firmly in the Does not Trigger camp....
Which BITES as I was just about to retrain my Paragon barbarian to take advantage of this feat (plus Glaives, Heavy Blade opportunity and Pressing Strike)
Bugger. Crap and other non-postable words %$#@!
I think that calls for a drink (even though I don't drink, actually)!!
(and don't beat yourself up - I think the rest of us missed this point as well, even though it was in favor or our argument. It just took us 89 posts in another thread and 154 posts in this one to get there... LOL)
I think that calls for a drink (even though I don't drink, actually)!! :)(and don't beat yourself up - I think the rest of us missed this point as well, even though it was in favor or our argument. It just took us 89 posts in another thread and 154
Hmmm... so it does seem that "move" and "enter" are identical for all intents and purposes when discussing transport into a square - just in the broader sense of the term. Unfortunately, we also have gotten into the habit of using "move" in the more specific sense. We should probably do what we can to adjust our own language and make more use of the term "walk" - even though it's not a game term yet.
"Walk" actually is a game term- it's the name of the move action you take to move your speed. It just rarely gets referred to since there aren't any rules specific to the walk action that I'm aware of- it's the most generic type of movement available. Plus, it's easier to say "I move" than "I take the walk action to move."
Sorry to ruin your plans, Charybdis I'm glad we figured out why we weren't seeing eye to eye on things, though.
"Walk" actually is a game term- it's the name of the move action you take to move your speed. It just rarely gets referred to since there aren't any rules specific to the walk action that I'm aware of- it's the most generic type of movement availab
I think that calls for a drink (even though I don't drink, actually)!!
(and don't beat yourself up - I think the rest of us missed this point as well, even though it was in favor or our argument. It just took us 89 posts in another thread and 154 posts in this one to get there... LOL)
I'm down under. Everything calls for a drink.
All hail the mightyy ChaosMage for finally adding some quantifiable rules logic to settle the argument (for me at least )
For settling a debate of this size, I think that deserves a cookie
I'm down under. Everything calls for a drink. All hail the mightyy :bow: ChaosMage :bow: for finally adding some quantifiable rules logic to settle the argument (for me at least ;) )For settling a debate of this size, I think that deserves a cookie
Sorry to ruin your plans, Charybdis I'm glad we figured out why we weren't seeing eye to eye on things, though.
No harm, no foul.
I'm probably going to take the feats anyway, but I'm not yet sure if I'm going to advise my GM on this forum ruling
Hmmmm...... :P
No harm, no foul.I'm probably going to take the feats anyway, but I'm not yet sure if I'm going to advise my GM on this forum ruling :devil:Hmmmm...... :P
All hail the mightyy ChaosMage for finally adding some quantifiable rules logic to settle the argument (for me at least )
For settling a debate of this size, I think that deserves a cookie
Aye, I'll take a cookie !
Btw, given the intensity of this debate, we should probably see if we can't get this argument re: "move" & "enters" vis-a-vis forms of movement allowable as triggers for polearm gamble included in the FAQ. Should we poke someone and ask?
Aye, I'll take a cookie :cookie:! :)Btw, given the intensity of this debate, we should probably see if we can't get this argument re: "move" & "enters" vis-a-vis forms of movement allowable as triggers for polearm gamble included in the FAQ. Should
Seems I'm a bit late to the table, but I was gunna say it says 'enters' instead of moves or walks or whatever so that it would stack with other effects like the previously mentioned Weapon Master's Strike. If you hit them with that at reach, and they shift adjacent, then both PG and WMS would stack, and you could take that OA. If PG specifically said 'walks' adjacent, then you couldn't if they shifted in even if you already hit them with WMS, since being 2 squares away and shifting wouldn't trigger an OA from it, since WMS has no specific wording to override OA's not working at reach. I think......
Seems I'm a bit late to the table, but I was gunna say it says 'enters' instead of moves or walks or whatever so that it would stack with other effects like the previously mentioned Weapon Master's Strike. If you hit them with that at reach, and they
... As such, my reading of Weapon Master's Strike is different. That rule states that when you hit with a polearm or spear, "Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts." This is an explicit exception to the Shifting rule AND it states a new condition that triggers/provokes an AO. Because the level of detail in the language has already been met by exactly stating here that shifts by the opponent will provoke, we've met our heavy-duty test. Beyond that, I don't think there's a need to say that the opponent HAS to be adjacent. Indeed, adjacency is a criterion of the trigger/provoke rules that apply to OTHER situations that are different than the trigger/provoke detailed by WMS. So, in my book, yeah, if someone has the reach to apply WMS to a non-adjacent enemy, and meet the other bearing rules for opportunity attacks in general (ie. that they could reach the target's origin square, that they not be dazed, the opponent not be invisible, etc.), then a shift by such an enemy would trigger an AO. ...
Here's a snippet of my argument from post #130 where I talked about this. It's my take that with Weapon Master's Strike, you can probably make the OA at reach anyway.
(EDIT: doh, lol - I just mistyped - corrected above where I said Polearm Gamble and meant Weapon Master's Strike)
Here's a snippet of my argument from post #130 where I talked about this. It's my take that with Weapon Master's Strike, you can probably make the OA at reach anyway.(EDIT: doh, lol - I just mistyped - corrected above where I said Polearm Gamble an
The general rule for an OA says it only works adjacent, and WMS doesn't specifically say that it works at reach, so I would say it defaults to the general rule for an OA. This one can still be seen either way until WotC specifically defines 'specific' (lol).
The general rule for an OA says it only works adjacent, and WMS doesn't specifically say that it works at reach, so I would say it defaults to the general rule for an OA. This one can still be seen either way until WotC specifically defines 'specific
The general rule for an OA says it only works adjacent, and WMS doesn't specifically say that it works at reach, so I would say it defaults to the general rule for an OA. This one can still be seen either way until WotC specifically defines 'specific' (lol).
You know, I'm staying out of this one. Have fun all
You know, I'm staying out of this one. Have fun all :)
The general rule for an OA says it only works adjacent, and WMS doesn't specifically say that it works at reach, so I would say it defaults to the general rule for an OA. This one can still be seen either way until WotC specifically defines 'specific' (lol).
You know, I'm staying out of this one. Have fun all
Yeah, I think that's enough for me on this thread as well. I'll leave the WMS topic for someone else or for another thread on another day.
You know, I'm staying out of this one. Have fun all :)[/quote]Yeah, I think that's enough for me on this thread as well. I'll leave the WMS topic for someone else or for another thread on another day.
Also, the feat is powerful, some say overpowered, the way it is. No need to let it trigger on a shift on top of it. It's just disruptive and kills the fun for everybody. As a longtime polearmer you can trust me on this one. Let it be.
Also, the feat is powerful, some say overpowered, the way it is. No need to let it trigger on a shift on top of it. It's just disruptive and kills the fun for everybody. As a longtime polearmer you can trust me on this one. Let it be.
Shifting prevents OA from moving. The OA from polearm gamble isn't triggered/provoked/etc. from moving. It's triggered when an enemy enters an adjacent square. The attack would only need to be melee 1, because the creature is already adjacent to the character when the attack is made. It's not in the process of moving adjacent to you, it's already there. So shifting would provoke from PG, and it would not save the 1st level rogue from feeling the wrath of the prismatic wall. All my opinion btw. As a DM polearm gamble wouldn't concern me.
Shifting prevents OA from moving. The OA from polearm gamble isn't triggered/provoked/etc. from moving. It's triggered when an enemy enters an adjacent square. The attack would only need to be melee 1, because the creature is already adjacent to the
Shifting prevents OA from moving. The OA from polearm gamble isn't triggered/provoked/etc. from moving. It's triggered when an enemy enters an adjacent square. The attack would only need to be melee 1, because the creature is already adjacent to the character when the attack is made. It's not in the process of moving adjacent to you, it's already there. So shifting would provoke from PG, and it would not save the 1st level rogue from feeling the wrath of the prismatic wall. All my opinion btw. As a DM polearm gamble wouldn't concern me.
You have some false premises there. First, the up to date text in shifting (as it relates to OAs) is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks." So shifting avoiding OAs isn't somehow limited to "moving;" it can't trigger them at all. Second, RC defines entering a square as moving into a square. There's no difference between entering a square and moving. Third, though I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion at hand, OAs are immediate interrupts; they resolve before their trigger does. This means that the character isn't adjacent when PG's OA goes off, so you'd need reach to hit him. (As a side note, this is necessary for OAs based on movement to work at all- if someone triggered an OA by leaving and adjacent square and entering one out of your reach, you wouldn't be able to attack him if your OA happened after his move was resolved). This is explicitly spelled out in the PHB FAQ:
An opportunity attack interrupts the action that triggers it, so when you make the opportunity attack, the target is in the square it's leaving, assuming that square is within your melee reach.
You have some false premises there. First, the up to date text in shifting (as it relates to OAs) is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportu
I don't see Polearm Gamble as Specific vs Geenral. Weapon Master's Strike do for it calls it.
If a Power says enemies grant Combat Advantage to you and you're Blind, do you think you'll gain CA ? No, because the actual Rule say you need to see in order to gain CA. So even if a Power say so, you'll have to conform to the basic Rule first.
Shift and Forced Movement don't Trigger OAs. It means they will never let you react in response to this movement by using OA. Never. Unless it is noted otherwise. WMS does. Polearm Gamble doesn't.
Enter means leaving a square to enter another. Cool. It will Trigger an OA for any instance of movement leaving a square to enter another. Except those that specifically prohibit the Trigger of OAs. They'll be exempted.
Voila !
I don't see Polearm Gamble as Specific vs Geenral. Weapon Master's Strike do for it calls it.If a Power says enemies grant Combat Advantage to you and you're Blind, do you think you'll gain CA ? No, because the actual Rule say you need to see in orde
Enter means leaving a square to enter another. Cool. It will Trigger an OA for any instance of movement leaving a square to enter another. Except those that specifically prohibit the Trigger of OAs. They'll be exempted. Voila !
I agree (after some heated discussion in previous posts.
A side-query that someone has yet to answer for me though.
Besides the movement modes that are OA-Immune (Forced movement, Shifting, Teleporting)
What other movement modes DO trigger OA's?
As far as I can see, it's just the basic movement mode of the creature (Walk/Climb/Swim/Fly ) that will trigger OAs for Polearm Gamble
People keep implying that there are other movements that will trigger PG, but I can't for the life of me work out what they are. Any hints from anyone here?
(NOTE: I'm deliberately staying out of the WMS debate. Don't know, it, don't use it, don't have an educated opinion on it)
I agree (after some heated discussion in previous posts.A side-query that someone has yet to answer for me though.Besides the movement modes that are OA-Immune (Forced movement, Shifting, Teleporting)What other movement modes DO trigger OA's?As far a
Shift Teleport Forced Movement (Pull,Push,Slide) Fall
Anything else i missed ?
Movements that will Trigger an OA are:CrawlRunWalkClimbFlySwimJumpMovement that will not Trigger an OA are:ShiftTeleportForced Movement (Pull,Push,Slide)FallAnything else i missed ?
There's 90% of your list that i don't even know what it means ...LOL (I am not english native)
Wait, Breakdancing will only Trigger an OA if it makes you leave a square to enter another. Standing Up does not Trigger one.
But i would let a PC get away with Breakdancing as a Shift if he'd do a Moonwalk.
There's 90% of your list that i don't even know what it means ...LOL (I am not english native)Wait,Breakdancing will only Trigger an OA if it makes you leave a square to enter another. Standing Up does not Trigger one. But i would let a PC get away
Shifting prevents OA from moving. The OA from polearm gamble isn't triggered/provoked/etc. from moving. It's triggered when an enemy enters an adjacent square. The attack would only need to be melee 1, because the creature is already adjacent to the character when the attack is made. It's not in the process of moving adjacent to you, it's already there. So shifting would provoke from PG, and it would not save the 1st level rogue from feeling the wrath of the prismatic wall. All my opinion btw. As a DM polearm gamble wouldn't concern me.
You have some false premises there. First, the up to date text in shifting (as it relates to OAs) is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks." So shifting avoiding OAs isn't somehow limited to "moving;" it can't trigger them at all. Second, RC defines entering a square as moving into a square. There's no difference between entering a square and moving. Third, though I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion at hand, OAs are immediate interrupts; they resolve before their trigger does. This means that the character isn't adjacent when PG's OA goes off, so you'd need reach to hit him. (As a side note, this is necessary for OAs based on movement to work at all- if someone triggered an OA by leaving and adjacent square and entering one out of your reach, you wouldn't be able to attack him if your OA happened after his move was resolved). This is explicitly spelled out in the PHB FAQ:
An opportunity attack interrupts the action that triggers it, so when you make the opportunity attack, the target is in the square it's leaving, assuming that square is within your melee reach.
I don't have the RC, so I don't know the exact wording for shift in that book. What I do know is that the purpose of shifting is to avoid incurring OA that you would normally provoke for moving. The PHB errata is quite clear about that. That is the only purpose it serves. The trigger for PG is not IMO movement. Movement is required to fulfill the trigger, but the trigger itself is not movement. You can agree or disagree with this as you see fit, but the idea that a character can simply shift through a prismatic wall and completely avoid it's effects is silly. The triggers for PG and PW are similar, so IMO shifting would still trigger PG. The feat needs some clarification, and it needs to be brought up to speed with the essentials. The RC also should errata shifting to indicate that it only protects one from OA that movement would normally incur. The PHB errata does this already.
You have some false premises there. First, the up to date text in shifting (as it relates to OAs) is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportu
I don't have the RC, so I don't know the exact wording for shift in that book. What I do know is that the purpose of shifting is to avoid incurring OA that you would normally provoke for moving. The PHB errata is quite clear about that. That is the only purpose it serves. The trigger for PG is not IMO movement. Movement is required to fulfill the trigger, but the trigger itself is not movement. You can agree or disagree with this as you see fit, but the idea that a character can simply shift through a prismatic wall and completely avoid it's effects is silly. The triggers for PG and PW are similar, so IMO shifting would still trigger PG. The feat needs some clarification, and it needs to be brought up to speed with the essentials. The RC also should errata shifting to indicate that it only protects one from OA that movement would normally incur. The PHB errata does this already.
That's an argument over an extremely fine distinction. I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a trigger unless explicitly excepted. The standard for this appears to be supplimental language in a rule describing the excepting case. And given that you're talking about so fine a point, I still don't think we can reasonably consider the term Enters to even approach that standard.
Btw, if you can tell me how you can shift and enter a square without moving, I'll give you a cookie .
That's an argument over an extremely fine distinction. I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a tr
I don't have the RC, so I don't know the exact wording for shift in that book. What I do know is that the purpose of shifting is to avoid incurring OA that you would normally provoke for moving. The PHB errata is quite clear about that. That is the only purpose it serves. The trigger for PG is not IMO movement. Movement is required to fulfill the trigger, but the trigger itself is not movement. You can agree or disagree with this as you see fit, but the idea that a character can simply shift through a prismatic wall and completely avoid it's effects is silly. The triggers for PG and PW are similar, so IMO shifting would still trigger PG. The feat needs some clarification, and it needs to be brought up to speed with the essentials. The RC also should errata shifting to indicate that it only protects one from OA that movement would normally incur. The PHB errata does this already.
That's an argument over an extremely fine distinction. I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a trigger unless explicitly excepted. The standard for this appears to be supplimental language in a rule describing the excepting case. And given that you're talking about so fine a point, I still don't think we can reasonably consider the term Enters to even approach that standard.
Btw, if you can tell me how you can shift and enter a square without moving, I'll give you a cookie .
So should people be allowed to shift through a prismatic wall? Obviously not. The move itself isn't what provokes the attack, touching the wall does. Again moving is required to fulfill the trigger, but not the actual trigger itself. That's just how I see it. I think we are putting too much weight behind the RC description of Shift. They had to errata it in the PHB because people believed that if they shifted they couldn't provoke opportunity attacks from anything they did the rest of the round. There will be something similar for the RC if it doesn't already specify that shifting only applies to OAs from movement. I never said you can enter a square without moving, you can btw, but that's not what I'm implying.
That's an argument over an extremely fine distinction. I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a tr
I don't have the RC, so I don't know the exact wording for shift in that book. What I do know is that the purpose of shifting is to avoid incurring OA that you would normally provoke for moving. The PHB errata is quite clear about that. That is the only purpose it serves. The trigger for PG is not IMO movement. Movement is required to fulfill the trigger, but the trigger itself is not movement. You can agree or disagree with this as you see fit, but the idea that a character can simply shift through a prismatic wall and completely avoid it's effects is silly. The triggers for PG and PW are similar, so IMO shifting would still trigger PG. The feat needs some clarification, and it needs to be brought up to speed with the essentials. The RC also should errata shifting to indicate that it only protects one from OA that movement would normally incur. The PHB errata does this already.
That's an argument over an extremely fine distinction. I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a trigger unless explicitly excepted. The standard for this appears to be supplimental language in a rule describing the excepting case. And given that you're talking about so fine a point, I still don't think we can reasonably consider the term Enters to even approach that standard.
Btw, if you can tell me how you can shift and enter a square without moving, I'll give you a cookie .
So should people be allowed to shift through a prismatic wall? Obviously not. The move itself isn't what provokes the attack, touching the wall does. Again moving is required to fulfill the trigger, but not the actual trigger itself. That's just how I see it. I think we are putting too much weight behind the RC description of Shift. They had to errata it in the PHB because people believed that if they shifted they couldn't provoke opportunity attacks from anything they did the rest of the round. There will be something similar for the RC if it doesn't already specify that shifting only applies to OAs from movement.
Under the current rules, you can absolutely shift through a Prismatic wall and not trigger the Opportunity Action. Switching shifts to avoid all OActions rather than just OAttacks was a poor decision considering what they've used OActions for, but it is how the rules currently work, even if we both agree that the effect of that rule combined with Prismatic Wall is silly.
The errata to the PHB shift actually made it more powerful, not less. The original text was "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack." Under that text, someone with threatening reach or PG could take an OAttack on someone shifting as long as the shift wasn't out of an adjacent square. The lasted pre-RC text is "Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks," which avoids any OAttack triggered by movement- and entering a square is definitely movement. Even under the pre-RC text PG wouldn't work; Prismatic Wall did, because that was an OAction, not an OAttack, and shifts didn't stop OActions at that point.
The reason people are putting weight behind the RC is that it's the latest, most up to date rules source. It tells us what's officially legal now. As has been quoted many times, it's text is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesnt trigger opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks." Again, I agree that it should have said "opportunity attacks" where it says "opportunity actions," so things like Prismatic Wall keep working, but that's what the rule is now.
That's an argument over an extremely fine distinction. I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a tr
So should people be allowed to shift through a prismatic wall? Obviously not. The move itself isn't what provokes the attack, touching the wall does. Again moving is required to fulfill the trigger, but not the actual trigger itself. That's just how I see it. I think we are putting too much weight behind the RC description of Shift. They had to errata it in the PHB because people believed that if they shifted they couldn't provoke opportunity attacks from anything they did the rest of the round. There will be something similar for the RC if it doesn't already specify that shifting only applies to OAs from movement. I never said you can enter a square without moving, you can btw, but that's not what I'm implying.
You can't Enter without Moving. And you can't Move without Entering - at least in the larger sense of 'entering a new state'. Entering is a byproduct of Moving and as such, when they state you trigger Polearm Gamble when you Enter an adjacent square, Moving is an essential component of that action. As such, the Shifting rule applies.
I agree - Prismatic Wall should trigger on a shift. And I imagine we'll see erratta on that. They're tightening the rules around movement and that's one that deserves attention.
You can't Enter without Moving. And you can't Move without Entering - at least in the larger sense of 'entering a new state'. Entering is a byproduct of Moving and as such, when they state you trigger Polearm Gamble when you Enter an adjacent squ
So should people be allowed to shift through a prismatic wall? Obviously not. The move itself isn't what provokes the attack, touching the wall does. Again moving is required to fulfill the trigger, but not the actual trigger itself. That's just how I see it. I think we are putting too much weight behind the RC description of Shift. They had to errata it in the PHB because people believed that if they shifted they couldn't provoke opportunity attacks from anything they did the rest of the round. There will be something similar for the RC if it doesn't already specify that shifting only applies to OAs from movement. I never said you can enter a square without moving, you can btw, but that's not what I'm implying.
You can't Enter without Moving. And you can't Move without Entering - at least in the larger sense of 'entering a new state'. Entering is a byproduct of Moving and as such, when they state you trigger Polearm Gamble when you Enter an adjacent square, Moving is an essential component of that action. As such, the Shifting rule applies.
I agree - Prismatic Wall should trigger on a shift. And I imagine we'll see erratta on that. They're tightening the rules around movement and that's one that deserves attention.
You can enter a square without moving. It is no the most common event, but it is possible. The Sillit Nerra a 19th level controller from MM3 has a power called Capture Image. On a hit the target is removed from play save ends. When the target saves it appears in an unoccupied square within 5 squares of the Sillit Nerra. There are also powers that remove creatures from play for a short time.
You can't Enter without Moving. And you can't Move without Entering - at least in the larger sense of 'entering a new state'. Entering is a byproduct of Moving and as such, when they state you trigger Polearm Gamble when you Enter an adjacent squ
You can enter a square without moving. It is no the most common event, but it is possible. The Sillit Nerra a 19th level controller from MM3 has a power called Capture Image. On a hit the target is removed from play save ends. When the target saves it appears in an unoccupied square within 5 squares of the Sillit Nerra. There are also powers that remove creatures from play for a short time.
LOL - yeah those 'remove from play' actions do allow you to change positions without technically moving. However, isn't Enter considered a game term that constitutes movement? And to perform an opportunity attack on someone who's moving you have to have weapon reach to their starting square. Since they're removed from play you can't really do that.
*chuckle* I'd forgotten about these forms of transport though. It's technically transport without movement, but not transport with shifting without movement. You get half a cookie
LOL - yeah those 'remove from play' actions do allow you to change positions without technically moving. However, isn't Enter considered a game term that constitutes movement? And to perform an opportunity attack on someone who's moving you have
I agree it would help everyone involved if they added some clarification to Polearm Gamble. But to be truthful, you can't Enter without Moving. And Shifting is specifically exempted as a trigger unless explicitly excepted.
May I remind you, this is the game where I apparently cannot trigger effects that require hitting an opponent using magic missile, flurry of blows or the miss from reaping strike even though such damage could only be done by hitting an enemy. Just because an interpretation of the rules makes linguistical sense does not mean it is true.
(NB: The argument is that magic missile and flurry of blows do not have to hit rolls and the damage is caused by an effect. As they do not technically 'hit' opponents, they do not trigger effects that work on a hit. MM and FOB are auto-damage, not auto-hit powers)
May I remind you, this is the game where I apparently cannot trigger effects that require hitting an opponent using magic missile, flurry of blows or the miss from reaping strike even though such damage could only be done by hitting an enemy. Just be
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you trying to say that "enter" is more specific than "move?" It's not; enter means the same thing as "move into."
My point is "Enters a square" in 4e is equivalent to "move" since "move" is defined as "enters one square and leaves another." Therefore PG is "Enemies who move into a square adjacent to you provoke an OA." This is a new, seperate, trigger for OAs which overrules the normal OA text because it is specific. Specific rules overrule general rules.
Agreed. Opportunity Attack is currently a triggered power whose trigger reads, in full, "An enemy you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or uses a ranged or area power while adjacent to you." PG is more specific than this trigger and essentially amends it to be "a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you or an enemy you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you..." It does add that triggering condition to the normal OA trigger.
Note that the normal OA trigger doesn't say anything about forced movement or shifting. Those are covered in a seperate rule. Also note that OA is it's own power, so it's not like it's inherently any less specific than a feat; if the shift and forced movement rules don't apply to PG's trigger, they wouldn't apply to the normal OA trigger.
You keep referring back to the general rule for no good reason, especially since the ruling CS has consistently used in the thread you linkedthat it works on shifts/forced movement/etc., so clearly despite any clarifying language it is intended to be a specific rule.
I'm referring to the more specific rule. You still haven't given a reason that PG would be more specific; you've said that PG is specific because it says "enters a square," but you haven't provided any reason that phrasing would make it more specific. As I said above, I agree that it is more specific that the OA trigger rules because it specifically refers to OAs by adding a new trigger. That does not mean that it is more specific than the forced movement or shifting rules, which it does not refer to at all. I couldn't find any CS response in the thread I linked. The thread I linked links to an even older thread, in which there were two people asking CS the question; one got a response that agrees with you, and the other asked a followup question, got it escalated, and finally got the "we don't know" response. So the official CS response is they don't know. I don't know why you're bothering to bring up CS responses in the first place, since they don't mean anything, but the most recent ruling is not what you claim.
That is RAI and as long as you aren't being obstreperous, the RAW because if something says it does something, then it does and that is a specific rule. That is all a specific rule takes. "I do this." "But the general rule is..." "No, I'm a specific rule, I do this." Period.
If you weren't being obstreperous, you'd relize you still haven't established PG as the specific rule. I agree with how that coversation works out with the actual specific rule; forced movement says it doesn't trigger OAs triggered by movement, PG says "but my general rule says I trigger OAs when someone enters a square and you slid into a square," then forced movement says "no, I'm the specfic rule here because I refer to OAs triggered by movement and you are an OA triggered by movement. I stopped OAs from triggering, period."
Your arugment is equivalent to saying powers that say "shift x squares" don't work because the "shift" entry says you can only shift one square. It doesn't need to specifically say "this gets around the shifting rule." A power says, you do. That is one of the fundamental design decisions of 4e (and a good one imo).
My argument is the equivilant to saying that if a daggermaster rolls an 18 and his attack roll isn't high enough to hit, he neither hits nor crits. There's a rule that covers it, and the way you seem to define things it would be a general rule and daggermaster the specific one. Further, my argument is the equivilant to saying that if it's your turn or you've already used your Opportunity Action this turn, you can't use PG when someone enters an adjacent square even though PG says you can. The rules on when you can use opportunity actions (also in an entirely different place than Opporunity Attack and its trigger in RC) prevent it. Just because something's in a feat or a power (remember, Opportunity Attack is a power now) doesn't mean that rules that say they apply to that situation no longer apply.
Determining which rule is more specific is the crux of the matter. You seem to think that because PG is a feat it's more specific or, even less sensible, because it says "enters" it's more specfic. That's not how you determine which is more specific; it's whichever rule refers to the other. PG refers to triggering OAs and so it can override the normal trigger; forced movement refers to OAs triggered by movement so it can override PG's trigger, which is movement based. Without PG going back and referring to forced movment (or shifting, or "movement that doesn't normally trigger OAs") it's going to be the less specific rule.
Continuing an increasingly off-topic descusion from the CharOp Q&A thread (starting here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... ) :My point is "Enters a square" in 4e is equivalent to "move" since "move" is defined as "enters one square and
Determining which rule is more specific is the crux of the matter. You seem to think that because PG is a feat it's more specific or, even less sensible, because it says "enters" it's more specfic. That's not how you determine which is more specific; it's whichever rule refers to the other. PG refers to triggering OAs and so it can override the normal trigger; forced movement refers to OAs triggered by movement so it can override PG's trigger, which is movement based. Without PG going back and referring to forced movment (or shifting, or "movement that doesn't normally trigger OAs") it's going to be the less specific rule.
Paragon Tier Prerequisite: 11th level, Str 15, Wis 15 Benefit: 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. Special: Weapon feat
This seems pretty specific to me. Ordinarily, "a nonadjacent enemy entering a square adjacent to you" would not trigger an opportunity attack. Polearm Gamble says that it does. Can a nonadjacent enemy enter a square adjacent to you by shifting? Yes. Then, as long as it was nonadjacent to begin with, it triggers Polearm Gamble because it "enters a square adjacent to you."
EDIT: Also, upon further reading of the feat, "you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy's turn." seems to imply to this is all taking place on that enemy turn, not out-of-turn for that enemy. I know it's not impossible to force-move an enemy on its own turn, but it's not a normal thing to happen, so it's something to take into consideration.
Polearm Gamble
Show
Polearm GambleParagon TierPrerequisite: 11th level, Str 15, Wis 15Benefit: 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
That is an incredibly convoluted wording. That feat has all kinds of issues. I think the intent is to create an effect similar to Threatening Reach, but specifically for when a creature 'moves closer' while in reach (Ignoring increasing reach beyond 2 squares), and then adding a cost. If they simply gave Threatening Reach with cost, then actions that normally provoke opportunity actions (such as making a ranged attack) would also be included.
The following wording would seem more fitting, "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, and that movement would normally provoke an Opportunity Attack, you can choose to make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy. If you do so, you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy's turn."
With that wording, my idea of the intent is a bit clearer. So I'm siding with the "Shifts don't provoke" side. I come to this conclusion because i don't think the feat was written to work with forced movement. If it did, having multiple allies with the ability to cause forced movement would allow someone to megabuse this feat.
That is an incredibly convoluted wording. That feat has all kinds of issues. I think the intent is to create an effect similar to Threatening Reach, but specifically for when a creature 'moves closer' while in reach (Ignoring increasing reach beyond
Shifts provoke according to CS, so your wording fails to be accurate to intent.
@ChaosMage: Damn right a feat is more specific. That is the literally the first thing you're introduced to in 4e. Simple Rules; Many Exceptions. Every feat, item, power, etc., is basically outlining an exception to one (or even multiple) general rules.
I'm not saying "enters" makes it an exception, I'm saying the definition of "enters" in 4e is "move" regardless of the movement type. And it is. So PG's text basically says "if an enemy moves into a square adjacent to you, you get an OA." And, again I feel like I'm having to unneccsarily belabor this point, 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.
The fact that you only get one OA a turn is a nonsensical point to bring up as well. Not relevant to the argument and is frankly kind of a straw man.
Shifts provoke according to CS, so your wording fails to be accurate to intent. @ChaosMage: Damn right a feat is more specific. That is the literally the first thing you're introduced to in 4e. Simple Rules; Many Exceptions. Every feat, item, power,
It seems pretty clear to me that that wording intends to give you one extra possibility to have a OA, that is, also when an enemy moves towards you, and not to overrule the "forced movement doesn't grant OAs" rule.
If it intended that, it would say so specifically.
It seems pretty clear to me that that wording intends to give you one extra possibility to have a OA, that is, also when an enemy moves towards you, and not to overrule the "forced movement doesn't grant OAs" rule.If it intended that, it would say so
@ChaosMage: Damn right a feat is more specific. That is the literally the first thing you're introduced to in 4e. Simple Rules; Many Exceptions. Every feat, item, power, etc., is basically outlining an exception to one (or even multiple) general rules.
Being in a feat doesn't automatically make it an exception to every rule in the game. It's only an exception to the rules it actually addresses- in this case, it adds a new condition to the trigger for OA. What it doesn't address is the rule that says forced movement doesn't trigger OAs triggered by movement. This applies to every instance of an OA triggered by movement, whether it's the default trigger of the OA power or a trigger for a feat or another power that takes an opportunity action. A feat is certainly capable of being an exception to that rule, but it actually has to address it- it has to be specific and say "even if it's forced movement" or the like.
Here's another way to look at it... the forced movement rules say they don't trigger "opportunity actions, such as opportunity attacks." It specifically applies to every opportunity action, but every use of something as an opportunity action is either part of a power or a feat; if the rule couldn't be applied to those powers and feats, it would never be applied at all.
I'm not saying "enters" makes it an exception, I'm saying the definition of "enters" in 4e is "move" regardless of the movement type. And it is. So PG's text basically says "if an enemy moves into a square adjacent to you, you get an OA." And, again I feel like I'm having to unneccsarily belabor this point, 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.
Opportunity Attack is a power. It's trigger is an enemy leaving a square, which covers every movement type just the same as enter does. What, then, is the thing that stops normal OAs from triggering on forced movement that does not apply to PG? It'd be nice if you'd actually address this point, since you've ignored it more than once.
The fact that you only get one OA a turn is a nonsensical point to bring up as well. Not relevant to the argument and is frankly kind of a straw man.
In that in bringing up the limitations on when opportunity actions can be used I neither attributed a position to you nor made a show of defeating it, it's nothing like a strawman. Perhaps you should look up a fallacy before you falsely accuse someone else of using it? It's actually a reductio ad absurdum; I'm taking your position that, because it's a feat, Polearm gamble overrides every "general" rule and allows you to make an OA whenever a nonadjacent enemy moves adjacent. The logical conclusion of that position is that rules on when you can take opportunity actions are a "general" rule and therefore are overridden by PG, allowing you to take OAs on your turn and multiple times per turn. If you don't agree that this is the logical conclusion of your position, explain what allows the action limitation to apply to PG but does not allows the forced movement limitation to PG, since both are equally "general" rules.
Not only is CS irrelevant, but that claim that CS says it provokes has already been addressed is false; CS says the rules don't cover it.Being in a feat doesn't automatically make it an exception to every rule in the game. It's only an exception to
Um, relating my position to the rules on one OA per turn and then "defeating" it is a straw man. Thanks for playing.
As I just explained, I did neither of those things. Try and find a quote in which I either state your position is that the rules on OAs per turn are ignored or that I attempt to defeat such an idea. You'll find neither.
I am stating that your position is "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 that the logical conclusion of this position is that the rules on OAs per turn, since they are a general rule that might prevent you from taking the OA granted by PG, would be ignored. This is entirely different. Go read the wikipedia entries on Straw Man and Reductio Ad Absurdum and come back when you can tell the difference. I doubt you'll disagree that the quote is your position, since it's taken directly from one of your posts; if you disagree that the OA per turn rules should be overriden by PG, you either need to show why this is not the logical conclusion of your position or you need to alter your position. If you manage to do that, try addressing some of the other points that have been brought up instead of ignoring them as you have been. Throwing out the name of a fallacy you don't really understand is not a valid way of addressing arguments- and I'm being generous in assuming it's a misunderstanding rather than a deliberate distraction on your part.
As I just explained, I did neither of those things. Try and find a quote in which I either state your position is that the rules on OAs per turn are ignored or that I attempt to defeat such an idea. You'll find neither.I am stating that your positi
Refusing to admit I used the fallacy correctly just because you don't want to admit you used a strawman is hardly a compelling defense on your part, sorry. I don't need to further explain my position, it is quite clear, you simply disagree with the conclusion. Since you're clearly not going to be swayed from your position, despite that it is contrary to what the rules actually say (at least what they say right now), why bother?
And CS is RAW for LFR, so I find it very relevant, though I don't always agree with the answers, they have been very consistent on this point from what I've seen however.
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.
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
Refusing to admit I used the fallacy correctly just because you don't want to admit you used a strawman is hardly a compelling defense on your part, sorry. I don't need to further explain my position, it is quite clear, you simply disagree with the c
Since you're clearly not going to be swayed from your position, despite that it is contrary to what the rules actually say (at least what they say right now), why bother?
The Rule dont say that. The Rule say not only Forced Movement and Teleport don't Trigger Opportunity Attacks , but any Opportunity Actions and Shift dont Trigger OA's unless an effect specify otherwise as well.
And Polearm Gamble DOES NOT specify otherwise, it changes the Trigger. It does not say Forced Movement, Shift & Teleports provoke, it simply say entering an adjacent square provoke, instead of leaving one.
Yes moving refer to leaving a square to enter another, but no where does Polearm Gamble infere that entering an adjacent square provoke by all type of movement. Leaving a square also provoke, and Forced Movement, Shift and Teleports exempt them from triggerring an OA.
For an othwerwise specified exemple (Specific vs General) see Weapon Master's Strike. Ex. Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts.
RC 212 Forced Movement: When a target is Pushed, Pulled or Slid, it does not Trigger Opportunity Action, such as Opportunity Attacks, that are triggerred by movement.
RC 249 Shift: Unless the description of a effect says otherwise, Shifting does not Trigger Opportunity Action, such as Opportunity Attacks.
RC 213 Teleportation: When a target Teleports, it does not Trigger Opportunity Action, such as Opportunity Attacks, that are triggerred by movement.
And Opportunity Attack says:
RC 213 Opportunity Attack: Certain type of movement don't provoke opportunity attacks unless an effect specify otherwise: Forced Movement, Shifting and Teleportation. Some powers and other effects allow a creature to enter a creature's space. If that enemy is not Helpless, entering it's space still provoke an Opportunity Attack, because the creature left a space adjacent to the enemy. Forced Movement, Shifting and Teleportation ignore this fact, as normal.
The Rule dont say that. The Rule say not only Forced Movement and Teleport don't Trigger Opportunity Attacks , but any Opportunity Actions and Shift dont Trigger OA's unless an effect specify otherwise as well.And Polearm Gamble DOES NOT specify othe
Since you're clearly not going to be swayed from your position, despite that it is contrary to what the rules actually say (at least what they say right now), why bother?
The Rule dont say that. The Rule say not only Forced Movement and Teleport don't Trigger Opportunity Attacks , but any Opportunity Actions and Shift dont Trigger OA's unless an effect specify otherwise as well.
And Polearm Gamble DOES NOT specify otherwise, it changes the Trigger. It does not say Forced Movement, Shift & Teleports provoke, it simply say entering an adjacent square provoke, instead of leaving one.
Yes moving refer to leaving a square to enter another, but no where does Polearm Gamble infere that entering an adjacent square provoke by all type of movement. Leaving a square also provoke, and Forced Movement, Shift and Teleports exempt them from triggerring an OA.
For an othwerwise specified exemple (Specific vs General) see Weapon Master's Strike. Ex. Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts.
RC 212 Forced Movement: When a target is Pushed, Pulled or Slid, it does not Trigger Opportunity Action, such as Opportunity Attacks, that are triggerred by movement.
RC 249 Shift: Unless the description of a effect says otherwise, Shifting does not Trigger Opportunity Action, such as Opportunity Attacks.
RC 213 Teleportation: When a target Teleports, it does not Trigger Opportunity Action, such as Opportunity Attacks, that are triggerred by movement.
And Opportunity Attack says:
RC 213 Opportunity Attack: Certain type of movement don't provoke opportunity attacks unless an effect specify otherwise: Forced Movement, Shifting and Teleportation. Some powers and other effects allow a creature to enter a creature's space. If that enemy is not Helpless, entering it's space still provoke an Opportunity Attack, because the creature left a space adjacent to the enemy. Forced Movement, Shifting and Teleportation ignore this fact, as normal.
And, again, because the literal definition of all forms of movement in 4e involve entering/leaving a square PG's trigger is "an enemy attempts to enter an adjacent square to you with any form of movement." Which is a specific exception to all the above, general, rules.
You're specifically trying to go "PG is an OA > OA's don't trigger from Forced Movement" and that is wrong, the correct line is "OAs don't trigger on forced movement > PG's OA triggers off of anything becoming adjacent for any reason."
The Rule dont say that. The Rule say not only Forced Movement and Teleport don't Trigger Opportunity Attacks , but any Opportunity Actions and Shift dont Trigger OA's unless an effect specify otherwise as well.And Polearm Gamble DOES NOT specify othe
Good arguments all around, but you all seem to be fixating on the wrong part. The wording of the feat is "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you".
RC pg 200 "enter a square: Move in to a square on the battle grid by any means, whether willingly or unwillingly."
Far as I can tell that really should be all you need to read to handle the situation. Doesn't matter if the enemy shifts, is pulled or slid, the character will get an opportunity attack. The teleporting when not within reach thing, that's probably the only situation that the person wouldn't get an opportunity attack.
Good arguments all around, but you all seem to be fixating on the wrong part. The wording of the feat is "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you".RC pg 200 "enter a square: Move in to a square on the battle grid by any means, wheth
And according to your point, Opportunity Attack Power would also Trigger off Forced Movement, Shift and Teleportation.
See its Trigger.
It doesn't for the same reasons.
Enter is used because of the general premise. When you Walk or Crawl, you also enter.
The point is Polearm Gamble does not specify otherwise, as Weapon Master's Strike or Warpriest Challenge does, and therefore does not Trigger Opportunity Actions at all. Not just Opportunity Attacks, but any powers using an Opportunity Action.
And according to your point, Opportunity Attack Power would also Trigger off Forced Movement, Shift and Teleportation.See its Trigger.It doesn't for the same reasons.Enter is used because of the general premise. When you Walk or Crawl, you also enter
Mm. On that wording, the only means of entering a square that will not trigger PG is teleportation - because then, you don't technically enter the square, you appear within it without moving.
Mm. On that wording, the only means of entering a square that will not trigger PG is teleportation - because then, you don't technically enter the square, you appear within it without moving.
Mm. On that wording, the only means of entering a square that will not trigger PG is teleportation - because then, you don't technically enter the square, you appear within it without moving.
Teleporting is a movement.
RC 314 Move: Any instance of movement wether done willingly or not. Wether a creature an object or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving. Shifting, Teleporting and being Pushed, Pulled, or Slid are all exemples of moves.
Teleporting is a movement.RC 314 Move: Any instance of movement wether done willingly or not. Wether a creature an object or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving. Shifting, Teleporting and being Pushed, Pulled, or Slid are all exe
@plaguescarred no because the line right after the power listing in opportunity action RC pg 246 says "Certain types of movement don't provoke opportunity attacks, unless an effect specifies otherwise". Which Polearm Gamble does by not having that limitation.
@thespaceinvader teleporting is also "moving" RC pg 200 again, "move" definition. The only reason teleporting from 3+ squares away to adjacent would't allow an opportunity attack has been pointed out before. Since the attack is an interrupt of entering the square, you would make the attack on the enemy in the square it is leaving. Since that would be 3+ squares away and not within the reach of your opportunity attack, you couldn't use it.
@plaguescarredno because the line right after the power listing in opportunity action RC pg 246 says "Certain types of movement don't provoke opportunity attacks, unless an effect specifies otherwise". Which Polearm Gamble does by not having that li
Good arguments all around, but you all seem to be fixating on the wrong part. The wording of the feat is "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you".
RC pg 200 "enter a square: Move in to a square on the battle grid by any means, whether willingly or unwillingly."
Far as I can tell that really should be all you need to read to handle the situation. Doesn't matter if the enemy shifts, is pulled or slid, the character will get an opportunity attack. The teleporting when not within reach thing, that's probably the only situation that the person wouldn't get an opportunity attack.
Also by it OA would Trigger off Shift Teleport and Forced Movement:
RC 200 Leaves A Square: Move out of a square by any means, wether willingly or unwillingly.
RC 246 Opportunity Attack Trigger: An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent or uses a ranged or area power while adjacent to you.
Also by it OA would Trigger off Shift Teleport and Forced Movement:RC 200 Leaves A Square: Move out of a square by any means, wether willingly or unwillingly.RC 246 Opportunity Attack Trigger: An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent
@plaguescarred no because the line right after the power listing in opportunity action RC pg 246 says "Certain types of movement don't provoke opportunity attacks, unless an effect specifies otherwise". Which Polearm Gamble does by not having that limitation.
Fluff and explanations dont make good rule arguments when it come to debating a Power Trigger. These stands because of their respective Rules, which say they don't Trigger Opportunity Actions.
The passage under OA even refer to their respective Pages in the RC. Forced Movement (P. 211), Shifting (P. 249) and Teleporting (P. 213).
Fluff and explanations dont make good rule arguments when it come to debating a Power Trigger. These stands because of their respective Rules, which say they don't Trigger Opportunity Actions.The passage under OA even refer to their respective Pages
i agree plaguescarred but that next line after the power is the important one for normal opportunity attacks. A polearm gamble attack doesn't have that limitation because the feat's effect doesn't state that shifting or forced movement doesn't trigger it. It just says when a nonadjacent enemy enter's a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack. If you then have to abide by triggering restrictions of an opportunity attack, you wouldn't get one because the trigger for a regular OA hasn't been met.
i agree plaguescarred but that next line after the power is the important one for normal opportunity attacks. A polearm gamble attack doesn't have that limitation because the feat's effect doesn't state that shifting or forced movement doesn't trigg
i agree plaguescarred but that next line after the power is the important one for normal opportunity attacks. A polearm gamble attack doesn't have that limitation because the feat's effect doesn't state that shifting or forced movement doesn't trigger it. It just says when a nonadjacent enemy enter's a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack. If you then have to abide by triggering restrictions of an opportunity attack, you wouldn't get one because the trigger for a regular OA hasn't been met.
No its the contrary, Shifting says it does not Trigger OA unless specified otherwise. Polearm Gamble would need to specify Shift Triggers it or else it is not.
Polearm Gamble unfortunatly doesn't.
No its the contrary, Shifting says it does not Trigger OA unless specified otherwise. Polearm Gamble would need to specify Shift Triggers it or else it is not.Polearm Gamble unfortunatly doesn't.
The arguments that have been presented since the 3-month necro are the same that were presented before. One side sees the feat text as overriding the shift/teleport rules, the other side sees the lack of an exception meaning that thte shift/teleport rules stand.
There is no right answer as the rules are written right now. It could easily be interpreted either way and there isn't sufficient text to choose one.
And I'm sure people will disagree with me, but before you go all ad-hominem step back, take a deep breath, read through the entire thread and consider whether you're actually saying something new.
I thought this thread died :(The arguments that have been presented since the 3-month necro are the same that were presented before. One side sees the feat text as overriding the shift/teleport rules, the other side sees the lack of an exception mea
Yes, it does, because its trigger is the very general "enters a square" which has a specific definition of including any form of movement, including shifting, forced movement, etc. Which is why CS has consistently ruled shifting triggers PG.
Particularly now that "enters a square" is specifically defined in the RC with its own definition, which is information that had to be gleened out of the "move" definition before, it is pretty cut and dry.
Yes, it does, because its trigger is the very general "enters a square" which has a specific definition of including any form of movement, including shifting, forced movement, etc. Which is why CS has consistently ruled shifting triggers PG.Particula
For what it's worth I agree with you, but I gave up long ago trying to convince anyone of it.
Seriously guys, you could argue like this for another 200 posts and still get nowhere.
For what it's worth I agree with you, but I gave up long ago trying to convince anyone of it.Seriously guys, you could argue like this for another 200 posts and still get nowhere.
Yes, it does, because its trigger is the very general "enters a square" which has a specific definition of including any form of movement, including shifting, forced movement, etc. Which is why CS has consistently ruled shifting triggers PG.
Particularly now that "enters a square" is specifically defined in the RC with its own definition, which is information that had to be gleened out of the "move" definition before, it is pretty cut and dry.
The Trigger is not making it happen unless it specify otherwise.
If Polearm Gamble would say you make a melee basic attack as an Opportunity Action, it would still not work.
It would need to say you make a melee basic attack (No Action) and nothing further.
The case is pretty clear to me. The RC Update affect a lot more than just Polearm Gamble. Many Powers using Opportunity Actions will not Trigger if a Forced Movement, a Shift or a Teleport was at the origin of the movement.
The Trigger is not making it happen unless it specify otherwise.If Polearm Gamble would say you make a melee basic attack as an Opportunity Action, it would still not work.It would need to say you make a melee basic attack (No Action) and nothing fur
Yes, and it was clear through the last couple hundred posts too that there are irreconcilable differences. Just give it up
Seriously...every single one of these arguments has already been discussed. Read the thread
Yes, and it was clear through the last couple hundred posts too that there are irreconcilable differences. Just give it up :(Seriously...every single one of these arguments has already been discussed. Read the thread :(
Yes, and it was clear through the last couple hundred posts too that there are irreconcilable differences. Just give it up
Seriously...every single one of these arguments has already been discussed. Read the thread
Sure you want we give it up, you are in the camp of enter means all movement and thus Triggers OA's.
Funny how the give it up came fast after i brought up the other (kept silent) Leave definition in relation to the definition of Opportunity Attack Trigger.....
This defense tangente was born with the PHB 3 defining move. It shifted from the previous defense that it was not saying PG was provoking. I know this debate well inside out.
The RC totally break this logic by turning off any Triggerring/Provoking of Opportunity Action by element (ForcedMovement & Teleport) and others that would not specify otherwise (Shift) It event went on and changed provoke for Trigger, breaking the original defense stance.
Yours and Alcestis point totally screw the Power Opportunity Attack by solely resting on enter means all movement, for Polearm Gamble to work as you want it to.
Ours works in hand with Opportunity Attack, and with most movement that let one enter or leave a square, except those that don't Trigger Opportunity Action for doing so.
So Tell me where Polearm Gamble specify otherwise, that more specifically, it Triggers off Shift, Teleport and Forced Movement or even Falling and i will gladly accept it as RAW and accepted. Otherwise, the case is closed. done.
Sure you want we give it up, you are in the camp of enter means all movement and thus Triggers OA's.Funny how the give it up came fast after i brought up the other (kept silent) Leave definition in relation to the definition of Opportunity Attack Tri
There are actually a couple of new angles that have come up in the discussion with Alcestis; it's just that Alcestis refuses to stop trying to misuse a fallacy long enough to actually address them. Alecestis, I once again invite you to find a quote supporting your claim that I attributed the position in question to you rather than stated it as a logical conclusion of your position.
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.
Polarm gamble states "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy," which I'll call B. Polearm Gamble is a feat, so the continuation of A with that in mind is that if a "general rule" would stop you from making an opportunity attack with a polearm against a nonadjacent enemy that enters a square adjacent to you, then that general rule is ignored- I'll call this C. Unless someone can point out a problem with the logic, the statement "if A and B then C" should be true. Since B is a known from the rules, C is a logical extension of Alcestis's stated position. We also know that Alcestis has stated that the forced movement and shift rules are general rules (D).
We then have several other knowns from the rules: The limitations on taking opportunity actions are a rule that may prevent you from taking an OA when an enemy moves adjacent (E). Now, Alcestis hasn't provided a definition for what makes a rule general (other than the statement that the forced movement and shift rules are general and the implication that rules outside of powers and feats must be, since he's held up powers and feats as the most specific), so we'll have E1 hold that to be general rule and E2 hold that to not be a general rule. If C and E1, then the limitations on taking OAs will be ignored by PG, since it is a general rule (F). C has no direct bearing on E2, so if C and E2 we can safely assume that the limitations will not be ignored by PG (!F).
Opportunity Attack is a power with the trigger whose relevent portion reads "An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or..." (As an aside, this trigger is equivilant to that of PG- that is, they both have a trigger worded such that any type of movement would trigger it) (G). Given A and G, we can conclude that if a "general rule" would stop you from making an opportunity attack with against an enemy you can see that leaves a square adjacent to you, then that general rule is ignored (H). D holds that the shift and forced movement rules are general rules, and those rules would clearly stop you from doing what the Opportunity Attack power says, so given H and D, we can conclude that the shift and forced movement rules are ignored by the Opportunity Attack power (I).
The shift and forced movement rules are written to apply to all Opportunity Actions, not just Opportunity Attack, and the rules in question only apply to Opportunity Actions (J). However, there are no uses of an Opportunity Action that are granted by something other than a power or feat (or something that I'm sure we'd agree is equally "specific," like a PP feature or magical item proprty) (K- and I'm open to any counterexamples on this one, but I don't believe there are any); given A and K, any "general rule" that would stop any Opportunity Action trigger in the game from triggering is ignored since it is part of what a power or feat tells you to do (L). Given L and D, the shift and forced movement rules can never be applied to any Opportunity Action (M). Given J and M, the shift and forced movement rules can never be applied (N) (To be clear, I am only referring to the shift and forced movement rules relevant to the discussion, namely that they do not trigger opportunity actions triggered by movement; this has no bearing on other aspects of shift and forced movment rules).
All of that is built up from a stated position and things known from the rules. However, it leads to several conclusions I believe we can agree are false. I believe we can agree that the limitations on taking Opportunity Actions is not ignored by PG or Opportunity attacks (!F), that the shift and forced movement rules are not ignored by Opportunity Attacks (!I), and that the shift and forced movement rules can be applied to something in the rules (!N).
In the case of !F, someone could continue holding A if they held E2, but they'd need to provide a defintion of "general rule" allows both E2 and D (that is, allows action limitations to be specific while movement type limitations are general) to be true if they want to go on to conclude that PG ignores the shift and forced movement rules. However, either !I or !N being true is enough to show either !D or !A to be true, and both A and D need to be true for the current arguements that forced movement and shift rules don't apply to PG to be true. So someone either needs to present an argument that doesn't rely on both A and D or find a flaw in the logic leading from A and D to I and N and/or give a way for both E2 and D to be true.
There are actually a couple of new angles that have come up in the discussion with Alcestis; it's just that Alcestis refuses to stop trying to misuse a fallacy long enough to actually address them. Alecestis, I once again invite you to find a quote
Opportunity Attacks are not granted by "leaving a square adjacent while shifting" right?
Well, that doesn't address entering a square adjacent while shifting, so Polearm Gamble would trigger from someone shifting from a non-adjacent square to an adjacent square.
Opportunity Attacks are also not granted by forced movement, such as being pushed, pulled or slid, so I could see the argument that PG wouldn't trigger by forced movement. However, as I stated in my previous post, Polearm Gamble appears to be worded in such a way that you are assumed to be using it during the enemy's turn, so there wouldn't likely not be any forced movement going on.
But, if an enemy was a Bard and used Majestic Word on itself, allowing it to slide itself 1 square and used that slide to go from being non-adjacent to adjacent, I would say that that would *not* trigger Polearm Gamble (forced movement won't trigger OAs.)
If that same enemy instead shifted from a non-adjacent square to an adjacent square, that *would* trigger Polearm Gamble because the enemy is not "leaving an adjacent square by shifting" but is instead "entering an adjacent square" by shifting. Clearly, this is not covered by Opportunity Attacks or Opportunity Actions, so Polearm Gamble is the rule.
So, wait.Opportunity Attacks are not granted by "leaving a square adjacent while shifting" right?Well, that doesn't address entering a square adjacent while shifting, so Polearm Gamble would trigger from someone shifting from a non-adjacent square to
Opportunity Attacks are not granted by "leaving a square adjacent while shifting" right?
Well, that doesn't address entering a square adjacent while shifting, so Polearm Gamble would trigger from someone shifting from a non-adjacent square to an adjacent square.
The shift text from the PHB was updated to remove references to leaving a square a long time ago. The current shift text is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesn't trigger opportunity actions such as opportunity attacks."
The shift text from the PHB was updated to remove references to leaving a square a long time ago. The current shift text is "No Opportunity Actions Triggered: Unless the the description of an effect says otherwise, shifting doesn't trigger opportuni
There are actually a couple of new angles that have come up in the discussion with Alcestis; it's just that Alcestis refuses to stop trying to misuse a fallacy long enough to actually address them. Alecestis, I once again invite you to find a quote supporting your claim that I attributed the position in question to you rather than stated it as a logical conclusion of your position.
You claim you stated it as a logical conclusion, not equivalent to actually making a logical conclusion (Hint: You didn't). That is why it is a strawman. You're "countering" my argument by setting up a nonsense situation that you "win." That is the definition of a strawman. And, frankly, I have no interest in debating anything with someone who uses such tactics. Even if I win, which I have since there is a general rule which neatly defines "enters a square", you will never admit it.
I think I'll take Mand12's suggestion and bow out. You can feel free to use this thread to be wrong to your heart's content.
You claim you stated it as a logical conclusion, not equivalent to actually making a logical conclusion (Hint: You didn't). That is why it is a strawman. You're "countering" my argument by setting up a nonsense situation that you "win." That is the d
There are actually a couple of new angles that have come up in the discussion with Alcestis; it's just that Alcestis refuses to stop trying to misuse a fallacy long enough to actually address them. Alecestis, I once again invite you to find a quote supporting your claim that I attributed the position in question to you rather than stated it as a logical conclusion of your position.
You claim you stated it as a logical conclusion, not equivalent to actually making a logical conclusion (Hint: You didn't). That is why it is a strawman. You're "countering" my argument by setting up a nonsense situation that you "win." That is the definition of a strawman. And, frankly, I have no interest in debating anything with someone who uses such tactics. Even if I win, which I have since there is a general rule which neatly defines "enters a square", you will never admit it.
I think I'll take Mand12's suggestion and bow out. You can feel free to use this thread to be wrong to your heart's content.
I've spelled out the steps of logic taken in a fair amount of detail and even labeled the steps so each one can be easily addressed if I've gone wrong somewhere. If you don't believe it to be a logical conclusion of the positions you've stated, I've given you every opportunity to show where there's a problem with my logic. I've also asked that you show me a quote in which I do what you're describing. You're clearly not interested in doing either, since you've decided to go with a distraction that should be obvious to anyone who knows what a strawman actually is and why reductio ad absurdum is different. Since you're clearly not interested in debating in good faith, it's good that you're stepping out, but I still hope that someone on your side of the fence addresses the logical construction above.
You claim you stated it as a logical conclusion, not equivalent to actually making a logical conclusion (Hint: You didn't). That is why it is a strawman. You're "countering" my argument by setting up a nonsense situation that you "win." That is the d
Sure you want we give it up, you are in the camp of enter means all movement and thus Triggers OA's.
Funny how the give it up came fast after i brought up the other (kept silent) Leave definition in relation to the definition of Opportunity Attack Trigger.....
Actually, I suggested to give it up as soon as I noticed this thread had gotten a 3-month necro. Thanks for applying a conspiracy theory to it, though - I think I've been rather clear that the rules don't give enough substance to either interpretation.
But really - insulting the people who disagree with you is never a good idea. The notion that I want the topic to die just because I happen to take a different stance than someone else posting in it is...yeah. Considering that most of the debate in the thread is currently about the tactics of debating, I'm not sure what more purpose it serves. As I said before, nothing since the necro has been a new idea.
Actually, I suggested to give it up as soon as I noticed this thread had gotten a 3-month necro. Thanks for applying a conspiracy theory to it, though - I think I've been rather clear that the rules don't give enough substance to either interpretati
You are right to think what you want about the debate as we all do.
I didn't insulted you sorry if you thought so but you did asked the thread to die. This Board is about crazy discussion of non-sense rules so we shall do if we want to
Seriously, its been very lightly discussed, but one side claim enter a square include all movements breaks a crucial Power since it also means that leave a square is all movement. Lightly, because only recently about 3 month ago did the Rule compendium did get released when the Thread was slowing to a halt. Now the juggernault just gain more speed in light of some aspects.
Point is, even if i enter as the Feat says, i will not trigger an OA because the way i enter doesn't not Trigger the Action (Opportunity) you would use, this because you don't specify the way i enter specifically Triggers it.
The high end of the stick is in the movements Rule themselves since they claim so (even for Opportunity Attacks) unless speficied otherwise.
You are welcome !
You are right to think what you want about the debate as we all do. I didn't insulted you sorry if you thought so but you did asked the thread to die. This Board is about crazy discussion of non-sense rules so we shall do if we want to Seriously, its
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.
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
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.)
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.
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
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.
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 preve
But the problem is that nowhere is "specific vs general" defined - what makes a rule specific vs general, and how exactly do you decide. That's the fundamental issue that causes people to come down on one side or the other - which rule wins.
You can say that "Rule X wins because Rule Y doesn't change it" but that's just about as abstract as you can get in situations like this where the rules conflict isn't exactly and precisely spelled out in the element in question. As an example of what it is, Cunning Sneak allows you to make a Stealth check to hide if you move at least 3 squares and have C/C but not necessarily TC/SC - that's an example of a good, well-written specific override.
That's not the case for Polearm Gamble which is written poorly and vaguely in its interaction with other rules, hence the entire debate.
But the problem is that nowhere is "specific vs general" defined - what makes a rule specific vs general, and how exactly do you decide. That's the fundamental issue that causes people to come down on one side or the other - which rule wins.You can
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.
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.P
I was wondering when you were going to chime back in 
I'm glad we figured out why we weren't seeing eye to eye on things, though.
