|
3 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2010 - 2:07PM
#181
|
|
|
I emailed this question to CS a few days ago and haven't heard back from them..I wonder what is taking them so long
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 24, 2010 - 4:35AM
#182
|
Date Joined:
Sep 14, 2007
|
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.
http://www.infernaltitans.com/
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 24, 2010 - 10:18AM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
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  
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2010 - 6:31PM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
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)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2010 - 8:41PM
#185
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
Continuing an increasingly off-topic descusion from the CharOp Q&A thread (starting here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... ) : 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 linked that 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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2010 - 10:05PM
#186
|
|
|
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.
Polearm Gamble
Show
Polearm Gamble
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2010 - 11:02PM
#187
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 12:29AM
#188
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 9:06AM
#189
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 15, 2010 - 11:41AM
#190
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
Shifts provoke according to CS, so your wording fails to be accurate to intent.
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.
@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.
|
|
|
