Search results

You are correct, the inital trigger need not be a move, but what I'm saying is that just because the trigger is replaced does not mean the rest of the rules regarding Opp Attacks are replaced. I'll wait until I get home to my book to continue on about this, however. For now I'll just sit on...

I think it's hilarious people are trying to combine D&D economics with real world medieval economics. This is absurd. These are two completely unrelated universes. One is real, the other is called fantasy. I think the reason this is an issue for some people is because classically, fantasy...

Why take a fundamental rule of combat and change it simply because you don't 'feel good' about it? Is your lack of imagination so great that you can't possibly picture someone running around a corner and then charging? [grumble, grumble...]

Two simple ways to quick rule this, pick one: 1) Blasts occur on one elevation level (thus only 5' high/one square) 2) Blasts are cube shaped and you can position then vertically however you wish (since diagonals count as straights, this is no problem) Both are easy. The first one is safer...

These assumptions are not founded on rules. Polearm Gamble doesn't wholescale replace the rules for Opp Attack, it just gives an additional trigger for them. Do you have a quote for this?

Good point. Consider my interpretation modified. And now I must now swing 180% to be logically consistent. If opp attacks must happen before the target leaves the adjacent square, then opp attacks made with Polearm Gamble must happen before the target enters the adjacent square. Otherwise...

This* is what makes all this confusing. It uses the word interrupt, which has erroneously lead the OP to defer to the rules of immediate interrupt, which is a different class of action altogether. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the OP's tactic, however! Let's take a look to see if it's...