"Moves into" vs. "enters"

[jeffwik]

Unless I'm totally wrong (which I don't think I am) then if I have a power that triggers when an enemy "moves into" a square adjacent to me, that power isn't triggered by forced movement; it's triggered only when an enemy uses some power or move action to move into that space.

What if the power triggers when an enemy "enters" a square adjacent to me? Can forced movement trigger such a power?

Does teleportation differ from other kinds of movement in this regard?

The specific case I'm thinking of is an ensnaring swordmage with the feat Polearm Gamble. The requirements (Wis 15, Str 15) are punitive for an ensnaring swordmage, but... Couple it with Heavy Blade Opportunity, and for the low low price of Wis 15, Str 15, Dex 15 for an Int/Con character, you get to make an extra at-will attack (Frigid Blade, perhaps, for extra stickiness?) whenever you use your aegis.

 

[keterys]

The rules are unclear as to the differences between 'enters' and 'moves into' in general, or if there are any, though there are many opinions. Expect significant table variation.

That said, teleportation and forced movement specifically deny using opportunity actions against them, so there's an easy case to be made for that not working. Expect more table variation there

 

[abyssaldeath]

Here is the FAQ entry about this.

29. Can you slide a target multiple times (by using a warlock's diabolic grasp or harrowstorm powers) into a wizard's wall of fire for iterative damage?

There are several factors to take into consideration here. First, a target must move into the wall's space—that is, moving into every square of that space does not inflict iterative damage. However, if a target moves into the wall's space, then back out, and then back in again, it will take more damage; but remember, entering each square occupied by the wall costs 3 extra squares of movement (which might be possible with a high-level use of a harrowstorm).
​

Polarm Gamble doesn't trigger on forced movement, not because of some -non existant- rules for move vs. enters, but because forced movement doesn't trigger OA's.

 

[jeffwik]

Well, the FAQ entry seems pretty cut-and-dry on the fact that I was wrong about forced movement making a difference in terms of powers that trigger on "moves into," since the specific example (harrowstorm and wall of fire) is just such a case. So that's good to know.

However I'm increasingly unconvinced that the opportunity attack permitted by Polearm Gamble obeys the usual rules for what does and doesn't provoke it -- the feat says explicitly "when a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy." You can make that attack however the enemy entered the square; it doesn't say anything about you can make an opportunity attack "provided this movement would provoke an opportunity attack if you were standing over on the other side of the enemy and you were threatening a different square he was moving out of." Clearly the attack is an opportunity action, which means you can make only one of them per enemy's turn, but other than that the usual rules about OAs and what doesn't and doesn't provoke them wouldn't seem to apply; the feat creates a new condition wherein OAs apply.

If an enemy shifts into a square adjacent to a character with Polearm Gamble, I would certainly let the character take the opportunity attack, regardless of the general rule that shifting doesn't provoke OAs.

Now, the definition of teleportation, too, says that it doesn't provoke OAs, but it also says that these rules apply "unless a power or a ritual specifies otherwise," and I have no problem reading "a power or a ritual" as "a power, a ritual, a class feature, a paragon path feature, an epic destiny feature, a feat, a magic item property, etc, etc." Though I suppose a strict constructionist view of RAW disagrees heartily with that interpolation.

So the more I look at it the more I'm inclined to say that Polearm Gamble should trigger on an ensnaring swordmage's aegis.

Would a hypothetical feat (epic, no doubt) that said "when an enemy shifts into a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack" be a valid feat, or would it be oxymoronic nonsense? I'm inclined to say the former.

 

[keterys]

Forced Movement and Teleport have a line specifically denying opportunity actions*, so for Polearm Gamble to get around them it would have to say 'including forced movement and teleport' to overrule them specifically. Or alternatively say 'even when the type of movement would avoid opportunity attacks' to be a catchall.

* Not attacks. Actions.

 

[jeffwik]

Quoting from the Compendium under "Teleportation:"

No Opportunity Attacks: Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.

Not "actions," "attacks."

On the other hand, quoting from the Compendium under "Forced Movement:"

No Opportunity Actions: Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions.

 

[keterys]

PHB2 errata-ed Teleportation to deny opportunity actions instead of just attacks, for reference.

 

[chitzk0i]

PHB2 errata-ed Teleportation to deny opportunity actions instead of just attacks, for reference.

The PHB2 reference is important, because it directly contradicts the text of the PHB.

 

[jeffwik]

Hmm. Well, now I go from ~80% convinced that Polearm Gamble plus aegis of ensnarement equals extra attack, to ~70% convinced it doesn't.

 

[keterys]

Yeah... like I said, expect some table variation