Opportunity Attack Rules Clarification

[Harr]

Penalizing a combatant for trying to just cheerfully step away from melee combat is the entire point of having Opportunity Attacks in the first place, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

Be sure to come back and share what the supposed argument from the MM is, I'm curious now

 

[Zaruthustran]

One further question I had about OA's and Combat Superiority. If a warrior is using Pole-arm Gamble - which grants OA's when a non-adjacent enemy enters an adjacent square - does that prevent their movement on a hit as well? If so - then they would have a tough time moving next to a pole-arm warrior.

Here's a build, and a discussion of that topic:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4269960

The key is, of course, that the "enter adjacent square" is interrupted by the OA.

 

[ladycass]

Penalizing a combatant for trying to just cheerfully step away from melee combat is the entire point of having Opportunity Attacks in the first place, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

Be sure to come back and share what the supposed argument from the MM is, I'm curious now

I will be sure to do that. I am very curious to see his point too because he is probably my most "rules solid" player. This fact is part of why I was doubting my interpretation of the rules even though I felt it was clearly stated.

Thanks to everyone for the responses!

 

[Victoly]

If your player still has trouble understanding this, try explaining him to it like this:

When your character moves, they don't just blink from square to square. They take their time hustling from square to square and, logically, some of their time "moving" is spent in the square they start in as well as each square they move in and each square they end in. So, just as the character starts to move away from a threatened square, his movement while still in that square provokes an opportunity attack.

 

[ladycass]

If your player still has trouble understanding this, try explaining him to it like this:

When your character moves, they don't just blink from square to square. They take their time hustling from square to square and, logically, some of their time "moving" is spent in the square they start in as well as each square they move in and each square they end in. So, just as the character starts to move away from a threatened square, his movement while still in that square provokes an opportunity attack.

Fortunatly I won't have to "explain the realistic aspect" to this player as he is very intelligent and I am sure he can see that part himself. The real issue is just that he doesn't agree with me and he probably has some justifiable reason even though I don't believe he is correct. I really just wanted to make sure that I was not interpreting the rule incorrectly. Believe me I spent a good deal of time reading each word of the interrupt section, the actions section, and the opportunity attacks.

Thanks!

 

[Kzach]

Fortunatly I won't have to "explain the realistic aspect" to this player as he is very intelligent and I am sure he can see that part himself. The real issue is just that he doesn't agree with me and he probably has some justifiable reason even though I don't believe he is correct. I really just wanted to make sure that I was not interpreting the rule incorrectly. Believe me I spent a good deal of time reading each word of the interrupt section, the actions section, and the opportunity attacks.

Man, what a headache. I'd be telling this player to chill out or get out. Who needs that kind of hassle over a game?

 

[thalmin]

Not sure how I would rule about the Polearm Gamble. It does say it is used "when a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you..." not "attempts to enter...". I need to think on that one.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Not sure how I would rule about the Polearm Gamble. It does say it is used "when a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you..." not "attempts to enter...". I need to think on that one.

If its an immediate interrupt then the attack and all effects of that attack are resolved before the action. If its an immediate reaction then the attack and all effects of that attack are resolved after the action.

 

[ourchair]

Okay, I'm now worried that I've been reading the OA rules wrong.

My impression was that 4e was meant to increase the cost of disengaging by making the five foot step "shift" a move action, and lock them into melee by allowing them to scoot around a monster by NOT provoking OA since they remain within its threat range.

One of my players, a cleric, ironically is saying that I can beat the tar out of him and his party because the rules say when you leave a threatened square without shifting you provoke AO but doesn't qualify that the next square you step into must be a threatened one to NOT provoke AO.

Simply put, if the enemy was 5 on a numpad, moving from square 2 to square 6 provokes according to his interpretation. Meaning I get to smack players who try to do clockwork flanking.

Is this correct? If so, party spanking time!

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Okay, I'm now worried that I've been reading the OA rules wrong.

My impression was that 4e was meant to increase the cost of disengaging by making the five foot step "shift" a move action, and lock them into melee by allowing them to scoot around a monster by NOT provoking OA since they remain within its threat range.

One of my players, a cleric, ironically is saying that I can beat the tar out of him and his party because the rules say when you leave a threatened square without shifting you provoke AO but doesn't qualify that the next square you step into must be a threatened one to NOT provoke AO.

Simply put, if the enemy was 5 on a numpad, moving from square 2 to square 6 provokes according to his interpretation. Meaning I get to smack players who try to do clockwork flanking.

Is this correct? If so, party spanking time!

If they don't shift you can smack them if they shift no.

But why would one move instead of shift if one wanted to do what you said?