Opportunity Attacks - no limit ?

[Mad Hamish]

His argument is that it modifies Opportunity Attack because the feat specifically says so.

His argument is that it doesn't change the conditions for the Melee Attack because it doesn't mention the Melee Attack being modified.

So you need to be able to make the Melee Attack under the standard rules for the melee attack.

 

[Aulirophile]

His argument is that it modifies Opportunity Attack because the feat specifically says so.

His argument is that it doesn't change the conditions for the Melee Attack because it doesn't mention the Melee Attack being modified.

So you need to be able to make the Melee Attack under the standard rules for the melee attack.

But it doesn't say so. It says 'Make an OA against the target'. OK, I use that power... out of range, fails, done. For the exact same reason that a Polearm without Reach would fail, the power lacks sufficient range (MBA, in the latter case).

If that weren't true you'd never need the text "regardless of range" that exists in dozens of feats, items, powers, etc., that also grant attacks with odd triggers.

 

[DracoSuave]

You need to satisfy the requirements of the powers you use, the rules are explicit about that especially in terms of legal targets, and nothing in PG changes the OA power. Nor should it, considering it pre-dates OA-as-a-power.

How does Polearm Gamble NOT alter Opportunity Attack; it names it by name.

The fact they've changed how exactly the game element of that name works does not suddenly render every single thing that mentioned opportunity attacks previous to essentials null and void! By logical extension, you've rendered Combat Challenge useless! Heavy Blade Opportunity is no more! Artful Dodger suddenly does not work! If it says 'Opportunity Attack' but was printed before Essentials, it's refering to some game element that no longer exists rather than the game element that currently exists with that exact same name?!?!

I'm just not touching that argument. It is rediculous. Polearm Gamble refers to opportunity attack by name. It does not matter that it's a power now, what matters is that Polearm changes how it works just as it's always changed how it works. The exact rules mechanics of those changes might change subtly, but being a power does not render Opportunity Attack immune to specific exception.

But it doesn't say so. It says 'Make an OA against the target'. OK, I use that power... out of range, fails, done. For the exact same reason that a Polearm without Reach would fail, the power lacks sufficient range (MBA, in the latter case).

If that weren't true you'd never need the text "regardless of range" that exists in dozens of feats, items, powers, etc., that also grant attacks with odd triggers.

By dint of you SAYING this, you've identified a contradiction in how a specific rule interacts with a general rule. 'The rules break' is not the default option here. The default option is 'The specific rule takes precidence.' You don't stop halfway through the process, you resolve any contradictions in this manner, with the specific case overriding the general case so long as it remains specific.

Polearm Gamble is specific to Opportunity Attack, so it can except it in any way it damn well pleases. Polearm Gamble is not specific to Melee Basic Attack, so the only rule that CAN apply there is Melee Basic Attack, with one single exception, and that being that Opportunity Attack allows the use of MBA without spending a standard action; this point is not addressed by Polearm Gamble, so is irrelevant to SvG.

So, of course you can't use a non-reach weapon, because there is no exception to Melee Basic Attack in play. Therefore, Melee Basic Attack takes precidence. However, you can use a reach weapon, because Polearm Gamble changes how Opportunity Attack works, because it's explicitly doing so, and will in every way it has to to MAKE IT WORK.

'It does not work' isn't an out for Opportunity Attack vs Polearm Gamble. It IS an out for Melee Basic Attack. Do you not understand the difference?

 

[Aulirophile]

I understand you think there is a difference. But there isn't. Powers have specific rules that you're not addressing, not the least of which is that they require their range and targeting rules be followed. Of course it breaks, because the rule is poorly written (in this case). You're just trying to keep it working when it doesn't work, which is fine for practical purposes but not for RAW purposes. RAW, PG says "Make an OA." OK... out of range, done. This isn't any different then shifting away from a charge. Out of range? Damn, no MBA.

That is the RAW order of events, because all PG does is say "make an OA" it does not modify the range of the power (because it doesn't /gasp, say it does, in order for specific > general to apply there has to actually be a specific). You can't just make up things to make things work like you want them to, which is what you're doing. You get to make an OA. OA is a power with restrictions, those restrictions still exist because nothing overrides them.

 

[DracoSuave]

In a case, however, where executing something specific cannot work, you have an implicit contradiction wherein a direct explicit[/] contradiction does not need to occur.

An example of this would be Commander's Strike. It has an attack roll of 'Your opponent makes a basic attack' and a hit component of 'the attack does +4 damage'. As most powers are templated that is nonsense, 'as your opponent makes a basic attack' cannot possibly hit as it is not an attack roll.

However, game elements must always work, and therefore SvG forces it to work by having it plow through game rules that say it simply cannot. Nothing contained within it can say it does not work, it works because it says it works.

In the case of Polearm Gamble, yes, actually, it works because it says it works. That's good enough to satisfy SvG, and if more general rules say it cannot possibly work, then those rules get trumped.

The rules cannot make specific elements simply not work, not so easily as that. That is not a logical possibility in 4th edition. Specific Vs General is a guarantee that they do. If SvG can't make Polearm Gamble work, you're not using enough SvG.

The difference between this, and using a non-ranged weapon, is that once you accept that a situation exists where Polearm Gamble can work so long as you use a reach weapon, it now works, SvG is satisfied enough, and the rest of the rules of the game operate as needed. The contradiction is resolved.

To sum up:

If a game element simply cannot work, the rules are wrong. Specific vs General makes sure this happens.
If a game element can work, but in this specific case doesn't work because of a specific scenario, Specific vs General makes sure the specific case trumps the game element, as it is now the general.

The moment you say 'You can never use Polearm Gamble because the rules don't allow it' you've identified a contradiction and ergo, MUST apply SvG until that contradiction is resolved. There is no such thing as 'it cannot work' in 4e.

 

[Aulirophile]

No... game elements can not work. Barreling Charge doesn't work, for instance. Dozens of stealth related things don't work due to stealth errata, for several months roundabout charge did nothing at all. Stuff doesn't work all the time in fact, so that isn't a sound argument (nor is it an actual Rules argument, since we are actually discussing the rules of a game that is kind of relevant). Unless you'd actually care to post a source for "If a rule doesn't appear to work just kind of fudge it till it does something." Good luck with that.

By your argument if a power/feat/etc granted an MBA to an ally against a specific target, any ally anywhere on the map could make it regardless of range, because "the power says so." If you disagree, then your argument is wrong, because the situations are identical. You're violating the targeting and range rules in both cases, with nothing that allows you to do so.

Hell, this isn't even the first case of a new book or errata breaking something so it doesn't work properly and needs to be fixed. Usually the rules update team has been pretty good about it.

 

[DracoSuave]

In your case tho, an ability granting an MBA isn't changing how MBAs work. That's why that case does not work. Also, the power that is granting that MBA can work if the target is in range of the person you are granting the MBA to. The power -works-. That's not the same thing as having a feat that -cannot work-. The example is not analogous.

Polearm is changing how OAs work, it absolutely has to. You admit it the second you say that it changes the trigger. The trigger is part of the text of the power itself, so the moment you say 'It has a different trigger' you've changed how the power works. But you cannot say 'That's all it can change' because if Polearm Gamble is changing how OA works, you cannot then say it does not change how OA works.

You admit it changes how OA works, and you admit there's a contradiction that stops Polearm Gamble from happening.

The range has to change as well, if the trigger changes. Polearm Gamble isn't explicitly changing the trigger either... are you suggesting that powers that grant Melee Basic Attacks can't work because MBA is a Standard Action? Of course not. When the rules change, the rules change.

Putting your head in the sand and refusing to execute SvG isn't good execution of the rules. Sure some game elements now do nothing... often it is because they're redundant. Abilities that allowed you to charge in ways you couldn't before but can now do actually work, they just don't do anything because they don't create a contradiction in the rules.

In other cases, it's often because the game element was designed to interract with a game rule that no longer exists, and therefore it never comes up. Stealth powers like you mentioned come to mind, because they simply don't have anything to interract with. Obviously those can't be brute forced.

In those kinds of cases, yes, they stop working.

Polearm Gamble, however, is NOT redundant, and it DOES interact with existing rule elements. It's not the same thing at all.

There's three basic rules. One is 'always round down' and not important....

The other two are 'Yes, things can break the rules' and 'if they do, they win.' Polearm Gamble breaks the rules, ergo, it wins. Page 11. PHB.

 

[Aulirophile]

Exactly, nothing is changing how powers work... you're just conveniently ignoring that powers have range and targeting requirements for some bizarre reason. So you agree your argument is wrong, you cannot simultaneously deny the hypothetical power working and accept PG works. Now that is a contradiction. This isn't though. PG still does something, it provokes an OA... which automatically fails. No contradiction of SvG, you did exactly what PG said to.

PG does not, currently, work by RAW. Period. And the argument "but stuff isn't allowed to not work" is not a rules argument, and it is not backed up by any rules. It is also demonstrably untrue, tons of stuff in 4e doesn't work. Hell, there are some powers that outright do not work by RAW, and dozens of others that had to be errata'd to work. Mistakes happen, it doesn't mean the power somehow magically works because people really want it to. That is nonsense.

 

[DracoSuave]

Exactly, nothing is changing how powers work... you're just conveniently ignoring that powers have range and targeting requirements for some bizarre reason. So you agree your argument is wrong, you cannot simultaneously deny the hypothetical power working and accept PG works. Now that is a contradiction. This isn't though. PG still does something, it provokes an OA... which automatically fails. No contradiction of SvG, you did exactly what PG said to.

I am not ignoring that powers have range and targeting requirements. Far from it, I'm acknowledging they do and that Polearm Gamble has to override them in order to work.

HUGE DIFFERENCE

PG does not, currently, work by RAW. Period. And the argument "but stuff isn't allowed to not work" is not a rules argument, and it is not backed up by any rules. It is also demonstrably untrue, tons of stuff in 4e doesn't work. Hell, there are some powers that outright do not work by RAW, and dozens of others that had to be errata'd to work. Mistakes happen, it doesn't mean the power somehow magically works because people really want it to. That is nonsense.

It works because Polearm Gamble alters opportunity attacks so that it does. It names it by name, and creates a situation where the only way it CAN work is to alter OA. No amount of head-in-the-sand claiming 'NO IT DOESN'T LA LA LA' doesn't stop it from doing exactly this, and that's EXACTLY what you're trying to do. You're claiming it cannot work because it can't alter opportunity attack even tho it BLEEDING SAYS IT ALTERS OPPORTUNITY ATTACK.

And, you even admit there's a contradiction, and the EXISTANCE of the contradiction is all that is required to kick SvG into gear and make it work. If you acknowledge the contradiction, you fire up SvG to make it work. If you do not, you are not properly applying SvG, which ALWAYS kicks in any time there's a contradiction between specific and general rules. It says it very succinctly.

'The specific rule always wins.'

Polearm Gamble wins. You just haven't figured out how it wins yet.

 

[Nullzone]

Wait a minute, why are we arguing Polearm Gamble anyway?

PG = Make an OA on an enemy entering a square adjacent to you; they enter the square, you make the OA, they're at Melee 1. It works fine...?