Opportunity Attacks - no limit ?

[Aulirophile]

This is because the rule -specifically- sets a limits on stealth checks regardless of the cause. If you have a power that says you can make additional stealth checks, or that you can make a stealth check to avoid losing the hidden status, those work just fine because they break the rules.

OA has a specific limitation, it can only target up to 1 square away. PG has no text that overrides this. The situations are directly analogous. You still need to follow the general rule without an exception. OA's only working at 1 square away is the general rule, you've got diddly for a specific rule to change it. Literally could not be more comparable.

Power allows a Stealth Check.
Feat allows an OA, which is a power (with no other provisos).

You meet the requirements for Stealth? No? No check, sorry.
You meet the requirements for targeting that guy with an OA? No? Oh, sorry, no can do.

Give it a couple of months. It'll be errata'd with some very simple explanation like "by a strict reading of the rules the OA power having a range of 1 made certain game elements non-functional." Then you'll have a better understanding of what SvG actually is and what it isn't.

 

[DracoSuave]

OA has a specific limitation, it can only target up to 1 square away. PG has no text that overrides this. The situations are directly analogous. You still need to follow the general rule without an exception. OA's only working at 1 square away is the general rule, you've got diddly for a specific rule to change it. Literally could not be more comparable.

Except that Polearm Gamble specifically changes how Opportunity Attack works. You can't claim that it changes the trigger but that it cannot then work because it 'didn't change the range.' Cause, by that same logic, it couldn't then change the trigger either. Polearm Gamble doesn't 'explicitly' change only the trigger... it explicitly allows you to do something Opportunity Attack does not. It's very specific about what it allows you to do. It doesn't have to get Opportunity Attack's permission to change Opportunity Attack beyond saying 'You can now use an Opportunity Attack in a way you could not before.' That's all it needs to say. Because now you can. You don't get to pick and choose which subset of the thing it called out affects it. It calls out Opportunity Attack, Opportunity Attack is now its bitch. It is specific in doing so, it doesn't call out 'powers' or 'game element'. It says Opportunity Attack by name. It can't NOT change OA at that point.

Power allows a Stealth Check.
Feat allows an OA, which is a power (with no other provisos).

Power doesn't contradict the stealth rules. Stealth rules still apply.
Feat contradicts OA. OA's status as a power is irrelevent, feat takes precedent.

You meet the requirements for Stealth? No? No check, sorry.
You meet the requirements for targeting that guy with an OA? No? Oh, sorry, no can do.

The difference is in contradiction. The power does not inherently contradict the rules for stealth. Whether you can or cannot stealth is actually irrelevant to whether you did so through movement or through a power. The rules for stealth apply to both, and the rules for stealth are clear that they can apply to both situations. That makes stealth more specific than a power that simply allows you to make a stealth check. Moreover, these powers are not changing how stealth works in their situations. There's no specific situation here, just a general one.

The feat creates a condition where, as you've pointed out, it is impossible to use the feat because 'the rules for Opportunity Attack disallow it.' In this case tho, the feat is clearly changing how Opportunity Attack works. You've even admitted it, it changes the trigger. Because it is changing how Opportunity Attack works, you clearly DO have a specific vs general situation. And, as you've noted, Polearm Gamble doesn't work unless it overrides Opportunity Attack, then the rules have a provision which cause it to do so. "Polearm Gamble wins." Once you've actually acknowledged that Polearm Gamble is a specific change to Opportunity Attack, then you must therefore acknowledge Polearm Gamble wins. You don't have an out 'Polearm Gamble wins by not winning' or 'Polearm Gamble is the goggles and does nothing.' Once you have a specific contradicting the general, you make it work, because the specific must win.

'Win.' That's the exact word used. Not 'alters only what it says it can verbatim even if the element will not work.' It wins. And if, in your interpretation, Polearm Gamble cannot win over something it explicitly mentions in its own text, then you are wrong.

Give it a couple of months. It'll be errata'd with some very simple explanation like "by a strict reading of the rules the OA power having a range of 1 made certain game elements non-functional." Then you'll have a better understanding of what SvG actually is and what it isn't.

Except if those game elements explicitly call out Opportunity Attack, nothing in opportunity attack can inherently make those elements nonfunctional. That's just not how 'The specific wins' works. It doesn't matter how range works, if it says Range 1, and that won't let Polearm Gamble work, then by specific vs general, guess what the rules say wins?

Here's a hint. The specific. And nothing in Opportunity Attack is specific to Polearm Gamble. Everything in Polearm Gamble is specific to Opportunity Attack.

By a strict reading of the rules, Polearm Gamble wins. Every other rule is a slave to that first one. EVERY rule is a slave to that rule.

 

[Istar]

And you make it, and it auto-fails, because you can't reach. Again, not a rules argument. The rules say it doesn't currently work.

No one is suggesting you play it that way, only that by current RAW it doesn't work and the OA power needs to be fixed.

The Feat, you may have heard of it, called "Polearm Gamble" says it works.

There are lots of feats that you dont need to pick now, because of rule changes, this is not one of those.

Roundabout charge has nothing to do with this feat.

 

[Aulirophile]

You've even admitted it, it changes the trigger.

No, it doesn't change the trigger. It adds a trigger under which you can use the OA power. Not the same thing. It doesn't modify the power, it says "make an OA when xyz happens." OK... I do that. Because the feat says to. That is what SvG means, you do what the specific says and for the rest you follow the general rules. If there is no specific that contradicts the general rule then you can't do it. Your argument is the literal equivalent of saying you can ignore the range requirement of MBA on granted attacks because "the power says the ally can make the MBA!" Wizards isn't perfect, they can and do break things.

In this case, you make the OA, are out of range, it fails, and you move on (preferably to the errata boards to mention that it is broken).

 

[DracoSuave]

No, it doesn't change the trigger. It adds a trigger under which you can use the OA power. Not the same thing. It doesn't modify the power, it says "make an OA when xyz happens." OK... I do that. Because the feat says to. That is what SvG means, you do what the specific says and for the rest you follow the general rules. If there is no specific that contradicts the general rule then you can't do it. Your argument is the literal equivalent of saying you can ignore the range requirement of MBA on granted attacks because "the power says the ally can make the MBA!" Wizards isn't perfect, they can and do break things.

In this case, you make the OA, are out of range, it fails, and you move on (preferably to the errata boards to mention that it is broken).

The problem with this logic is that you admit the new trigger asigned from Polearm Gamble is valid. Which means that the Trigger: entry in the power Opportunity Attack is ignored by Polearm Gamble, otherwise Polearm Gamble would fail... cause as you state yourself 'Polearm Gamble doesn't change Opportunity Attack.'

So, quibbling about range is a minor issue when OA's text doesn't allow it 'because it's a power' to be triggered by alternative means? When Polearm Gamble triggers it, you can choose to ignore the trigger but not other aspects of the power that Polearm Gamble requires to function?

Bullocks. That's NOT how SvG works. The moment you relent that you have to ignore parts of Opportunity Attack (the trigger entry) for Polearm Gamble to function, then you are relenting you are ignoring parts of Opportunity Attack in order for Polearm Gamble to function. It no longer matters at this stage that Opportunity Attack is a power, an action, or any other type of game element. Polearm Gamble necessitates change to work, ergo, that change occurs.

This is analogous to how Commander's Strike works. You cannot make a 'An ally makes a basic attack' attack roll, and yet... there it is. As there you are not actually making an attack roll, there is no hit, and yet... there it is. And as the attack has already happened, the Hit: line shouldn't be able to change the basic attack, and yet... there it is.

A game element calling a power into play cannot be rendered invalidated by that game element alone. Circumstances can, in the case of stealth. Other effects can, in the case of conditions. Those are specific instances that trump the game element in question. However, Opportunity Attack, alone, is insufficient to invalidate Polearm Gamble. Your weapon reach is a specific circumstance that can render the MBA of OA invalid. Being dazed is a specific circumstance that can render the OA itself invalid. But absolutely no line of text within OA itself can be used as 'Well Polearm Gamble can't ever work.' Because by saying that, by even ADMITTING that, you've pointed out a contradiction between Polearm Gamble and OA.

That is the important word right there. 'Contradiction.' The rules are absolutely clear on how to resolve this sort of contradiction. There is only one possible occurance that can occur to resolve it. Absolutely no other possibility is allowable under the rules, because the rules are 100% clear on what you must do.

The most specific thing wins. Period. End of discussion. If PG contradicts OA, PG wins. Nothing in OA can inherently stop that.

The question I put to you is this: In order for Polearm Gamble to work, do you, in fact, relent that Polearm Gamble must break the rules?

 

[Aulirophile]

Again, "if the most specific thing wins" then PG would trigger off Forced Movement Shifting. It is "more specific" then those rules, by your logic. Only it doesn't work that way.

There is zero problem with my reasoning. I didn't say it changes the power. I said it adds a trigger, for you, under which you can use the power. Not the same thing. PG says "Make an OA." Which is a power, OK, I use the power (this is the only actual SvG that PG has btw). From that point onward you are restricted by the power. Just like when a power says "Ally can make an MBA" you are restricted by the power, MBA in this case. So either granted MBAs work at infinite range, or you're wrong. Your choice, but you can't have it both ways.

I mean, by your logic PG works at infinite range if someone attempts to teleport next to someone who has it, even though teleport cannot provoke OAs, because PG says "make an OA" and it is "more specific." Things do what they say they do, and nothing else. PG says make an OA, k, made it. The specific order would be Target: Can't Reach. Effect: Make MBA against Target. I have no target. Done. The trigger isn't relevant because you're using the power already. PG doesn't change anything else about OA though... because it doesn't say it does. Things only do what they say.

In order for Polearm Gamble to work either the OA power or PG would have to be errata'd. ^.^ And it will be.

 

[DracoSuave]

Again, "if the most specific thing wins" then PG would trigger off Forced Movement Shifting. It is "more specific" then those rules, by your logic. Only it doesn't work that way.

Not at all. Forced Movement/Shifting is more specific. Movement in general triggers opportunity actions. Those two situations confer immunity to opportunity actions. Polearm Gamble near normal movement works just fine. Polearm Gamble near shifting does not, because that's a specific situation that renders OAs inactive.

There is zero problem with my reasoning. I didn't say it changes the power. I said it adds a trigger, for you, under which you can use the power. Not the same thing. PG says "Make an OA." Which is a power, OK, I use the power (this is the only actual SvG that PG has btw).

At which point you read the Trigger: entry of the power, and realize the trigger has not been satisfied, and by your logic, you cannot use OA.

From that point onward you are restricted by the power. Just like when a power says "Ally can make an MBA" you are restricted by the power, MBA in this case. So either granted MBAs work at infinite range, or you're wrong. Your choice, but you can't have it both ways.

Not at all. The two are not analogous. Polearm Gamble allows you to use an OA at a range where using an OA would require breaking the rules in order for Polearm Gamble to work at all. That means that Polearm Gamble breaks the rules, and game elements that inherently break the rules work.

Making a Melee Basic Attack is different, as the act of assigning someone else to make one does not inherently break the rules on how to make one.

The difference between the two is important.

I mean, by your logic PG works at infinite range if someone attempts to teleport next to someone who has it, even though teleport cannot provoke OAs, because PG says "make an OA" and it is "more specific."

Again, that is not my logic. Polearm Gamble can break the rules imposed on Opportunity Attack because it inherently must do so to function. It cannot break the rules on Melee Basic attack because it does not inherently do so in order to function. It cannot break the rules on Teleport because Teleportation is specific to opportunity actions, which makes it specific to polearm gamble.

Things do what they say they do, and nothing else. PG says make an OA, k, made it. The specific order would be Target: Can't Reach. Effect: Make MBA against Target. I have no target. Done. The trigger isn't relevant because you're using the power already. PG doesn't change anything else about OA though... because it doesn't say it does. Things only do what they say.

In order for Polearm Gamble to work either the OA power or PG would have to be errata'd. ^.^ And it will be.

Except that this is false. You did not answer the question.

For Polearm Gamble to work, as things currently are, does it have to break the rules?

If yes: Then it works by Simple Rules, Many Exceptions (powers that break the rules work regardless of their breaking the rules)
If no: Then it works by Specific vs General.

Let's not ignore that basic fundamental rule: If something needs to break the rules in order to work, it the rules break, and it does work.

You claim that Polearm Gamble is fundamentally broken and cannot work by the rules. Guess what the book tells you to do? Break the rules. It's in the PHB. I suggest you read it carefully.

 

[Aulirophile]

Again, Specific vs General only works with specific exceptions. It isn't a catch-all, you don't get "implied exceptions" only explicit ones. PG's only specific exception is making an OA. Without a specific exception to modify the range, you're SOL, and it doesn't work.

There is another applicable rule "Things only do what they say they do." Does PG say it modifies the range? No. You're SOL.

It'll be errata'd, and when it is errata'd, you'll realize you're wrong about SvG inherently works.

 

[DracoSuave]

Again, Specific vs General only works with specific exceptions. It isn't a catch-all, you don't get "implied exceptions" only explicit ones. PG's only specific exception is making an OA. Without a specific exception to modify the range, you're SOL, and it doesn't work.

It names Opportunity Attack specifically. That's all that is necessary to make exceptions necessary for the game element to work. Once the game element makes the changes it needs to work, then we're cool.

The argument you are making is that Opportunity Attack's range 1 can trump Polearm Gamble's necessity that the range be ignored in order to function. That is no more the case than Commander's Strike needs to respect the action necessary to use a Melee Basic Attack even tho it does not specifically state the attack's action changes.

The reason range needs to be respected for Melee Basic Attack is because Commander's Strike does not need to alter Melee Basic Attack's range in order to function. Polearm Gamble needs to alter OA's range in order to function.

Commander's Strike wins without changing the range of MBA. Polearm Gamble cannot win without changing the range of OA. Polearm Gamble wins without changing the range of MBA. (use a reach weapon)

Now do you see the difference here? If an element needs to change something to win, it does so. If it does not, it does not do so. Winning trumps everything else, because that's what the rule dictates. It wins. Not 'it only wins specific exacting things it says it wins even if it invalidates the game element.'

There is another applicable rule "Things only do what they say they do." Does PG say it modifies the range? No. You're SOL.

It'll be errata'd, and when it is errata'd, you'll realize you're wrong about SvG inherently works.

"Things only do what they say they do." is actually NOT written in the PHB, nor is it in SvG, nor is it in SRME.

What it DOES say is: When a game element needs to break the rules in order to work, it DOES so.

What it DOES say is: When a specific game element contradicts a general rule, the specific element wins.

You have a contradiction. You have a game element that has to break the rules in order to work. Both rules are satisfied. The notion here is that it has to in order to work.

This is NOT magic the gathering, and you cannot expect nor impose the same burden on a roleplaying game. Nor should you. Particularily when you relent that the feat SHOULD work but CAN'T because of rules templating. The thing is, the rules already have that situation covered anyways. Polearm Gamble breaks the rules, goes ahead and does its thing.