Opportunity Attacks - no limit ?

[abyssaldeath]

OA's are interrupts, so the attack actually happens before they enter the adjacent square.

 

[Nullzone]

Ah, of course. Silly me, carry on

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy...

Now, OA in the RC is a power with a range of Melee 1. NOTHING in PG says anything about changing the range. It simply indicates when you can trigger the OA, so it overrides the TRIGGER CONDITION of the OA power in RC. The RANGE is still the same as ever, which is obviously the issue. There's no 'specific beats general' here because there's nothing specific which overrides the general rule that the range of OA is Melee 1.

You can argue all you want about what it is SUPPOSED to do. We all agree entirely about what it is supposed to do. We agree we will run it that way in actual play. That doesn't change the fact that by RAW properly constructed PG is now a useless nonfunctional feat.

Someone somewhere at WotC simply screwed up. They rewrote OA as a power in keeping with making various things into powers (in this case probably misguided overall) but they either weren't strong on the technicalities of the rules or simply didn't actually look carefully at what they were doing and make sure it actually worked. Not REALLY a big deal since we know what RAI is from previous use. It still aught to be cleared up simply for the sake of being thorough, though I doubt it will happen any time soon.

 

[Nichwee]

I think the point being made is that changing the Trigger of something to an event outside its range inherently changes the range/makes the Range entry irrelevant to the arguement of usability.

Think about the following dummy situation:
Fake Power 1
Encounter Power
Action: Oppertunity Action
Range: Close burst 5
Trigger: An enemy with the burst is reduced to zero hit points.
Effect: You point and say "Har Har". All enemies gain -2 to all defenses UEOYNT.

Fake Feat 1
You may trigger "Fake Power 1" in responce to reducing to zero hit points any enemy with 10 squares of you.

I think it is fair to assume "Fake Feat 1" has altered "Fake Power 1" such that it is able to be triggered by an emeny 7 squares (for example) away from you. This has either contradicted the Range "Close burst 5" and made it "Close burst 10" or has contradicted the Trigger's dependency on being within the range of the "Close burst 5". Either way the range has been contradictted by the change in trigger.

If such a contradiction has taken place then "Specific beats General" is invoked and the feat wins.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, except there are many CORRECT rules interpretations that are dependent on proper construction as well. The issue is one EXPECTS something to happen a certain way. Your example "fake feat" is simply written poorly/incorrectly. It should simply state that it increases the range of "fake power".

However, I will say this: I think there is a way to construct OA so that it isn't really a problem. The power is not operating on the triggering enemy. It is an 'enabling' power. Its range REALLY should be 'personal' because its effect is to grant the USER of the power an OA. This requires several changes but resolves the problem.

1) Range is personal
2) The Target: line refers to YOU and not some other target.
3) The Effect is reworded to say "triggering creature" instead of "target".

NOW you have a properly formulated OA power. It has no range, the problem goes away, and it enables the MBA to take place, which is then governed by a range of Melee Weapon, which is perfectly fine. In fact the range of "Melee 1" at that point isn't even technically incorrect, just rather silly.

 

[Aulirophile]

I think the point being made is that changing the Trigger of something to an event outside its range inherently changes the range/makes the Range entry irrelevant to the arguement of usability.

Think about the following dummy situation:
Fake Power 1
Encounter Power
Action: Oppertunity Action
Range: Close burst 5
Trigger: An enemy with the burst is reduced to zero hit points.
Effect: You point and say "Har Har". All enemies gain -2 to all defenses UEOYNT.

Fake Feat 1
You may trigger "Fake Power 1" in responce to reducing to zero hit points any enemy with 10 squares of you.

I think it is fair to assume "Fake Feat 1" has altered "Fake Power 1" such that it is able to be triggered by an emeny 7 squares (for example) away from you. This has either contradicted the Range "Close burst 5" and made it "Close burst 10" or has contradicted the Trigger's dependency on being within the range of the "Close burst 5". Either way the range has been contradictted by the change in trigger.

If such a contradiction has taken place then "Specific beats General" is invoked and the feat wins.

No.

OA is a Power.
MBA is a Power.

Power grants ally MBA against a specific target.

Can the ally make the MBA regardless of range?

Under your logic, the answer is yes. Under the actual rules, the answer is no (and you can't pick and choose here, the logic is the same in both cases, so either PG works and you can MBA someone from anywhere with a granted attack, or PG doesn't work and you can't). Specific versus General must be specific, in that it must actually specifically modify to be applicable. Viper's Strike is a perfect example, it specifically says shifting provokes OAs. If the power just said "provokes OAs" that'd be useless, because it wouldn't excepting itself from any rules. Either MBA granting powers can literally do so at infinite range (barring some specific examples, some actually call out an "adjacent" requirement which, due to their specificity, would even ignore your ally having reach! How apropos.) or they can't. If they can't, then PG doesn't work by RAW.

And it is worth noting that there are powers that say you can make an attack outside of the normally legal range that would otherwise just be non-functional. That language would be pointless if Draco, and you, were not incorrect.

 

[DracoSuave]

Counterargument.

There is a feat available to monks that allows them to use Flurry of Blows powers against a target two squares away from them so long as they have a spear. However, all Flurry of Blows powers have a range that does not allow that, so... the... feat... does... not... do... what... it... says?

It doesn't have to explicitly say 'The range is increased.' This can be implied in the 4e rulesset, and IS implied in Polearm Gamble, as it is impossble for Polearm Gamble to meaningfully work without the implied range change.

There are plenty of powers and feats that operate under the assumption of implied changes to the powers they have, even under the modern power and rules templating, as the monk's feat exemplifies.

The problem is you're requiring the ruleset to have a tightness of language comparable to Magic: The Gathering... it simply does not, and should not. In the case of Polearm Gamble, with the burden of rules tightness that Fourth Edition allows for, you can actually have the feat work as written, without any additional language mucking it up.

The burden of rules tightness is set to Fourth Edition standard, not some higher 'competitive game' standard that other games must have to resolve rules issues. That's why rules 1 and 2 exists. 1 says powers can break the rules, and 2 says 'Don't matter what the general says, the specific always wins.'

That's why Polearm Gamble wins and works as it should. Rule 2 sits you down and says to you 'Look pal, it doesn't matter if it technically can't work. The technicality is because of a general rule and not a specific situation. This is a specific situation. It wins, stop suggestng it can't.'

The idea that it cannot change the range of the power opportunity attack to make it work... or even that it HAS to, when other feats under the exact same rules templating as OA don't do so and yet work fine is rediculous. Polearm Gamble changes OA in any way it can to fit its needs so that it works as it should. It doesn't 'win in specific ways but still lose.' That's not what SvG says. It says Polearm Gamble wins. Period. The sentance ends there.


Moreover, the idea that Polearm Gamble 'uses the power' and thus all the parameters of the powers must remain intact is also rediculous. If that were the case, then PG would use the power... the power would see its trigger wasn't satisfied, and would refuse to work. But... obviously that's not the case, so PG must alter the power to suit its needs. At that point... PG forces OA to do its bidding. The trigger doesn't fit? Make it fit. The range doesn't fit? Make it fit.

That's all. Polearm Gamble now works. Happy day.

 

[Aulirophile]

Counterargument.

There is a feat available to monks that allows them to use Flurry of Blows powers against a target two squares away from them so long as they have a spear. However, all Flurry of Blows powers have a range that does not allow that, so... the... feat... does... not... do... what... it... says?.

/yawn. Specifically modifies the range (hey, look, it actually is Specific vs General. You found one! Good job.)

"Implied" is not specific, either. Specific requires specificity. Again, you're not making a rules argument. By the rules, you're wrong.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Counterargument.

There is a feat available to monks that allows them to use Flurry of Blows powers against a target two squares away from them so long as they have a spear. However, all Flurry of Blows powers have a range that does not allow that, so... the... feat... does... not... do... what... it... says?

Yes, but the aforementioned feat, Pointed Step Style, DOES talk about range.

"When your flurry of blows power is triggered by an attack that you make with a spear, one target of that power can be up to 2 squares away from you."

The bolded part looks a heck of a lot like a modification to the range. It seems fairly explicit to me. Notice too that a simple statement that the range of Flurry of Blows is increased wouldn't work here either, as the change is only a partial exception. There is in fact no other way it could have been more clearly or explicitly specified.

And how do you answer Aulirophile's observation about MBA? Certainly we understand that in the example he gave above that MBA's range is NOT modified. How would we distinguish these cases if we can start interpolating implied exceptions to the rules wherever we feel they should go?

I agree, the 4e rules are not perfectly airtight. I don't think that is for lack of trying on the part of the designers though. It may be for lack of skill at phrasing the rules carefully enough. There are also certainly areas where certain things are left somewhat open, like what you can do with a delayed action, but notice no exceptions are involved there, or if there are any they are explicit.

Again, nobody is going to play PG as if it didn't work, but the rule really has been modified in Essentials in a way that doesn't quite work. Much like the way Slayer's can't technically apply their encounter power properly. Nobody is going to play either one as written and RAI is pretty clear, but it still isn't RAW.

 

[Istar]

It's one round, because what matters is enemy turns, not your turns. You can't take OAs during your turn, so the end result is that you will have Threatening Reach for one of each of your opponent's turns (barring them delaying past your turn or something like that).

Yes of course, silly me, I should have worked that out.
Oh well, good to start the battle off with that.
They all rush in and first round I get to slow them all at range 4.