Shield Push - Shift invalidation

[Nail]

...attacks have targets, movement does not.

Exactly.

There is no rule that requires you to lay out your path of movement before (or even during!) your movement. In essence, you are always moving one square at a time.

 

[eamon]

This email is to inform you that we have received your incident and have escalated it for further review. A representative should be contacting you concerning your incident in 24-48 hours or less. We apologize for this delay and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve this.

The creature would announce that it was going to shift, then the fighter would take his combat challenge attack and push the creature one square, then the creature would shift. No action would be invalidate because the creature can still shift once it has been pushed, unless you were able to push it to a spot were it was unable to shift, then the shift would be invalidated.

Well, they don't give much argumentation, but everyone else on this thread does... I'm satisfied, anyhow!

Thanks everyone for what might have seemed an obvious answer.

 

[Syrsuro]

Well, they don't give much argumentation, but everyone else on this thread does... I'm satisfied, anyhow!

Thanks everyone for what might have seemed an obvious answer.

Inference from the CS response:

The fighter does not know where the target is going to shift to - only that he is going to shift and thus cannot base his actions on that information.

Carl

 

[Mahali]

so for instance, if you try to attack someone but he shifts away, you can't instead attack someone else.

Now this is a new version and we're still getting all the nuances down but:

Why not?

If there was something in the rules regarding this surely all the rules lawyers I play with (and I'm one of them) would point it out.

 

[Syrsuro]

Now this is a new version and we're still getting all the nuances down but:

Why not?

If there was something in the rules regarding this surely all the rules lawyers I play with (and I'm one of them) would point it out.

Ignoring the rules for a moment (because I think that they are likely simplified to the point that the following nuance is lost) I think it should depend upon how the shift is triggered.

If the shift is triggered by an attack upon the creature, then the person cannot choose a new target and must either attack or not attack the shifting creature. (Note, if the shift was triggered by a charge, the charging character is allowed to extend their charge if they have sufficient movement left).

If the shift is triggered by any attack, regardless of target, then the attacker might be able to choose a new target.

The reasoning is based in part upon the CS statement above.

In the first case, the shifter is informed that there was an attack on him, specifically. Thus the attack was initiated and the immediate interrupt occurs and then the attack is resolved, if possible. If the attack is then directed against someone else, the triggering event has no longer occured and a paradox has been creatured (a triggered event occured but the trigger did not occur).

In the second case, the shifter is informed that there will be an attack on someone but the target is not yet specified when the shift occurs and thus the attacker can choose a new target. If the attacker attacks a different target, no paradox is created because the triggering event has still occured.

But I suspect that the rules will only cover the first case as that is the most likely case and the clearer case.

Carl

 

[eamon]

Here's another situation then: what if a creature moves toward a polearm-gambling paladin. The OA is triggered by the creature's attempt to move adjacent. Must the creature then continue its move (if able)? Or can he change the square he's moving to. For that matter, can he even choose not to move?

It's not the best example, since it'll very rarely be the case that the creature which wanted to approach the polearm-gamble wielding before the OA, won't want to after the OA (since he now has combat advantage). In any case, it does highlight a case where the movement was at least partially declared beforehand (the creature wanted to move adjacent), similar to the targeted situation.

 

[Syrsuro]

Here's another situation then: what if a creature moves toward a polearm-gambling paladin. The OA is triggered by the creature's attempt to move adjacent. Must the creature then continue its move (if able)? Or can he change the square he's moving to. For that matter, can he even choose not to move?

It's not the best example, since it'll very rarely be the case that the creature which wanted to approach the polearm-gamble wielding before the OA, won't want to after the OA (since he now has combat advantage). In any case, it does highlight a case where the movement was at least partially declared beforehand (the creature wanted to move adjacent), similar to the targeted situation.

Ah, a corner case. Kinda.

But Polearm Gambit requires a Polearm, polearms are two handed weapons. Shield Push requires a shield. You cannot wield a shield and a polearm at the same time.

So I'm not sure that there is really a valid test case. How are you making the shift invalid (aside from stopping movement or knocking prone which would make the question moot).

Carl

 

[Hypersmurf]

But Polearm Gambit requires a Polearm, polearms are two handed weapons. Shield Push requires a shield. You cannot wield a shield and a polearm at the same time.

A Large creature could treat a human-sized polearm as a one-handed weapon, and manage it.

So I'm not sure that there is really a valid test case. How are you making the shift invalid (aside from stopping movement or knocking prone which would make the question moot).

We know that the shift is to a square adjacent to the paladin, because otherwise Polearm Gambit would not have triggered. If the OA pushes the creature one square back, he is now in a square where his one-square shift cannot reach a square adjacent to the paladin, which means that any shift he makes is not a shift that would trigger Polearm Gambit.

Since an "attack that targets you" which triggers an interrupt cannot then be altered into an attack that doesn't target you, surely a "shift to an adjacent square" which triggers an interrupt cannot then be altered into a shift to a non-adjacent square?

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

A Large creature could treat a human-sized polearm as a one-handed weapon, and manage it.

Perhaps. But now you have crossed into NPC/Creature rules rather than PC rules. And the same rules do not govern both.

Second - can you point to where it specifies that weapon feats such as Polearm Gamble work when the polearm is wielded one handed? Since the feats are written specifically for the PCs, you can't. Its just not covered by the RAW at present. We can infer that it wouldn't change, because its not described as changing but that is a fallacy since the rules were not written to apply to NPCs or Creatures.

But most importantly - the hypothetical under discussion is Shield Push together with Fighter Combat Challenge (now extended to a large creature).

Combat Challenge specifies:

whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.​

Shield Push specifies:

If you hit a foe with an attack granted by your Combat Challenge class feature, you push the target 1 square after dealing damage.​

You cannot use a Shield Push with Polearm Gambit because Polearm Gambit grants an Opportunity Attack, not a Combat Challenge attack. More importantly, CC specifically requries them to be adjacent.


----------------------------------------------------------


But lets assume that we are discussing this a year from now, and in the mean time an official PC race (not a back-of-the-book MM race) exists that is large size (note: at present, afaik, none of the races in the MM allow for large PCs) and has a power that allows it to push following Polearm Gamble. Very hypothetical. But lets go on....

We know that the shift is into a square adjacent to the paladin, because otherwise Polearm Gambit would not have triggered. If the OA pushes the creature one square back, he is now in a square where his one-square shift cannot reach a square adjacent to the paladin, which means that any shift he makes is not a shift that would trigger Polearm Gambit.

I disagree. Although we are definately in vague language territory here.
Not to mention we are talking about a hypothetical PC race using hypothetical feats and thus are not remotely in the realm of RAW.

But as I see it, A normal move triggers an OA when the target moves out of the adjacent square. Polearm Gamble triggers when the target moves into the adjacent square. I think that is a significant difference that applies here, especially when reworded as follows:

A normal move triggers an OA when it is initiated (at the start of the move).
Polearm Gamble triggers when it is competed (at the end of the move).

note: for the purposes of this discussion, the term 'move' refers to the micromove taking the creature from one square to another, not the results of the entire move action.

Because of this distinction, I would rule that a triggered push (Shield Push) in the first case pushes the moving character out of the adjacent square, acting before the move starts while the PG-triggered (hypothetical) push in the second case pushes the moving character out of the adjacent square, acting at the conclusion of the move, after the initial square has been abandoned.

Since an "attack that targets you" which triggers an interrupt cannot then be altered into an attack that doesn't target you, surely a "shift to an adjacent square" which triggers an interrupt cannot then be altered into a shift to a non-adjacent square?

-Hyp.

Agreed. In fact, in my ruling above the shift has already begun and thus has been used. To put it another way, they shifted. They just didn't end up where they wanted to when the shift was over.

But its a ruling, not a rule. And a hypothetical ruling at that.

Carl

 

[Hypersmurf]

You cannot use a Shield Push with Polearm Gambit because Polearm Gambit grants an Opportunity Attack, not a Combat Challenge attack.

Fair catch - I didn't look up Shield Push, assuming that the objection "You cannot wield a shield and a polearm at the same time" was all that was the problem. "A Large creature could manage it" holds true for addressing that objection, but not for the ultimate goal of Pushing off a Polearm Gamble OA.

But as I see it, A normal move triggers an OA when the target moves out of the adjacent square. Polearm Gamble triggers when the target moves into the adjacent square. I think that is a significant difference that applies here, especially when reworded as follows:

A normal move triggers an OA when it is initiated (at the start of the move).
Polearm Gamble triggers when it is competed (at the end of the move).

note: for the purposes of this discussion, the term 'move' refers to the micromove taking the creature from one square to another, not the results of the entire move action.

An Opportunity Attack is an Opportunity Action, and interrupts the action that triggers it; it occurs before the triggering action is resolved.

An OA triggered by normal movement occurs before "target moves out of an adjacent square" resolves; they are still in the adjacent square for the OA.

An Polearm Gamble OA occurs before "nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you" resolves; they are still a nonadjacent enemy for the OA, since they are not in the square adjacent to you until the triggering action is resolved.

So the hypothetical push would push the nonadjacent enemy, since he has not yet resolved his "move into adjacent square" action when the OA occurs.

-Hyp.