Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4448893" data-attributes="member: 58162">"has not yet resolved" is not synonymous with "has not yet initiated". When trying to resolve events that are not well modeled by the system, I find it helps to think about what is really going on. A move can be thought of as the following steps:Character leaves his current square (as per CS this is when the typical OA occurs)Character enters his new square (this is when Polearm Gamble is triggered). The destination of the push depends on where the creature is when pushed. Imagine that I am standing on your porch.  If you are set to push me back the second I move, you will probably push me right off of the porch because the starting point of the push is my original position. If you are set to push me back if and only if I enter your house, you will probably push me back onto the porch because the starting point of the push is my destination. The push does not start until I reach the destination square and thus the push moves me one square away from the destination square. And that is the difference, imho. Normal OAs are triggered when the creature begins to leave his current square, and thus the origin point for the push is the start point of the move.Polearm Gamble is triggered when the creature reaches an adjacent square and thus the origin point for the push is the destination point of the move. It is occuring before the move is "resolved" because the creature never actually stops in the adjacent square. (Assuming a hit) it is pushed out as soon as it arrives. Carl The problem, of course, is that they came up with this ludicrous version of Polearm Gamble. Why couldn't they have just said: "Polearm Gamble allows the character to take Opportunity Attacks on targets that leave squares within his melee range (subject to the normal limitations on Opportunity Attacks)." This would have been more elegant and prevented the majority of these discussions. Ok, I'm sure the reason they didn't take the easy way out is they only wanted it to work on characters who were approaching, not retreating or skirting from two squares away.  But even that could have been written far more elegantly.  (Take OAs on "targets that leave squares within his melee range to move adjacent to him".) CFT</blockquote>

Verification