Shifting when not adjacent?

[Khime]

Question has come up in our group regarding shifting. Basically, we need to know which part of the rule description is the actual rule. You see, shifting says, in part:
No Opportunity Attacks: If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack.

Is the 'rule' part the 'No Opportunity Attacks', meaning you can't make a movement-triggered OA against someone who shifts? Or is the 'rule' part that you can't make an OA against someone who shifts out of a square adjacent to an enemy?

This came up because feats like Polearm Gamble and monsters with Threatening Reach allow OAs against enemies not adjacent to them, and some members of my group are arguing that the RAW say shifting only avoids OA if you shift out of an adjacent square, not if you shift anywhere else within the creature's threatening reach.

Of course, the DM has the final say, but we prefer to first use the RAW/RAI before deciding to change to a house rule if we disagree.

 

[Danceofmasks]

By RAW it seems shifting provokes OA from polearm gamble & threatening reach.
Not confident what RAI would be.

 

[Tale]

I'm thinking that Shifting simply does not provoke opportunity attacks, period. The description of shifting not provoking on moving out of adjacent is a description (not a rule, itself) of how it would work under the general rules. Threatening reach and others would be a specific that breaks how to provoke opportunity, but not how to avoid it.

Of course, that's a only justification for the interpretation I think is most fair.

 

[DracoSuave]

OA specifically mentions leaving a square as opposed to other movements triggering no OAs at all. This is a difference that is important. Polearm Gamble works around this principle, making polearm fighters -very- nasty. If they had intended 'no opportunity attacks at all' they'd have worded it similiar to how they did for Teleport and for Forced Movement.

 

[Tale]

If they had intended 'no opportunity attacks at all' they'd have worded it similiar to how they did for Teleport and for Forced Movement.

Good point.

 

[Khime]

OA specifically mentions leaving a square as opposed to other movements triggering no OAs at all. This is a difference that is important. Polearm Gamble works around this principle, making polearm fighters -very- nasty. If they had intended 'no opportunity attacks at all' they'd have worded it similiar to how they did for Teleport and for Forced Movement.

Hmm... I can see your point here. Two things, though, bother me:
1) The OA section of the rules for Teleport, Forced Movement, and Shift are all called No Opportunity Attacks, but they all three have different wording. The specialized wording for Shift may just be to remind you of the only time when you would normally provoke an OA. Forced Movement says it does not provoke any opportunity actions, but Teleport only mentions opportunity attacks, so by that reading you can do non-attack Opportunity actions in response to Teleport, so long as they're not attacks.

2) The summary of actions on p289 describes shift as "Move 1 square without provoking opportunity attacks". Is that a sloppy summary, or a concise summary that the more detailed rule somehow manages to muddle?

 

[fuzzlewump]

No Opportunity Attacks: If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack.

Alright, imagine you are adjacent to an enemy and there is an enemy with threatening reach two squares away. You shift toward the enemy with reach, and no OA is made because you were in a square adjacent to "an enemy."

Remove the adjacent enemy from the situation, and according to your possible interpretation, shifting away from empty squares now provokes a OA. This makes no sense. There's no doubt in my mind that shifting simply means no OAs.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

This came up because feats like Polearm Gamble and monsters with Threatening Reach allow OAs against enemies not adjacent to them

Polearm Gamble does not allow you to make OAs against non-adjacent enemies.

 

[Branduil]

Alright, imagine you are adjacent to an enemy and there is an enemy with threatening reach two squares away. You shift toward the enemy with reach, and no OA is made because you were in a square adjacent to "an enemy."

Remove the adjacent enemy from the situation, and according to your possible interpretation, shifting away from empty squares now provokes a OA. This makes no sense. There's no doubt in my mind that shifting simply means no OAs.

I agree.

Polearm Gamble does not allow you to make OAs against non-adjacent enemies.

OAs are immediate interrupt. So you can make an OA against an enemy non-adjacent to you.

 

[Dragonstriker]

I agree.



OAs are immediate interrupt. So you can make an OA against an enemy non-adjacent to you.

No, Polearm Gamble means you can make an OA when a non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you - if they are just shifting or moving to another non-adjacent square, you're out of luck.