Shifting when not adjacent?

[Kordeth]

I'm a little confused (as is often the case). Polearm Gamble doesn't say it's an interupt.

It's an OA, and all OAs interrupt the triggering action. PHB p. 290.

It occures when a non-adjacent enemy enters an adjacent square. It's not a regular OA, which triggers when an enemy leaves an adjacent square, and it looks like an immeadeate reaction to me. It seems tha attack actually happens in the square adjacent to you and here is why I think so-

It's an OA. OAs interrupt actions. There are no special rules about the OA from Polearm Gamble, it works exactly like every other OA in the game. If you argue that Polearm Gamble's OA occurs in the square adjacent to you, then you're also saying that OAs provoked by leaving an adjacent square happen after the move, which makes OAs next to useless.

An enemy teleports into an adjacent square from 4 squares away. Polearm gambit triggers. The condition, "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you..." is met. The attack cannot logically be taking place 4 squares away so it must take place in the adjacent square. I also don't see it interuptng a teleport that is being initiated 4 squares away.

Teleporting never provokes OAs (PHB p. 286). Loophole closed. You could further make a pretty compelling case that instantaneously appearing in a square is not the same thing as entering it.

Otherwise it should be worded that it allows an OA when a target moves or shifts from a non-adjacent square to a square adjacent to you, or give it a range 2, or some other wording, but since it spcifically includes a trigger different from a "normal" OA I have to give weight to the difference.

There's no difference in verbiage between "when an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you" and "when an enemy enters a square adjacent to you." They're the same rule.

Now what about forced movement? General rule, no OA. But Polearm Gamble is specific to this one feat. Does that make it a specific exception to the general rule covering OAs? If so, forced movement should likewise be a trigger.

That's not how specific vs. general works. Specific vs. general means if a rule explicitly says that you can do something a general rule says you can't (or vice versa), the specific rule trumps the general rule. All we have here is a feat that adds a new trigger for OAs. The attack still follows all the normal OA rules, is subject to the same exceptions, and occurs at the same point as any other OA. Forced movement doesn't provoke OAs, nothing in Polearm Gamble says "you may take this OA even if an enemy is forced into the square," so forced movement doesn't provoke from Polearm Gamble.

Technically, by RAW, you do provoke from Polearm Gamble if you shift, but IMHO the description of Shifting should be revised to say "Shifting does not provoke opportunity attacks" like teleporting and forced movement.

 

[dcyale]

It's an OA. OAs interrupt actions. There are no special rules about the OA from Polearm Gamble, it works exactly like every other OA in the game. If you argue that Polearm Gamble's OA occurs in the square adjacent to you, then you're also saying that OAs provoked by leaving an adjacent square happen after the move, which makes OAs next to useless.

But there is a difference. Don't "normal" OAs only trigger when you leave a threatened square? Doesn't Polearm Gamble allow an OA to trigger when you enter a threatened square? If both these questions are answerd "yes" then There is a difference.

If there is a difference, the question becomes, "What are the differences between a Polearm Gamble OA and a normal OA?" If it's the trigger, then the next question is to decide on what particualr actions trigger polearm gamble.

Normally allowing an attack form an OA to occur after movement would make it useless. Most of the time an enemy would be out of range before the attack took place (ignoring OA's due to adjacent use of a ranged attack and reach attacks), but that is not true in Polearm Gamble. The attack could take place in either square and the only real difference is where the body would be if you killed him.

There's no difference in verbiage between "when an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you" and "when an enemy enters a square adjacent to you." They're the same rule.

Not sure I follow here. With a non-threatening reach, non-polearm gamble opponent the first triggers an OA and the second doesn't. I must not be putting it in the context you intended.

That's not how specific vs. general works. Specific vs. general means if a rule explicitly says that you can do something a general rule says you can't (or vice versa), the specific rule trumps the general rule. All we have here is a feat that adds a new trigger for OAs. The attack still follows all the normal OA rules, is subject to the same exceptions, and occurs at the same point as any other OA. Forced movement doesn't provoke OAs, nothing in Polearm Gamble says "you may take this OA even if an enemy is forced into the square," so forced movement doesn't provoke from Polearm Gamble.

The OA rule says, "you can’t make [an opportunity attack] if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide." (PHB 290)

As for forced movement: With polearm gamble the enemy isn't being forced to move away, they are being forced to move closer. Nothing in the letter of the OA rule provides for exceptions to OA's for enemies getting closer because of forced movement. Swing away! Of course, under forced movement on page 285 it says that forced movement does not provoke OA's. So what controls, the specific rule for forced movement, the specific rule for opportunity attacks, or maybe the specific trigger for polearm gamble?​

Now what about shifts? "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack." (PHB 292). No exception for shifting from a square not adjacent into an adjacent square. Again, swing away!​

But what about that OA rule, "you can’t make one if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide." Does that mean:
1. You can't make an OA if the enemy shifts, nor if the enemy teleports, nor if they are forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide or
2. You can't make an OA if the enemy shifts away, nor if the enemy teleports away, nor if the enemy is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide."​

Teleport- maybe I'll give you this one, but it could go either way. I have trouble with the concept that you can be in a square without having entered it, but teleport on PHB 286 specifically states it does not provoke an opportunity attack. The question becomes, does the trigger which is specific to Polearm Gamble (which is different from a regular OA's trigger) over ride teleport's specific non-trigger of an OA?

Please don't answer all these questions. I'm trying to point out that you can twist these rules every which way, and unless there is a specific ruling from on high you have to look at game balance and run your games the best you can. Every interpertaion I've seen is possible, but what is BEST?

Polearm Gamble is a paragon tier feat. It is right up there with +2 reflex bonus all the time (lightning reflexes), ignoring ranged cover, concealment, and superior cover (point blank shot) or rolling init twice and taking the higher roll... every time you roll init (Danger sense). These are not light weight feats. I think the correct interpertaiton will make Polearm Gamble as powerful as the other feats at that level. Until I hear otherwise I'm going with Polearm Gamble's trigger being controlling and over riding the other non-triggers. I can support the decision under the rules - I think that it's trigger is more specific becasue it only occurs when someone has taken this particular feat.

At the end of the day it's a judgment call, not a rules call. If your players enjoy the game then your judgment was right. If you're DMing, make the call. If you are playing,. accept the call and keep going, even if you don't agree.

Your individual mileage might vary.

Obligatory chese: If you are using the specific rule for OA's on 290 as opposed to the specific rule for push, pull and slide, have your buddy slide, push or pull an opponent from one square adjacent to you to another square adjacent to you. That rule (page 290) says you don't get an OA if they are forced AWAY! It doesn't exempt if they stay the same distance away from you after they leave the adjacent square.

More chesse: Effects that slide an ally, like White Raven Onslauught (PHB 146). If your ally wants to be slid, is that forced movement? What if he yells to you, "Slide me into flank!" and he's already adjacent. If its not forced, the part of the rule on 285 exempting it from OA's would not apply and neither would the exemption in the OA rule on 290. Can you be forced to do something you want to do anyway? Is that non-forced movement?

One good thing about all this- it is helping me take a real good look at rules I thought I knew, and am finding out I didn't know them as well as I thought sometimes.

 

[brendan candries]

Well, you can debate over forced movement vs polearm gamble.

I wouldn't allow forced movement to trigger as it is clearly stated that "Forced movement does not provoke opportunity atacks or other opportunity actions."

But how about the fighter encounter exploits "Come and Get It" lvl7 and "Warrior's Urging" lvl 23?

Those make enemies shift adjacent to you. Shifting isn't part of the 3 forced movements (Pull, Push, Slide). Shifting only helps with leaving squares, not entering.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The OA rule says, "you can’t make [an opportunity attack] if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide." (PHB 290)

All forced movement is moving away - the phrase is written from the enemy's point of view. "... if the enemy is forced to move away..."

Before the forced movement, how far is the enemy from his starting square? No squares.

After he is pushed one square, how far is the enemy from his starting square? One square.

If, instead, he is pulled one square, how far is the enemy from his starting square? One square.

Whether he is pushed, pulled, or slid, he is forced to move away from where he began.

-Hyp.

 

[Oompa]

* Polearm Gamble has no forced movement so we can ignore that..

* Shifting doesnt provoke OA when you move OUT of an ADJACENT SQUARE..

* Polearm Gamble states that you make an OA against creatures that ENTER an ADJACENT SQUARE

So.. let's say we got P1 and P2, P1 has an polearm and the polearm gamble feat..

P2 is 10 feet from P1

P2 enters the first threatening square, nothing happens..

P2 Shifts adjacent to P1, P2 provokes OA because you only get no OA when leaving an adjacent square..

But.. P2 also provokes because he entered an adjacent square (from the polearm gamble feat)

So P1 can chose when he OA, when the first square is left, or the adjacent enterd..


Did i saw this right?

 

[Bagpuss]

I would invoke "specific beats general" and say that Polearm Gamble gets the OA even on a shift.

Yes but the specific rule that Polearm Gamble beats is the one where you don't get a OA for moving into a square adjacent only moving out of. It doesn't trump the all the other normal rules for OA attacks. It only mentions "moves" as well it doesn't call out teleports, shifts or forced movement which have their own special rules regards OAs.

 

[Zaruthustran]

You've got a lot of the pieces identified, but I think you're putting them together incorrectly.

I'm a little confused (as is often the case). Polearm Gamble doesn't say it's an interupt.

Polearm Gamble allows an OA, and OAs interrupt.

It occures when a non-adjacent enemy enters an adjacent square. It's not a regular OA, which triggers when an enemy leaves an adjacent square

This is the heart of your confusion. You're defining a "regular OA", and there's no such thing.

OAs are a type of action. They're defined on page 268, 269, and 290. The rules on 290 are most detailed for Opportunity Attacks specifically. There are six bullet points. Points 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rules. Points 2 and 3 are two common triggers. Point 7 is a common exception.

It's important to distinguish the triggers from the action called "Opportunity Attack". All OAs require a trigger, but OAs don't really care what that trigger is.

and it looks like an immeadeate reaction to me. It seems tha attack actually happens in the square adjacent to you and here is why I think so-

This is just plain wrong. OAs interrupt. They are not immediate actions, and therefore are neither "reactions" nor "interrupts". They're an opportunity action that interrupts. See page 268.

An enemy teleports into an adjacent square from 4 squares away. Polearm gambit triggers. The condition, "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you..." is met. The attack cannot logically be taking place 4 squares away so it must take place in the adjacent square. I also don't see it interuptng a teleport that is being initiated 4 squares away.

The trigger is met, and the OA is initiated as you describe. But since the target's triggering action is interrupted (point 6 of page 290), and therefore still 4 squares away, the OA aborts because it doesn't satisfy the rule "able to attack" (point 5 of page 290). The attack cannot take place after the target arrives in the adjacent square, because by that time the trigger has passed (the OA would no longer be interrupting, and therefore does not satisfy point 6 of page 290).

Otherwise it should be worded that it allows an OA when a target moves or shifts from a non-adjacent square to a square adjacent to you, or give it a range 2, or some other wording, but since it spcifically includes a trigger different from a "normal" OA I have to give weight to the difference.

Again, there is no such thing as "normal" OA. There are two common triggers for OA, true, but any trigger will do. The important things to consider are the rules for OAs, explained in points 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of page 290.

Now what about forced movement? General rule, no OA. But Polearm Gamble is specific to this one feat. Does that make it a specific exception to the general rule covering OAs? If so, forced movement should likewise be a trigger.

Forced Movement is addressed on page 268, and point 4 specifically says that Forced Movement does not provoke OAs or other opportunity actions. There's your answer. All Polearm Gamble does is grant a new trigger for OAs; it doesn't change the rules of OAs or nullify the rules for Forced Movement.

When considering any OA and how the rules interact, I've found it helpful to begin by replacing whatever particular trigger is up for debate with a generic variable [OA TRIGGER], and then just follow the rules.

So for purposes of discussion, the text for Polearm Gamble looks like this: "[OA TRIGGER], you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn."

You just treat the trigger like any other trigger. After you grok that, you can look at the specific trigger, and simply follow the rules of OAs from the bullet list on p290:

1. Basic melee attack
3. One per combatant's turn
4. Able to attack
5. Interrupt's other's action

So for Polearm Gamble, two scenarios. Scenario 1 is teleporting. Scenario 2 is moving to an adjacent square. Polearm Gambler is human armed with glaive.

Scenario 1: teleport into adjacent square from 4 squares away
1. Basic melee attack. Okay, that's fine.
3. One per combatant's turn. We'll assume we haven't yet taken an OA.
4. Able to attack. At the time the OA is triggered the enemy is 4 squares away, so we are unable to make an attack.
5. Interrupt's other's action. The trigger is "enter an adjacent square", so that's what we interrupt. At the time of the interrupt the enemy is 4 squares away. See point 4.

Conclusion 1: OA fails to go off.


Scenario 2: move into adjacent square from 4 squares away
1. Basic melee attack. Okay, that's fine.
3. One per combatant's turn. We'll assume we haven't yet taken an OA.
4. Able to attack. At the time the OA is triggered the enemy is 2 squares away, and reach allows us to attack 2 squares away. We are able to make an attack.
5. Interrupt's other's action. The trigger is "enter an adjacent square", so that's the action we interrupt. At the time of the interrupt the enemy is 2 squares away. See point 4.

Conclusion 2: OA goes off when enemy is 2 squares away.

 

[keterys]

I think WotC needs to write up some examples of "specific beats general", because it seems like it gets misused or misunderstood fairly often.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Forced Movement is addressed on page 268, and point 4 specifically says that Forced Movement does not provoke OAs or other opportunity actions. There's your answer.

While that is GENERALLY true, let's look at the SPECIFIC case for Polearm Gamble:

Polearm Gamble
Prerequisites: Str 15, Wis 15
Benefit: When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you
grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn.

If a non-adjacent enemy gets pushed into a square next to me, has he not entered a square adjacent to me? GENERALLY this would not matter, except in the SPECIFIC case of Polearm Gamble.

 

[Kordeth]

If a non-adjacent enemy gets pushed into a square next to me, has he not entered a square adjacent to me? GENERALLY this would not matter, except in the SPECIFIC case of Polearm Gamble.

If an adjacent enemy is pushed away from me, has he not left a square adjacent to me? It's the same exact thing--all Polearm Gamble does is give you a new trigger for an opportunity attack. "Enter a square adjacent" is not a specific beats general override, people seem to be confused as to what "specific vs. general" actually means. If a specific rule explicitly says you can do something you otherwise can't (or, conversely, you can't do something you otherwise can), then the specific rule overrides.

In fact, in this case, you've got it backwards. The GENERAL rule is that movement provokes OAs (Polearm Gamble simply adds a new way to provoke). The SPECIFIC rules are "forced movement and teleportation do not provoke OAs."