Shifting when not adjacent?

[RigaMortus2]

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."

No, those are all General rules. The general default rule is that If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy as per the OA rules. Also, Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions is the general rule regarding Forced Movement and Teleportation.

All things being equal, everyone is supposed to follow these rules unless an exception is introduced. Enter, Polearm Gamble. If a non-adjacent enemy is pushed (forced movment) adjacent to me, he is entering a square adjacent to me. Can't see any arguement against that. Normally, would I get to make an OA against him? Nope. But guess what, I have a feat that now allows me to make an OA against anyone entering that adjacent square, where normally I would not.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Ya know, the more I think about it, there might be multiple levels of specivity (sp?) depending on what you are comparing...

General: Movement out of a square where you start out adjacent to an enemy provokes an OA.
Specific: Shifting allows you to move out of a square adjacent to an opponent w/o provoking an OA. Any type of Forced Movement is also not subject to an OA.

General: Shifting allows you to move out of a square adjacent to an opponent w/o provoking an OA. Any type of Forced Movement is also not subject to an OA.
Specific (Polearm Gamble): If a non-adjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, they provoke an OA from you.

 

[eamon]

Ya know, the more I think about it, there might be multiple levels of specivity (sp?) depending on what you are comparing...

Indeed. The only common factor here is that movement leaving a threatened square provokes.

Polearm gamble specifies further that entering does provoke.
Shifting specifies further that it does not provoke.

Neither the shifting rules nor the polearm gamble feat refer to each other, so there's no strict ordering between the two - neither is a refinement of the other.

Common sense dictates that polearm gamble can't work regardless to movement mode, since then it would apply nonsensically to teleportation.

But let's examine the wording of opportunity attacks more closely:

Moving Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy. However, 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.
​

Polearm gamble says that in when a non-adjacent enemy enters an adjacent square, it provokes.
What is polearm gamble overriding here? Entering via any means provokes as opposed to leaving while not shifting or being forced? Or, is it that entering provokes as opposed to leaving?

I think it's pretty clear which part of the opportunity attack rules polearm gamble is overriding. Polearm gamble explicitly mentions entering, because that's relevant, but all other rules concerning opportunity attacks remain. You don't selectively disable rules without reason; these oppornity attacks still benefit from a fighter's class feature even though the feat doesn't mention it. These opportunity attacks are still interrupts even though the feat doesn't mention it. There opportunity attacks are still not provoked by shifting, forced movement and teleportation even though the feat doesn't mention it.

Polearm gamble specifically allows an opportunity attack for entering, but does not specifically lift the explicit restriction that shifting does not provoke.

 

[Bagpuss]

The general default rule is that If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy as per the OA rules.

That's correct.

[qoute]Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions is the general rule regarding Forced Movement and Teleportation.[/quote]

This however is an exception to a general rule, and therefore as such is a specific rule. In a exception based rules system general rules are not countered by other general rules. Exceptions are specific rules.

All things being equal, everyone is supposed to follow these rules unless an exception is introduced.

Exactly, which the specific exception (to the general OA rules) for teleportation and shifting are. As Polearm Gamble makes no specific mention of these they still apply.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This however is an exception to a general rule, and therefore as such is a specific rule. In a exception based rules system general rules are not countered by other general rules. Exceptions are specific rules.

I see it as part of the general rules. Everyone has to obide by the fact that shifting away doesn't provoke. Just as everyone has to obide by the fact that "normal" movement does provoke. Just as everyone has to obide by the fact that moving from a non-adjacent square into an adjacent enemy's square does not provoke... except for the specific case of the Polearm Gamble user...

 

[keterys]

Apparently this situation would even be a good example for them to use in such a valuable general vs. specific discussion.

From my reading, polearm gamble does nothing to allow you to OA someone shifting or teleporting, any more than it allows you to hit someone teleporting from a mile away or from behind a wall.

 

[Goumindong]

Apparently this situation would even be a good example for them to use in such a valuable general vs. specific discussion.

From my reading, polearm gamble does nothing to allow you to OA someone shifting or teleporting, any more than it allows you to hit someone teleporting from a mile away or from behind a wall.

Polearm gamble lets you OA someone shifting or teleporting. Normally those actions would not trigger OAs, but in the specific instance of polearm gamble, they do.

Now, most teleports will ignore this as an OA is an interrupt. Which means that you would have to be teleporting to directly adjacent to a target from within weapon reach. If you are not, then the weapon cannot reach the target and the OA fails.

Forced movement, teleports, and shifting all provoke from Polearm Gamble, it is the specific rule which over-rides others. You still have to meet all the requirements for polearm gamble though. And teleports will still be unlikely to provoke.

 

[keterys]

Polearm gamble lets you OA someone shifting or teleporting.

It doesn't say anything at all about either shifting or teleporting, nor even says anything about defeating methods that allow you to avoid provoking OAs.

As far as I can tell, polearm gamble does not help OA someone shifting, teleporting, using any ability whatsoever that says 'moves without provoking', etc. Polearm Gamble gives you the ability to OA someone in a new way. It says nothing about abilities which prevent OAs.

You can claim that Polearm Gamble is more specific than teleports rule that says it gets around OAs, but I believe that is misunderstanding the entire concept behind the general vs. specific rule. Someone arguing the other side could similarly say 'Polearm Gamble gives you an OA, which has a general rule to follow, while teleport has a specific rule that it bypasses OAs' and honestly it would be an equally flawed argument.

Polearm Gamble _could_ actually have a specific ruling concerning avoiding those methods such as 'enters by any means, even movement that normally does not provoke OAs', and it would trump. Otherwise, the argument that someone teleporting is OAed makes _equal_ sense to the argument that you get to OA them even if they're a mile away. After all, Polearm gamble specifically says you OA them. It does.

Hence, why I've said multiple times that WotC should put up something explaining it more clearly, so people can understand more clearly

After all, I may be wrong, and you may be right. I wouldn't believe it without some evidence to the contrary, though

 

[DM_Blake]

Agreed. Polearm Gamble says you get an OA when a "nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you".

That's pretty explicit. The power doesn't care how you got there, as long you were not adjacent and now you are. Shifting, teleporting, even forced movement would provoke.

Btw, I've never really looked at that feat before, but omg is that powerful in a fighter's hands! Its like the old large and in charge all over again.

This makes no sense.

The reason it's Polearm Gamble, and not Dagger Gamble, is because polearms are long. They reach places you cannot reach with a dagger (or other regular sized weapon).

When someone not adjacent (2 squares away) moves to become adjacent (1 square away) you can use Polearm Gamble to hit him because your polearm can reach him while he's 2 squares away. That entire move from 2 squares to 1 square away is within reach of your polearm.

This is not true with daggers, or other normal melee weapons.

Hence, the Polearm Gamble is clearly aimed at smacking someone as they physically move up next to you.

It's arguable whether this applies to shifting or not, but it clearly cannot apply to teleporting, with the exception that you might argue that someone teleporting from 2 squares away to 1 square away can be hit with Polearm Gamble.

Specific vs. General be damned, I just don't see any way you can smack someone with your polearm if he's 7 squares away and suddenly disappears from there and instantly materializes adjacent to you. You can't do it with a polearm, you can't do it with a dagger, you can't do it with anything else.

When WotC creates a feat called "Teleport Gamble" that lets you smack people around as they materialize from a teleport, then I'll be on your side here...

 

[Tony Vargas]

When someone not adjacent (2 squares away) moves to become adjacent (1 square away) you can use Polearm Gamble to hit him because your polearm can reach him while he's 2 squares away. That entire move from 2 squares to 1 square away is within reach of your polearm.

While that makes sense, especially if you're used to 3e, it's not actually what polearm gamble does. PG lets you take an OA when someone enters an adjacent square (and isn't coming from another adjacent square - something that already provokes, anyway), rather than the usual exiting the adjacent square. That's the only thing it changes. Threatening reach functions the way you're talking about, above, but PG doesn't give you that.

I think the most reasonable way to interpret it is that PG creates a new circumstance that provokes an OA, but doesn't otherwise alter the rules on OAs.