Shifting when not adjacent?

[DM_Blake]

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

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.

You're not looking at the correct General rule to override.

Let's look at a modern example.

A specific rule in our society might say "If you're carrying a gun, you can shoot people with your gun." This is a true statement. The general rule it overrides is "Without a gun, you cannot shoot people, because you don't have a gun."

But what many people on these 4e forums try to do is drag in other rules to suite their purposes. This is equivalent to a murderer in court saying "But judge, the general rule that it is illegal to shoot people was overridden by the specific rule that I can shoot people if I'm carrying a gun."

In other words, you cannot just pick any general rule that remotely applies to what you're trying to do and override that with your specific rule. You have to pick the actual general rule that the specific rule overrrides.

In the case of Polearm Gambit, the general rule is:
"When a non-adjacent foe enters a square adjacent to you, you cannot make an OA."

And the new specific rule is"
"With Polearm Gambit you can make an OA when a non-adjacent foe enters a square adjacent to you."

That is the Specific vs. General rule that is to be considered here.

All the other rules, like whether or not shifting or teleporting or forced movement casues OAs is irrelevent - those are NOT the rules that Polearm Gamble overrides.

 

[Chen_93]

By RAW Polearm gamble allows you to make an OA regardless of how the opponent enters a square adjacent to you. However, since OAs interrupt the action that triggers them the opponent will only be able to be hit by that OA IF they were one or two squares away from you when they went to move into the adjacent square. This is covered in the specific "Able to attack" clause of OAs.

Now with respect to teleport it specifically says your movement does not cause OAs. So here its not clear which one takes precedence. Does the teleport "specific" overrule the Polearm Gamble "specific"? Could be interpreted either way, but for the most part it doesn't matter since the guy with the polearm would only be able to hit the teleporter if he teleported from 2 or less squares to an adjacent square.

For shifting, the RAW is that shifting out of a square adjacent to an enemy does not provoke OAs. There's no arguing this, its exactly what is written. Now RAI probably was to make shifts the same as 5 ft steps in 3-3.5, which would mean they don't provoke movement based OAs for any movement, which is probably a better way to rule it. Even if you do rule it as such, you run into the same question as teleport as to which "specific" rule takes precedence.

I'd have to see polearm gamble in practice first, but it seems a bit too strong to allow shifts to trigger it, though only really in the hands of a fighter who can stop movement with his OAs. If it was a free basic attack action instead it might be a bit more balanced and I'd probably still allow shifting to trigger the free attack.

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

No, I'm not confusing Threatening Reach (which would also give you an OA if a foe 2 squares away moved farther away without shifting, or moved laterally without coming adjacent to you).

And yes, I get that there is a difference between OAs triggered by leaving a threatened square and OAs triggered by entering a threatened square. Or more specifically, the OAs are pretty much the same but the triggers are different.

In any case, Polearm Gamble is triggered by someone who is 2 squares away, within reach of your really big weapon (but would otherwise be out of reach from any normal sized weapon) who then moves so that he enters a square adjacent to you.

It is your really big polearm that makes this possible; shorter weapons cannot take advantage of this ability because they cannot reach the foe until after he is in the square adjacent to you, which is why you normally do not get an OA when a foe enters an adjacent square - his movement won't provoke that OA.

 

[Shadewyn]

2X post ... wierd ...

 

[Shadewyn]

Wow I am amazed that so many people are confused on this. People will go to amazing lengths to mis read rules in their favor.

Why have Poelarm Gamble?

Orc walks up to a guy with a polearm and punches him in the face. Simulationists would suggest that a person with a large long stick might get the first whack. Gamist design response is to allow an attack as the orc closes.

What is an OA?

You may make an OA if someone leaves a square you threaten is the basic rule.

This basic rule is trumped by the more specific rule of shifting, teleporting, and forced movement prohibits OAs without exception ANYWHERE in the game.

Cant stress this enough ... there is not a SINGLE rule or ability in all of 4E that allows you to take an OA if someone shifts, teleports or force moves.

To break this specific rule they added a more specific rule called Combat Challenge on fighters to allow an attack (NOT AN OA) against adjacent targets that shift.

But I REALLY wanna misread stuff for my own advantage...

Tough.

Form a logic chain folks its just not that hard.

So we know that for the normal polearm user ...

1) RANGE = You do not threaten at reach
2) TRIGGER = You can only generate an OA if they leave an adjacent square
3) EFFECT = Make a basic melee attack
4) EXCEPTION = You cannot generate an OA if they shift, slide, teleport.
5) CLASS SPECIFIC COUNTER TO EXCEPTION = If you are a fighter and the target is adjacent you may engage in a Combat Challenge if the target shifts.

Those rules in order handle all the movement based attack generation that the average polearm user will ever get. In order of GENERAL to SPECIFIC.

We then add a feat to modify the logic chain ...

1) RANGE = You do not threaten at reach
2) TRIGGER = You can only generate an OA if they leave an adjacent square or when they enter an adjacent square
3) EFFECT = Make a basic melee attack
4) EXCEPTION = You cannot generate an OA if they shift, slide, teleport.
5) CLASS SPECIFIC COUNTER TO EXCEPTION = If you are a fighter and the target is adjacent you may engage in a Combat Challenge if the target shifts.

------------
Enter the whacked out logic folks

What the Polearm Gamble cheese player are trying to do is use the feat to add the additional condition and then shuffle the logic chain to the following.

1) RANGE = You do not threaten at reach
2) TRIGGER = You can only generate an OA if they leave an adjacent square
3) EFFECT = Make a basic melee attack
4) EXCEPTION = You cannot generate an OA if they shift, slide, teleport.
5) CLASS SPECIFC COUNTER TO EXCEPTION = If you are a fighter and the target is adjacent you may engage in a Combat Challenge if the target shifts.
6) CHEESE ~ or when they enter an adjacent square, go to step 3 for effect, ignore all exceptions

Now why is this really bad logic? Like the kind of bad logic that makes companies have to tell users of their products things like "Dont use you toaster oven in the tub while you take a bath" due to consumers saying "well you never told us we couldnt or may get hurt if we did ..."

First off the feat gives a potential OA ... and OAs caused from shifts, teleports, and slides are negated by specific rule.

Secondly the feat never says it invalidates the the exeptions of shifting, sliding, and teleporting negate OAs. THEREFORE IT DOESNT.

Specific > General.

If you cant figure it out from common sense of what the feat is describing ...

If you cant follow the simple logic chain ...

THEN STAY AWAY FROM TOASTER OVENS NEAR YOUR BATHTUB ... for you are at risk ...

 

[Hypersmurf]

This basic rule is trumped by the more specific rule of shifting, teleporting, and forced movement prohibits OAs without exception ANYWHERE in the game.

Well, be careful on the Shifting front.

Let's say I have Polearm Gamble, and you shift from a square two squares away into an adjacent square. You're entering an adjacent square, so Polearm Gamble says I get an OA. Let's look for a rule that says I don't.

The text of Shift states "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack." You're not shifting out of a square adjacent to an enemy; the square you're shifting out of is two squares away from me. So the Shift text doesn't preclude my Polearm Gamble OA.

The text of Opportunity Attack contains a section entitled "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."

Now, the second sentence there says "You can't make an OA if the enemy shifts". But is this sentence a rule in its own right, or is it a clarification of the first sentence: you can make an OA if the enemy leaves an adjacent square? If it's a clarification, then what this section tells us is "You can make an OA if the enemy leaves an adjacent square, unless it's by shifting, teleporting, or forced movement". In this case, again, it tells us nothing about shifting in order to leave a non-adjacent square, and thus does not preclude Polearm Gamble in that situation.

The only way Polearm Gamble's OA is refused is if that second sentence is unrelated to the first sentence.

Now, teleportation and forced movement, there's no debate - both forms of movement state unambiguously in their own descriptions that they do not provoke an OA. Shift is the joker, because Shift says it does not provoke an OA when leaving a square adjacent to an enemy.

As I read it, Teleport and Forced Movement will bypass Polearm Gamble's OA, but a Shift from a non-adjacent square to an adjacent square will not, because to me, the sentences under "Movement Provokes" in the Opportunity Attack entry read as related.

-Hyp.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, I'm not confusing Threatening Reach (which would also give you an OA if a foe 2 squares away moved farther away without shifting, or moved laterally without coming adjacent to you).

In any case, Polearm Gamble is triggered by someone who is 2 squares away

No, threatening reach is triggered by soemone two squares away for leaving that square. PG is triggered by someone adjacent for entering that square. That's why I think you're conflating the two.

Frankly, that's how I feel it should work, too. It just makes more sense for it to work like Threatening Reach, even if a limitted form of TR. But, if that were the way it was meant to work, PG wouldn't say what it does, instead it would say that it gives you threatening reach, or allows you to have threatening reach vs one oppoent at the cost of granting him combat advantage if he moves adjacent to you (say, that's pretty good), or something along those lines.

 

[Shadewyn]

Well, be careful on the Shifting front.

The text of Shift states "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack."

Actually what shift says is that you spend a move action, move a single square and do not provoke an OA.

You are using an example of the mechanic in action to insert the rule of "shift only prevents shifting out of squares not shifting into"

Common sense ... 1 move action = 1 square of move no OA

You are getting waaay to fancy with assumptions there.

Also the rule specifically states I think (from prior messges);

Page 290:

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.

So I would venture that the second sentance breaks your arguement?

 

[Goumindong]

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.

It doesn't have to. Methods that do not provoke in general are superseded by an ability that makes them provoke.

PG does not usually get an OA on teleporters because they are usually out of range when they teleport.

PG does usually get an OA on shifting even if shifting was the specific rule because shifting is when you leave an adjacent square and PG is when an enemy enters an adjacent square(which cannot be construed to be similar).

PG does get an OA against forced movement since the text of the exception makes no difference between "moving" and "entering"

To break this specific rule they added a more specific rule called Combat Challenge on fighters to allow an attack (NOT AN OA) against adjacent targets that shift.

This is untrue. Combat Challenge is and was originally an OA(as evidenced by other abilities and the text of feats dealing with it referencing it as an OA). Combat Challenge as an OA even still exists in the game in the War Priest Paragon Path(which Fighters can take to get Combat Challenges as OAs until its errata'd, which it likely will be, for the same reason it was changed originally ).

Combat Challenge was changed from an OA to an immediate interrupt because as an OA you can do this each and every turn, and as an immediate interrupt you can do it once per round. It was much much too strong(as anyone can see) if it was an OA since it would prevent pretty much anyone next to the fighter from moving away without taking a double move.(+wisdom to OA, +combat reflexes, + Heavy Blade Opportunity, + Blade Opportunity +14 starting wisdom = +12 to OA by level 30 as a demi-god using careful strike, +10 using any other at will].

It was worded as "shift" to specifically not work on forced movement where it otherwise would have(being the exception)

By RAW Polearm gamble allows you to make an OA regardless of how the opponent enters a square adjacent to you. However, since OAs interrupt the action that triggers them the opponent will only be able to be hit by that OA IF they were one or two squares away from you when they went to move into the adjacent square. This is covered in the specific "Able to attack" clause of OAs.

No, by RAW PG only allows you to make an OA if they were two squares away. If they are 1 square away they would be adjacent, and that does not trigger the OA since it requires a non-adjacent enemy to move adjacent.

 

[Goumindong]

Actually what shift says is that you spend a move action, move a single square and do not provoke an OA.

You are using an example of the mechanic in action to insert the rule of "shift only prevents shifting out of squares not shifting into"

Common sense ... 1 move action = 1 square of move no OA

You are getting waaay to fancy with assumptions there.

Also the rule specifically states I think (from prior messges);

Page 290:

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.

So I would venture that the second sentance breaks your arguement?

No, because the specific text of "shifting" is "you do not provoke when leaving an adjacent square". And the text of "moving provokes" you have conveniently green'd for us so that we can see that moving only provokes when leaving a square adjacent to you.