Shifting when not adjacent?

[Hypersmurf]

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

Read Shift again.

Or compare it to Teleport and Push/Pull/Slide:

Push/Pull/Slide: Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions.
Teleportation: Your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
Shift: If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don't provoke an opportunity attack.

The protection against OAs granted by the Shift text applies if you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy. That's not 'an example', that's the text of the rule.

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.

Right. You might note that I devoted three paragraphs to discussing that sentence.

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

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.

*cough*War Priest*cough*

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 Methods that do not provoke in general are superseded by an ability that makes them provoke.

...

Like, say, if it said 'Teleporting provokes', or something similar?

Why, yes, then it would. Thankfully, it doesn't, or we wouldn't be having this silly debate

 

[Tony Vargas]

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).

You seem to be construeing the two to be similar when you conclude that a teleporter is out of range. If your entering a square is similar to leaving a square in that it provokes in the square you're leaving, not the one you're entering, then the teleporter 'provokes' when out of range. If they are dissimilar, in that regard, the teleporter is provoking while adjacent, and his more general immunity would have to be invoked.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Shift is stated as: "move 1 square without provoking an OA". This seems pretty clear to me that you will not provoke any OA from this movement regardless of what feats are in play as long as they are triggered by movement. It is a specific rule that covers this.

Even though the feat for Polearm states you get an OA if the enter the square, clearly other factors need to be considered. I don't see why the feat specific text would trump the shift specific ruling on this. I mean, if someone is invisible and you cannot see them and they enter the square do you get on OA? By simply reading the feat as written you would if you assume it trumps all other rules that might apply to the situation. But that would not make much sense to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Shift is stated as: "move 1 square without provoking an OA". This seems pretty clear to me that you will not provoke any OA from this movement regardless of what feats are in play as long as they are triggered by movement. It is a specific rule that covers this.

That's the short description from the table.

Consider the short description of Bull Rush: "Push a target 1 square and shift into the vacated space". Let's say I'm a Medium creature. Can I push a taregt who's Huge?

Consider the short description of Squeeze: "Reduce your space by 1, move up to half your speed, and grant combat advantage". Let's say I'm a Medium creature. Do I reduce my space by 1?

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

You seem to be construeing the two to be similar when you conclude that a teleporter is out of range. If your entering a square is similar to leaving a square in that it provokes in the square you're leaving, not the one you're entering, then the teleporter 'provokes' when out of range. If they are dissimilar, in that regard, the teleporter is provoking while adjacent, and his more general immunity would have to be invoked.

I am construing nothing. The teleporter provokes when he enters from non-adjacent. He is not a valid target due to range unless he is teleporting from withing weapon range.

 

[keterys]

Aside: Note to would be feat creators. Never make a feat anything like this:

Bow Opportunity
Benefit: You may take an opportunity attack with your bow against an adjacent creature who moves away from you or makes a ranged or area attack.

Just say 'against an adjacent creature who provokes'.

And polearm could really just let you gain threatening reach 2 at the cost of giving combat advantage... or say 'Movement out of or into an adjacent square provokes when you wield a polearm'.

But, the boards are fueled on infinite oregano, I suppose

 

[Goumindong]

Why is this infinite oregano? What terrible exploit does this create? The one where you get an extra OA every couple rounds or the one where the feat isn't useless?

 

[keterys]

This entire debate (and many others like it) is roughly due to a misunderstanding over a couple words. The correct answer is to just go with whatever makes the game more fun for your group while waiting for wotc to announce the intended or correct way (at which point make a decision whether to ignore it for your group or not).

This isn't gargantuan creatures being pushed in bolstered blood pulses, but the adamant nature of many of the arguments amuses me. It's cool to say 'I think it works like this, because of this rule' but it definitely works like A or B? Meh.

I still read it allowing the OA on teleports as akin to allowing the OA to
1) Hit the teleport even out of reach, cause it lets you OA, specific trumps general rule of reach
2) Allow you to OA the target a second time, specific trumps general rule of limit to numbers of OAs
3) Allows you to combine an eventually published non-shield push to generate infinite OAs between two polearm gamble characters pushing back and forth

I'm not sure whether the feat should or shouldn't work against teleports and forced movement, but if it's supposed to, it should include direct wording to that effect. Similarly, if it's _not_ supposed to, it should include more clear wording to that effect. Simple game design theory - write things clearly

 

[Grabuto138]

From my simpleton interpretation it seems pretty cut and dry. The specific rule of the feat means you get an OA towards someone who enters an adjacent square whether they teleoported, shifted or God himself wished them there. I am not sure of why the debate.

From the flavor aspect, the "gamble" seems to indicate a sixth-sense that caused the hairs on the neck to stand up and the fighter or whomever to suddenly swing his weapon.

Remember that there is downside to this feat (combat advantage) so it must be somehow useful.