Shifting when not adjacent?

[Goumindong]

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

It seems like you just don't understand the rules.

1. An opportunity attack is an at will power with a range of melee. Letting you OA against someone teleporting does not change that. They do provoke, but the power will fail since it has no valid target. Just like anything else that fails due to not having a valid target.

Like for instance if you charge a fighter who has shield push readied and he hits you, the attack at the end of your charge will fail because you are now out of range.

There is no need to change the wording of the power

2. No it does not. There is nothing in the text that lets the feat owner take multiple OA's per turn. Just as you normally are able to take only one OA per turn even if multiple actions provoke. This only changes the trigger.

3. See point two, you cannot create an infinite loop even if you could push with a polearm as an at-will.

I know you are going to come back and say "but it says you can make an OA and it doesn't say its not limited just like push/pull/slides" and the answer is that that is dumb. The feat takes something that was not a trigger previously, and makes it so.

 

[Reneshat]

I'm just confused about the people who aren't reading the text of shift and are saying that Polearm Gambit does not allow you to take an OA on someone who shifts INTO an adjacent square. Whether or not it was the original intent of the feat, the rules on shift clearly state that it does not protect you from that.

 

[eamon]

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.

You're leaving out a bit there:

SHIFT: MOVE ACTION
[...]

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

The shift rules say "No Opportunity Attacks" and go on to elaborate that this means that if you shift away from an adjacent foe, you're not provoking. That elaboration is unfortunate, since it doesn't quite cover "No Opportunity Attacks" which it also states. If you truly read shifting as merely limiting opportunity attacks from adjacent enemies, then polearm gamble clearly does provoke - but then, so does shifting away from a non-adjacent enemy with threatening reach.

I read the "No Opportunity Attacks" line as a general rule, with a specific example that happens to mention the only way that movement provokes bar special abilities, in a rather misplaced attempt to avoid confusing the reader. The PHB in general uses clarifying examples and situations which only apply to normal PC characters.

And of course:
"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."

That paragraph has been discussed already, but holistically, it certainly comes across as not allowing OA's for movement from shifting. It's possible to see that as only applying to this particular variant of OA, but again, you'll get in trouble with threatening reach (which mentions exactly nothing about movement modes or whatnot).

 

[eamon]

I'm just confused about the people who aren't reading the text of shift and are saying that Polearm Gambit does not allow you to take an OA on someone who shifts INTO an adjacent square. Whether or not it was the original intent of the feat, the rules on shift clearly state that it does not protect you from that.

They certainly don't "clearly" state that they don't protect you from polearm gamble and threatening reach. Actually, they state in bold: "No Opportunity Attacks".

Further, the section describing movement-provoked OA's describe the limitations: the movement must be leaving an adjacent square, and shifting, forced movement and teleportation do not provoke. Polearm gamble only explicitly allows "entering", and does not explicitly remove these general limitations.

 

[keterys]

It seems like you just don't understand the rules.

This would be yet another mistake of yours

1. An opportunity attack is an at will power with a range of melee. Letting you OA against someone teleporting does not change that. They do provoke, but the power will fail since it has no valid target. Just like anything else that fails due to not having a valid target.

Of course this is correct. It's completely ludicrous to allow it to happen, but polearm gamble _specifically_ says that it lets you take an OA, so clearly language that says you don't get one (such as range, powers that say no OAs, etc) don't apply. That is your argument. It's a lot easier to make the argument that it works on teleport, but it's only a mild escalation to allow it to hit someone teleporting from far away.

And I've even see people try to say that it works, too. Or maybe you get the OA after they enter the square somehow. Cause how else would it work? People will go to great lengths to create an interpretation that suits them.

Like for instance if you charge a fighter who has shield push readied and he hits you, the attack at the end of your charge will fail because you are now out of range.

Shield Push is on combat challenges, so you can't ready it... but if he has some other push attack readied... then either his trigger will occur when the enemy enters his square (before the attack is made for the charge) and if the enemy has movement left it can continue one more square and attack -or- it will be readied for the attack, in which case it will go off after the attack as an immediate reaction. OTOH, if a marked enemy next to a fighter attacks someone else and he has shield push, his combat challenge immediate interrupt will allow him to push the target away disrupting the attack entirely unless the attacker has sufficient reach. War Priest OA with tide of iron works similarly well.

There is no need to change the wording of the power

This debate proves otherwise.

2. No it does not. There is nothing in the text that lets the feat owner take multiple OA's per turn. Just as you normally are able to take only one OA per turn even if multiple actions provoke. This only changes the trigger.

Specific says you get an OA. It doesn't say that limit still applies, much as it doesn't say teleport avoids OAs still, so clearly it trumps the general rule. Silly, right?

3. See point two, you cannot create an infinite loop even if you could push with a polearm as an at-will.

Well, yeah, 3 requires 2 to work, but c'mon, it'd be funny

I know you are going to come back and say "but it says you can make an OA and it doesn't say its not limited just like push/pull/slides" and the answer is that that is dumb. The feat takes something that was not a trigger previously, and makes it so.

Then why did you respond? You knew your stand inviting comparison to completely ludicrous arguments. Your stand is a hell of a lot better than those, but it shares a glaring weakness. You certainly may be right.

And others certainly may be wrong.

Without Wizards issuing an update or FAQ, though, there is insufficient evidence to back either side's ruling.

No matter what, I don't think they intended to have forced movement trigger OAs, ever. Ever. So that's a blazing sign of intent on this rule for me. Shifts and teleports? Maybe. Honestly, the language of shift as leaving only could even indicate that it was changed specifically to allow shifting to trigger polearm gamble.

But who knows? Be nice if it was written more clearly.

 

[eamon]

But who knows? Be nice if it was written more clearly.

I see where you're coming from (and those were some hilarious over the top examples there), but I think all they need to do is give a good example of whatever exactly "specific trumps general" means. The only reason this kind of confusion can exist is that everyone is using that rule to override different things.

One approach is that "specialized" overrides "generic" - that is, any rule which applies to a more specialized situation overrides all generic rules. This interpretation is broken left, right and center, but that's what people sometimes do, and understandably so, since it's not always obviously broken.

The other approach is that specifically called out specialized changes override general principles - that is, any rule can override a more general rule other, but only to the extent explicitly mentioned in the more specialized rule. In this case, polearm gamble and threatening reach are certainly not triggered on teleportation and forced movement, and shifting depends on how you interpret the non-provoke clause on shifting, though clearly it's intended not to trigger.

What we need is a few examples of what specific trumps general is not.

 

[keterys]

Yep, that's what I said in my very first reply (when I first read this thread). I think it would help a lot, and not be that hard for them to do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

What makes you think the OA from PG is provoked in a non-adjacent square, rather than the square being entered? Why, the general rules on OAs, of course. When you provoke an OA by exiting a square, the OA interrupts the movement, and occurs in the square you're exiting. Only by assuming that entering an adjacent square from a non-adjacent one, is the same as leaving a non-adjacent square you can reach can you get to the conclusion you have. Either that or by simply aplying 3e rules logic to the question.

In 4e, Threatening Reach lets you OA someone who's not adjacent, but whom you can reach. Nothing else, Pole-arm Gamble included, says it lets you do that.

While I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that PG /should/ grant Threatening Reach or something closely akin to it, the feat as written (and, it seems pretty likely, as intended by the designers) does not do that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The shift rules say "No Opportunity Attacks" and go on to elaborate that this means that if you shift away from an adjacent foe, you're not provoking.

Exactly.

Subheading: "No Opportunity Attacks". Why, designers, what exactly do you mean by "No Opportunity Attacks"? Ah, an excellent question - we'll be specific. No Opportunity Attacks, if you're shifting from a square adjacent to an enemy.

That elaboration is unfortunate, since it doesn't quite cover "No Opportunity Attacks" which it also states.

You say "unfortunate"; I say "carefully worded to demonstrate the difference between Shift, and Teleport/Forced Movement".

Coup De Grace has a subheading "Slaying the Target Outright". It goes on to elaborate that this only applies under certain conditions - unfortunate, since this means that one doesn't always "Slay the Target Outright" despite it being right there in bold text!

If you truly read shifting as merely limiting opportunity attacks from adjacent enemies, then polearm gamble clearly does provoke - but then, so does shifting away from a non-adjacent enemy with threatening reach.

Right.

I read the "No Opportunity Attacks" line as a general rule, with a specific example that happens to mention the only way that movement provokes bar special abilities, in a rather misplaced attempt to avoid confusing the reader. The PHB in general uses clarifying examples and situations which only apply to normal PC characters.

And yet neither Teleport nor Push/Pull/Slide felt a need to use that particular 'example'. They both state, with no equivocation, "This does not provoke an OA". Only Shift states "This does not provoke an OA, in a particular set of circumstances".

That paragraph has been discussed already, but holistically, it certainly comes across as not allowing OA's for movement from shifting.

Hmm? Taking the sentence in isolation, it can come across as not allowing OAs for movement from shifting. Taking the paragraph holistically, it doesn't allow OAs for shifting when you're moving out of a square adjacent to an enemy.

It's possible to see that as only applying to this particular variant of OA, but again, you'll get in trouble with threatening reach (which mentions exactly nothing about movement modes or whatnot).

Trouble for the PC, but not for the ruleset.

-Hyp.

 

[Goumindong]

People will go to great lengths to create an interpretation that suits them.

So why, after demonizing them, are you trying to be like them?

What makes you think the OA from PG is provoked in a non-adjacent square, rather than the square being entered? Why, the general rules on OAs, of course.

Why ask a question and then provide the right answer. OAs are immediate interrupts, so they occur just before the action that trigger them. An OA is limited to the melee weapons reach being a melee basic or melee at-will attack.

Typical triggers are limited to leaving an adjacent square. This triggers on entering an adjacent square. If the target is not valid for a melee basic attack or melee at-will during the time of the trigger then the attack fails, just as any other attack would fail if the target moved out of the way before it was resolved.