Shifting when not adjacent?

[Goumindong]

Since when? I didn't claim that.

Scroll up.

 

[Reneshat]

If I were to run a game with a character that uses this feat, I would probably rule that the OA occurs in the non-adjacent square, and that teleporting and forced movement does not provoke, but shifting and regular movement does. It seems rather obvious to me that shifting and Polearm Gamble are written the way they are to show that shifting still triggers. Other than that however, everything else is less clear, and I would rule the way that I did so that players couldn't use powers that move enemies around to get OAs off of the creatures turn. Also, the OA occurring in the non-adjacent square seems to work well conceptually with the power only being triggered by regular movement and shifting. This also helps dampen the negative side-effects of the feat, which I think is a good trade-off seeing how the feat won't be used as often with this interpretation. What do you all think?

 

[eamon]

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Certainly, if you take the shift section to only prevent OA's when shifting out of adjacent squares (as you argue), there's no question about polearm gamble - shifting provokes. But the table, descriptive text, and the selection of the bolded part in the rules suggest a more complete limitation. In any case, it's not well phrased, and without new insight this argument won't be resolved. If I understand correctly, according to your reading, forced movement and teleportation would not trigger a polearm gamble enabled OA, whereas shifting would.


On the topic of threatening reach...

Trouble for the PC, but not for the ruleset.

Note that threatening reach just let's you take OA's ("This creature can make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach."). It doesn't specify new triggers. So, would leaving a non-adjacent square even trigger an OA if a creature has threatening reach? If it doesn't, what's the purpose of threatening reach? If it does, does that mean that you can shift away from an adjacent square safely, but if you try to shift one step further, you would provoke? Finally, do you think that's the intended reading?

How about readying the fighter power "Come and Get It?" - if it executes on anothers turn....

Edit: sorry, I meant "readying the fighter power", not "reading ..."
Edit: and threatening reach does specify new triggers.

 

[firesnakearies]

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.

Actually, I can allow one of my allies to do this every single round of my career, starting at first level, if I'm a Warlord.

Check out the at-will power Viper's Strike. I guess the sanctity of "No Opportunity Attacks" when shifting is not so inviolate.

I was going to make all of my points and arguments on this issue, but Hypersmurf already stated everything that I was going to. So I agree with him.

Shifting provokes Polearm Gamble, but teleporting and forced movement do not. The rules seem really clear to me on the matter.

Also, just consider the spirit of the rules here.

Shifting is meant to be a defensive form of movement, a means of carefully extracting oneself from harm's way, or maneuvering cautiously around an opponent, circling at arm's length so to speak. It's not intended primarily as a way to approach an enemy, to engage. No one ever talks about "shifting" up to a foe to attack, and in normal circumstances, you don't need to, as moving INTO adjacency with an enemy doesn't provoke. Just moving around or away when you're already adjacent does. I think that this is precisely why the distinction is drawn in the rules language between teleporting/forced movement being immune to opportunity attacks in an unqualified respect, and shifting being explicitly described as applying to movement out of an adjacent square.

Polearm Gamble is supposed to be you using your superior reach to prevent someone from closing on you, or at least to punish them badly for doing so. It's saying, "Hey, I'm not letting you get close, I have you out at the end of this polearm, and if you take one more step, I'm sticking you before you can get into range to attack me." There's no reason why shifting (which makes tons of sense considered as a careful withdrawal or guarded sidestepping) would somehow bypass this. The polearm is still pointed at you, tensed and ready to thrust as soon as you move closer. Moving more slowly isn't going to stop that. I'm not going to stand there and just watch you sidle up to me without striking with my clear reach advantage, just because you didn't move forward as quickly as normal.

Consider, also, that the REASON you're getting this opportunity attack is different from a normal situation. Normally, you're getting to take an extra slice at someone because they dropped their guard, they tried to get away or get around you without covering their movement, so you have a special opportunity to capitalize on their momentary lack of wariness. But with Polearm Gamble, the opportunity attack has nothing to do with that. It's giving you the chance to make a free attack in a situation which normally never grants one: an enemy closing to melee with you. It's obviously assumed that enemies moving INTO your adjacent zone are not dropping their guards, or else everyone would get opportunity attacks any time a foe approached. So in this case, the opportunity attack is granted solely on the fact that you have this long reach weapon, and you're specially trained to wield it to your advantage in these cases (as evidenced by the fact that you've taken this paragon-level feat to do so). So it doesn't matter whether the enemy is guarding himself or not, it only matters that you've got a polearm between yourself and him, and he's NOT getting past it without you having a chance to strike first. He can "shift" up as slowly and carefully as he wants, if he tries to just waltz past your readied polearm, you're going to take a shot at him.

I think the rules can potentially be interpreted at least a couple of different ways, given a strict reading. I can admit that the other interpretation cannot be wholly discounted with logical arguments. But I think that considering the spirit of the rules, and of the feat, and what seems to me to be the designers' intent, the interpretation which defines shift's "no opportunity attacks" property as being specific to moving out of an adjacent square is more fitting. It just makes sense for Polearm Gamble to ignore shifting, and the rules lawyering which supports that view is at least equally valid and compelling as that which would refute it.

That's how I decide on rules questions. After I read every available scrap of official rules text, if there are still two or more completely sound ways of interpreting the words as written, I try to divine the spirit and intent of the game, and go with the rules judgment which most closely aligns with that.

Anyone who wants to run it the other way in your own games, feel free. But I think that you're doing a disservice to that feat, and to characters built around a polearm concept (which there is already so little support for in the game thus far), by allowing enemies to so easily bypass what is meant to be a fairly formidable defense/control tactic, with something as simple and ubiquitous as a lowly shift.

 

[Reneshat]

Note that threatening reach just let's you take OA's ("This creature can make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach."). It doesn't specify new triggers. So, would leaving a non-adjacent square even trigger an OA if a creature has threatening reach? If it doesn't, what's the purpose of threatening reach? If it does, does that mean that you can shift away from an adjacent square safely, but if you try to shift one step further, you would provoke? Finally, do you think that's the intended reading?

How about reading the fighter power "Come and Get It?" - if it executes on anothers turn....

I read it that you don't provoke if you leave a non-adjacent square, but you do provoke if you attempt to use an area or ranged attack in reach. I could however be wrong about this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

On the topic of threatening reach...
Note that threatening reach just let's you take OA's ("This creature can make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach."). It doesn't specify new triggers.

It does on PHB p290.

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

Scroll up.

Ah well, I was hoping that would force you to read the text of my posts, perhaps furiously trying to quote me, then realizing I didn't say that. Shame.

I said an awful lot about flawed arguments and provided some fairly ludicrous results of extending the problem with claiming specific vs general wins when it doesn't claim something.

Stop having gut responses to how this has to work cause otherwise the feat is worthless and people who think otherwise 'just don't understand the rules'.

I read the feat as working one way. You read it as working another way. Honestly, I think by RAW it may even work a third more convoluted and not-intended way.

I think WotC should clean things up and point out which way the feat is supposed to work _whatever that way is_ and provide a good example of specific vs. general so people don't claim it incorrectly.

You think you're definitely right and I "just don't understand the rules".

I think your position that doesn't allow you to potentially be wrong or the rules to be written incorrectly is indefensible and that you're exhibiting poor etiquette. Your claim that I don't understand the rules is silly - you don't know me except from these boards. That said, even from these boards I'd hope it'd be clear that I'm very much into researching and learning the rules. I posted the original DDXP rules handouts and some of the monster scans. I posted over 100 monsters. I've lead threads of making analysis of all the powers. Etc. I'll grant I don't have the ruleset mastered - I didn't remember the specific text of shift that Hypersmurf quoted as protecting only against adjacent moves away, but I have read the PHB and MM cover to cover and I've probably memorized about half the rules at this point (not necessarily my goal, just something that happens when I play a game twice a week while making stuff for the system)

So, yeah, I'm really curious to see what Wizards says for how this is actually supposed to work. In the meantime, maybe you should do what I said and run it however you want in games you GM because who cares what I think? I don't even play a game that the feat is used in. I just want to see WotC improve the ruleset!

 

[eamon]

Since I partly contributed to the (well, at least my) confusion: threatening reach clearly does state that it grant's OA's when foes leave any threatened square (or perform a ranged or area attack in a threatened square), which the MM doesn't so clearly (although that is the clearly the intention behind the MM definition as well).

So then, when you're moving when you're not adjacent, then threatening reach and polearm gamble do grant OA's to non-adjacent moving creatures (though polearm gamble further restricts that, of course).

If you read the shifting rules and consider "No Opportunity Attacks" to be rules text (I do), then shifting creatures don't provoke opportunity attacks, and if you consider that phrase to be a simplification of the actual rule "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don't provoke an opportunity attack" then shifting from a non-adjacent square does provoke.

So what's the intent?

 

[Oompa]

Polearm gamble gives you an extra OA option when you shift out of an threatend square..

Shift doesnt provoke OA from leaving the square, Polearm gamble provokes OA from entering an new threatend square and shift only negates OA when leaving....

What's the big buzz?

 

[Goumindong]

Ah well, I was hoping that would force you to read the text of my posts, perhaps furiously trying to quote me, then realizing I didn't say that. Shame.

Whether or not you said it word for word has little to do with whether or not you did indeed say it.

I think your position that doesn't allow you to potentially be wrong or the rules to be written incorrectly is indefensible and that you're exhibiting poor etiquette.

I always hold a position that does not allow me to be wrong. When i am wrong, i change my position until it is right. And then I am no longer wrong. This is not one of those cases.

I am not saying that the rules may not be written incorrectly either. I am saying how they are written. These are two very distinct things.

a bunch of argument to authority

Cut that out, your argument stands on its own.