Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4392357" data-attributes="member: 51942">Indeed.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Entering via any means provokes as opposed to leaving while not shifting or being forced?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Polearm gamble explicitly mentions entering, because that's relevant, but all other rules concerning opportunity attacks remain.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; These opportunity attacks are still interrupts even though&nbsp; the feat doesn't mention it.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4392357, member: 51942"] 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: [INDENT][b]Moving Provokes:[/b] 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. [/INDENT]Polearm gamble says that in when a non-adjacent enemy enters an adjacent square, it provokes. What is polearm gamble overriding here? Entering via [u]any[/u] 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 [i]explicit[/i] restriction that shifting does not provoke. [/QUOTE]

Verification