Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chen_93" data-source="post: 4392872" data-attributes="member: 68883">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 &quot;Able to attack&quot; 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 &quot;specific&quot; overrule the Polearm Gamble &quot;specific&quot;? 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 &quot;specific&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chen_93, post: 4392872, member: 68883"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification