Standing doesn't provoke an OA?

[Hypersmurf]

No. I would be more careful. The power is activated by the shift. That is all the shift does.

The power then allows an OA.

But:

Two action types - opportunity actions and immediate actions - require triggers. A trigger is an action, an event, or an effect that allows you to use a triggered action.

and

Trigger: Opportunity actions allow you to take an action in response to an enemy letting its guard down.

The trigger for an opportunity action is something the enemy does. The Warpriest's Challenge power expands the range of things-the-enemy-does which can be a trigger for an opportunity action, but Warpriest's Challenge itself can't be a trigger for an opportunity action, because Warpriest's Challenge is not "an enemy letting its guard down". Warpriest's Challenge causes the shift to be "an enemy letting its guard down", because otherwise nothing happens which can be a trigger for an opportunity action.

-Hyp.

 

[JGulick]

The trigger for an opportunity action is something the enemy does. The Warpriest's Challenge power expands the range of things-the-enemy-does which can be a trigger for an opportunity action, but Warpriest's Challenge itself can't be a trigger for an opportunity action, because Warpriest's Challenge is not "an enemy letting its guard down". Warpriest's Challenge causes the shift to be "an enemy letting its guard down", because otherwise nothing happens which can be a trigger for an opportunity action.

You're mixing the fluff text and the rules here, and that never makes finding a reasonable answer easier. Ignore the "letting its guard down" and look at the rules itself.

Warpriest's Challenge is a power. Powers can do just about anything they want, including granting OAs. The trigger for one of this power's effects is a shift, and the result of that trigger is an OA. Shift triggers power, power provides OA. A to B, B to C.

This is not an example of move provokes OA. It isn't A to C. And A to C is what is required for Combat Superiority to also be triggered.

This is just like saying "I push him to the bottom of the pit" when, in fact, you push him to the TOP of the pit and the Fall triggered by his being at the top of the pit moves him to the bottom of the pit. A to B, B to C. But A to C didn't happen, which is good because the rules forbid A to C while clearly allowing (and even having special save rules for) A to B to C.

IF Warpriest's Challenge said "This power changes the definition of Shifts so that, for you, Shifts by your Marked Target Provoke OA," then you would be right. But that isn't what it says. Instead, it provides a special new source of OAs, a Shift or Attack not against you by the marked target.

WC provides the OA, not the Shift. The shift is the trigger for WC.

Eliding cause and effect chains like you're doing here doesn't work. Does someone under Divine Challenge damage himself by doing an attack not targeting the Paladin? No. They do the attack, which triggers DC, which does the damage. A triggers B, B causes C. To say A causes C would lead to several interesting mistakes.

It's no more correct here than there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So:

Consider the Fighter with Polearm Gamble.

"When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy..."

Would you rule that it is the feat permitting the OA, not the movement provoking the OA, and thus Combat Superiority does not stop the movement?

Consider Viper's Strike (Warlord Attack 1):
"If the target shifts before the start of your next turn, it provokes an opportunity attack from an ally of your choice."

If the ally of your choice is a Fighter, Combat Superiority does not stop the movement, because while the target is provoking when he shifts, it is not the target's shift that provokes?

Consider the Warpriest with Unbalancing Attack (Rogue Attack 13):
"If the target provokes an opportunity attack from you before the start of your next turn, you gain a bonus..."

If the target of Unbalancing Attack is also marked by the Warpriest's Challenge and shifts, the Warpriest can make an OA against the target, but without a bonus, since the target did not provoke the OA?

Consider Exalted Retribution (Paladin Attack 25), or the Champion of Order Paragon Path:
"Until the end of the encounter, the target provokes an opportunity attack from you when it attacks."
and
"When you are adjacent to the target of your divine challenge, the target provokes an opportunity attack from you if it makes an attack that does not include you."

In both of these cases, while the target provokes an OA when it attacks, it is not the attack that provokes?

-Hyp.

 

[JGulick]

So:

Consider the Fighter with Polearm Gamble.

"When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy..."

Would you rule that it is the feat permitting the OA, not the movement provoking the OA, and thus Combat Superiority does not stop the movement?

Certainly so. Which resolves the endless and insoluble debates over teleporting in, shifting in, etc. The Power provides an OA and you must give up CA and that's IT. CS is not triggered.

Consider Viper's Strike (Warlord Attack 1):
"If the target shifts before the start of your next turn, it provokes an opportunity attack from an ally of your choice."

If the ally of your choice is a Fighter, Combat Superiority does not stop the movement, because while the target is provoking when he shifts, it is not the target's shift that provokes?

Here's the difference... Here, the shift is re-defined to provoke instead of its normal rules that it does not. That's distinctly NOT what Warpriest's Challenge does.

Consider the Warpriest with Unbalancing Attack (Rogue Attack 13):
"If the target provokes an opportunity attack from you before the start of your next turn, you gain a bonus..."

If the target of Unbalancing Attack is also marked by the Warpriest's Challenge and shifts, the Warpriest can make an OA against the target, but without a bonus, since the target did not provoke the OA?

Yep. Pretty much like how the Fighter's Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority don't interact.

So:Consider Exalted Retribution (Paladin Attack 25), or the Champion of Order Paragon Path:
"Until the end of the encounter, the target provokes an opportunity attack from you when it attacks."
and
"When you are adjacent to the target of your divine challenge, the target provokes an opportunity attack from you if it makes an attack that does not include you."

In both of these cases, while the target provokes an OA when it attacks, it is not the attack that provokes?

Nope. The text quoted specifically says that the attack provokes. It's a specific statement overriding the usual rules.

As I said, a power can either modify the rules for provoking or provide an OA itself via its own unique trigger. The two are different things. "You can make an OA if X" is not the same as "X provokes OAs for you", as similar as they seem. "Provokes" is a specific rules term that must, IMO, be specifically invoked in order to apply. OAs gained thru triggered powers are not Provoked by the action that triggered the power.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's the difference... Here, the shift is re-defined to provoke instead of its normal rules that it does not.

Nope. The text quoted specifically says that the attack provokes. It's a specific statement overriding the usual rules.

In both those cases, it states that the target provokes, not that the shift or the attack provokes.

If I understand, you're saying that "The target provokes an OA if he shifts" and "The target's shift provokes an OA" are identical, but "If the target shifts, make an OA against him" is not.

"If target X does Y, you may make an OA against target X" sounds like a fair definition of Y provoking to me!

-Hyp.

 

[JGulick]

In both those cases, it states that the target provokes, not that the shift or the attack provokes.

If I understand, you're saying that "The target provokes an OA if he shifts" and "The target's shift provokes an OA" are identical, but "If the target shifts, make an OA against him" is not.

"If target X does Y, you may make an OA against target X" sounds like a fair definition of Y provoking to me!

I would hesitate before assuming that a rule that says X means Y just because X and Y seem roughly synonymous. It says X, it means X. Especially if substituting Y makes it more powerful or creates an odd contradiction. Because the fact that a substitution changes the meaning is a strong indication that X and Y aren't synonymous in the first place.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would hesitate before assuming that a rule that says X means Y just because X and Y seem roughly synonymous. It says X, it means X. Especially if substituting Y makes it more powerful or creates an odd contradiction. Because the fact that a substitution changes the meaning is a strong indication that X and Y aren't synonymous in the first place.

All right, then; let's compare Warpriest's Challenge and Threatening Reach.

Warpriest's Challenge states "The next time that enemy shifts or attacks a creature other than you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

As I understand your position, the shift does not provoke; rather, the shift triggers the ability, and the ability allows the Warpriest to make an OA.

Threatening Reach states "Some creatures have an ability called threatening reach. This lets them make opportunity attacks against nonadjacent enemies. If an enemy leaves a square that's within the creature's reach, or if an enemy anywhere within the creature's reach makes a ranged attack or an area attack, the creature can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

So let's say I'm adjacent to a War Troll (threatening reach, 2 squares). I shift three squares away from him (or even one square away from him). My shift does not provoke an OA, but my leaving a square within his reach triggers his Threatening Reach ability, and the Threatening Reach ability allows him to make an OA against me despite the lack of provocation.

Have I understood your position correctly?

-Hyp.

 

[JGulick]

Have I understood your position correctly?

Yes, but you are looking at the wrong definition of Threatening Reach, which is leading you to make incorrect conclusions.

Since it's a Monster Power, look in the MM, not the PHB. "This creature can make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach."

And that's all the definition it needs, because Threatening Reach does not change any of the triggers of OAs, it just lets you do them at a longer range.

The definition you quote is misleading in that it implies complexity to the Threatening Reach ability that it does not need.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, but you are looking at the wrong definition of Threatening Reach, which is leading you to make incorrect conclusions.

Since it's a Monster Power, look in the MM, not the PHB. "This creature can make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach."

And that's all the definition it needs, because Threatening Reach does not change any of the triggers of OAs, it just lets you do them at a longer range.

So what are the triggers for OAs?

From Opportunity Action:
"Opportunity attacks are triggered by an enemy leaving a square adjacent to you or by an adjacent enemy making a ranged attack or an area attack."

From Opportunity Attack:
"Movement Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."
and
"Ranged Attacks Provoke: If an enemy adjacent to you uses a ranged power or an area power, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

From Walk:
"Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."

From Ranged Attack: "Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."

It's the same for all of them - any time something provokes an OA, it explicitly uses the word "adjacent". So if we use only the definition from the MM for Threatening Reach, we know that the monster can make an OA against an opponent anywhere in its reach... but the only actions that provoke an OA only provoke when you're adjacent. If someone two squares from a War Troll provokes an OA, the War Troll can make that OA... but nothing the character two squares away does will provoke an OA.

The only way that the War Troll can actually make an OA on a non-adjacent creature comes from reading the PHB definition of threatening reach... and if we use the PHB definition of threatening reach, then since it's worded identically to Warpriest's Challenge, the same logic must apply, and the War Troll will hit the shifting PC.

Summary - You can't take an OA unless an OA is provoked, or an ability says "Make an OA now". A creature who makes a ranged attack adjacent to an enemy provokes an OA. A creature who makes a ranged attack while not adjacent to an enemy does not provoke an OA. A creature with threatening reach can make an OA against someone within his reach... but only when an OA is provoked, and a non-adjacent enemy is not provoking a ranged attack. Except that the PHB says he can make an attack when an enemy within his reach makes a ranged attack.

The PHB text is vital.

-Hyp.

 

[MarauderX]

(enemies can only occupy your square if you're helpless).

Correct; in this case, the fighter was dropped and a hobgoblin Commander shifted over his body since it would give him advantage against the Warlord. The Warlord then utters an Inspiring Word, and you have a more-than-helpless (does that make him helpful?? ) underfoot of the hobgoblin. The fighter wants to stand up, and in what better space than to give combat advantage. Fair?