Stay back! The joy of OAs.

[Zaruthustran]

You must be adjacent to take an OA is a pretty general rule, I think. Reach weapons explicitly do not override that rule, for instance.

If such a rule existed, you'd be right. Alas, the rule I think you're referencing is not general. It's very specific.

Under "moving provokes", on page 290, the rule says "If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."

This rule very specifically refers to trigger "leaves a square adjacent". It's not general at all.

And, regardless of what you consider general, it has *nothing* to do with the trigger in question: the trigger from Polearm Gamble: "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy"

That Polearm Gamble trigger is extremely specific, and would therefore (by your argument) trump any general rule, anyway.

Movement-based OAs are a general rule, they aply to all characters and all weapons - that's pretty general.

There's no such thing as "movement-based OAs". That is not a game term. There's only "Opportunity Attacks", and the rules are laid out in full on page 290, along with two common triggers (leaving a square, and attacking with a ranged or area attack). There are other triggers, and those triggers follow the general rules for OAs.

OAs interrupting the triggering action are a general rule, they aply to all OAs.

That's correct.

Being able to OA only adjacent targets is a general rule, it aplies to anyone without threatening reach -

I'll agree that the two common triggers require an adjacent target--I've quoted the rules that state that. But that requirement only applies to those two specific triggers. It's not a requirement for OAs in general. One example of is threatening reach. Another is Polearm Gamble.

even if they have reach from a weapon, as the entry under reach in the equipment section very clearly spells out.

The weapon quality "reach" is not what gives this build its OA. Polearm Gamble provides the trigger. The rules on p290 state that OAs require that you are "Able to Attack: You can’t make an opportunity attack unless you are able to make a melee basic attack and you can see your enemy."

Reach allows you to make a basic attack against nonadjacent enemies. Polearm Gamble provides an OA trigger that, due to the timing of OAs, takes place while the enemy is nonadjacent. Since you're able to make a basic attack against nonadjacent enemies, you are able to perform the OA using the trigger provided by Polearm Gamble.

Polearm Gamble is a feat, and quite specifically aplies only to characters with that feat who still meet the preqs and are wielding a polearm. It can override any of the above - if it says it does.

Agreed.

All it does, though, is add a new trigger for your OAs: an enemy entering an adjacent square from a non-adjacent one.

That's all it does. The enemy still has to be adjacent for the OA to happen, and you still interrupt his move action - though, if he wasn't moving any farther than that adjacent square, it doesn't matter that you've interrupted it, and, if he was moving any farther, you'd get an OA even without polearm gamble, but, still, technically, you're interrupting it.

It's the technical part that's important. You can't "save" a triggered OA. You have to take it when triggered, or not take it at all. You hit the guy before he leaves and before he moves adjacent. If you wait until he arrives, you've given up your interrupt. The triggering event has passed. If you go by the way you describe, it just doesn't work, mechanically.

See the discussion above with Big J Money about the logical consequences of shoehorning the timing of the OA from Polearm Gamble into taking place *after* the target has arrived in the adjacent square.

That's a 3e way of thinking about it. In 4e, you only get an OA if the target is adjacent. Reach doesn't change that. Threatening reach changes it. So far, PCs have no way of acquiring threatening reach.

Now you're making up rules. You're claiming that the action "Opportunity Action" has a blanket requirement that the target is adjacent. That's just not true. There is no rule support for that claim. There is, however, a blanket rule for OAs that you must be able to make a basic melee attack against the target. This build satisfies that requirement.

You're trying to apply the rules for the trigger "when an enemy leaves an adjacent square" to the completely different trigger "when an enemy enters an adjacent square." They're two different triggers.

And, again, threatening reach does not apply. This build does not use threatening reach.

Not true, since Polearm Gamble is a specific rule, and it can thus override the more general rule on OAs.

This sentence does not address my argument. I'll repeat it: If you're arguing against the OA from Polearm Gamble takes place *after* the move adjacent is completed, then you must also argue that the OA from the specific trigger "Moving Provokes" takes place *after* the move away from adjacent.

The trigger from Polearm Gamble results in the OA taking place while the target is not adjacent. That's how the interrupt works, and you can't argue otherwise unless you also adjust the timing of the "Moving provokes" trigger.

So, by saying that the Polearm Gamble OA interrupts "enter adjacent", and takes place while the target is nonadjacent, the rules are saying that if you have this feat and have a polearm you can take your opportunity attack while the target is nonadjacent.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

It's explained in that lengthy OP, and the title of the thread. He uses a glaive, which is a polearm that is a heavy blade.

Oh, yeah. Look at that. Didn't notice glaive was also a heavy blade.

But you selectively didn't adress my point that Polearm Gamble doesn't grant an AoO for using a move but simply for being a non-adjacent enemy that enters an adjacent square.

On the plus side, that means that someone who shifts, teleports or even is pulled, pushed, can provoke an AoO.

On the downside it bypasses combat superiority entirely so it doesn't cancel the movement since it's not the trigger.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But you selectively didn't adress my point that Polearm Gamble doesn't grant an AoO for using a move but simply for being a non-adjacent enemy that enters an adjacent square.

On the plus side, that means that someone who shifts, teleports or even is pulled, pushed, can provoke an AoO.

I noticed that when I went back and took another look at the feat last night. It really doesn't call out /how/ you enter the square, as long as you were in a non-adjacent square before you did so. Every square in the game world other than the 8 next to you is non-adjacent. Teleporting in triggers the PG OA, and, since shifting quite explicitly exempts you from the OA for leaving a square, even shifting won't stop the OA. Wierd.

On the downside it bypasses combat superiority entirely so it doesn't cancel the movement since it's not the trigger.

I'm going to have to take another look at combat superiority, too.

It's funny, on a first read through, 4e looked pretty clear and straightforward. But, no rule is clear enough to stand against the power of the internet. Some bozo out there will always find something....

 

[Tony Vargas]

This sentence does not address my argument. I'll repeat it: If you're arguing against the OA from Polearm Gamble takes place *after* the move adjacent is completed, then you must also argue that the OA from the specific trigger "Moving Provokes" takes place *after* the move away from adjacent.

Why would I have to argue a more general case, when specific overrides general?

On the one hand, you're saying that the OA from Polearm Gamble /must/ take place in a non-adjacent square, because OAs based on the more common trigger of exiting a square require that they occur before before the triggering action is completed. On the other, you argue that the trigger for PG is /completely different/ from the usual trigger, and so is not bound by the same rules.

I also think you're hanging quite a bit on the use of the word 'interrupt' in the decription of OAs, when OAs are very explicitly /not/ immediate interrupts.

But, I will go back and take another look at the general rules for OA. If you're right, and the adjacent requirment is strictly tied only to specific triggers, then you can indeed partially poach something akin to threatening reach anytime the author of a new feat/power/whatever ommits the adjacent requirement from an OA-granting mechanic.
Intersting.

 

[hamishspence]

general and sepcific rules

The only change made by PG is what form of movement provokes OAs: atempted moves adjacent. It does not say that the other OA rules are changed. So, teleporting, shifting, forced movement, would not provoke, since the OA made by Polearm Gamble guy is still just an ordinary OA.

And ordinary OAs are specifically called out as interrupting actions.
And Combat Superiority is specifically called as stopping movement.

Sure, its not an Immediate interrupt. its better. Cos you only get one Immediate interrupt. But you get as many OAs as there are combatants provoking, in the same turn.

Same would apply to ranged attacks as to movement. Its an interrupt, it goes first.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I first read the specific-trumps-general rule (itself, a general rule, when you think about it), I was dubious. It looks like it was intended to reduce the kind of rules-lawyering you typically saw with D&D in the past.

It apears by doubts were justified.

 

[NorthSaber]

Each of 'em has a reach weapon, right? Why would they try to get adjacent?

There are many attack powers that only work vs adjacent enemies, for instance. But yeah, I probably wouldn't chance it myself.

The way I read it is, "An opportunity action takes place before the target finishes its action" where action is a standard action, move action, or minor action. In this case, it's always a move action.

I would say that a move, a charge or even a shift from a non-adjacent square into an adjacent square would activate Polearm Gambit though and allow the OA. Shift only says that it prevents OA's activated by leaving a threatened square, nothing more - and PG doesn't care how you tried to move closer. Teleportation is always safe, though, as it never provokes OAs.

 

[Big J Money]

On the plus side, that means that someone who shifts, teleports or even is pulled, pushed, can provoke an AoO.

On the downside it bypasses combat superiority entirely so it doesn't cancel the movement since it's not the trigger.

These assumptions are not founded on rules. Polearm Gamble doesn't wholescale replace the rules for Opp Attack, it just gives an additional trigger for them. Do you have a quote for this?

 

[Zurai]

On the downside it bypasses combat superiority entirely so it doesn't cancel the movement since it's not the trigger.

How is "enemy moves into an adjacent square" not "if movement was the trigger"? Combat Superiority still applies.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

How is "enemy moves into an adjacent square" not "if movement was the trigger"? Combat Superiority still applies.

If you are going to use quote marks, make it a quote!

When a nonadjacent enemy enters a
square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity
attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you
grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of
the enemy’s turn.

That's the quote, the entire feat description. No mention of movement for you to bold out.

These assumptions are not founded on rules. Polearm Gamble doesn't wholescale replace the rules for Opp Attack, it just gives an additional trigger for them. Do you have a quote for this?

Yes. See above. I had already quoted it in my post before last, on the previous page. The additional trigger isn't a move, it's just going from non-adjacent to adjacent. It's usually achieve through a move, put could be achieved through teleportation, shifting, sliding and getting pulled or pushed. But since the trigger itself is just becoming adjacent, I'd rule that combat superiority doesn't apply.

So whenever you use that opportunity attacks, you also grant the combat advantage to your enemy. That's why it's a polearm gamble.