Stay back! The joy of OAs.

[Kordeth]

One thing is puzzling though. Why there is different text under the two sections.
In Opportunity Actions, it has the text you list, and that is the full entry.

In Immediate Actions, which are a different type of action, it lists Immediate Interrupt - and has a long section describing how interrupts actually work. But it's not clear to me whether it is describing how immediate interrupts work, or how all interrupts work.

I expect it's just an artifact of how the section is laid out. 4th Edition is big on "define a term once, then use the term by itself." It is a little weird that the definition comes after the first use of the term interrupt, but that could easily be the result of a last-second layout change.

You'd think each of those two sections (Opportunity Actions and Immediate Interrupt Actions) there'd be text like "this Interrupts an action," with a second seperate definition "interrupts undo the action which triggers them."

Interrupts don't undo the action that triggered them, unless the interrupt action itself obviates the trigger. But again, it comes down to "define a term once, then don't waste space repeating the definition."

It seems to me that leaves open the interpretation that Immediate Interruptions work like that, but Opportunity Actions might not. Then again, why mention that opportunity actions interrupt actions, if they don't work like that? <confused>

Exactly. There is one and only one definition of "interrupts an action."

 

[Hambot]

This is the most intelligent thread I've read in ages. I could feel my point of view switch back and forth with each post.

I find rules issues like this confusing - I never felt 3rd edition did a good job with swift and immediate actions because the ramifications were never discussed with examples.

I would love a designer to write an article about examples of different types of interrupts so that it becomes a little more clear. If the people in this thread are confused by the rules, and they sound pretty smart, the rules could do with a little clarification.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Yeah MeMeMeMe, it's a bit tricky. I actually find this edition a bit easier to parse than the previous edition. The combat section of the rules are just laid out so nice and easy.

For example, page 290, which describes Opportunity Attack specifically. There's a nice bullet-pointed list that details the whole thing, start to finish. You can read that and not need to reference anything else.

By the way, I appreciate your comments, but just for future reference it really helps to quote rules in these types of discussions. Doing so helps to keep things on the "this is what the rules say" level, instead of "this is what I think the rules should say" level.

For example, just to lay the interrupt thing to rest, here's again the rule from opportunity action "Interrupts Target’s Action: An opportunity action takes place before the target finishes its action."

Again, I thank you for the replies. I just notice that you're new to ENWorld, so thought you might appreciate the tip.

 

[MrMyth]

My argument is basically this - while an "opportunity action takes place before the target finishes its action," I don't believe that the trigger for Polearm Gamble is the enemy moving into an adjacent space to you, but instead arriving in that adjacent space. It isn't a question of whether or not you can interrupt their action, but when specifically you do so. You interrupt their action - after they have already arrived in that square. As opposed to a normal opportunity attack, which would interrupt their action - before they leave a square.

After all, you aren't invalidating the entire move action - otherwise, some you hit with an opportunity attack would be shunted back to wherever they started their move. You are simply invalidating any further move action - which in the case of normal opportunity attacks, involves the attempt to leave the square. In the case of Polearm Gamble, that movement was already completed.

(It certainly doesn't help that Opportunity Actions and Immediate Actions are defined seperately (PHB 268), and that the rules go into detail on how Interrupting work for Immediate Actions, but not for Opportunity Actions.)

All that said, I definitely think this is an area where any given GM could easily rule in one direction or the other. While I very much like how much the rules were slimmed down, there does seem to be a few specific areas where they just didn't quite address how some situations might work. (Fortunately, they already appear to be putting up the 4th Edition FAQ, and hopefully it will be a good resource for resolving some of these issues.)

 

[Surgoshan]

(It certainly doesn't help that Opportunity Actions and Immediate Actions are defined seperately (PHB 268), and that the rules go into detail on how Interrupting work for Immediate Actions, but not for Opportunity Actions.)

I think that's because an OA is a specific kind of interrupt that will occur very frequently and is the same across all classes, are always interrupts, and will result in the same responses. Other immediate actions will vary in trigger, result, and frequency based on classes and powers.

My argument is basically this - while an "opportunity action takes place before the target finishes its action," I don't believe that the trigger for Polearm Gamble is the enemy moving into an adjacent space to you, but instead arriving in that adjacent space.

What it actually says is "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm...". The trigger of the opportunity attack is the opponent entering the square, the opportunity attack immediately takes place, and then the opponent finishes move action and occupies the space. If the OA hit, then the move action is finished there.

Similarly, I'd think that Combat Superiority would stop a movement that started with an opponent moving away from you, but that the movement would stop with the opponent having moved that first square. Thoughts?

 

[Zaruthustran]

My argument is basically this - while an "opportunity action takes place before the target finishes its action," I don't believe that the trigger for Polearm Gamble is the enemy moving into an adjacent space to you, but instead arriving in that adjacent space. It isn't a question of whether or not you can interrupt their action, but when specifically you do so. You interrupt their action - after they have already arrived in that square.

I see what you're saying, and agree that it is a bit confusing.

But if you grant that the OA interrupts the triggering action, then you also grant that the interrupt takes place before the triggering action completes. That's what interrupt means.

I think all we can do is reference the other place where rules explain interrupts. Page 268, Triggered Action Types, Immediate Action, Interrupt:

"For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost."


First the example, step by step:

1. Enemy attacks.
2. Interrupt is triggered, allowing you to shift away. This takes place before the trigger/takes place before "enemy attacks".
3. Since you shifted out of reach, "enemy attacks" does not occur.


Now our situation, step by step:

1. Enemy moves adjacent.
2. Interrupt is triggered, allowing an OA. This takes place before the trigger/takes place before "enemy moves adjacent".
3. If you're a fighter and hit with an OA, the target has to stop moving: "enemy moves adjacent" does not occur.

 

[Surgoshan]

Hmm... yeah. I think you're right, Zarathustran. The language on interrupts is confusing. It'd be nice if there was an official memo saying it was akin to interrupts in Magic, with actions resolving last to first.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

But if you grant that the OA interrupts the triggering action, then you also grant that the interrupt takes place before the triggering action completes. That's what interrupt means.

I think all we can do is reference the other place where rules explain interrupts. Page 268, Triggered Action Types, Immediate Action, Interrupt:

"For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost."


First the example, step by step:

1. Enemy attacks.
2. Interrupt is triggered, allowing you to shift away. This takes place before the trigger/takes place before "enemy attacks".
3. Since you shifted out of reach, "enemy attacks" does not occur.


Now our situation, step by step:

1. Enemy moves adjacent.
2. Interrupt is triggered, allowing an OA. This takes place before the trigger/takes place before "enemy moves adjacent".
3. If you're a fighter and hit with an OA, the target has to stop moving: "enemy moves adjacent" does not occur.

The problem with this, is if you stop the person before moving into range of the polearm, he isn't in range of the polearm and you can't attack him. Thus, you couldn't make the attack!

That problem doesn't occur with the official example.

 

[Surgoshan]

Except that you never attack them when they're not in range of the polearm; Polearm Gambit is an OA against an enemy entering a square adjacent to you. So he's moving from a spot you can reach to a spot you can reach and you're stopping him from moving into that spot, leaving him still in a spot you can reach. If you miss, though, he gets +2 to attack and is adjacent.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Ah yes, I forgot about that (I actually meant to check up when it was triggered before posting, but got distracted).

I started out thinking the OP's idea was illegal. Now I think there is room to go either way, but for my game I'll be going with the interpretation in MrMyth's most recent post.