Stay back! The joy of OAs.

[bardolph]

Only one OA is allowed per turn, correct? So if a creature is hit while closing, it can forfeit its standard action to move again and close.

 

[hamishspence]

Yes, I think so

One attack per monster, that is. if whole bunch of monsters are coming in from all sides OA can be gotten off against all. Even more dramatic in 3D in flight: up to 26- More than guys with Combat reflexes could expect to get off in 3.5, at least.

 

[FadedC]

it says it interrupts movement, and combat superiority says it stops movement. so its not so much Move adjacent as "try to move adjacent"

Well by my understanding, it would interrupt movement at the point the attack was made. And the attack has to be made while your enemy is adjacent, both from the wording of the feat, and the fact that the player cannot AoO more then 1 space away.

So it seems it would stop the target from moving any more, but he'd still make it next to you.

 

[Zaruthustran]

If an opp attack really does happen technically before the specific square-move that triggered it, that means that ALL opp attacks function in that way, not just the feat we are talking about. This means that if you get a successful, vanilla opp attack on an enemy, that enemy will be interrupted before he has left the square adjacent to you -- with Combat Superiority, they will be stuck where they are. My understanding is that opp attacks do not work like this, so I am led to rule according to the legal version of the rules I stated above. (Until further notice)

I'm certain that's the way OAs work. Otherwise, you'd never be able to take an OA, because by the time your interpretation allows you to take a swing, the target is out of reach.

Consider: an enemy is adjacent to you. He take a move action to move directly away. This triggers an OA (see rules on p290, "If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy.")

Under your interpretation the OA isn't initiated until the enemy fully leaves the square. At that point, he's no longer adjacent, and therefore out of reach.

Your interpretation essentially invalidates one of the main components of OAs. It's incorrect.

 

[Kordeth]

My interpretation, according to the ruling of both opportunity attacks and the specific opp attack from the feat, is that the target has already moved into the square that triggered the opp attack. If it had not, the opp attack would never have been able to take place in the first place! This is a legal interpretation. It provides the interruption to the move action as stated by the rules.

This is incorrect. As others have pointed out, this would mean you never get an OA on a retreating enemy unless you have Threatening Reach, which is clearly not the intent of the rule. Opportunity attacks interrupt the triggering action, the triggering action with this feat is "enters an adjacent square." You thus interrupt his entrance into the square, meaning you hit him before he enters it.

If an opp attack really does happen technically before the specific square-move that triggered it, that means that ALL opp attacks function in that way, not just the feat we are talking about. This means that if you get a successful, vanilla opp attack on an enemy, that enemy will be interrupted before he has left the square adjacent to you -- with Combat Superiority, they will be stuck where they are. My understanding is that opp attacks do not work like this, so I am led to rule according to the legal version of the rules I stated above. (Until further notice)

Umm--no, this is exactly how Combat Superiority and opportunity attacks are supposed to work. Fighters are sticky, it's their job to keep enemies stuck in melee with them. Again, "interrupt" has a specific definition in 4E, and even if you ignore the expanded clarification under "immediate interrupt," it's still before the target finishes it's action.

 

[hamishspence]

problem

"the point its made" is hard to define, and would lead to inconsistancy with normal OAs made when people move away. It says "When an ememy adjacent to you moves." so if movement stopped after the provoking move, combat superiority would be unable to keep enemies from moving away from adjacent to the fighter.

Simpler just to apply the "interrupts" the same every time: before the target leaves its square, and "stopped" in the square its trying to leave.

Polearm gamble is like a weaker version of threatening reach: ONLY applies to enemies trying to move adjacent to the fighter. As long as you keep a one space gap between you and the fighter you can move all you like.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Remember, this is 4e, general rules are explicitly trumped by more specific rules.

In general, movement-based OAs happen when the target /leaves/ an adjacent square, and happen in the square he tries to leave. In general, you take OAs only against adjacent targets.

Polearm Gamble specifically overrides the former, not the later. It adds a condition under which you can take an OA: You get an OA when an enemy /enters/ an adjacent square from a non-adjacent one. It says nothing about allowing an OA against a non-adjacent foe.

Polearm Gamble should probably have said something more like: While wielding a polearm, you can choose to have threatening reach, but when you do, you grant Combat Advantage to adjacent enemies. This would be more 'worth it' for a paragon ability. The way Polearm Gamble is written, now, would work well as the default for proficient polearm use.

Better yet, it should be an encounter (utility?) power with the martial, stance, and weapon keywords and the effect: While wielding a polearm you have threatening reach, but grant combat advantage to adjacent enemies. (Making it a stance works beautifully, you can't use it with another stance, but it lasts all encounter, unless you end it with a free action. It eliminates the issue of turning it off and on.). This models using your polearm to keep opponents at bay, but being at a temporary disadvantage when they close with you.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I don't think it actually lets you take the OA at reach. Polearm Gamble is worded very differently from threatening reach, at no point does it say you can make an OAs against a non-adjacent target. The general rule that OAs are taken against adjacent targets is not contradicted by the specific rule presented in Polearm Gamble, all it does is give you an additional condition under which you can take an OA (when an enemy moves from a non-adjacent square to an adjacent one). The OA still happens when he's adjacent, because you can't take the OA against a non-adjacent foe unless you have Threatening Reach - which PCs, aparently, can never get.

This was addressed elsewhere in the thread. To summarize:

1. the OA is triggered by "enter adjacent square." OAs interrupt the target's action.
2. Therefore the OA takes place before the movement to an adjacent square is completed.
3. The rules for OA (produced in their entirety on page 290 of the phb) have no requirement that an enemy be adjacent. Instead, the requirement is "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." *

You may be confused by the rule bullets "Moving Provokes" and "Ranged and Area Powers Provoke". Those rules address two typical triggers for OAs, and explain that for those specific triggers, the target must be adjacent. This build does not use either of those triggers, so those rules do not apply. Instead, this build's trigger is explained in the rules for Polearm Gamble.

Also, since this build does not use threatening reach, the rules for threatening reach do not apply. In fact, in the bit you quoted, I flat out say that this build is not as effective as threatening reach.

But it is an interesting build, and a good showcase of what happens when an action is interrupted (whether via interrupt action, or an opportunity action that interrupts--thank you for pointing out the difference, Big J Money).

-z

 

[Zaruthustran]

Remember, this is 4e, general rules are explicitly trumped by more specific rules.

In general, movement-based OAs happen when the target /leaves/ an adjacent square, and happen in the square he tries to leave. In general, you take OAs only against adjacent targets.

Those are specific triggers, not general rules. They don't apply to Polearm Gamble's trigger.

Polearm Gamble specifically overrides the former, not the later. It adds a condition under which you can take an OA: You get an OA when an enemy /enters/ an adjacent square from a non-adjacent one. It says nothing about allowing an OA against a non-adjacent foe.

It doesn't need to mention that. The OA interrupts the move, so it occurs before the move adjacent is completed. Your weapon's reach satisfies the general rule "must be able to make a melee basic attack." The attack therefore is able to occur before he enters the adjacent square/before the enemy leaves his current square.

If you had polearm gamble, a reach weapon, and (just for example) a third arm with a sword, the OA from polearm gamble would only let you attack with the polearm, since the sword would be out of reach (you wouldn't be able to make a melee basic attack with the sword at the time the OA is triggered).

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those are specific triggers, not general rules. They don't apply to Polearm Gamble's trigger.

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.

It doesn't need to mention that. The OA interrupts the move, so it occurs before the move adjacent is completed.

Movement-based OAs are a general rule, they aply to all characters and all weapons - that's pretty general. OAs interrupting the triggering action are a general rule, they aply to all OAs. Being able to OA only adjacent targets is a general rule, it aplies to anyone without threatening reach - even if they have reach from a weapon, as the entry under reach in the equipment section very clearly spells out.

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.

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.

Your weapon's reach satisfies the general rule "must be able to make a melee basic attack." The attack therefore is able to occur before he enters the adjacent square/before the enemy leaves his current 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.

If you had polearm gamble, a reach weapon, and (just for example) a third arm with a sword, the OA from polearm gamble would only let you attack with the polearm since the sword would be out of reach

I'd think it would only let you attack with the polearm, /because the feat only works with a polearm/. Not that the rules allow for third arms or TWFing with a weapon in an extra hand, anyway, so it's a moot point. You're speculating about what the rules might be if they included such things.

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.

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