Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 4e Discussion] Jim thinks this thread title shouldn't change so often

Goose!Goose! That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered User regular
edited August 2008 in Critical Failures
Okay, so the old 4e thread was well past 100 and I felt like making my own. With hookers. And blackjack. Know what? Screw the thread.





Scroll Warning:
20080606_rd_0.jpg

Why yes, We do have Dragons.

Dungeons and Dragons: Fourth Edition

This is the thread for the fourth edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game. All discussion herein is to have some shit to do with the Dungeons and Dragons game.

The new edition has a few additions, I'll go over them sooner or later.

We've got the three core books in hand, released June 6th.

They are:

products_dndacc_217367200_lgpic.jpg
The Player's Handbook.

This is the general guide to the D&D game that a player needs. It's got the combat rules and stuff like that, along with the classes:

The Races:
First off, races now provide only benefits and no negatives. Also, sorry if you liked the Gnome or Half-Orc, they'll be in PHB2, though the gnome is playable out of the monster manual. The gnome is also a monster, rarr.
The Dragonborn:
Not those pussies from 3E's draconomicon, these guys are badasses with a racial breath weapon. They make excellent Warlords, Paladins, and Fighters.

The Dwarves:
They're wise and tough as nails, pretty much the best categorization of the tough dwarf I've seen in tabletop roleplaying games. They make great Paladins, Clerics, and Fighters.

The Eladrin:
The "Elves" of last edition were split into two different races this time. The eladrin live in ridiculously magical feywild cities and make good wizards, warlords, and rangers. They can also teleport as a racial ability. Sweet sorcery, bro.

also Elves Elves lol.

The Elves:
The other half of the elves from last time, they're forest living guys who are really accurate. They make good rangers, rogues, and clerics.

See what I mean by Elves lol?

The Half-Elves:
Proof that humans will screw anything. They're pretty tough and personable, and make excellent multiclassers. They make good warlords, paladins, and warlocks.

The Halflings:
Short, fat... actually no, these are about as far from tolkien's halflings as a fat american on his couch eating potato chips is from a bush tribesman in africa. Except they both speak english. Halflings continue their tradition of being really lucky and quick, as well as make excellent rogues, rangers, and warlocks.

The Humans:
Look in the Mirror. They're good at everything again and are the most adaptable, again. They make good anythings.

The Tieflings:
Blah blah blah our ancestors made pacts with devils and we're not half-breeds anymore. We get angry really well as a racial ability. We're also merciless, etc. We make good Warlocks, Warlords, or Rogues.

Also they really AREN'T the same tieflings we've had for 20 years.

Introducing the Classes:
Every class now has a "Role" within the party, and a party is recommended to have every role represented to succeed, though it need not have to. It is considered "pro" to have proper party balance.


[Maticore][Recruiting]: LF1M Cleric KotS. No Warlord plz.

The Cleric:
Is classified as a Leader.

He's the priest of a god with some pretty wicked spells to heal his allies and disable his enemies. Usually at the same time. Rarely will the cleric spend entire turns casting Cure Light Wounds.
The Fighter:
Is classified as a Defender.

He's a badass with a sword and board or a Two handed weapon, his job on the battlefield is to keep the enemies from stomping his friends, and he can do so with a variety of weapons, which all behave differently depending on how you choose your powers.
The Paladin:
Is classified as a Defender.

This guy is the champion of a deity, who uses some pretty powerful melee spells to lay waste to the enemy. He does alot of glowing holy magical energy damage, too. He also uses either a sword and shield or two handed weapon. His crappy spellcasting from previous editions has been replaced by a whole host of wicked awesome prayers that can heal his allies and smite his enemies.
The Ranger:
Is classified as a Striker.

This guy can use either a bow or two one handed weapons to mercilessly mutilate his enemies. He can also designate specific enemies as his quarry, this includes a giant glowing red arrow above their head.

Because this game is now WoW.
The Rogue:
Is classified as a Striker.

Is only good for picking locks and disarming traps, not really though. Sneak attack has been toned down a bit, but the rogue's huge damage boost makes up for it, because he really tears shit up with some pretty awesome powers.
The Warlock:
Is classified as a Striker.

Makes soul selling pacts with either Fey, Demons, or Cthulhu. Fires blasts of eldritch energy and murders people. Also, curses people so that he deals even more damage.

Strikers are nuts.
The Warlord:
Is classified as a Leader.

This is the new class focused on tactics and inspiring your fellows. He's pretty cool and can actually replace a cleric in your party very effectively, and he brings a different playstyle to the table too. Cleric Inc. hates him for breaking its monopoly on this role.
The Wizard:
Is the only Controller.

The wizard is good at killing lots of enemies, very fast. He's not as amazingly and unstoppably powerful as he used to be, but still is pretty cool.



products_dndacc_217207200_lgpic.jpg
The Monster Manual

Is full of Monsters. Only the DM really needs this. The highest level monster in here is Orcus, Demon Prince of the Undead (He's one of those guys who you pronounce the whole name on, in my opinion) at level 33.

products_dndacc_217507200_lgpic.jpg
The Dungeon Master's Guide

The DM needs this, it provides all kinds of good stuff for him to learn to run the game. Having read through it, it actually provides good information on how to run a game.
DVG wrote: »

RPTOOLS:
These are pretty useful for playing D&D over the internet.

Requests:
Don't do the 3E/4E argument shit in here.
Don't argue about armor proficiency again.
ElderCat wrote: »
The first post needs some SERIOUS loving. Links to wizards; enworld; the power card site; Faqs about the WOTC online tools not coming out for a while; links to Myth weavers online character sheets; Maptools and the link to download H1 for maptools.



This list was provided by JustPlainPavek - who likes to contribute in a positive manner even though he doesn't have the books.

D&D Compendium Direct link.


The Current Release Schedule, Courtesy of Undead Scottsman:
Thanks to Maticore for the OP.

Nintendo Switch FC: SW-5618-5257-5789
Goose! on
«13456770

Posts

  • SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Can we have hookers and poker instead?

    Snarfmaster on
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So does a */Warlock multiclassed character get Eldritch Blast or their Pact's At-Will power when they take the multiclass feat?

    The feat's text says one thing, the summary says another.

    INeedNoSalt on
    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • Sharp101Sharp101 TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Is there an easy way to print the Myth Weavers char sheets?

    Sharp101 on
  • Archr5Archr5 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Sharp101 wrote: »
    Is there an easy way to print the Myth Weavers char sheets?

    I've been saving them as a complete webpage and then opening the saved file in my browser. seems to print up fine. i'm on OSX though, your mileage may vary.

    Archr5 on
    somalia_banner.jpg
  • DajianDajian Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So does a */Warlock multiclassed character get Eldritch Blast or their Pact's At-Will power when they take the multiclass feat?

    The feat's text says one thing, the summary says another.

    Not sure where you see the Eldrich Blast mentioned. On page 208 it just says you get one skill and the at-will from the pact you choose.

    On a side note. I wish they had different requirments for the warlock based on the pact. Like Infernal Pact doesn't need CHA at all. It'd be nice to be able to have a high CON fighter grab the Infernal Pact.

    Dajian on
  • LegionnairedLegionnaired Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Dajian wrote: »
    So does a */Warlock multiclassed character get Eldritch Blast or their Pact's At-Will power when they take the multiclass feat?

    The feat's text says one thing, the summary says another.

    Not sure where you see the Eldrich Blast mentioned. On page 208 it just says you get one skill and the at-will from the pact you choose.

    On a side note. I wish they had different requirments for the warlock based on the pact. Like Infernal Pact doesn't need CHA at all. It'd be nice to be able to have a high CON fighter grab the Infernal Pact.

    Yeah, area-effect spells and fighters are fucking fantastic. You just mark everything.

    I really need to play a game, all I've done is DM.

    Also, I'm playing with Sproutcore today, so I might have a NPC/Monster statblock generator going on pretty soon.

    Legionnaired on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So does a */Warlock multiclassed character get Eldritch Blast or their Pact's At-Will power when they take the multiclass feat?

    The feat's text says one thing, the summary says another.
    I think the errata says they get the Path power.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • LegionnairedLegionnaired Registered User
    edited June 2008
    So does a */Warlock multiclassed character get Eldritch Blast or their Pact's At-Will power when they take the multiclass feat?

    The feat's text says one thing, the summary says another.
    I think the errata says they get the Path power.

    Do they get the curse 1/Encounter?

    Because I'd rather have that to be honest, if I'm multiclassing into a Striker class. Plus the Infernal Paragon Path requires you to have the curses to harvest the life-sparks or whatever, and it seems like a fun class to try out.

    Legionnaired on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Do they get the curse 1/Encounter?

    Because I'd rather have that to be honest, if I'm multiclassing into a Striker class. Plus the Infernal Paragon Path requires you to have the curses to harvest the life-sparks or whatever, and it seems like a fun class to try out.
    No.

    Several of the Multiclassing paragon path choices are broken. At present it's impossible to take any of the ranger paths unless you're main class is ranger. At least you can take the paths from Warlock, even if you don't get a whole lot out of their features that require cursing.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • Cosmic SombreroCosmic Sombrero Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So, I'm making a fighter, and I'm not sure why you would ever want to take Sure Strike. That's an awfully tiny attack bonus when you consider that you're giving up your strength modifier.

    Cosmic Sombrero on
  • LegionnairedLegionnaired Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Do they get the curse 1/Encounter?

    Because I'd rather have that to be honest, if I'm multiclassing into a Striker class. Plus the Infernal Paragon Path requires you to have the curses to harvest the life-sparks or whatever, and it seems like a fun class to try out.
    No.

    Several of the Multiclassing paragon path choices are broken. At present it's impossible to take any of the ranger paths unless you're main class is ranger. At least you can take the paths from Warlock, even if you don't get a whole lot out of their features that require cursing.

    /me breaks out the DM-errata marker.

    I really like a formulaic approach to multiclassing:

    Defender - Mark ability 1/Encounter
    Striker - Extra damage ability 1/Encounter
    Leader - Healing ability 1/Day
    Controller - At-Will 1/Encounter (Since they have AoE at will, this lets you fill the role a little bit)

    Legionnaired on
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I suggest removing the [ROLL ON] from the thread title. Leave it exactly as is otherwise.

    Those tags make me think it's a game, and I overlooked this thread at first.

    I like the multiclassing overall in theory, but yeah it gets a little weird in some combinations. It should be easy to fix though with such a simple system for it in general.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So, I'm making a fighter, and I'm not sure why you would ever want to take Sure Strike. That's an awfully tiny attack bonus when you consider that you're giving up your strength modifier.

    Cleave, Tide of Iron, or Reaping strike, Tide of Iron.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • ChtulieChtulie Registered User
    edited June 2008
    So, I'm making a fighter, and I'm not sure why you would ever want to take Sure Strike. That's an awfully tiny attack bonus when you consider that you're giving up your strength modifier.

    Same thing with a cleave, it's useful against minions where all you need to do is hit.
    And there might be other powers of teammates that require you to hit your target.

    Or other effects that require a hit when wielding a magic weapon like stunned, immobilised or ongoing damage. Or to mark a target which also requires a hit. Very handy.

    Basically it's useful when a to hit is what matters more then just the single effect of rolling damage. And in 4e there is so much more a fighter can do with a to hit roll other then maybe roll damage.

    Chtulie on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    /me breaks out the DM-errata marker.

    I really like a formulaic approach to multiclassing:

    Defender - Mark ability 1/Encounter
    Striker - Extra damage ability 1/Encounter
    Leader - Healing ability 1/Day
    Controller - At-Will 1/Encounter (Since they have AoE at will, this lets you fill the role a little bit)
    You need to add "for one round" to the striker abilities. Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's curse) are way too good multiclasses otherwise. They become no brainer choices for fellow Strikers and even most Defenders.

    It'd really kill any kind of quick fix for multiclassing into Warlock paths as well.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Dajian wrote: »
    So does a */Warlock multiclassed character get Eldritch Blast or their Pact's At-Will power when they take the multiclass feat?

    The feat's text says one thing, the summary says another.

    Not sure where you see the Eldrich Blast mentioned. On page 208 it just says you get one skill and the at-will from the pact you choose.

    On a side note. I wish they had different requirments for the warlock based on the pact. Like Infernal Pact doesn't need CHA at all. It'd be nice to be able to have a high CON fighter grab the Infernal Pact.

    Yeah, area-effect spells and fighters are fucking fantastic. You just mark everything.

    Enlarged Dragons Breath...

    Also, there are a lot of really cool feats that co-inside with leader/defender powers that you wouldn't expect normally.

    Like "Back to the wall"

    +1 AC, Attack, Damage isn't that great... Unless your controller can create walls out of thin air for you to have your back to.

    Blade Opportunist and Combat Reflexes combine for a +3 total to opportunity attacks add in nimble blade and some way to get combat advantage and its +4(+6 after advantage). Heavy Blade Opportunity and you are at +3 bonus for your at wills when its an opportunity attack(not bad). Pick up a glaive and get polearm gamble and you get +3 at wills whenever anyone moves adjacent to you from non-adjacent to you, even if its a shift.

    If you paragon multi-class to ranger or are a ranger you can pick up nimble strike. Then you can use your at will granted by the opportunity attack to shift away from whatever moved adjacent to you. If you do the same, except as a cleric and take Uncanny reflexes you can use priests shield. Uncanny reflexes negates the attack bonus from combat advantage gained from the polearm gamble. Priests shield gives you and an ally another +1 to AC until the end of the turn. Actually making your AC HIGHER than it was against the enemy attacking you as he moved adjacent and you get the attack at +3



    A Half-Elf Warlord can pick up Group Insight for a total of +3 init. Add in Combat Commander in the Paragon tier and either 18 cha or int and its +5 init for the whole group. If Everyone dumps feats into improved init its +9, if everyone has 13 dex and gets quickdraw is +11. Considering its only 4 feats for the warlord and 2 for everyone else, there is a lot of gain to be had.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Goum, there are a number of things wrong with the above but the one I'm positive of without checking is that Improved Init and Quick Draw do not stack.

    Others, check what Goum tells you before you go assuming it's gospel.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • Cosmic SombreroCosmic Sombrero Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    So, I'm making a fighter, and I'm not sure why you would ever want to take Sure Strike. That's an awfully tiny attack bonus when you consider that you're giving up your strength modifier.

    Cleave, Tide of Iron, or Reaping strike, Tide of Iron.

    I'm a human, so I'm taking all three.

    By the way, where can I find the errata for 4ed?

    Cosmic Sombrero on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Goum, there are a number of things wrong with the above but the one I'm positive of without checking is that Improved Init and Quick Draw do not stack.

    Others, check what Goum tells you before you go assuming it's gospel.

    I was wrong on improved init, i missed that they are typed. Quick and improved don't stack, so you are stuck at +9[or more depending on your warlords int/cha bonus]. But everything else does, group insight is racial. Combat Leader is a power bonus

    Heavy Blade Opportunist lets you make at wills as opportunity attacks, not "in place of". Pole-Arm Gamble grants opportunity attacks. Combat Reflexes and Blade Opportunist are untyped bonuses(as is Nimble Blade). Glaive is both a polearm and a Heavy Blade and so fulfills both requirements.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Dajian wrote: »
    Not sure where you see the Eldrich Blast mentioned. On page 208 it just says you get one skill and the at-will from the pact you choose.

    It's on the Multiclass Feat Table. WotC did not reconcile it with the text.

    Incenjucar on
  • cytorakcytorak Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Is there a place to download tiles for dungeons and encounters to print off without making your own?

    cytorak on
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Heavy Blade Opportunity and you are at +3 bonus for your at wills when its an opportunity attack(not bad). Pick up a glaive and get polearm gamble and you get +3 at wills whenever anyone moves adjacent to you from non-adjacent to you, even if its a shift.

    Shifts wouldn't provoke nor would teleport, it would still have to be a move action.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Infidel wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Heavy Blade Opportunity and you are at +3 bonus for your at wills when its an opportunity attack(not bad). Pick up a glaive and get polearm gamble and you get +3 at wills whenever anyone moves adjacent to you from non-adjacent to you, even if its a shift.

    Shifts wouldn't provoke nor would teleport, it would still have to be a move action.

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

    Shifts provoke. I wouldn't rule a teleport would, but by the rules, it does.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    When someone wrote in to WotC asking about this, this was the response.

    It's how I and many others were ruling it before too. It can be argued either way, but I feel the RAI is such:
    Greetings,

    Since it's an opportunity attack you won't be able to make an attack against someone that shifts into an adjacent square or is otherwise forced to move by a push, pull, or slide. More information on opportunity attacks can be found on page 290. You might also want to check out the new FAQ here for any other questions may have: http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php%3Fp_faqid%3D1396


    We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

    To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

    Tony
    Customer Service Representative
    Wizards of the Coast
    1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
    425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
    Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The CSR is wrong. The general rule is superseded by the specific. Not the other way around. If they wanted it to work that way the designers should have written "when a nonadjacent enemy enters an adjacent square it provokes an opportunity attack as if it had left a threatened square, you may only make this attack with a polearm"

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • ChtulieChtulie Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    So, I'm making a fighter, and I'm not sure why you would ever want to take Sure Strike. That's an awfully tiny attack bonus when you consider that you're giving up your strength modifier.

    Cleave, Tide of Iron, or Reaping strike, Tide of Iron.

    I'm a human, so I'm taking all three.

    By the way, where can I find the errata for 4ed?

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates

    Chtulie on
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    The CSR is wrong. The general rule is superseded by the specific. Not the other way around. If they wanted it to work that way the designers should have written "when a nonadjacent enemy enters an adjacent square it provokes an opportunity attack as if it had left a threatened square, you may only make this attack with a polearm"

    "should have written" - there's a reason there are terms RAW and RAI, if they wrote rules exactly as they originally intended we wouldn't have them.

    Also, "specific over general" is a three word guideline, it can't solve all problems itself either.

    "enters" is a general word, "shifts" is a specific word. Therefore, the general case of letting a character take OA against enemies non-adjacent that are now adjacent is overruled if the character takes a shift, because shifts specifically don't provoke OA.

    See? That leaves you with "The CSR is wrong." and I choose to side with the CSR sorry.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Sorry, as much as you want it to be, the general rule is the one that applies all the time. The specific one is the one that applies under specific circumstances. In this case "when the player has this feat". By your argument Heavy Blade Opportunist doesn't do anything at all, ever, because the rules on opportunity attacks say you can only make a melee basic attack.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No, it doesn't mean that at all. "Enters" is general, "shifts" is specific. Is this too much to understand?

    My point, as I stated in the first place, is that people are arguing it both ways, and it's not clearly either way.

    And that many people rule it the kind of way I do, and that the only official response does so as well.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    General is the one that applies all the time. Specific is the one that applies because you have a specific feat, power, or ability. As I said, your argument says that heavy blade opportunity does nothing.

    Either there is some reason Heavy Blade Opportunity does something or you are wrong in your understanding of general and specific.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Can you try to phrase it in an argument or quoting of the rules in how this conflicts?

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    A valid argument is one in which the conclusion must follow from the premise.

    A cogent argument is one that is valid and where the premise is true.

    Your argument produces a ludicrous answer which we know and agree is incorrect when applied to other instances within the same area.

    Ergo either the argument is not valid, or the premise is false.

    Heavy Blade Opportunity is a specific rule thats says when using a heavy blade you may make an at will when making an opportunity attack(so long as that at will is a melee weapon attack). Normally you can only make a melee basic attack. By your argument the general case is the feat and the specific case the rule.

    General: Shifting does not provoke
    Specific: Entering an adjacent from non adjacent square against an opponent with a polearm and polearm gambit the player with the feat and weapon combination can make an opportunity attack against the enemy that shifted in that manner.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    My understanding of general and specific is based on the English language. How about yours? Care to share why you think a feat is innately specific? Because it isn't.

    "When you make an opportunity attack with a heavy blade, you can use at-will attack that has the weapon keyword instead of a basic attack."

    Thank you for adlibbing the feat, and bringing it up in the first place by assuming I cannot interpret this feat, when it had no bearing on the discussion at hand.

    I'm sure trying to define arguments made your point though.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • MushiwulfMushiwulf Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I would say that the benefit is that normally, a character can move from non-adjacent to adjacent without drawing an OA, but with Polearm Gamble, they can no longer do that. So, there is at least some benefit even if the normal OA caveat (no shifts, teleports or forced movement) applies. It is unclear though.

    Mushiwulf on
  • DortmunderDortmunder Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I believe the specificity of Polearm Gambit is that you can make the OA with the Reach weapon when the target [strike]leaves a non-adjacent[/strike] enters an adjacent square (on the condition that they are moving to an adjacent square). The General rule is that you can only make OAs with a Reach weapon if the target leaves an adjacent square.

    One question this raises comes from the situation of a Fighter with a polearm. Does his Combat Superiority (which stops movement on a movement-provoked OA) stop the target in the non-adjacent square, or the adjacent square. A CSR told me that since the feat says enters, the OA is triggered after the target has move to the adjacent square.

    In either case, I don't think a Shift provokes an OA in the case of Polearm Gambit, as the feat does not specifically say "even if he shifts"...but again this is a subject of dispute.

    Dortmunder on
    steam_sig.png
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The very nice benefit of Polearm Gamble is that if you're a warrior, you stop movement on a successful OA.

    So if they try to move adjacent to you, you can interrupt that and keep them out of normal melee range. Then they cannot make their attacks, but you with a polearm still can make an attack next round!

    You're preventing attacks outright, and getting extra ones for yourself.

    edit: Dortmunder, because it is an immediate interrupt, it stops them before they make the move into the adjacent square. An immediate interrupt happens before the action that triggers it completes.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • MushiwulfMushiwulf Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Actually, Dortmunder, it isn't when they leave a non-adjacent square, it is when they enter an adjacent square. Edit: I should read complete sentences before posting.

    Mushiwulf on
  • DortmunderDortmunder Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Mushiwulf wrote: »
    Actually, Dortmunder, it isn't when they leave a non-adjacent square, it is when they enter an adjacent square.

    Yes sorry - got caught up in the second point (when does the OA occur, when leaving or entering).

    For clarity, here my conversation with a CSR:
    I asked wrote:
    The text for 'Polearm Gambit' (p. 204) says that you may make an Opportunity Attack (p. 290) against a nonadjacent enemy when he enters a square adjacent to you.

    1) Does this OA get triggered when the enemy leaves the nonadjacent square, or after he has entered the adjacent square?

    2) Does this feat allow you to make an OA against an enemy that Shifts from a nonadjacent square to an adjacent square?

    3) Does this feat allow you to make an OA when an enemy teleports into a square adjacent to you if their square of origin is a) within your Reach weapon's reach? b) elsewhere on the battlefield?

    4) Does this feat allow you to make an OA when an enemy "falls from the sky" and lands in an adjacent square?
    Evan T wrote:
    1) This gets triggered when an enemy enters the square adjacent to you, so for all purposes he would be standing in the square adjacent to you when hit.

    2) At this time this feat is currently under errata consideration. There is no official ruling on this at the time on shifting into the square, so it would be your DM's call as to shifting into the square.

    3) This feat DOES trigger when an enemy teleports into an adjacent square to you, from anywhere.

    4)Yes, this feat does trigger when an enemy 'falls from the sky' into the square adjacent to you.


    Please write us back if you require any further assistance.

    We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

    To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

    Evan T.
    Customer Service Representative
    Wizards of the Coast
    1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
    425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
    Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

    Dortmunder on
    steam_sig.png
  • DortmunderDortmunder Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Infidel wrote: »
    edit: Dortmunder, because it is an immediate interrupt, it stops them before they make the move into the adjacent square. An immediate interrupt happens before the action that triggers it completes.

    That's what I thought also, the CSR disagreed, so I am still not sure how to rule this...

    Dortmunder on
    steam_sig.png
  • MushiwulfMushiwulf Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, it will be interesting to see what they come up with when the errata is finished.

    Mushiwulf on
«13456770
This discussion has been closed.