No it would not provoke as the creature moved without using its movement.
Opportunity Attack: You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
No it would not provoke as the creature moved without using its movement.
Opportunity Attack: You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
I know that Sage Advice agrees with this assessment.
Why does specific not beat general though? Polearm Master says:
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Doesn't this specific rule override the general rule that OA are not provoked with teleports or forced movements?
No it would not provoke as the creature moved without using its movement.
Opportunity Attack: You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
I know that Sage Advice agrees with this assessment.
Why does specific not beat general though? Polearm Master says:
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Doesn't this specific rule override the general rule that OA are not provoked with teleports or forced movements?
No it doesn't overide any of the general rules about Opportunity Attacks, except for specifically entering your reach as opposed to leaving it. If you can't see the target, no OA. If it's not hostile, no OA. If it teleports, falls, get pushed or otherwise move without using its movement, action or reaction, no OA.
There's an official ruling in Sage Advice about this
Does Polearm Master let me make an opportunity attack against a target that is being forced to approach me? A creature doesn’t provoke an opportunity attack if it is moved without the use of its movement, its action, or its reaction. For example, the effect of the antipathy/sympathy spell requires the target to use its movement, meaning that it would provoke opportunity attacks when it does so. Similarly, dissonant whispers requires the target to move using its reaction (if available), so that activity also provokes opportunity attacks. In contrast, a creature that’s pushed by a gust of wind spell does not provoke opportunity attacks
No it would not provoke as the creature moved without using its movement.
Opportunity Attack: You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
I know that Sage Advice agrees with this assessment.
Why does specific not beat general though?
We need to get this man a glass of the Kool-aid because he's asking uncomfortable questions!
(It doesn't because everyone collectively decided it doesn't and if you disagree...)
Polearm Master says:
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Doesn't this specific rule override the general rule that OA are not provoked with teleports or forced movements?
Yeah, it does. "Entering" isn't even a term exclusive your own movement or to this ability. Check this out:
moonbeam This spell also says something happens when creatures "Enter" its area. What's Sage Advice have to say about that?
Does moonbeam deal damage when you cast it? What about when its effect moves onto a creature? The answer to both questions is no. Here’s some elaboration on that answer. Some spells and other game features create an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area. On the turn when you cast such a spell, you’re primarily setting up hurt for your foes on later turns. Moonbeam, for example, creates a beam of light that can damage a creature who enters the beam or who starts its turn in the beam. Here are some spells with the same timing as moonbeam for their areas of effect: blade barrier cloudkill cloud of daggers Evard’s black tentacles forbiddance moonbeam sleet storm spirit guardians Reading the description of any of those spells, you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.
Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away!Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn. In summary, a spell like moonbeam affects a creature when the creature passes into the spell’s area of effect and when the creature starts its turn there. You’re essentially creating a hazard on the battlefield.
So, there is no reason to think that the restriction that applies to default opportunity attacks also applies to the opportunity attacks provided by PAM.
Need more proof that the restriction doesn't even apply to PAM? Compare wording.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.
You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
Bolded the relevant word to focus on. Moves. Default opportunity attacks are triggering by moving. Not by "leaving" not by "entering" but by "moving". And it is "moving" by someone else's force that cannot trigger these opportunity attacks.
But "entering" is what PAM triggers off of. That is different. It doesn't care how or why you entered, only that you did.
Creatures pushed into AoEs such as Moonbeam do enter it, just like they are into the reach of a Polearm Master, that is not in question.
But where the two cases differ, is that such spells don't have other rules saying they don't go off if you can't see the moving creature, If it teleports, falls, get pushed or otherwise move without using its movement, action or reaction.
That's why te official rulings in Sage Advice allow damage from forced movement into AoE, but not into the reach of a Polearm Master.
I am sorry for reviving this old topic, but i was just looking into it and while I do understand that RAI, it wouldnt work (and that we have an official ruling that it wouldnt), i think Ravnodaus and PeteInCary do have a point on the wording making it work RAW.
The original wording for attacks of oportunity does base the whole thing on moving out of the threatened area and further clarifies that forced movement doesnt provoke an attack of oportunity since it is not a "movement" that used an action of the threatened creature. Still, the wording for polearm master changes that into entering which creates a new scenario not covered in the original rule. As for the other scenarios you described it, those are touched upon in other rules.
If you can't see a creature, then you cant attack it unless you know it is moving into your reach, in which case you would do the attack at a disadvantage, that is a different rule unrelated to the topic.
Teleporting is a tricky topic and honestly given the rules as they are, i can see it being argued that appearing in doesnt mean entering by the way rules work, but could see it being ruled the other way around too... this is a topic for a different discussion tho.
so that leaves us with moving in without it requiring an action (forced movement). I would argue that falling, getting pushed or otherwise moving without using yourmovement, action or reaction doesnt count as moving in, but does count as entering. The wording is different and the implication of forceful movement not counting as moving is outside of this case scenario.
That being said, i am not trying to start a new argument (altho i am not rejecting it if it starts, as long as it remains civil). In the end each table can rule it however they preffer, and it is up to each table to decide how it works. I know that at least for me, I disagree with a few rulings that the official team has made because the logic contradicts eachother and have made a decision on how that works at my table.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Doesn't this specific rule override the general rule that OA are not provoked with teleports or forced movements?
So, there is no reason to think that the restriction that applies to default opportunity attacks also applies to the opportunity attacks provided by PAM.
Need more proof that the restriction doesn't even apply to PAM? Compare wording.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.
You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
Bolded the relevant word to focus on. Moves. Default opportunity attacks are triggering by moving. Not by "leaving" not by "entering" but by "moving". And it is "moving" by someone else's force that cannot trigger these opportunity attacks.
But "entering" is what PAM triggers off of. That is different. It doesn't care how or why you entered, only that you did.
1) While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
PAM grants an oppotunity attack when a creature enters your reach.
2) You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
You do not provoke an opportunity attack when teleporting or when something moves you without using your movement.
---
If a creature enters the reach of PAM by moving then they get an opportunity attack.
However, if a creature is moved without using their movement or teleports then it does not provoke an opportunity attack. That is what the rule states.
If you can come up with some other way that a creature could enter the reach of PAM without being moved by someone else, teleporting or moving themselves then I would agree that PAM would trigger in that case. However, I don't know of another way a creature can change their location except by moving, teleporting or being moved without using their movement and in two of those cases the rules specifically prevent opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks are NOT triggered by teleporting or being moved without using your movement, PAM grants an opportunity attack when a creature enters its reach but the opportunity attack rules state that opportunity attacks of any kind do not occur for teleporting or forced movement.
If PAM said "you get an attack when a creature enters your reach" then you would get an attack no matter how the creature entered - but PAM does not say that, it says that you get an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach and the rules for opportunity attacks state that it can not be provoked by teleporting or being moved without using your movement.
the general rule is that creatures dont provoke attacks of oportunity when they are moved without them using their action, reaction or movement
Polearm Master says "other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon."
this is a specific case for this feat saying they do provoke it for this specific situation.
No, this is an overestimation of specific v general.
Normally a creature provoke an OA when they leave your reach, PAM then adds when they enter your reach as an additional way to provoke. To think that it should also change the explicit limitations of what doesn't provoke an OA without saying so is wishful thinking.
Again, the phrasing is different. the general rule works on movement, and talks about movement, this one just generalizes to entering. For it to be written as you say, it should say "when they move into your reach" because the rules has previously specified what movement is about, but it says enters. Trying to decide when specific vs general apply or doesnt by saying it is an overestimation is subjective at best.
Again, I am not arguing RAI nor official ruling, I am just saying, RAW, what previously people have said makes sense due to how the feat is written. Is it a redaction mistake? probably, but it is what is written.
Again, the phrasing is different. the general rule works on movement, and talks about movement, this one just generalizes to entering. For it to be written as you say, it should say "when they move into your reach" because the rules has previously specified what movement is about, but it says enters. Trying to decide when specific vs general apply or doesnt by saying it is an overestimation is subjective at best.
Ah the enter v move debate. Yes they really should have used move or moves in the PAM text. Unfortunately they dev's just doesn't take such care when writing the rules, most of the SAC exist because of their decision to use natural language.
However even so there is nothing in the use of "enter" that would indicate that the word encompasses more than what "move" would. The discussion about spells (like moonbeam) that usually are referenced (as it is above) isn't a discussion about the difference of "move versus enter" or "willing versus forced" movement. That discussion, and the SAC entry that covers it is all about moving into an area versus the area moving onto you. It is a very different discussion, and one about spells, that doesn't translate well to the one, about weapon attacks, that we're having here.
And that SAC entry even have a "unless a spell says otherwise" caveat. So if you are going to use the reasoning from that discussion then it becomes a moot point as OA's do explicitly say that forced movement doesn't trigger it.
Bottom line is that I can't see anything in the RAW that allows the OA from PAM to work in any way differently from normal OA's when it comes to forced movement/teleportation/vision.
"You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."
Polearm master says you provoke an opportunity attack when they enter your reach with that weapon.
1) Polearm master gives you an OPPORTUNITY ATTACK. It gives a new condition for triggering it "entering your reach".
2) The rules for opportunity attack explicitly state that you do NOT provoke an opportunity attack "when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction".
Polearm master specifically references the "opportunity attack" rules. It says you get one when a creature enters your reach. However, it does matter HOW the creature entered your reach since the opportunity attack rules (which polearm explicitly references) say that you do not provoke an opportunity attack "when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction". Polearm master doesn't get an attack when a creature enters its reach when teleporting or being moved because polearm master says it grants an "opportunity attack" and opportunity attacks are governed by the rules for opportunity attacks.
If a creature entered the reach of a character with polearm master either by moving or by some other means that does not involve either teleporting or being moved then polearm master would get an opportunity attack.
P.S. I'm having some real trouble seeing the alternate interpretation in the polearm master rules that is being discussed since polearm master is very clear that it grants an opportunity attack and the rules on opportunity attacks are also clear. If polearm master granted some other form of attack then there is no issue but it grants an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach and if you know of a way that a creature can enter your reach without moving, teleporting or being moved then polearm master would trigger - but opportunity attacks - the attack granted by polearm master are explicitly prevented if the condition to trigger it is caused by teleporting or being moved.
@kotath, I understand your logic, but I honestly think you are splitting hairs at that point. Also you are still limited to 1 reaction
@Thezzaruz, but in this case you yourself are showing that the game designers have made a distinction between entering and moving. I agree with you tho, this debate (and many others) is only possible due to carelessness on the writting. Also I am sorry for my ignorance, but what does SAC stand for? I see where you are comming from, and I agree that's what RAI intends, but the thing is... they are still using a different word, which makes a distinction between moving and entering, and this is a specific case, so it should overrule the general case, at the very least RAW.
@David42, again, I understand that logic, but in this case you are putting general over specific. The rules for AoO are general and thats how it works in a general case. PAM gives you a specific case with a wording more akin to they rule of entering an area rather than moving into an area, a distinction they have made before in sage advice. I am not discussion how it "should work", I am just saying that "as it is written" it makes sense that it would allow it due to a previosly stablished distinction and the fact that they have also stablished that specific wins over general.
@David42, again, I understand that logic, but in this case you are putting general over specific. The rules for AoO are general and thats how it works in a general case. PAM gives you a specific case with a wording more akin to they rule of entering an area rather than moving into an area, a distinction they have made before in sage advice. I am not discussion how it "should work", I am just saying that "as it is written" it makes sense that it would allow it due to a previosly stablished distinction and the fact that they have also stablished that specific wins over general.
I think this bit shows a common flaw in how people understand general over specific. Specific rules don't just delete everything to do with the general case from the game. And if they did, then they'd have to re-explain all the rules that they actually want you to follow. For example, are you saying that PAM deletes the opportunity attack that you get when a creature leaves your reach? Because if you aren't, then why are you deleting other parts of the opportunity attack rules?
To answer to both, I am not saying that this overwrites the whole rules of attacks of oportunity, I am saying that this, because the way it is written, creates a new situation to apply attack of oportunity that is different from people moving. Because the rule is phrased as entering rather than on moving, and the game designers have previously stated that those are 2 different things (through the moonbeam explanation), then this is a different situation where you get an attack of oportunity that doesn not depend on creatures moving, but on entering.
As an example, when they gave the swashbuckler a new way to add sneak attack, they did specify what limitations still apply and which ones didn't. In this case, since no limitations are mentioned, it is a new scenario. The new scenario, when applies, takes priority.
And again, I understand the reason to say otherwise, and I am not arguing how the rule actually works, lets be clear about that. I understand the rule. I am just saying that the phrasing allows for a different interpretation than what was intended. (and this is something i have been repeating over and over again)
For it to be written as intended, they should have written "when a creature moves into your reach with this weapon" because movement is stablished previously to be specifically one that is done through your action, reaction or movement (and should also include bonus action, otherwise rogues doing cunning action dash or monks doing step of the wind or anyone under the effect of expeditious retreat, wouldnt provoke attacks of oportunity, which RAW is the case but we all agree that RAI it isnt). But instead they wrote "when a creature enters" which is the same phrasing in spells like moonbeam, and in that case that is stablished to apply regardless of wether it used a creature's action or not.
That explanation just doubles down on the misunderstanding with a single example where the statement is for clarification. Tellingly, it avoids answering the questions I actually asked.
None of the additional uses of bardic inspiration work that way. Almost no other specific rules work that way.
With due respect, I answered your question, I am not "deleting" anything. I understand your reasoning and I am not invalidating it, I am just saying that what you are saying is one possible interpretation of a rule that leans towards what the authors intended while the one I am saying is a bit more "literal to the word".
As for the bardic inspirations, they are not new scenarios to apply a conditioned feature, it is new uses for an existing feature, it is different. But those could be argued too IF there was any part that could allow for something that isnt supposed to be allowed. That being said, even if it was the same situation (which it isnt) it wouldnt disprove what I am saying, it would actually invite discussion over that other situation too.
This is all just excuses. Specific rules only interact with general rules where they conflict.
You are not expressing any conflict between the actual text of the OA rules and the PAM rules. You're just saying that since PAM exists you should get to ignore other rules. It isn't how D&D is written.
Specific rules only interact with general rules where they conflict.
This.
PAM and OAs directly conflict where PAM lets you attack when a creature enters reach, while OAs only let you attack when a creature leaves reach.
The OA rule "You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction," doesn't directly conflict with PAM so is not subject to specific vs general.
This whole argument is based on a different rule/sentence for OAs using different wording then the sentence that PAM specifically adds to. The above rule I quoted is not ignored simply because a completely different sentence is changed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello!
I have a warlock that would use glaive as his weapon and with Polearm Master he gets an opportunity attack if something comes into his range.
Arms of Hadar gives me the ability to pull someone 10ft towards me when I hit him with eldritch blast.
So I was wondering if the action of pulling someone into my reach would provoke my opportunity attack here?
Edit: nevermind I'm dumb, didn't read the opportunity attack section thoroughly. If anyone's wondering, no it doesn't.
No it would not provoke as the creature moved without using its movement.
Opportunity Attack: You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
I know that Sage Advice agrees with this assessment.
Why does specific not beat general though? Polearm Master says:
Doesn't this specific rule override the general rule that OA are not provoked with teleports or forced movements?
No it doesn't overide any of the general rules about Opportunity Attacks, except for specifically entering your reach as opposed to leaving it. If you can't see the target, no OA. If it's not hostile, no OA. If it teleports, falls, get pushed or otherwise move without using its movement, action or reaction, no OA.
There's an official ruling in Sage Advice about this
We need to get this man a glass of the Kool-aid because he's asking uncomfortable questions!
(It doesn't because everyone collectively decided it doesn't and if you disagree...)
Yeah, it does. "Entering" isn't even a term exclusive your own movement or to this ability. Check this out:
moonbeam This spell also says something happens when creatures "Enter" its area. What's Sage Advice have to say about that?
Does moonbeam deal damage when you cast it? What about when its effect moves onto a creature? The answer to both questions is no. Here’s some elaboration on that answer. Some spells and other game features create an area of effect that does something when a creature enters that area for the first time on a turn or when a creature starts its turn in that area. On the turn when you cast such a spell, you’re primarily setting up hurt for your foes on later turns. Moonbeam, for example, creates a beam of light that can damage a creature who enters the beam or who starts its turn in the beam. Here are some spells with the same timing as moonbeam for their areas of effect: blade barrier cloudkill cloud of daggers Evard’s black tentacles forbiddance moonbeam sleet storm spirit guardians Reading the description of any of those spells, you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.
Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away! Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn. In summary, a spell like moonbeam affects a creature when the creature passes into the spell’s area of effect and when the creature starts its turn there. You’re essentially creating a hazard on the battlefield.
So, there is no reason to think that the restriction that applies to default opportunity attacks also applies to the opportunity attacks provided by PAM.
Need more proof that the restriction doesn't even apply to PAM? Compare wording.
Bolded the relevant word to focus on. Moves. Default opportunity attacks are triggering by moving. Not by "leaving" not by "entering" but by "moving". And it is "moving" by someone else's force that cannot trigger these opportunity attacks.
But "entering" is what PAM triggers off of. That is different. It doesn't care how or why you entered, only that you did.
I got quotes!
Creatures pushed into AoEs such as Moonbeam do enter it, just like they are into the reach of a Polearm Master, that is not in question.
But where the two cases differ, is that such spells don't have other rules saying they don't go off if you can't see the moving creature, If it teleports, falls, get pushed or otherwise move without using its movement, action or reaction.
That's why te official rulings in Sage Advice allow damage from forced movement into AoE, but not into the reach of a Polearm Master.
I am sorry for reviving this old topic, but i was just looking into it and while I do understand that RAI, it wouldnt work (and that we have an official ruling that it wouldnt), i think Ravnodaus and PeteInCary do have a point on the wording making it work RAW.
The original wording for attacks of oportunity does base the whole thing on moving out of the threatened area and further clarifies that forced movement doesnt provoke an attack of oportunity since it is not a "movement" that used an action of the threatened creature. Still, the wording for polearm master changes that into entering which creates a new scenario not covered in the original rule. As for the other scenarios you described it, those are touched upon in other rules.
If you can't see a creature, then you cant attack it unless you know it is moving into your reach, in which case you would do the attack at a disadvantage, that is a different rule unrelated to the topic.
Teleporting is a tricky topic and honestly given the rules as they are, i can see it being argued that appearing in doesnt mean entering by the way rules work, but could see it being ruled the other way around too... this is a topic for a different discussion tho.
so that leaves us with moving in without it requiring an action (forced movement). I would argue that falling, getting pushed or otherwise moving without using yourmovement, action or reaction doesnt count as moving in, but does count as entering. The wording is different and the implication of forceful movement not counting as moving is outside of this case scenario.
That being said, i am not trying to start a new argument (altho i am not rejecting it if it starts, as long as it remains civil). In the end each table can rule it however they preffer, and it is up to each table to decide how it works. I know that at least for me, I disagree with a few rulings that the official team has made because the logic contradicts eachother and have made a decision on how that works at my table.
1) While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
PAM grants an oppotunity attack when a creature enters your reach.
2) You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
You do not provoke an opportunity attack when teleporting or when something moves you without using your movement.
---
If a creature enters the reach of PAM by moving then they get an opportunity attack.
However, if a creature is moved without using their movement or teleports then it does not provoke an opportunity attack. That is what the rule states.
If you can come up with some other way that a creature could enter the reach of PAM without being moved by someone else, teleporting or moving themselves then I would agree that PAM would trigger in that case. However, I don't know of another way a creature can change their location except by moving, teleporting or being moved without using their movement and in two of those cases the rules specifically prevent opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks are NOT triggered by teleporting or being moved without using your movement, PAM grants an opportunity attack when a creature enters its reach but the opportunity attack rules state that opportunity attacks of any kind do not occur for teleporting or forced movement.
If PAM said "you get an attack when a creature enters your reach" then you would get an attack no matter how the creature entered - but PAM does not say that, it says that you get an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach and the rules for opportunity attacks state that it can not be provoked by teleporting or being moved without using your movement.
The general rule is that specific wins over general.
the general rule is that creatures dont provoke attacks of oportunity when they are moved without them using their action, reaction or movement
Polearm Master says "other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon."
this is a specific case for this feat saying they do provoke it for this specific situation.
The official ruling is that they do not, which means RAi they don't, but RAW they should.
No, this is an overestimation of specific v general.
Normally a creature provoke an OA when they leave your reach, PAM then adds when they enter your reach as an additional way to provoke. To think that it should also change the explicit limitations of what doesn't provoke an OA without saying so is wishful thinking.
Again, the phrasing is different. the general rule works on movement, and talks about movement, this one just generalizes to entering. For it to be written as you say, it should say "when they move into your reach" because the rules has previously specified what movement is about, but it says enters. Trying to decide when specific vs general apply or doesnt by saying it is an overestimation is subjective at best.
Again, I am not arguing RAI nor official ruling, I am just saying, RAW, what previously people have said makes sense due to how the feat is written. Is it a redaction mistake? probably, but it is what is written.
Ah the enter v move debate. Yes they really should have used move or moves in the PAM text. Unfortunately they dev's just doesn't take such care when writing the rules, most of the SAC exist because of their decision to use natural language.
However even so there is nothing in the use of "enter" that would indicate that the word encompasses more than what "move" would. The discussion about spells (like moonbeam) that usually are referenced (as it is above) isn't a discussion about the difference of "move versus enter" or "willing versus forced" movement. That discussion, and the SAC entry that covers it is all about moving into an area versus the area moving onto you. It is a very different discussion, and one about spells, that doesn't translate well to the one, about weapon attacks, that we're having here.
And that SAC entry even have a "unless a spell says otherwise" caveat. So if you are going to use the reasoning from that discussion then it becomes a moot point as OA's do explicitly say that forced movement doesn't trigger it.
Bottom line is that I can't see anything in the RAW that allows the OA from PAM to work in any way differently from normal OA's when it comes to forced movement/teleportation/vision.
" While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon."
"You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."
Polearm master says you provoke an opportunity attack when they enter your reach with that weapon.
1) Polearm master gives you an OPPORTUNITY ATTACK. It gives a new condition for triggering it "entering your reach".
2) The rules for opportunity attack explicitly state that you do NOT provoke an opportunity attack "when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction".
Polearm master specifically references the "opportunity attack" rules. It says you get one when a creature enters your reach. However, it does matter HOW the creature entered your reach since the opportunity attack rules (which polearm explicitly references) say that you do not provoke an opportunity attack "when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction". Polearm master doesn't get an attack when a creature enters its reach when teleporting or being moved because polearm master says it grants an "opportunity attack" and opportunity attacks are governed by the rules for opportunity attacks.
If a creature entered the reach of a character with polearm master either by moving or by some other means that does not involve either teleporting or being moved then polearm master would get an opportunity attack.
P.S. I'm having some real trouble seeing the alternate interpretation in the polearm master rules that is being discussed since polearm master is very clear that it grants an opportunity attack and the rules on opportunity attacks are also clear. If polearm master granted some other form of attack then there is no issue but it grants an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach and if you know of a way that a creature can enter your reach without moving, teleporting or being moved then polearm master would trigger - but opportunity attacks - the attack granted by polearm master are explicitly prevented if the condition to trigger it is caused by teleporting or being moved.
@kotath, I understand your logic, but I honestly think you are splitting hairs at that point. Also you are still limited to 1 reaction
@Thezzaruz, but in this case you yourself are showing that the game designers have made a distinction between entering and moving. I agree with you tho, this debate (and many others) is only possible due to carelessness on the writting. Also I am sorry for my ignorance, but what does SAC stand for? I see where you are comming from, and I agree that's what RAI intends, but the thing is... they are still using a different word, which makes a distinction between moving and entering, and this is a specific case, so it should overrule the general case, at the very least RAW.
@David42, again, I understand that logic, but in this case you are putting general over specific. The rules for AoO are general and thats how it works in a general case. PAM gives you a specific case with a wording more akin to they rule of entering an area rather than moving into an area, a distinction they have made before in sage advice. I am not discussion how it "should work", I am just saying that "as it is written" it makes sense that it would allow it due to a previosly stablished distinction and the fact that they have also stablished that specific wins over general.
I think this bit shows a common flaw in how people understand general over specific. Specific rules don't just delete everything to do with the general case from the game. And if they did, then they'd have to re-explain all the rules that they actually want you to follow. For example, are you saying that PAM deletes the opportunity attack that you get when a creature leaves your reach? Because if you aren't, then why are you deleting other parts of the opportunity attack rules?
To answer to both, I am not saying that this overwrites the whole rules of attacks of oportunity, I am saying that this, because the way it is written, creates a new situation to apply attack of oportunity that is different from people moving. Because the rule is phrased as entering rather than on moving, and the game designers have previously stated that those are 2 different things (through the moonbeam explanation), then this is a different situation where you get an attack of oportunity that doesn not depend on creatures moving, but on entering.
As an example, when they gave the swashbuckler a new way to add sneak attack, they did specify what limitations still apply and which ones didn't. In this case, since no limitations are mentioned, it is a new scenario. The new scenario, when applies, takes priority.
And again, I understand the reason to say otherwise, and I am not arguing how the rule actually works, lets be clear about that. I understand the rule. I am just saying that the phrasing allows for a different interpretation than what was intended. (and this is something i have been repeating over and over again)
For it to be written as intended, they should have written "when a creature moves into your reach with this weapon" because movement is stablished previously to be specifically one that is done through your action, reaction or movement (and should also include bonus action, otherwise rogues doing cunning action dash or monks doing step of the wind or anyone under the effect of expeditious retreat, wouldnt provoke attacks of oportunity, which RAW is the case but we all agree that RAI it isnt). But instead they wrote "when a creature enters" which is the same phrasing in spells like moonbeam, and in that case that is stablished to apply regardless of wether it used a creature's action or not.
That explanation just doubles down on the misunderstanding with a single example where the statement is for clarification. Tellingly, it avoids answering the questions I actually asked.
None of the additional uses of bardic inspiration work that way. Almost no other specific rules work that way.
With due respect, I answered your question, I am not "deleting" anything. I understand your reasoning and I am not invalidating it, I am just saying that what you are saying is one possible interpretation of a rule that leans towards what the authors intended while the one I am saying is a bit more "literal to the word".
As for the bardic inspirations, they are not new scenarios to apply a conditioned feature, it is new uses for an existing feature, it is different. But those could be argued too IF there was any part that could allow for something that isnt supposed to be allowed. That being said, even if it was the same situation (which it isnt) it wouldnt disprove what I am saying, it would actually invite discussion over that other situation too.
This is all just excuses. Specific rules only interact with general rules where they conflict.
You are not expressing any conflict between the actual text of the OA rules and the PAM rules. You're just saying that since PAM exists you should get to ignore other rules. It isn't how D&D is written.
This.
PAM and OAs directly conflict where PAM lets you attack when a creature enters reach, while OAs only let you attack when a creature leaves reach.
The OA rule "You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction," doesn't directly conflict with PAM so is not subject to specific vs general.
This whole argument is based on a different rule/sentence for OAs using different wording then the sentence that PAM specifically adds to. The above rule I quoted is not ignored simply because a completely different sentence is changed.