Grips, pulls, etc works like force, so creature is not teleporting, its just a drag.
It will also works, if other character grip a target by net, for example
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction, such as when being drag or carried while grappled by someone or restrained by a net.
I was thinking from realistically point ) If you got bad position, especially when you are not prepared for this move (such as teleport, etc, which you control) - you get oa in da face )
The problem is you have confused specific with general rule. Yes, a feat can change how the general rule works without the feat, but that is not what is going on here.
The general rule is that creatures movement creates an AoO. The Pole Arm Master feat just adds 'into your reach' on top of out of your reach. It clearly and specifically changes the movement AoO rules to add "Into" on top of the existing "out of".
It does NOT clearly and specifically change the rule about cause of the movement. If Polearm Master wanted to change that they would need to add another phraces specifically stating "even if the movement is not caused by the creature"
Which means the specific rule is about movement must be caused by the creature. I.e. It happens when the CREATURE moves, not when something moves the creature. That was not clearly and specifically over-ridden.
@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.
It isn't really carelessness, it is an active choice by the developers to use natural language. And in natural language the terms "enter" and "move into" means the same (and so would "move out of" or "leave" do, you could also toss in a "towards" and a "away" to get two more words that would be synonyms for these situations). If there was a rule that said that "move" can only be voluntary movement but "enter" can be both voluntary and forced movement then you would have a point, but there is no such rule. So the distinction you claim there is doesn't exist. And thus your argument for specific over general falls apart.
SAC = Sage Advice Column or in other words the document that lists what you call "official ruling".
(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)
The rules specify that a bonus action is an additional action so it is already covered when they say "Action or Reaction", they use the same verbiage in most, if not all places, that restrict your actions (conditions for example).
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.
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. .... 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.
It seems that you don't, at all, understand what the SAC entry for Moonbeam says. It doesn't offer clarification on any difference between "enter" and "move" nor any difference between "voluntary" and "forced". It is a clarification about the difference between what happens when a creature is moving into a spell effect (both voluntary and forced movement) versus what happens if the creature isn't moving at all but the spell effect moves onto it. They even use both "enters" and "move" in their reasoning (as well as "hurl into" and "passes into"), it's almost like they are going out of their way to use several different terms instead of a single keyword.
Also, this is the sentence in the SAC that is claimed to prove that "enter" is meant to cover both voluntary and forced movement.
Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise.
How anyone can put so much weight on the first part of that sentence only to ignore the second part really is beyond me. The rules for opportunity attacks explicitly do say otherwise, so even if you think the first half supports your argument then the second part tells you "NO" in no uncertain terms.
But Arms of Hadar does work to prevent your character from incurring an opportunity attack (because upon a fail, it prevents the target from using their reaction), right?
But Arms of Hadar does work to prevent your character from incurring an opportunity attack (because upon a fail, it prevents the target from using their reaction), right?
Correct - opportunity attacks are reactions and Arms of Hadar prevents reactions.
But Arms of Hadar does work to prevent your character from incurring an opportunity attack (because upon a fail, it prevents the target from using their reaction), right?
Correct - opportunity attacks are reactions and Arms of Hadar prevents reactions.
It will trigger op attack.
Grips, pulls, etc works like force, so creature is not teleporting, its just a drag.
It will also works, if other character grip a target by net, for example
You don't provoke an opportunity attack when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction, such as when being drag or carried while grappled by someone or restrained by a net.
Ty, will know =D
I was thinking from realistically point ) If you got bad position, especially when you are not prepared for this move (such as teleport, etc, which you control) - you get oa in da face )
The problem is you have confused specific with general rule. Yes, a feat can change how the general rule works without the feat, but that is not what is going on here.
The general rule is that creatures movement creates an AoO. The Pole Arm Master feat just adds 'into your reach' on top of out of your reach. It clearly and specifically changes the movement AoO rules to add "Into" on top of the existing "out of".
It does NOT clearly and specifically change the rule about cause of the movement. If Polearm Master wanted to change that they would need to add another phraces specifically stating "even if the movement is not caused by the creature"
Which means the specific rule is about movement must be caused by the creature. I.e. It happens when the CREATURE moves, not when something moves the creature. That was not clearly and specifically over-ridden.
It isn't really carelessness, it is an active choice by the developers to use natural language. And in natural language the terms "enter" and "move into" means the same (and so would "move out of" or "leave" do, you could also toss in a "towards" and a "away" to get two more words that would be synonyms for these situations).
If there was a rule that said that "move" can only be voluntary movement but "enter" can be both voluntary and forced movement then you would have a point, but there is no such rule. So the distinction you claim there is doesn't exist. And thus your argument for specific over general falls apart.
SAC = Sage Advice Column or in other words the document that lists what you call "official ruling".
The rules specify that a bonus action is an additional action so it is already covered when they say "Action or Reaction", they use the same verbiage in most, if not all places, that restrict your actions (conditions for example).
It seems that you don't, at all, understand what the SAC entry for Moonbeam says. It doesn't offer clarification on any difference between "enter" and "move" nor any difference between "voluntary" and "forced".
It is a clarification about the difference between what happens when a creature is moving into a spell effect (both voluntary and forced movement) versus what happens if the creature isn't moving at all but the spell effect moves onto it. They even use both "enters" and "move" in their reasoning (as well as "hurl into" and "passes into"), it's almost like they are going out of their way to use several different terms instead of a single keyword.
Also, this is the sentence in the SAC that is claimed to prove that "enter" is meant to cover both voluntary and forced movement.
How anyone can put so much weight on the first part of that sentence only to ignore the second part really is beyond me. The rules for opportunity attacks explicitly do say otherwise, so even if you think the first half supports your argument then the second part tells you "NO" in no uncertain terms.
But Arms of Hadar does work to prevent your character from incurring an opportunity attack (because upon a fail, it prevents the target from using their reaction), right?
Correct - opportunity attacks are reactions and Arms of Hadar prevents reactions.
Same reason Dissonant Whispers will turn off OAs.
shocking grasp too, great to get away from armored targets who get too close.
I got quotes!