Stats are as follows:
STR - 18
DEX - 13
CON - 16
INT - 8
WIS - 14
CHA - 10
(I'm actually at 5th level and bumped Dex and Str +1 each)
Since Warforged can use 2-handed weapons in one hand as long as they are component weapons (albeit with a -2 to hit), a Warforged can equip a shield on one arm while wielding a glaive as a component weapon on the other. Already this PC can utilize Tide of Iron to push enemies that are two spaces away and follow up for free multiple spaces. However, by structuring the build to be able to take Polearm Gamble, Heavy Blade Opportunity, Polearm Momentum, and Uncanny Dodge all by level 12 (taking the feats at levels 11 and 12 and also retraining "placeholder" feats at each of those levels), you gain a ridiculous amount of versatility all by level 12. It probably would also be optimal to take the Polearm Expert PP from Martial Power.
So at level 12, you get an OA against EVERY character that moves adjacent to you, you can substitute Tide of Iron for the basic attack since you have HBO, you can push them multiple squares due to the Polearm Expert class feature at level 11 (or use a contolling weapon), after the creature has taken damage and pushed back, it gets knocked prone. Theoretically, unless the enemy itself has reach or a ranged attack, or action points, if you keep hitting with the polearm gamble OA, they would never get to attack (since standing up is a move action). I suppose they could try to attack from prone...
As far as versatility, if you take Cleave as your other at-will as a warforged, you can take the gladiator feat which allows you to use the at-will Cleave power to gain temp hp instead of doing extra cleave damage. With Reparation Apparatus gloves, you now basically have an at-will power at reach 2 or more which on a hit grants you temp hp = to your con + 2D6. Not too shabby. Oh yeah, and with HBO you can use this on OAs also.
To give a few more details, you bump str and dex at heroic tier (this give you access to HBO at level 11 if you want it), Wis gets bumped at level 11 (giving you the prereqs for Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, and Uncanny Dodge), and when Dex also gets bumped at 11 and 21, you qualify for Heavy Blade Mastery. At Paragon and Epic you can bump Str and something other than Dex.
Also forgot to mention, even though there is a minus 2 to hit with the component weapon, it is somewhat balanced out with the wisdom bonus to hit on OAs, including the one granted from polearm gamble. Throw in Blade Opportunist and/or Combat Reflexes, and/or Warforged Tactics (they all stack), and it really doesn't become a major issue.
I would really appreciate some feedback. Does this sound like a kick a$$ build, or is it just strong on paper? I know it is feat intensive, but a lot of the feats are really good regardless of combinations (i.e. HBO, HBM, Polearm Gamble).
Thanks!
I'm working on a Warforged fighter build and would like to get some input.
Stats are as follows:
STR - 18
DEX - 13
CON - 16
INT - 8
WIS - 14
CHA - 10
(I'm actually at 5th level and bumped Dex and Str +1 each)
Since Warforged can use 2-handed weapons in one hand as long as they are component weapons (albeit with a -2 to hit), a Warforged can equip a shield on one arm while wielding a glaive as a component weapon on the other. Already this PC can utilize Tide of Iron to push enemies that are two spaces away and follow up for free multiple spaces. However, by structuring the build to be able to take Polearm Gamble, Heavy Blade Opportunity, Polearm Momentum, and Uncanny Dodge all by level 12 (taking the feats at levels 11 and 12 and also retraining "placeholder" feats at each of those levels), you gain a ridiculous amount of versatility all by level 12. It probably would also be optimal to take the Polearm Expert PP from Martial Power.
So at level 12, you get an OA against EVERY character that moves adjacent to you, you can substitute Tide of Iron for the basic attack since you have HBO, you can push them multiple squares due to the Polearm Expert class feature at level 11 (or use a contolling weapon), after the creature has taken damage and pushed back, it gets knocked prone. Theoretically, unless the enemy itself has reach or a ranged attack, or action points, if you keep hitting with the polearm gamble OA, they would never get to attack (since standing up is a move action). I suppose they could try to attack from prone...
As far as versatility, if you take Cleave as your other at-will as a warforged, you can take the gladiator feat which allows you to use the at-will Cleave power to gain temp hp instead of doing extra cleave damage. With Reparation Apparatus gloves, you now basically have an at-will power at reach 2 or more which on a hit grants you temp hp = to your con + 2D6. Not too shabby. Oh yeah, and with HBO you can use this on OAs also.
To give a few more details, you bump str and dex at heroic tier (this give you access to HBO at level 11 if you want it), Wis gets bumped at level 11 (giving you the prereqs for Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, and Uncanny Dodge), and when Dex also gets bumped at 11 and 21, you qualify for Heavy Blade Mastery. At Paragon and Epic you can bump Str and something other than Dex.
Also forgot to mention, even though there is a minus 2 to hit with the component weapon, it is somewhat balanced out with the wisdom bonus to hit on OAs, including the one granted from polearm gamble. Throw in Blade Opportunist and/or Combat Reflexes, and/or Warforged Tactics (they all stack), and it really doesn't become a major issue.
I would really appreciate some feedback. Does this sound like a kick a$$ build, or is it just strong on paper? I know it is feat intensive, but a lot of the feats are really good regardless of combinations (i.e. HBO, HBM, Polearm Gamble).
Thanks!
Two handed attached weapons take up both hands.
Again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, it's just that I'd like to pointed to the faq or errata if I have missed something. Otherwise, I would like some second/third/fourth opinions.
Thanks!
Hmm...is that in an errata or faq somewhere? The reason I'm asking is that the Warforged write-up does not mention this, and in fact gives an example of using a two handed crossbow as an attached component weapon, and firing it with just one hand (with a -2 to the attack). So obviously you can attack with a two handed crossbow as a component weapon with just one arm. Heck, if you have a swiftshot crossbow or take the crossbow PP, it becomes a Load Free weapon and you never have to use the other hand to work with at all (yes, there would still be a -2 to hit). So basically, why would there be a difference in a two-handed melee weapon being used as an attached component weapon in one hand? I don't understand why they would give you a -2 to hit if you are still using both hands to wield it. Not to mention, why even list this as an option if you have to use two hands to wield it in the first place?
Again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, it's just that I'd like to pointed to the faq or errata if I have missed something. Otherwise, I would like some second/third/fourth opinions.
Thanks!
Crossbows aren't melee weapons, they have their own separate mention...
An attached two-handed crossbow still requires two hands to use with maximum accuracy, but the crossbow covers only one hand. However, you can shoot an attached crossbow without using an additional hand to brace the weapon. You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls when doing so.
A two-handed melee weapon can be attached to both hands, but doing so restricts your movement with the weapon, making it less effective. You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls with an attached two-handed melee weapon.
Hmm...is that in an errata or faq somewhere?
Nope.
The reason I'm asking is that the Warforged write-up does not mention this, and in fact gives an example of using a two handed crossbow as an attached component weapon, and firing it with just one hand (with a -2 to the attack).
You are right, the second paragraph does detail crossbows.
So obviously you can attack with a two handed crossbow as a component weapon with just one arm. Heck, if you have a swiftshot crossbow or take the crossbow PP, it becomes a Load Free weapon and you never have to use the other hand to work with at all (yes, there would still be a -2 to hit). So basically, why would there be a difference in a two-handed melee weapon being used as an attached component weapon in one hand? I don't understand why they would give you a -2 to hit if you are still using both hands to wield it. Not to mention, why even list this as an option if you have to use two hands to wield it in the first place?
Again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, it's just that I'd like to pointed to the faq or errata if I have missed something. Otherwise, I would like some second/third/fourth opinions.
Thanks!
Read the THIRD paragraph under weapons as attached components.
Here is what it says:
A two-handed melee weapon can be attached to both hands, but doing so restricts your movement with the weapon, making it less effective. You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls with an attached two-handed melee weapon.
Basically, attached two-handed weapons are gimped.
However, you can still grab a Whip and pull a One Handed reach guy.
*EDIT*
Ok, I apologize. I am looking at my printout of the Warforged character write up and my copy reads "A two handed melee weapon can be attached, but doing so restricts movement with the weapon, making it less effective. You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls when doing so." When read this, I took it as being attached to one arm, and thus having the -2 penalty for trying to swing around a big weapon with one arm. The quote you provided is a little different than mine because yours specifically adds the words "...to both hands." Let me check the dragon article and again and see if I missed something.
The third says you need two hands for a two-handed weapon, AND take -2.
A two-handed melee weapon can be attached to both hands, but doing so restricts your movement with the weapon, making it less effective. You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls with an attached two-handed melee weapon.
Theoretically, unless the enemy itself has reach or a ranged attack, or action points, if you keep hitting with the polearm gamble OA, they would never get to attack (since standing up is a move action). I suppose they could try to attack from prone...
Standing up isn't really moving and wouldn't provoke an OA. Shifting would allow enemies to get around your OA. Some DMs would not consider teleporting movement either (though they may be in a minority).
Standing up isn't really moving and wouldn't provoke an OA. Shifting would allow enemies to get around your OA. Some DMs would not consider teleporting movement either (though they may be in a minority).
Actually the wording of Polearm Gambit talks about "nonadjacent enemies" moving to be "adjacent." It makes no distinction between teleportation, shifting, running, regular movement, or forced movement.
Yes. Forced movement.
I checked for a more recent update, and there is none.
Actually the wording of Polearm Gambit talks about "nonadjacent enemies" moving to be "adjacent." It makes no distinction between teleportation, shifting, running, regular movement, or forced movement.
Yes. Forced movement.
I checked for a more recent update, and there is none.
No, forced movement does not trigger an OA. Ever.
It is not clear whether or not shifting draws an OA from Polearm Gamble. But imho it is crystal clear that neither teleportation nor forced movement do.
The general description of 'moving adjacent' is overridden by the rules describing the various specific types of movement. The Polearm Gamble would have to contain a specific statement that those types of movement, specifically drew OAs to override their specific rules.
Because shift was not written as absolutely as were teleport and forced movement, some have argued that a shift does draw an OA. I believe this is contrary to the intent. But I cannot disagree with the argument that a strict literal reading of the shift rules leads to a different conclusion (although even that has its quirks*).
The shift rules states: "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack." So one could argue that if you are not shifting out of an adjacent square, you do provoke. Personally, I believe this was just a case of the rules not being written by a lawyer and thus them not have considered the (apparent) necessity of covering every possibility. I guess they could have written it as "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, or in any way which might have otherwise drawn an OA if you didn't happen to be shifting, you don't provoke an OA." Ah, well.
But forced movement says very specifically and absolutely: "Forced movement does not provoke opportunity attacks or other opportunity actions." And therefore, forced movement does not provoke an OA from polearm gamble and it would take a specific entry under PG to counter this clear and specific rule for forced movement.
And teleport says very specifically and absolutely: "Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks." and it would take a specific entry under PG to counter this clear and specific rule for forced movement.
So, imho, it is absolutely clear and unquestionable by the RAW that neither forced movement nor teleportation will trigger an OA from Polearm Gamble.
But again, shift is debateable, but I believe that it is not intended to trigger either - they simply wrote the shift rules without taking Polearm Gamble into consideration and did not address that special case. Or perhaps they really intended PG to be an unusual or even unexpected attack and thus not an attack you could protect yourself from with a shift. Maybe. But I'm not betting on it. I'm expecting PG to be altered to eventually include a line akin to: "However, you can’t make an Opportunity Attack if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move adjacent by a pull, a push, or a slide."
*Especially when you consider that, by a strict and literal reading of the RAW, if the target moves from a square that is adjacent to another enemy to a square that is adjacent to you - you do not get an OA from polearm gamble on that target because the necessary condition is satisfied: "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack." Live by the strict and literal interpretation of the word, Die by the strict and literal interpretation of the word.
Carl
However, you can still grab a Whip and pull a One Handed reach guy.
What source is the Whip listed?
What source is the Whip listed?
Dragon #368 if I'm not mistaken (the first pay issue).
In my view Polearm gamble does not care how you went from non-adjacent to adjacent, all that matters is that you did. Since PG is a specific skill rule granting you a OA I'd have to in my games allow it to work under basically any and all circumstances. If someone goes from non-adjacent to adjacent to you they trigger PG, which in turn allows you to make an OA against them, the move itself did not trigger the OA, the move triggered PG which granted an OA, that is how I differentiate it myself.
The problem I see is which specific rule outweighs another specific rule, since there is no rating of a rule as to it's specificity it's up to the DM to decide how general or specific a rule is when figuring out which one takes effect when they conflict. I'd have to go with PG generates an OA on any action that meets it's requirements unless the specific power used to generate and action explicity states it does not draw OA's, if the power just says shift then it would generate an OA because shifting is defined by a general rule where PG is more specific.
I may have just said the same thing twice but I think the rules are well written in most cases but not in others, I think the wording on PG was done to allow it to OA in cases where an OA would definately not normally be even considered.
No, forced movement does not trigger an OA. Ever.
It is not clear whether or not shifting draws an OA from Polearm Gamble. But imho it is crystal clear that neither teleportation nor forced movement do.
The general description of 'moving adjacent' is overridden by the rules describing the various specific types of movement. The Polearm Gamble would have to contain a specific statement that those types of movement, specifically drew OAs to override their specific rules.
You are correct that specific trumps general. However, in this case, Polearm Gambit is the 'specific ruling'. As you stated, forced movement does not provoke OA's in general. Now goes shifting or teleportation. However, those are 'general rules.'
Harliquinn
You are correct that specific trumps general. However, in this case, Polearm Gambit is the 'specific ruling'. As you stated, forced movement does not provoke OA's in general. Now goes shifting or teleportation. However, those are 'general rules.'
Or, it could be that moving is general and shifting is specific?
PHB Page 269 under actions on other turns -- Opportunity Actions: You can take one opportunity action on each other combatant’s turn. An opportunity action must be triggered by an enemy’s action.
The important part in bold and italics. You cannot trigger an OA (action or attack) off of an allies action, the creature takes no action to move and therefore your enemy took no action for you to react to.