By default you only threaten squares adjacent to you. Polearm Gamble is a special case, as it lets you get an OA when you normally wouldn't. In addition, by the time you take the OA granted from it, the opponent has already entered a square adjacent to you, and thus no rules about only threatening adjacent targets is broken.
But an opportunity attack interrupts the action being taken, meaning that the moving next to you doesn't actually happen until after you're finished hitting them, meaning that if you are a fighter, you can stop them one space away from you. (At least that's how opportunity attacks normally work, and I don't see anything about the feat suggesting it works differently)
Okay, this next question is actually a ton of separate questions, so I'll try to do each individually. It helps if you split these up you know, they're supposed to be simple questions .
Oh... right... Ask a
simple question oops, my bad, I guess I kind of got carried away.
Considering page 278 says you sustain on the turn after you use the power, I think it would be cheating .
Well, it actually says that "Starting on the turn after you create an effect, you sustain...", which tells you that that is how to sustain the effect, and it also says that you can sustain once per turn, but it never says you can't sustain before that. It simply tells you that you sustain (the effect) by taking the action, starting on the turn afterward (because the effect was going to last until that turn anyway). This may seem like a stupid way of looking at it, but it makes sense to me... 1) you're allowed to sustain once per turn, and 2) on the turn after the power is used, you sustain it by taking the action, but 3) you're not forbidden from sustaining on the turn you use the power, and some weird powers like the warlock ones seem to be strange to "sustain," since it doesn't "sustain" an effect, it creates a new one. Maybe my way of looking at it is completely wrong, though. I think it's worded badly, in any case.
Some particularly.... perplexing examples of sustain effects would be Warlock 5 dailies "Crown of Madness" and "Curse of the Bloody Fangs". They each have a sustain minor condition that has (save ends). Does this mean that you can impose this effect each turn? Does this mean that you can impose this only once, but need to keep sustaining for it to continue, but they can save to end it anyway? Do you have to sustain on the turn you cast them, or do you have to wait until the turn after? Can you do either?
From my reading, Sustaining the power causes an effect, in the case of say Curse of the Blood Fangs, it's making the target and all adjacent targets take 1d10 damage ongoing that ends with a save, making multiple sustains very powerful over a period of time. But, I can also see that the intention might be that it is ongoing damage that you both need to sustain and that can be cut short if the save is made. Might want to ask CustServ about this one.
First: How might I contact them?
Second: Ongoing damage of the same source (including untyped) does not stack, so this would just end up being around 7-10 ongoing damage until saving, at which point it starts again (or doesn't), which is still really nice, but not ridiculous. The rules are unclear about whether the lower damage stays around and needs to be saved against, but based on the inclusion of the text, "You make a separate saving throw against each damage type" in the "different damage types" section, I would say the implication is that the lower ongoing is absorbed into the larger one, making it one save at the higher one.
Third: I was also trying to use these as examples of the idea above of using the sustain power during the turn you use the power, and it being weird to be "sustaining" an effect when it doesn't exist yet.
Q36 About delaying, and using it beneficially: it says that "beneficial" effects end when you delay, but "negative ones do not. How are you to go about determining this? With most, it's pretty obvious, but sometimes it's not. Also, it allows abuse either way. For example, Ice Tomb, the Wizard 17 encounter power. It says that they are entombed until "the end of your next turn". If you delay, this either means 1) you are keeping them there, or 2) you now have the opportunity to attack them, since they are no longer entombed. Either way, delaying gives you an advantage (though the first is more abusable) Another example would be the Warlock 16 utility power, Cloak of Shadow, which, until the end of your next turn turns you insubstantial but does not allow you to attack, use powers, or affect others. So, we have a similar situation as above, by delaying, we can either remain insubstantial, or lose the negative effect. How do you think these should be ruled?
Another question that can be easily answered. Page 288 clearly states what happens with things that end until your next when you delay. In this case, if they are beneficial to you or your allies, they end immediately.
But I'm saying that these cannot be characterized as necessarily good or bad effects, sometimes you would prefer them to end and sometimes you wouldn't, depending on the situation,
not the actual effect. Thus, how do we characterize the effect as either good or bad (and thus determine whether the effect ends due to delaying)? I for one would think that, if no better solution is available, erring on the side of it being "beneficial" is better, otherwise you can get abuses of effects like "entombed".
In any case, thank you for answering. I know I can sometimes ramble off and end up with mountains of text in my post, even if I don't mean to...