Halo of Warding

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, the recent discussion on Repulsive Armor, and the resurfaced discussion about Warding Blade got me thinking about Halo Of Warding for the Avenger. My lev21 character just took this feat and I'm curious...

"While you are adjacent to your Oath Of Enmity target, you can make an Opportunity Attack against any other enemy that moves into a square adjacent to you...(more)"

So...without a reach weapon, which the power does not specify you have to have, does this feat fall flat on its face and not work?

I mean after all, if the trigger is the *movement* into a square, then like the Warding Blade argument, you can't hit them if you don't have a reach greater than 1...

Is there something different about Halo Of Warding than Warding Blade that lets it work?

If this feat doesn't work either, then its just hard for me to conceive that WOTC wrote all these powers meaning for them to require a reach weapon, but not ever letting anyone know, and CS saying they do work without a reach weapon.

Thoughts, suggestions, discussion (semi intelligent or otherwise)?

Thanks.

 

[Aulirophile]

Halo of Warding comes from a Dragon Magazine article dedicated to the Greatspear using Avenger.

Sometimes things are designed with particular items in mind. If you lack the system mastery to notice that, you can run into problems (though I find it obvious). That is what forums are for. Asking CS is useless for rules questions period (even when they happen to be right it isn't a result of rules knowledge, as you can tell if you send in the same question with different rule citations. You will get a different answer to the same question from the same rep if you're lucky), so don't.

 

[Blue]

Halo of Warding comes from a Dragon Magazine article dedicated to the Greatspear using Avenger.

Sometimes things are designed with particular items in mind. If you lack the system mastery to notice that, you can run into problems (though I find it obvious).

Don't you think that's perhaps a little harsh on the OP? If they came across the feat in one of the many other places like the compendium or character builder that's far from obvious.

Also, without anything said in the feat itself it's hard to be clear if it will work with any weapon (the OP's question), only with the greatspear (as you indicate by your "system mastery"), or with any reach weapon (which the rules would support).

I wish I had a good answer to the OP, but I can say rather certainly the compendium doesn't indicate greatspear only.

 

[Aulirophile]

No.. first time I read Polearm Gamble it was obvious to me. There isn't anything inherently wrong with lacking system mastery, but it is something you should be aware of about yourself. I, for instance, am aware my Japanese is atrocious. I have a low mastery of the subject. I was merely pointing out that, given sufficient rules knowledge, it is obvious.

The fact that some feats are designed to work with certain builds, up to and including certain weapons, seems pretty reasonable to me.

The feat doesn't have to say Greatspear, I was giving the OP context for why it works the way it does. It'll work with any Reach weapon (or any form of Natural Reach, or, or, or... you got options here).

 

[nogray]

A "Huh?" and some comments

Halo of Warding comes from a Dragon Magazine article dedicated to the Greatspear using Avenger.

Well, that part, at least, is false. No where in the article are reach weapons mentioned or implied, greatspear or otherwise. In fact, the only place where any form of reach might be implied -- or even vaguely useful -- is in the Halo of Warding feat.

Note that this is a lot less intuitive than Polearm Gamble, as the only polearm lacking reach is the Talenta Sharrash (which has the "small" property), so it is ... very uncommon ... for a Polearm Gambler to lack any reach. That's hardly the case with the two Avenger abilities (Warding Blade and Halo of Warding).

The rules-as-written obviously supports the interpretation that these abilities can only be used with a reach-weapon-equipped character, thanks to the timing of opportunity actions as interrupts. That being said, I think it is also possible that the intention of these feats (and that power) was to allow characters to punish anyone that moves in. Given that intent (attacking more than once in a round so you can get multiple creatures trying to close), the only possible action types are free actions and opportunity actions.

Unaltered free actions don't really work, though, as (at least for Warding Blade and Polearm Gamble) forced movement still seems to trigger punishment. (Only halo of warding specifically excludes forced movement, shifting, and teleportation from punishment.) You would have to limit the free action to "As a free action, once per turn" in order for these things to not over-synergise with area forced move powers. In fact, since there are several other Avenger powers that pull, you would further want to limit it to "not on your turn" or else the Avenger could do some interesting yo-yo attacks. The only possible way to phrase the free action version would be "as a free action, once per turn but not on your own turn," and that is an odd turn of phrase.

I think it's likely (though I don't know for sure) that the writers just picked the action type that allows for multiple actions per round (but once per turn), but not acting on your own turn -- opportunity actions -- and neglected that the interrupt-like timing might invalidate the attack for non-reach users. I know that I would, as a DM, allow non-reach-imbued users of Warding Blade, Halo of Warding, and Polearm Gamble with-a-Talenta-Sharrash to all provide their attacks as expected, even if it meant that those would technically be with "reaction" instead of "interrupt" timing.

 

[Aulirophile]

So your theory is that people who write Dragon articles and people who edit Dragon articles are mechanically incompetent? Um.

Actually neither PG nor Halo trigger off of Forced Movement. Per the RC, Forced Movement never triggers Opportunity Actions of any kind that are Triggered By Movement. Ditto Teleportation and Shifting. That is a, thankfully, dead argument. You're correct it would as a Free Action, but the rigamarole is unnecessary: There are is at least one power that is an OA but has a Special: line that causes it to be a Reaction. Don't even need to invent new formatting. If that was the author's, or the editor's, intention the mechanism was there.

I was wrong about the article, should've checked to make sure my recollection was accurate.

 

[Colmarr]

No.. first time I read Polearm Gamble it was obvious to me.

And you don't think that it being named, say, POLEARM gamble, contributed to that instant understanding?

That aside, I'm not entirely convinced that the feat should be read as you suggest. Even if the avenger is wielding a reach weapon, by RAW an opportunity attack is still melee 1. Wielding a reach weapon only affects the range of 'melee weapon' powers (RC pg 100), which an Opportunity attack is not.

Obviously both Polearm Gamble and Halo of Wording work as exceptions to the normal OA rules. If one works then they both do. The weapon the avenger is wielding is irrelevant.

It does obviously create some issues about where and when damage and effects are applied, but given that the 'trigger' is the target entering the square, I don't think it's that hard to rule where the target is when the attack lands.

 

[Aulirophile]

No, it isn't hard at all, especially because we know because several abilities have the exact same trigger and some of them have been FAQed. The RAW is abundantly clear on the matter. No Reach = Halo of Warding doesn't work for you.

And you don't want to get into a RAW debate about the RC change that made OA a power. There is an errata thread up for it on the official forums, but you're correct that currently, by RAW, Halo of Warding fails, PG fail, Threatening Reach fails, dozens of other powers, some feats, fail to work at all. By the current RAW.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible.

In addition to that, "Opportunity Attack" is no longer an action type, by RAW, it is only a power. So when something grants you the ability to make an OA outside of its normal trigger, it is like being granted an MBA. Funny thing: when you're granted an attack, and the action type isn't specified (because the action type is always "Opportunity Attack" and there is no such action type anymore) it goes off as a No Action.

I can go on like this. The change of OA to a power broke a lot of things by strict RAW, so bringing it up is kind of pointless because all you're saying is that those game elements don't work at all.

 

[keterys]

Funny thing: when you're granted an attack, and the action type isn't specified (because the action type is always "Opportunity Attack" and there is no such action type anymore) it goes off as a No Action.

This interpretation is popular in CharOp land, but I've never actually seen any rule to support it.

For example, if a power said:
Effect: The target says "Nee!"

you could argue it was a "No Action", but we already know talking is a free action. Similarly, we're pretty sure you can't normally make an attack while stunned, unconscious, dying, or dead - but a "No Action" attack _can_ occur under those circumstances. Hence the addition of "free action" to all the warlord powers when they posted the revised versions. Not necessarily a rules change, but most definitely a rules clarification.

Though part of me is curious how many people did Hail of Steel or Commander's Strike allowing stunned or dead allies to attack. I mean, no rule disallowed it, as a "No Action", but I suspect that was the fine line people drew for themselves between "I hate the free action attack change, so this isn't one" and "Err, well, I can't do something blatantly ridiculous or my DM will end this all"

 

[Aulirophile]

This interpretation is popular in CharOp land, but I've never actually seen any rule to support it.

For example, if a power said:
Effect: The target says "Nee!"

you could argue it was a "No Action", but we already know talking is a free action. Similarly, we're pretty sure you can't normally make an attack while stunned, unconscious, dying, or dead - but a "No Action" attack _can_ occur under those circumstances. Hence the addition of "free action" to all the warlord powers when they posted the revised versions. Not necessarily a rules change, but most definitely a rules clarification.

Though part of me is curious how many people did Hail of Steel or Commander's Strike allowing stunned or dead allies to attack. I mean, no rule disallowed it, as a "No Action", but I suspect that was the fine line people drew for themselves between "I hate the free action attack change, so this isn't one" and "Err, well, I can't do something blatantly ridiculous or my DM will end this all"

Considering CharOp actually cares about RAW far more then any other community I've seen, that is an endorsement that it is correct more then anything else.

The alternative is that, for instance, the MBA is a Standard Action outside of your turn.... which isn't supported at all. No Action is supported by the rules.