Halo of Warding

[keterys]

Nothing is supported by the rules. It is neither a "no action" nor a "free action" nor a "standard action", until specified.

The choice of "No Action" is the easiest and most advantageous one, but it's been proven false every single time any power is clarified. Every last one has been noted as a free action. At a certain point, you have to concede the overwhelming weight of evidence and roll with it.

 

[Aulirophile]

Nothing is supported by the rules. It is neither a "no action" nor a "free action" nor a "standard action", until specified.

The choice of "No Action" is the easiest and most advantageous one, but it's been proven false every single time any power is clarified. Every last one has been noted as a free action. At a certain point, you have to concede the overwhelming weight of evidence and roll with it.

It is supported by the rules, actually. ^.^

And.. um, changes to powers doesn't mean they weren't No Action, just that the devs didn't feel it was appropriate. That actually strengthens the position that they are, in fact, No Action... else no change would've been needed.

 

[keterys]

I was unclear above with my statement "but I've never actually seen any rule to support it.": please provide a rule, any rule whatsoever, to support your stance that they were No Action, with the delightful implication that stunned or dying PCs could attack as a result.

 

[HighTemplar]

if it's not specified in the feat, you just have to assume you're making an attack of opportunity against a foe out of reach, it is a magical power afterall... for the sake of description:"He strikes the air right about where the beast was about to move and barely slices it's skin leaving a bloody slash and the monster thinking twice about coming any closer"

 

[Mirtek]

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

From time to time yes. That wouldn't be the first case and certainly won't be the last case. Some times rules items that flat out don't work by RAW get published, whether this was such a case (which then accidentally works in some corner-cases anyway) or not, such things just happen from time to time

 

[Colmarr]

you're correct that currently, by RAW, Halo of Warding fails, PG fail,

I think you missed the part of my post where I said that Polearm Gamble and Halo of Warding are exceptions to the normal OA rules.

Since specific beats general, I think that's ultimately the end of the discussion.

 

[keterys]

I'm exceedingly willing to believe that both Warding Blade and Halo of Warding are not intended to require reach, though I'm not entirely convinced I'd bother changing Halo of Warding.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Just for the sheer fun of it (because it does always seem to result in a lot of fun and a flurry of responses here), I did post this question to Customer Service.

Here is the reply I just got:

Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halo Of Warding


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response Via Email(Support Agent) - 05/10/2011 11:47 AM
Greetings Ronald,

Thank you for getting in touch with us! I will be happy to answer your q=
uestions for you!

So Does Halo Of Warding need a reach weapon or not?=20

It does not. This is a case of specific rules over-riding general rules.=
The general opportunity attack rules say you may make the opportunity at=
tack when they leave a threatened square. Halo of Warding tells you this=
is modified, and you may make the opportunity attack when a creature ent=
ers a square adjacent to you so you need no special weapons to take this =
attack. If a creature moves next to you you may attack them when they en=
ter that square so long as they did not shift and were not forced to move=
there.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, definitely not surprising. What question did you send them?

 

[Aulirophile]

I think you missed the part of my post where I said that Polearm Gamble and Halo of Warding are exceptions to the normal OA rules.

Since specific beats general, I think that's ultimately the end of the discussion.

Exceptions require explication. I didn't miss it, you're just wrong. By strict RAW, they don't work.

Also Specific vs General actually isn't in the RC either.