Halo of Warding

[Colmarr]

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.

The text says you can make an OA when an opponent enters an adjacent square. How is that not explication? Your explication threshold is much higher than mine.

As for specific vs general not being in the RC, I'm sure I recall mention of it towards the front of the book. I'm AFB though, so let's just say for the time being that we don't agree on that.

 

[Aulirophile]

The text says you can make an OA when an opponent enters an adjacent square. How is that not explication? Your explication threshold is much higher than mine.

As for specific vs general not being in the RC, I'm sure I recall mention of it towards the front of the book. I'm AFB though, so let's just say for the time being that we don't agree on that.

Imagine a power that said "You make an MBA against the target" and the target was out of range. What would happen? You'd make the MBA, and the MBA would auto-miss because you're out of range (and it is worth noting, for this example, that there are powers that say "regardless of range" or "within 5 squares" etc, so the level of explication required to modify range is that it actually has to do so.)

Same thing happens right now for these elements by strict RAW, because they do not specifically modify the range of the OA power, which is Melee 1 for the purposes of targeting (step 2 of the attack process), which they would have to do to function. So, they don't.

 

[Colmarr]

Same thing happens right now for these elements by strict RAW, because they do not specifically modify the range of the OA power, which is Melee 1 for the purposes of targeting (step 2 of the attack process), which they would have to do to function. So, they don't.

I disagree. The text of both feats is that the OA can be made against an enemy entering an adjacent square. That is a clear and obvious exception to rules that apply to OAs.

Your position is that the exception applies only to the trigger and not to the range of the OA. My position is that the exception applies to all aspects of the effect.

That's not an issue of RAW vs RAI. It's an issue of how to correctly interpret the wording of the RAW.

In that respect, interpreting a feat in such a way as to render it useless is contrary to both common sense and every rule of legal interpretation I've ever comes across (and I've seen a lot), particularly where the area of dispute (1 square of range) is so minor.

 

[Aulirophile]

I disagree. The text of both feats is that the OA can be made against an enemy entering an adjacent square. That is a clear and obvious exception to rules that apply to OAs.

Your position is that the exception applies only to the trigger and not to the range of the OA. My position is that the exception applies to all aspects of the effect.

That's not an issue of RAW vs RAI. It's an issue of how to correctly interpret the wording of the RAW.

Unless you wish to take the position that all granted MBAs have infinite range (because that is the logical conclusion of your position), then... no.

It isn't "clear" because it is not explicit. In order to modify something you must do so explicitly. That is RAW, what the rules actually say. Your interpretation is RAI, because it depends on things not in the actual text, either of the feats or in the actual rules. Granted in this case it is fairly clear because we have the original, PHB, formating... but just because we absolutely know RAI doesn't change the RAW.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

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

Er, it was in that post:

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

Thanks.

 

[keterys]

Ah, thanks - for some reason I thought that was the subject.

So, yeah, not surprising.

 

[Colmarr]

Unless you wish to take the position that all granted MBAs have infinite range (because that is the logical conclusion of your position), then... no.

To be honest, I don't see anything inherently more absurd in that outcome (granted MBAs having unlimited range) than the outcome you suggest (a feat being unable to achieve the outcome it is clearly stated to achieve).

I'm curious: exactly how many powers or features are there that grant MBAs against a specified target without reference to where the ally and target are in relation to each other?

 

[Aulirophile]

To be honest, I don't see anything inherently more absurd in that outcome (granted MBAs having unlimited range) than the outcome you suggest (a feat being unable to achieve the outcome it is clearly stated to achieve).

I'm curious: exactly how many powers or features are there that grant MBAs against a specified target without reference to where the ally and target are in relation to each other?

Dozens. Staggering Note (Bard At-Will) for one. Many of them have specific language because they also involve movement, but not all of them by a long shot.

And it isn't like this is the first time a feat (or other game element) has been made non-functional because of a rules change. Some elements of 4e started out non-functional and never got errata'd to work, actually. If you want to make the argument that non-function should be ignored in actual play, I'd be inclined to agree with you.... but it doesn't change the RAW. Which is what errata, and the errata forums, are supposedly for.

 

[keterys]

Most powers that grant attacks don't reference range, as far as I can tell - after all, the attack you use has its own range: Hail of Steel, Spell Tracer, Direct the Strike - none would allow an MBA on a target outside of melee reach.

There's not really anything wrong with Halo of Warding being poorly written. RAW, you can't take the OA because the target isn't in the square yet and you don't have reach. RAI, it's probably intended to work, so as long as the PC and DM are in agreement, who cares how it's written? carry on.

This power should likely get put in for errata. It's Dragon, or I'd have made a post on the errata forums already.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

The text says you can make an OA when an opponent enters an adjacent square. How is that not explication? Your explication threshold is much higher than mine.

As for specific vs general not being in the RC, I'm sure I recall mention of it towards the front of the book. I'm AFB though, so let's just say for the time being that we don't agree on that.

Its there, Player Handbook 1, page 11:

Specific Beats General
If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific
rule wins. For example, a general rule states that you
can’t use a daily power when you charge. But if you
have a daily power that says you can use it when you
charge, the power’s specific rule wins. It doesn’t mean
that you can use any daily power when you charge,
just that one.