Halo of Warding

[keterys]

A good example of specific vs. general for making attacks outside of your range being the Sigil Carver:
"Whenever an enemy marked by you within 5 squares of you hits an ally who is adjacent to you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an opportunity action. You can make the attack even if the creature is beyond your normal reach." (Emphasis mine)

Without explicit text like that, there's no specific vs general in play. It's not _actually_ specific. Hence, the objection this is written poorly - in some groups, that means use a reach weapon, in others carry right along.

 

[Aulirophile]

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.

But it is not in the RC, which is what I said.

 

[Colmarr]

Its there, Player Handbook 1, page 11:

Aulirophile was referring to the Rules Compendium, not PHB1.

Without explicit text like that, there's no specific vs general in play. It's not _actually_ specific. Hence, the objection this is written poorly - in some groups, that means use a reach weapon, in others carry right along.

I'm not sure I agree. There's certainly no definition of what 'specific' means and we're each arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand that happen to be in different places.

I do concede, though, that my line seems to cause more havoc to the system as a whole than yours does.

 

[keterys]

In addition to the specific line like Sigil Carver, a specific line like Combat Agility's would also work, like "Effect: After the triggering enemy enters the square,". Might start having some timing questions for charges, though.

But, really, clarity in these kinds of things is good - especially since you could have some truly odd triggerings of this one in epic - let's say someone "swaps places" with an adjacent gargantuan ally, such that they're 4 or more squares away, then enter the adjacent square. (not that I'm sure any method of swapping places triggers OAs, at that)

Actually... really, that "triggers OA" clause is probably an important note. Specific vs General _has_ to be very specific. There are people who thought Polearm Gamble triggered on teleports, shifts, slides, anything - after all, it just said "entered", but no part of the feat actually trumped the general rules denying OAs for those instances.

Similarly, nothing trumps the general melee rules for reach, nor the rules that you can't take OAs while dazed (or stunned, or dead), nor the rule that you can't take an OA against an invisible target. It has to actually be specific, or that way lies madness

 

[keterys]

Oh, and just for reference - Halo of Warding was pointed out for errata to not require reach almost 1.5 years ago. Poked the thread, and I'll bring it up again with WotC some day. Maybe. (Sooo low on the priority list)

 

[Aulirophile]

Swapping places is a slide, by RAW (couple powers make specific exceptions and are teleports). No timing questions for charges on Combat Agility, after they enter the square resolves as a reaction, and invalidated charges is one of the examples of a reaction that responds to movement.

The PG argument was actually much subtler then that. In the PHB OA's were provoked from leaving a square, but could not be provoked by leaving a square if you shifted, teleported, were force moved, etc.

However PG didn't trigger an OA on someone leaving a square, but entering one. So, RAW, there was no "general" rule to be overridden.

Thankfully the RC made the wording such that entering also doesn't provoke.

 

[keterys]

Oh, sure, that was just _1_ of the arguments. People also argued that teleports didn't count for some things, cause teleports stopped "opportunity attacks" not "opportunity actions", and there were always those who didn't care one whit or another for forced movement's flat old "No".

D&D has more than its fair share of infinite oregano seekers

 

[Aulirophile]

Well, it was the only argument that actually fit in with the RAW (and thus the only one worth repeating). SvG requires explication, so the "it just does" argument was... um.. yeah.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Never mind....

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Is there a button to just delete a message after you've posted it, thanks.