Clarification on rules for combat advantage while suffering blinded condition

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Is there any errata for RC218 in regards to not gaining combat advantage against a target that you cannot see?

Four or five months ago, it was a surprise to me when I was told that you couldn't get combat advantage while you're unable to see the target. (In most instances, while blinded.)

For example, a blinded rogue uses an area burst attack power on a stunned enemy; the blinded rogue wouldn't get combat advantage, because he couldn't see his target.  On a hit, the blinded rogue couldn't deal his sneak attack damage against the stunned enemy.  Logically, I thought it's sound that you would get combat advantage against a "STUNNED" enemy.

According to some very experienced players and GM's (not to note any names), you still would get combat advantage while blinded regardless, with one exception which is flanking.

I tried to google and search forums, but I haven't found a definitive answer.  Plaguescarred and billnewsome revealed the truth of the matter several months ago.  Now, other experienced players and DM's say otherwise, contradicting what is printed in the Rules Compendium under "combat advantage."

What is the correct rules?

To all that is good and worthwhile.

Combat Advantage has always required to be able to see target since the launch of 4E.

But i will let other Rule Q&Aers confirm it to you Jag since i was referenced as telling so already. :P

The revelant rule text can be found here:  (check the last sentence)

PHB 279/RC 217 Able to See Target: A creature must be able to see a target to gain combat advantage against it. This rule means a blinded creature cannot have combat advantage against anyone.

The requirment of seeing the target has been part of CA from the beginning. There has been no change to that detail and it is still in effect. While blinded or in any other circumstance where you cannot see your target, you cannot get CA against them regardless of any other conditions that might cause you to otherwise have it. 

Books+Errata>>>Opinion of "experienced players and DM's"

The fluff reasoning is that CA represents a target being more open to attack than normal, so if you cannot see them, you cannot exploit that opening. 
Thank you, Plaguescarred and Jay_Ibero_911. With errata flying every way and which, I was uncertain if this rule had changed or not. I agree with the ruling and reasoning, now and before I posed this question. But I couldn't assume that a change hadn't occurred to it.

Actually, I've lost a player's confidence in my DM skills, because I imposed this same ruling on our game.

To all that is good and worthwhile.

Eh.  DMs are people, and everyone makes mistakes.  Judging someone a bad DM because they make the wrong call on the spot and can't be arsed to find the correct rule instead of continuing the game is a bit harsh, to be honest.  Don't sweat it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
No Soup for You!
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Eh.  DMs are people, and everyone makes mistakes.

I don't make mistakes.. I correct them!

"Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor? NOW you're scared!" - Rose Tyler
Sign In to post comments