|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 6:40AM
#12831
|
|
|
mrfubar, combat advantage is a condition that provides an attack roll modifier (among other things). By default it gives you a +2 bonus to the attack roll against the creature to which you have combat advantage. It says in the rules "attack roll" so it doesn't matter if it's a melee, ranged or area attack, as long as you do an attack roll (ie. you roll a d20 to see if you hit the target or not), you apply the bonus. Some feats or powers can deny that attack roll modifier such if the target as uncanny dodge, which negates the +2 bonus to the attack roll, though the condition still applies... in this case for a rogue he can still apply the sneak attack damage bonus. Like said above, flanking is one of many situations that provide CA, but it's by far not limited to it. If you want to give your DM proof of it, just point him to the written rules for CA (taken from the rules compendium): Combat Advantage
One of the most common attack roll modifiers is combat advantage, which represents a situation in which a target can’t give full attention to defense. The target is pressed by multiple enemies at the same time, stunned, distracted, or otherwise caught off guard. Combat advantage has two rules.
+2 Bonus to Attack Rolls: A creature gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls against a target granting combat advantage to it.
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.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:48PM
#12832
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2010
|
A dazed; stunned; helpless; target also provides combat advantage - so IS your DM also saying wiz spells cant take advantage of these?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:53PM
#12833
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2012
|
I spoke with him, it's all good. Basically, he was house ruling it. His concern was the extreme power (or overpower) of the spells that I have vs. his monsters. He felt giving CA was just making them (me) too powerful. I'm okay with that. It wasn't the CA that concerned me. It was my apparent lack of understanding of rules and I just couldn't figure out what I was missing in all of this. Turns out it was something that he was holding back. He's quite fair about things, so, I'm not at all concerned about the CA.
I do greatly appreciate the rapid and diligent responses that y'all have provided. FWIW, I'm a 51 year old who is enjoying D&D greatly. I know most of you are probably quite a bit younger, but, it's probably good for you to know that even ancient aged people like me enjoy it, so you have something to look forward to when you get older!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:56PM
#12834
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
The trouble with that, is that removing CA from the Wizard doesn't make his spells less devastating, just less likely to work at all. If he;s goign to house rule anything, he should just be asking you to pick some less devastating spells, not removing your accuracy with them.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 4:40PM
#12835
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I want to use this to my advantage when casting a spell, like, Burning Hands. My DM states that it doesn't work for spell casting, only for melee.
You can absolutely use combat advantage for things other than melee. Example from PHB p.117:
"Sneak Attack: Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a weapon from the light blade, the crossbow, or the sling weapon group, an attack you make against that enemy deals extra damage..."
Superior Reflexes says: "You also gain combat advantage against all enemies during your first turn in an encounter", and makes no mention of being limited to melee.
Maybe your DM was thinking of the Prone condition:"The creature grants combat advantage to attackers making melee attacks", or Flanking: "must be adjacent to the enemy"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 4:43PM
#12836
|
|
|
I spoke with him, it's all good. Basically, he was house ruling it. His concern was the extreme power (or overpower) of the spells that I have vs. his monsters. He felt giving CA was just making them (me) too powerful. I'm okay with that. It wasn't the CA that concerned me. It was my apparent lack of understanding of rules and I just couldn't figure out what I was missing in all of this. Turns out it was something that he was holding back. He's quite fair about things, so, I'm not at all concerned about the CA.
I do greatly appreciate the rapid and diligent responses that y'all have provided. FWIW, I'm a 51 year old who is enjoying D&D greatly. I know most of you are probably quite a bit younger, but, it's probably good for you to know that even ancient aged people like me enjoy it, so you have something to look forward to when you get older!
I think this is a game that spans through all ages (and gender, nationality, etc...). I'm 33, european, and I've been playing D&D since around 2000 (when 3rd edition came out), I was most active during the 3.5ed, then we stopped playing for a long time and some months ago we gathered some of the "old folks", added some "new blood" and started playing again. The current party members ages roughly cover all the 20-40 interval. Hopefully we'll still be playing when we're over 60 
I'm still adapting to the "new" (at least for me who hadn't played for years) 4ed rules, but as far as I could understand implements don't get the proficiency bonus that weapons get to the attack rolls, so spells should already have a lower probability to hit (-2/-3 attack roll bonus compared to melee weapon). Therefore I see no reason to house rule it so that spells can't take advantage of combat advantage.
The DM is allowed to house rule as he wishes, but if it was me, in this case, I'd limit the access of the mages to magic implements while allowing melee combatants to have magic weapons, rather than changing the mechanics of the game. But that's me... and each DM has his own ways of dealing with things and as long as both the DM and the players are happy and are having fun that's all that matters
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 5:32PM
#12837
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm still adapting to the "new" (at least for me who hadn't played for years) 4ed rules, but as far as I could understand implements don't get the proficiency bonus that weapons get to the attack rolls, so spells should already have a lower probability to hit (-2/-3 attack roll bonus compared to melee weapon). Therefore I see no reason to house rule it so that spells can't take advantage of combat advantage.
Implement attacks almost universally attack the secondary defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will), which typically will be 2-3 points (or more) lower than AC.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 5:40PM
#12838
|
|
|
Implement attacks almost universally attack the secondary defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will), which typically will be 2-3 points (or more) lower than AC.
I was forgetting about that, good point!
Though in our last encounter there were some monsters with Fort higher than AC (but Ref and Will were lower).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 1:33AM
#12839
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Brutes tend to have good fort, poor AC, so that can happen fairly often. Similarly, Lurkers often have a REF better than their AC, and Controllers and Leaders often have a WILL better than their AC.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 12:10PM
#12840
|
|
|
Question: can a creature use part of its move action, then use a standard/minor action, then use the remainder of its move action? Or once it stops moving, is that the end of the move action? For example, could a creature with a speed of 6 move 3 squares to a gate, use a minor action to open the gate, then move 3 more squares? Or would his move action be done when he opens the gate?
|
|
|
