Ask the Sage: Quick Rules Questions Vol. 5 (DnD 4e)

[Nocturnal]

Ask your DM. Although it seems as if X-Codes is correct, because the rule is not 100% clear and impossible to interpret, I've never seen a DM who wouldn't let you retrain one of each whenever you gain a level.

[Bewildered Kobold]

I have a question, would a character gain flanking bonus against an invisible enemy that he can locate, but not being able to see?

[Nocturnal]

Good one! The answer is no but very simply. Page 279 of the Player's Handbook has this to say about Combat Advantage:
"COMBAT ADVANTAGE
✦ +2 Bonus to Attack Rolls: You gain a +2 bonus to your attack roll when you have combat advantage against the target of your attack.
✦ Able to See Target: You must be able to see a target to gain combat advantage against it."

Simple, right? Invisible creatures are immune to combat advantage.

[GeoAvanti]

Another silly question from me-- mostly because I really do not know 4E very well.

The Paragon tier feat, Quori Backlash (Pg. 94, Player's guide to Eberron) states that "Whenever an enemy dazes, dominates, or deals psychic damage to you..." X effect happens.

Now, again, this may be simply a question of interpretation, but I have issues with things that are not clearly stated. According to the wording of this feat, would the effect occur only once per power an enemy uses, or can it occur more than once if there are more than one of these effects at the same time?

For example, a power that does psychic damage and dazes the target. Would that allow you to make use of the feat twice against that enemy? I ask because it does not expressly state otherwise. Not only that, but, according to the wording, it seems logical and rational to state that any time one of those effects occurs, the feat triggers, even if a power might cause more than one of those effects at the same time.

Thoughts? Opinions? Declarations of Fact?

~C

[jj_wolven]

Normally the answer would be that the effect only happens once, unless it is a stacking effect (damage). This is because many effects do not stack. If you confuse an NPC for 2 minutes, then confuse the same opponent again for 2 minutes...then the time resets itself for the longer - overlaps but does not stack.

-me

[GeoAvanti]

I wasn't sure about the policy of posting complete information regarding books not covered by the OGL, which is why I tried to cut out some of the info.

In this case, the feat does cause damage. So, in that case, it can feasibly cause two instances of damage (stacking) from the same enemy's power?

[jj_wolven]

In this case I'm not sure. It doesn't make balance-sense that it does double damage, that would be too prone to power-mongering/munchkining.

I'd personally tend toward 'no' on doubling damage.

-me

[X-Codes]

If you're using a Boolean point of view, the feat uses an "or" statement. If one condition is true, it triggers. If more than one condition is true, it triggers. There is no room for double or triple triggering.

[Nocturnal]

X-Codes' interpretation is the one I would have said as well. If any of the conditions happen, it triggers. If all of them happen at the same time, it triggers. Once it triggers, it causes damage once. You can't generally trigger the same effect more than once at the same instant. Generally this...

Originally Posted by GeoAvanti

I ask because it does not expressly state otherwise.

...is not a good reason for any rules argument.

Moreover many effects dominate and then daze as an aftereffect on a different turn. In this case I would also rule you don't get the damage twice since the second time it is not the enemy dazing you (it is a result of an effect that's already on you.) But that would be more open to interpretation.

[GeoAvanti]

Thank you for the answer. But, on a different matter, entirely, I do disagree with you, Noc.

Originally Posted by Nocturnal

...is not a reason for any rules argument

.

A rules argument is not the same as a rules question. Optimally, any rule should be written to fully identify the extent of the matter that it covers. If the rule is vague; it does not state its own limits, then the only option is to inquire to what the limits of the rule are. I am not arguing for the more 'munchy' approach to the feat. I simply explained my reasoning as why I needed to ask the question in the first place.

[Nocturnal]

I meant argument in the logical or debate sense, as an assertion, proposition if you will.
And so no, you simply cannot justify any claim about the rules by saying "it doesn't say that I can't." The game expects the DM to make judgments, and the rules cannot be made perfect or cover everything players can think of. They should strive to make them better and clearer, of course, and that's what errata updates are for. But there is a general assumption that if the rule doesn't say you can, then you can't.

[jj_wolven]

GeoAvanti - the rules can't cover every eventuality, that is why we need DMs and what makes RP so great.

Nocturnal/GeoAvanti -
"It doesn't say I can't" is where rules fade to the realm of DM rulings, though there are standards. Here, we will give you (1) what the rules say, (2) standard that apply, and finally (3) our interpretation.

Everyone -
I can see this being on a close edge of an argument, so before that happens lets keep our clean record here in the Game Rules thread.

-me

[loki_ragnarock]

Query:

Penalties to saving throws.

My question is this; if you have multiple sources that each apply penalties to saving throws under specific conditions, and each condition is met, do the penalties to saving throws stack?

I can find no significant reason to rule against stacking in the core books, but I'm curious if someone can think of an angle that I've not... but to give a specific example:
A paragon tier wizard uses his Cunning Quarterstaff as an implement to deliver his daily attack power. He has the Spell Focus feat. Additionally, he's wearing a pair of gloves bestowing a -1 to enemy saving throws against fear powers, and the daily power has the fear keyword.

Is it a grand total of -5 to saves with all of these effects?

[Naresh]

It's like bonuses I think, bonuses from the same sources (like feat bonuses) do not stack

[Nocturnal]

The bottom box on PHB page 275 says:
"Penalties: Unlike bonuses, penalties don’t have types. Penalties add together, unless they’re from the same power. If two monsters attack you with the same power and each causes you to take a penalty to a particular roll or score, you don’t add the penalties together; you take the worst penalty.
A penalty might be effectively canceled by a bonus and vice versa. If you gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls and take a –2 penalty to attack rolls at the same time, you end up with a +0 modifier."
For short: penalties stack unless they're from identical sources.

However you should note that specifically stacking penalties to saving throws has received an overhaul, making many (most?) of the abuses you are thinking of impossible. Be sure to look up the latest errata. For example:

Cunning Weapon
Page 67: Replace the first sentence of the item’s property with the following text: “When your attack with this weapon delivers an effect that a save can end, the target of the effect takes a –2 penalty to the first saving throw it makes against the effect.” This saving throw limitation is part of a larger effort to mitigate the use of saving throw penalties to lock down enemies for the duration of an encounter.