Holy Implement Expertise - can't grant combat advantage?

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Okay, I've read Holy Implement Expertise (in Heroes of the Shadow and the new Dragon feat article) and I have a question about what sources of combat advantage it prevents.

It reads:

When you attack an enemy with an implement attack using a holy symbol, your enemies cannot gain combat advantage against you until the start of your next turn, unless you use a power or another ability that states that you grant combat advantage.

[/quote]te][/quote]

So, basically, after you attack with a holy symbol, only things you inflict on yourself can cause you to grant CA.​

Question is, does this only apply to effects that specifically say "you grant combat advantage", or does it also work on effects that include as part of the effect that you grant combat advantage (running, dazed, stun, etc.).​

The reason I ask is that if applies to the latter, its super good for my group's pacifist cleric - as it is, Superior Will (which gives a save against stun at the beginning of your turn, even if you can't normally take a save) plus the various save boosting feats mean that granting combat advantage is often the only penalty he suffers from stunning himself by attacking bloodied targets.​

So... I'm going to talk about this with my gaming group, but I would like to canvass some outside views/arguments that I can bring to the discussion with me.​

 

[Aulirophile]

I'd say it applies to dazed... but not the dazed from Pacifist. It is a power or ability that they player used that caused them to grant CA.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I'd say it applies to dazed... but not the dazed from Pacifist. It is a power or ability that they player used that caused them to grant CA.

Well, Pacifist healer is an ability and it causes the PH to become stunned, but it is arguable that it isn't "used" when attacking a bloodied creature (being instead a passive effect with a trigger)... is that your reasoning?

 

[Aulirophile]

Stunned, right, not dazed.

It isn't a rule, but if a feat has an effect on a condition from a power, then it modifies that power, is the only way of explaining several developer rulings (Mark of Storm works with Polearm Momentum, Staggering Weapon+Mark of Storm, etc). So he used a power that caused him to stun himself, thus granting CA.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction... while I agree PH isn't a power, surely it is an ability.


Let's say we have power A, that states that the cleric does X but is dazed. Dazed carries granting CA as an effect. You would argue that the cleric would grant CA, as the power imposed the CA on him.

Now, in the PH scenario, he attacks a bloodied monster. The PH ability states that if he attacks a bloodied monster, he is stunned. Stunned causes you to grant CA. Therefore, isn't the use of a power causing you to grant CA, just like the dazed example above?

 

[Aulirophile]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction... while I agree PH isn't a power, surely it is an ability.


Let's say we have power A, that states that the cleric does X but is dazed. Dazed carries granting CA as an effect. You would argue that the cleric would grant CA, as the power imposed the CA on him.

Now, in the PH scenario, he attacks a bloodied monster. The PH ability states that if he attacks a bloodied monster, he is stunned. Stunned causes you to grant CA. Therefore, isn't the use of a power causing you to grant CA, just like the dazed example above?

Yes.

The distinction lies in the fact that feats are not powers or abilities. So "Do feats that have effects based on what happens with a power modify the power in some way, and therefore the effect comes from a power?" RAW has nada either way, but all rulings that are affected by the disinction would indicate the answer has to be yes.

"Ability" is not a defined game term in the way it is used in that sentence (since "ability" only ever refers to "ability scores/rolls/check/stats"), so it is null in the context of rules questions.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Um... although "ability" clearly isn't a defined element of the rules, I can't see that as signifying that the word "ability" in that sentence has no meaning at all.

After all, they put it in the sentence - the word is clearly intended to have some significance, and to broaden the application of the rules for granting combat advantage beyond the use of powers alone.

Now, exactly what "ability" does mean in that sentence may be debateable... but given the context my position is that it is meant as a catch all for things that aren't powers, and would include such things as class features, feats, etc.

That said, Holy Implement Expertise does require that the power or ability be "used", and as I noted above, it is questionable whether Pacifist Healer is actually "used" when a cleric with that feat attacks a bloodied target.

 

[fba827]

Now, exactly what "ability" does mean in that sentence may be debateable... but given the context my position is that it is meant as a catch all for things that aren't powers, and would include such things as class features, feats, etc.

Agreed.

That said, Holy Implement Expertise does require that the power or ability be "used", and as I noted above, it is questionable whether Pacifist Healer is actually "used" when a cleric with that feat attacks a bloodied target.

I view it that by virtue of using a power, the pacifist healer is in fact using a class feature that would stun him. Or, to put it more precisely, it's as if the pacificst healer has a "special" line in each of his powers that says: "If attacking a bloodied creature, you are stunned" (or whatever the wording is). As such, the holy symbol expertise would not bypass that CA from stunned that was caused by the pacifist healer's attacking.

In any case, that's how I view it and would rule it at my table if I were DMing the situation. Your milage may vary.

 

[Aulirophile]

Um... although "ability" clearly isn't a defined element of the rules, I can't see that as signifying that the word "ability" in that sentence has no meaning at all.

No mechanical meaning, you're well into RAI territory if you try to assign it meaning. Just like "Struck" has no mechanical meaning, yet it unfortunately it is inserted into a key Fighter class feature.

Basically I'm saying that stunning yourself from PH is equivalent to the power saying "Effect: If you cast this on a bloodied opponent, you are stunned till EoNT." Because feats modify powers, otherwise several things that key off of powers doing things would not apply, and according to the developers they do. So you used a power that interacted with PH, you "used" PH.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

@Aulirophile, Yeah, I think I misread your earlier posts to think you meant the opposite... but since my last post, I had realised my mistake.

That said, I disagree with assigning a meaning to "ability" is using RAI rather than RAW. Any interpreration of any rule requires assigning meaning to the words in question - sometimes that meaning is given by an additional rule, sometimes it is not.

For example, some things trigger off of "attacking" an enemy. Attack rolls and attack powers (some of which have no attack roll) are defined, but "attacking" itself is undefined. Interpretting the word "attacking" to mean something so that the trigger doesn't fail is not IMHO an exercise of RAI, but rather of what the RAW is in the context of the given wording of the rules.


Does anybody disagree with Aulirophile and fba827? I would really rather not rule to my player's disadvantage without having considered any arguments that may exist in his favour.