Holy Implement Expertise - can't grant combat advantage?

[Incenjucar]

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.

I agree with them.

 

[Aulirophile]

@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.

That is defined, actually. It means using an attack power against the target(s) of the power, or a power that damages or hinders (inflicts status effects, also defined) on the targets.

"Ability" is not defined as anything. Inconsistent, sometimes outright meaningless, wording is a serious problem WotC has. /shrug.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you willingly use something that causes you to grant combat advantage, you still do. It is not that difficult to understand... any wriggling out of this meaning is cheating.

 

[Riastlin]

If you willingly use something that causes you to grant combat advantage, you still do. It is not that difficult to understand... any wriggling out of this meaning is cheating.

This. If the PC does something that would ordinarily cause himself to grant CA, he still grants CA. If an enemy (or arguably even a fellow PC) does something to the PC that would ordinarily cause the PC grant CA, he doesn't grant CA (though other effects still apply -- no actions when stunned, only one action when dazed, etc.).

Put it this way, if we were to rule it differently for the Pacifist Healer, then the portion of Pacifist Healer that talks about stunning yourself is essentially rendered meaningless since I can't envision any pacifist healer not also taking Holy Symbol Expertise.

So in sum, if a PC runs, he grants CA. If a Pacifist Healer damages a bloodied opponent, he grants CA, etc.

 

[DracoSuave]

Claiming 'ability' is not rules text when discussing rules text that contains it is nonsense and a contradiction. You cannot make a RAW claim and use it to ignore RAW.

Did the cleric use an ability or power? Yes. Did it cause him to grant CA? Yes. HSE is satisfied.

Did the cleric do it? HSE turns off. It is that simple and ignoring parts of the feat text so you can split hairs to ignore the rest of the feats text should be frowned on.

 

[TheUltramark]

I feel so stupid...to have been playing D&D for as long as I have and have ZERO clue what you guys are talking about is somewhat shameful on my part.

What is RAI and RAW ??????

my two cents is the cleric IS stunned after attacking a bloodied target, and being stunned DOES grant CA

 

[DracoSuave]

RAW - Rules as written.

RAI - Rules as interpreted/implied/inferred and sometimes as invented.