Rogue Power Interpretation Help

[NMcCoy]

I think there's a really simple explanation for this: In some instances of power templating, the primary attack line ends up at the top regardless of timing. This is partly the fault of the Character Builder: compare the Compendium text of Blade Vault with the CB version for example.

With this being the case, the Effect before the hit line strongly suggests to me that you knock the target prone before making the attack roll, and the power should read "Effect: Before the attack, ..."

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, executing these in order...

Attack comes first, so you roll the attack roll. Whether or not you hit is determined here.
The Effect knocks them prone.
Then, if you hit, the Hit line deals damage.

Sneak attack checks when you attack with a specific weapon and hit an enemy granting combat damage. You hit or miss when you make an attack roll, not when you resolve the -results- of the hit.

Knocking them prone after the attack roll (and therefore the hit is made) will not effect the damage dealt. And again, you resolve things in order. Roll attack, knock them prone, deal the damage. This power might be written the way it does, so that you can force them prone without it affecting sneak attack damage, but before you deal damage so that if it has a reaction to damage that causes it to shift, it cannot use that reaction.

The Hit line does not determine when you hit, it determines what you do IF you hit.

I must concur with Draco on his ruling (as per Rules of Thumb 1 & 2) of how RAW this power should be adjudicated. No Sneak Attack damage dice granted when rolling damage, because the attacker did not have CA at the time they hit with the attack.

Now that being said... I'm curious then as to what the reason was for putting the Effect: line above the Hit: line? Is the only purpose that Draco's right with his thought that this is a way to stop defensive shifts upon receiving damage? I suppose that could be it... however it seems like such an infrequent ability monsters have that it's hard to fathom why they'd bother? How many monsters have that ability?

That's why I wonder (as the fluff text would seem to indicate) that indeed the intent was to knock a person prone and then do major damage to them with an attack to the vitals (ie Sneak Attack)? And if that's the case, then indeed they'd need to rewrite the power.

I put it to you folks... does a monster who has the ability to shift upon receiving damage as an immediate interrupt (thereby negating the damage) occur often enough to explain why WotC'd bother to write the power this way just to make sure the monster couldn't use? Or does the 'No CA On Attack Roll But SA On Damage Roll' make more sense as a worthwhile ability?

 

[CovertOps]

Forget that.

Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: Knock the target prone, and deal 2[w] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Miss: Knock the target prone.

This might be better, but since the "knock prone" and damage are both part of the "Hit" entry I'm not sure that you get to pick the order to apply those in and then take a benefit for the rest. Otherwise any power that says "...and knock the target prone" could be used in this way by just applying the knock prone part first and then the damage.

Attack: Dex vs. AC
Hit: 2[W]+Dex, and you may apply Sneak Attack damage on this attack even if you did not have Combat Advantage before the attack.
Effect: The target is knocked prone.

The problem with this is that you're not getting CA, but instead being granted Sneak damage directly. In the corner case where a creature does not grant CA when prone (I remember something about "the crawling god") then you've made this power better.

 

[CovertOps]

I put it to you folks... does a monster who has the ability to shift upon receiving damage as an immediate interrupt (thereby negating the damage) occur often enough to explain why WotC'd bother to write the power this way just to make sure the monster couldn't use? Or does the 'No CA On Attack Roll But SA On Damage Roll' make more sense as a worthwhile ability?

I believe this was the intent (or an ordering typo):
'No CA On Attack Roll But SA On Damage Roll'

 

[DracoSuave]

I put it to you folks... does a monster who has the ability to shift upon receiving damage as an immediate interrupt (thereby negating the damage) occur often enough to explain why WotC'd bother to write the power this way just to make sure the monster couldn't use? Or does the 'No CA On Attack Roll But SA On Damage Roll' make more sense as a worthwhile ability?

An interrupt would not be stopped by this power, as the interrupt kicks in before the triggering attack. Even if the damage is the trigger.

That's why I said 'reaction.'

This might be better, but since the "knock prone" and damage are both part of the "Hit" entry I'm not sure that you get to pick the order to apply those in and then take a benefit for the rest. Otherwise any power that says "...and knock the target prone" could be used in this way by just applying the knock prone part first and then the damage.

You don't get to pick the order... the order occurs in the order presented in the power unless otherwise indicated. That's why it says 'knock prone' first.

Not that it has much of an effect to do it the other way.

I believe this was the intent (or an ordering typo):
'No CA On Attack Roll But SA On Damage Roll'

Then it should say so. You need an attack and hit with combat advantage for it to apply. SA is triggered by a hit, not by damage from a hit.

With this being the case, the Effect before the hit line strongly suggests to me that you knock the target prone before making the attack roll, and the power should read "Effect: Before the attack, ..."

Other powers have, as you put it 'Effect/Special: Before the attack, ...' and those powers can apply that easily, as they present an exception to the rules. However, the existance of powers that present exceptions to the rules is not an indication, by any logic, that a power that does not present that exception also benefits from the same exception.

As an analogy: Most powers with a miss line say 'Miss: Half Damage.' That does not indicate that all powers with a Miss line do half damage. Only the ones that say they do get to apply that exception to the rule that misses do no damage.

 

[CovertOps]

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy with an attack that uses a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling, the attack deals extra damage. If you have dealt Sneak Attack damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

You don't get to pick the order... the order occurs in the order presented in the power unless otherwise indicated. That's why it says 'knock prone' first.

I don't think what you're implying is correct, but I can't find it in the compendium and I'm not at home to look at my books. I was pretty sure that "order" has to do with the entries of a power such as "Hit", "Miss", "Effect", and "Special", but within an entry the "order" didn't matter or was irrelevant.

Not that it has much of an effect to do it the other way.

Then it should say so. You need an attack and hit with combat advantage for it to apply. SA is triggered by a hit, not by damage from a hit.

You're in the step where you are evaluating Hit or Miss after the target is knocked prone. The only requirements are (as quoted above) that you hit and you have CA. I don't see any verbiage that says you are required to have combat advantage before you ROLL to hit.

Other powers have, as you put it 'Effect/Special: Before the attack, ...' and those powers can apply that easily, as they present an exception to the rules. However, the existance of powers that present exceptions to the rules is not an indication, by any logic, that a power that does not present that exception also benefits from the same exception.

As an analogy: Most powers with a miss line say 'Miss: Half Damage.' That does not indicate that all powers with a Miss line do half damage. Only the ones that say they do get to apply that exception to the rule that misses do no damage.

This particular power has:
Attack: number vs defense
Effect: knock prone
Hit: damage

At the point where you evaluate "Hit" you have CA and thus get sneak damage (unless as I said above the ordering is a typo). If it was not intended to work this way they could just as easily have said
Effect: Before the attack you knock the target prone
OR
Hit: damage
Effect: knock prone
OR
Hit: damage and knock prone
Miss: knock prone

For the first you would have CA for both the attack and damage portions of the power and for the other two you clearly would not have it for either. Since they used none of these the only possible interpretation left is as I described.

To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't think what you're implying is correct, but I can't find it in the compendium and I'm not at home to look at my books. I was pretty sure that "order" has to do with the entries of a power such as "Hit", "Miss", "Effect", and "Special", but within an entry the "order" didn't matter or was irrelevant.

The written text of a line in the power is executed in order. Entries in a power are executed in order, that as much implies the micro-order within the entries themselves as well as the macro-order of the entries' placement.

The specific text used in the PHB2 is 'The order of information in the power.'

The text of a specific entry is information in the power, and thus its order is significant.

You're in the step where you are evaluating Hit or Miss after the target is knocked prone. The only requirements are (as quoted above) that you hit and you have CA. I don't see any verbiage that says you are required to have combat advantage before you ROLL to hit.

No one is claiming you must. You have to have combat advantage when you roll to hit. But: this power provides no method for garnering combat advantage during the roll, ergo, you can only logically have combat advantage before, or after the roll. After the roll will not affect the roll and therefore will not affect the hit. Therefore, the only possibility is that you must have the combat advantage before the roll.

This power rolls its attack first, as you pointed out, the Entries of a power are enacted in order.

You execute the Attack line, then the Effect line, and finally, the Hit line. The Hit line does not tell you when you roll your attack, it tells you what to do if you hit. Similiarly, the Miss line does not tell you when you roll your attack, it tells you what to do if you miss. If these were true, then for every power with a Hit and a Miss line, you'd roll two attacks.

We all know -that- interpretation is bunco.

As well, the specific example tells you that when Effect lines come before attack information (and Attack: is part of the attack information), that is how they indicate a power where the effect occurs before the attack.

This particular power has:
Attack: number vs defense
Effect: knock prone
Hit: damage

At the point where you evaluate "Hit" you have CA and thus get sneak damage (unless as I said above the ordering is a typo).

Evaluating the Hit line and rolling a hit are not the same thing. This is a line that triggers if you hit with an attack. It is not the line that tells you -that- you've hit with an attack. The attack is rolled on the attack line. Resolving that hit can come after the determination of the hit. In fact, it kinda has to.

If it was not intended to work this way they could just as easily have said
Effect: Before the attack you knock the target prone
OR
Hit: damage
Effect: knock prone
OR
Hit: damage and knock prone
Miss: knock prone

And if it worked the way you stated, they could have mentioned it as well. Your argument does not present any sort of logic that advances your point.

For the first you would have CA for both the attack and damage portions of the power and for the other two you clearly would not have it for either. Since they used none of these the only possible interpretation left is as I described.

It does not matter, however, because Sneak Attack does not have multiple points at which it can trigger. It does not say 'when hit, and then you damage a target you have combat advantage against' which would allow you to do what you say. No. What it says is 'when you attack and hit a target you have combat advantage against.' It does not say 'When you resolve a hit against a target...' so you go to the definition of what a hit is; when you beat their defense on an attack roll.

The only point where you have beat a defense on an attack roll is when you make that attack roll. Therefore, that is the point at which you hit. The Hit: line only tells you how to resolve that hit.

To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

In order to have remains that are true, you must eliminate the impossible.

You have not done so. The attack line is when you make the attack roll, and you have not made this impossible. The hit is scored when you make an attack roll, and you have not made this impossible. See above where I show how CA must occur before the attack roll as an example of 'eliminating the impossible.' What you have done is an example of making assumptions, declaring anything else impossible by dint of them not matching your assumptions, and then saying that proves your assumptions to be true.

The former is deductive reasoning, the latter is circular reasoning.

 

[CovertOps]

I'm going to hold off responding until I get home DS. I want to review the attack resolution order from p 269-276 and can't without my books. I know this weighed heavily in that huge debate about the double's rule for that Avenger's PP (critical) feature.

Your basic assertion is that in order to apply sneak attack damage you must have combat advantage by the time you roll to hit.

My assertion is that you don't check the SA requirements until you're trying to add it to your damage.

As a note, SA does not have any such requirement that you must have CA when you roll to hit. That is simply your interpretation. It's requirements are:

1) Once per round,
2) when you have combat advantage against an enemy
3) and hit that enemy with an attack
4) that uses a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling,
the attack deals extra damage. If you have dealt Sneak Attack damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn.
5) You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll.
6) As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

#5 really reads to me that you get to determine when you're rolling damage if you are eligible to apply the extra damage or not. You could be rolling damage for an attack that missed and would therefore not be eligible. In this case you hit, and you have CA (granted after you rolled to hit, but before you apply the hit, but nonetheless).

Just so I'm clear. I don't see anything specific about WHEN you determine you're eligible to apply sneak attack damage in the specific sneak attack rules. If you disagree with this assessment then I don't need to review the general rules at all as that is the part we disagree on. IMO (without my books) you determine eligibility for sneak damage when you apply other modifiers to damage (p276 or 277) such as feats, class features, items, etc. or as I said in the previous paragraph "after the damage roll" as stipulated by the SA rules.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm going to hold off responding until I get home DS. I want to review the attack resolution order from p 269-276 and can't without my books. I know this weighed heavily in that huge debate about the double's rule for that Avenger's PP (critical) feature.

I remember that being a very long and stupid argument that somehow insisted that the rules did not apply.

Your basic assertion is that in order to apply sneak attack damage you must have combat advantage by the time you roll to hit.

My assertion is that you don't check the SA requirements until you're trying to add it to your damage.

My basic assertion is that if an ability says 'When you attack an enemy you have combat advantage against, and you hit' that it checks when you attack an enemy. As well...

As a note, SA does not have any such requirement that you must have CA when you roll to hit. That is simply your interpretation. It's requirements are:

2) is actually 'when you attack an enemy with combat advantage'. You did not have combat advantage when you attacked the enemy. Ergo, you've failed 2.
3) involves hitting that enemy. You did not hit that enemy when it had combat advantage.

Number five doesn't allow you to go back in time and change 2 and 3. If you failed 2 and 3, it doesn't matter if 5 happens immediately, after damage, after the next turn, or on your next adventure. 2 and 3 did not occur. Sneak attack damage does not happen. You've failed the requirements.

If you had the ability to switch weapons as a free action... does that mean you can use a longsword to attack, and a dagger to check for sneak attack viability? No.

#5 really reads to me that you get to determine when you're rolling damage if you are eligible to apply the extra damage or not. You could be rolling damage for an attack that missed and would therefore not be eligible. In this case you hit, and you have CA (granted after you rolled to hit, but before you apply the hit, but nonetheless).

[/quote]

It does not say that, nor is it a test for eligability. Stuff that happens between 1,2, and 3 do not have the ability to change those steps for when the ability is activated. If you fail those steps, you never get the ability to turn on sneak attack no matter how many free actions or riders you use to make sneak attack happen.

This is why abilities that allow you to use sneak attack without combat advantage actually tell you to do so.

Just so I'm clear. I don't see anything specific about WHEN you determine you're eligible to apply sneak attack damage in the specific sneak attack rules.

You apply the damage after the damage roll. It requires eligibility requirements based on the attack roll, what weapon you used with the power, and if you hit, all of which occur before the damage roll. The two are not the same thing.

If I tell you 'If you've done your homework, put away your dishes, AND your room is clean at five o'clock today, you'll get 40 extra dollars with your allowance tomorrow' and your room is not clean at that time, then you're not getting that 40 dollars even if your room is clean at allowance time.

If you disagree with this assessment then I don't need to review the general rules at all as that is the part we disagree on. IMO (without my books) you determine eligibility for sneak damage when you apply other modifiers to damage (p276 or 277) such as feats, class features, items, etc. or as I said in the previous paragraph "after the damage roll" as stipulated by the SA rules.

Of course you get to apply the damage after the roll. But that is not what is in question. It's the terms of eligibility to determine if you are allowed to apply that damage. It checks for: The right weapon, did you attack an enemy with combat advantage, and did you hit that enemy.

If I attack you without combat advantage, then even if I knock you prone during that attack, I did not actually attack you with combat advantage. Thusly, the opportunity to apply sneak attack damage never occurs, no matter when it says you can do so.

 

[CovertOps]

@DS: I missed your copy/paste of the errata and when I quoted the compendium you didn't say anything about it being wrong/out of date. Blah. You've got the right RAW, but I'm still lead to believe that RAI was as I described, but for that they'd have to errata the power to take into account the sneak changes.