Rogue Power Interpretation Help

[DracoSuave]

@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I missed your copy/paste of the errata and when I quoted the compendium you didn't say anything about it being wrong/out of date.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.

Even then, it still checks when the attack hits.

The old reading still requires that you be attacking a creature with combat advantage.

'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 if the attack hits.'

If you make your attack roll, then knock the creature prone, then deal damage, you have not attacked that creature when you have combat advantage. You attacked it before the combat advantage occured, and therefore, you cannot with any honesty say that you've satisfied the requirement for this power.

 

[CovertOps]

Now I'm curious how you looked up the quote you have. I see the errata has the changed text, but the only place in the compendium I could find it was under the Rogue class description which reads as I quoted it. So basically Source?

And your "old version" still doesn't match what I quoted.

 

[DracoSuave]

Now I'm curious how you looked up the quote you have. I see the errata has the changed text, but the only place in the compendium I could find it was under the Rogue class description which reads as I quoted it. So basically Source?

And your "old version" still doesn't match what I quoted.

Player's Handbook.

Also:

2) when you have combat advantage against an enemy
3) and hit that enemy with an attack

With the version you posted, again, it checks when you hit. If you did not hit the enemy (which happens at the attack roll) during the time it had combat advantage, then at stage 5 the damage application is illegal. It requires stuff that you did not do.

Looking at the power... I'll use some color. Grey for when Combat Advantage is off, Green for when combat advantage is on.

First, attack the enemy. Roll the attack roll. You hit or miss.
Then, knock him prone
Third, roll and deal damage.

When you had combat advantage, you did not at any point hit the creature. Therefore, you did not satisfy 3, and when you check for that at 5, it sees 'Nope, at no point did a hit occur when you had combat advantage.'

 

[CovertOps]

Player's Handbook.

Also:

2) when you have combat advantage against an enemy
3) and hit that enemy with an attack

With the version you posted, again, it checks when you hit. If you did not hit the enemy (which happens at the attack roll) during the time it had combat advantage, then at stage 5 the damage application is illegal. It requires stuff that you did not do.

Looking at the power... I'll use some color. Grey for when Combat Advantage is off, Green for when combat advantage is on.

First, attack the enemy. Roll the attack roll. You hit or miss.
Then, knock him prone
Third, roll and deal damage.

When you had combat advantage, you did not at any point hit the creature. Therefore, you did not satisfy 3, and when you check for that at 5, it sees 'Nope, at no point did a hit occur when you had combat advantage.'

It's largely a moot point, but you're wrong about this reading. It does not require you to have combat advantage when you hit. The "and" clearly makes the requirements separate and individual. Neither requirement has anything to do with the other. Did you hit? Do you have CA? I'd almost bet this is the reason for the errata.

The errata'd version on the other hand is quite clear:

"...and hit an enemy granting combat advantage to you..."

Under the new wording I'm not clear if the order even makes any difference whatsoever. At least I can't think of any cases where it does.
Attack: blah vs blah
Effect: knock prone
Hit: damage

Attack: blah vs blah
Hit: damage
Effect: knock prone

 

[DracoSuave]

It's largely a moot point, but you're wrong about this reading. It does not require you to have combat advantage when you hit.

The word 'when' is what ties them together.

'When you hit someone with a hammer and they die, you've commited murder, and should be sent to jail.' is a statement of concurrence. It takes the clauses 'you hit someone with a hammer' and 'they die' and uses the additive conjunction to combine them. Then you have the adverb 'when' that applies to both.

When X and Y, Z does not mean 'When X, and if you have Y later, do Z.'

The "and" clearly makes the requirements separate and individual. Neither requirement has anything to do with the other. Did you hit? Do you have CA? I'd almost bet this is the reason for the errata.

The word 'when' makes them operate concurrently.

'When you have combat advantage against an enemy and hit that enemy' is pretty straight forward. It is not at all the same as 'When you hit an enemy, if you have combat advantage when you deal damage.' The word and makes both clauses function for the same modifier "when".

The errata'd version on the other hand is quite clear:

"...and hit an enemy granting combat advantage to you..."

Under the new wording I'm not clear if the order even makes any difference whatsoever. At least I can't think of any cases where it does.
Attack: blah vs blah
Effect: knock prone
Hit: damage

Attack: blah vs blah
Hit: damage
Effect: knock prone

It's not a big deal, but it might matter. Draconic Arrogance might deal damage to the opponent, causing 'Deal x additional damage to bloodied opponents' type effects to kick in.

 

[Henry]

There's another data point to look at: It's a Rogue level 3 Encounter power. Having a power that would basically always automatically include combat advantage in it as a level 3 would result in a power vastly overpowered for other Rogue encounter powers in the heroic tier. You're talking about a power that does at a minimum 4 to 5 dice of damage in heroic tier, and knocks them prone. If it only did two dice and knocked prone, this would compare favorably to a power of similar level that did 3 dice and only a minor or no additional effect. Regardless of intended, it's pretty obvious that compared to other Rogue low level Encounter powers, it's not meant to simultaneously take advantage of sneak attack. Set them up for sneak attack, yes; but be an auto 5d6 and set them up for more once every encounter, no.

 

[CovertOps]

There's another data point to look at: It's a Rogue level 3 Encounter power. Having a power that would basically always automatically include combat advantage in it as a level 3 would result in a power vastly overpowered for other Rogue encounter powers in the heroic tier. You're talking about a power that does at a minimum 4 to 5 dice of damage in heroic tier, and knocks them prone. If it only did two dice and knocked prone, this would compare favorably to a power of similar level that did 3 dice and only a minor or no additional effect. Regardless of intended, it's pretty obvious that compared to other Rogue low level Encounter powers, it's not meant to simultaneously take advantage of sneak attack. Set them up for sneak attack, yes; but be an auto 5d6 and set them up for more once every encounter, no.

I pretty much think it's expected for Rogues to have CA for every attack. They are after all strikers and sneak attack is how they get their bonus damage (usually with weapons with a much smaller [W]).

@DS: I'm not going to convince you and my position isn't changing. Also no matter which of us is correct it doesn't matter because the rule doesn't read that way any longer so I'm just going to agree to disagree.