Stacking To Hit/Damage bonuses on Action Point

[keterys]

Depends on how you think about it.

If you AP to use Cruel Reaper, a power that does a close attack, then a secondary close attack, the benefit only applies to the first attack. Just like a melee attack that does one attack, then a second attack.

It's the same rule that gets debated often about how marked interacts with melee and ranged attacks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

41. I’m playing a Warlord with the Tactical Presence class feature. One of my allies spends an action point and uses an attack power that grants multiple attacks, like Twin Strike. Does he get the bonus on one of the attacks or both?

Tactical Presence just grants a bonus to the next attack your ally would make. He would only get the bonus on the first attack of the Twin Strike.​

So, note that the FAQ entry applies only to Tactical Presence, not necessarily to other warlord features etc. So some of them are still ambiguous, but it does answer the OP's specific question.


​

 

[Tony Vargas]

Once again, the ambiguity of 'attack' rears it's ugly head. I wish WotC would get a clue and fix all ambiguous references to 'attack,' changing them, explicity to 'attack power' or 'attack roll.'

For instance, in the Wording of Tactical Pressence, the use of the singular strongly implies that it should be 'attack power,' because you can spend an action point to make multiple attack rolls, but only to use one attack power.

I guess it's still ambiguous how AEs work. AEs make multiple attack rolls, not multiple attacks (for instance, they all use the same damage roll), and the FAQ ruling still unhelpfully uses the ambiguous 'attack' (though, I guess it has to, since it's not supposed to issue errata, just clarify).

Anyway, as a DM I wouldn't use it (wouldn't be the first house rule I'd prefer), and, as a player, it makes the tactical presence much less desireable - unless the party just happens to lack any serious multi-attack capability (in which case, maybe they need me to play a Wizard or Devoted Cleric more than a Warlord, anyway).


Paranoid Conspiracy Theory: This is clearly a recent FAQ entry on a relatively old rule (it's after the new Magic Missle entry). It could be part of the push to make 4e Essentials-compatible. The new basic-attack-spamming/enhancing martial classes potentially make the Warlord, particularly the tactical warlord, a bit more powerful, this could be way of compensating for that boost without nerfing or further complicating basic attacks, themselves. It also makes the Warlord work better with other martial classes than with casters, emphasizing the difference between martial and the other sources.

 

[keterys]

Outside of a Ranger, it really doesn't make a big difference.

 

[Goonalan]

I asked the question because one of my players, the Wizard does this thing-

Staff of Acid and Flame- all damage Fire

Gets in close to the bad guys (Trolls mostly) and Fire Shroud and Action Point- Repelling Sphere (with Fire damage) and at +9 To Hit (+2 Tactical Presence & +3 Action Surge & +4 Battle Mage) +5 Damage (Tactical can't think of the word- the one that does damage).

So, to get this clear, after the Action Point the Warlord's +2/+5 bonus only applies to his first attack roll, all the other bonuses are for all attack rolls- effectively he's +9/+5 first roll and plain +7 To Hit for all the others.

Thanks for taking the time- much appreciated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe. Area and Close attacks involve multiple attack rolls, but those rolls don't happen in a particular order, and all the targets take the same damage. The wizard can't attack one target of his fireball, and see what happens to it before deciding to attack another. Everyone in the area just gets fried.

The Ranger's Twin Strike, which the FAQ covers, has two attack rolls, with two different weapons doing two different amounts of damage, either to two targets or to the same target. The ranger, AFAIK, can attack one enemy with his primary weapon, see if that kills it, then either hit it again, or hit a different enemy with the remaining attack. (or maybe there's a FAQ or CS answer on that I'm unfamiliar with, too...)

So there's room to allow the Wizard/Warlord combo. I think that kind of teamwork is cool and I'd allow it as a DM.

 

[MrBeens]

I asked the question because one of my players, the Wizard does this thing-

Staff of Acid and Flame- all damage Fire

Gets in close to the bad guys (Trolls mostly) and Fire Shroud and Action Point- Repelling Sphere (with Fire damage) and at +9 To Hit (+2 Tactical Presence & +3 Action Surge & +4 Battle Mage) +5 Damage (Tactical can't think of the word- the one that does damage).

So, to get this clear, after the Action Point the Warlord's +2/+5 bonus only applies to his first attack roll, all the other bonuses are for all attack rolls- effectively he's +9/+5 first roll and plain +7 To Hit for all the others.

Thanks for taking the time- much appreciated.

That right.
And as I said if he used his action point at the start of the round he would get his +4 battle mage bonus on both fire shroud and sphere.

 

[Goonalan]

That right.
And as I said if he used his action point at the start of the round he would get his +4 battle mage bonus on both fire shroud and sphere.

Damn, I hope the Wizard never reads this, as it is the PCs are having a ball in P1 Trollhaunt, they fought Skalmad for the first time two sessions past and killed him and all his friends (2 Warren Trolls & 2 Nothics) in 2 Turns, however it was Action Point and Daily Frenzy with Crits- it was just horrible to watch from my side of the screen.

Cheers

 

[keterys]

So, to get this clear, after the Action Point the Warlord's +2/+5 bonus only applies to his first attack roll, all the other bonuses are for all attack rolls- effectively he's +9/+5 first roll and plain +7 To Hit for all the others.

In the example given, both Action Surge (+3 attack) and the Warlord's Tactical bonuses (+2 attack, +5 damage) would apply to all of the attack rolls for a close or area attack that he uses as an action point.

The paragon path bonus (+4) would apply to all attack rolls made in the round, so if he's okay spending the AP earlier, he'd get that bonus all round. Note that you can spend the AP then hold onto the standard action for a little bit, so the only reason not to do it is if he thinks a monster will react to his first attack in a way that screws up his second (like with an on bloodied stun attack or something)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the example given, both Action Surge (+3 attack) and the Warlord's Tactical bonuses (+2 attack, +5 damage) would apply to all of the attack rolls for a close or area attack that he uses as an action point.

The paragon path bonus (+4) would apply to all attack rolls made in the round, so if he's okay spending the AP earlier, he'd get that bonus all round. Note that you can spend the AP then hold onto the standard action for a little bit, so the only reason not to do it is if he thinks a monster will react to his first attack in a way that screws up his second (like with an on bloodied stun attack or something)

Yup, this is exactly right.

Read PHB page 270-271 which explain the different types of attacks. A melee attack or ranged attack can NEVER target more than one opponent, a close or area attack can target any number of opponents. So anything that applies to "the next attack" or somesuch when used with close/area WILL apply to all the attack rolls and there is NO ambiguity whatsoever in the rules on that point.

The only ambiguity that can arise is with multi-attack melee powers if you decide to interpret 'attack' to mean 'attack power' instead of just taking it at face value. This seems to have been an issue for people writing official material, so you will find some stuff like Tactical Presence where it seems like they could have meant either one. If you are going to go by the rules sensu stricto then attack means 'attack' not 'attack power' and notice that the FAQ entry is based on exactly this. You'll always be on safe ground by RAW doing that, though there are certain powers which may not work as they seem to be intended (and at least one feat).