The dominated condition and sneak attack

[Abraxas]

I mostly agree with Draco (unless I misunderstood his position in which case I may completely agree).

The text for Sneak Attack in Heroes of the Fallen Lands (pg 174) says (emphasis mine):
Benefit: When you make an attack with a light blade, a hand crossbow, a shortbow, or a sling and hit an enemy granting combat advantage to you, that enemy takes extra damage...

From that text, your ally will never be hit by your Sneak Attack even if you are dominated. I'm not aware of any updates to that wording. If it is different from what is in CB, I don't know which source takes precedence.

That's what I was looking for - it is the same in the CB (I should have just looked there instead of my PHB)

Thanks

 

[DracoSuave]

Draco, I'm not sure what the wall of text is meant for, I think we've hashed out the mechanics pretty well already.

Incorrect. You don't acknowledge the definition of enemy as per the rules, and that means you're not understanding what 'Target:' means. This is vital to understanding how dominated works.

In the Rules Compendium, and all the Essentials books, there is a definitive definition of 'enemy', 'ally', and what targetting them allows and does not allow in the section 'Choosing Targets.' This section is repeated in HotFL and HotFK, so use whatever's handy. Enemy and Ally are defined game terms, and they are defined required understanding in order to grok how targetting powers works.

'target' and 'enemy' are not interchangeable, and in the course of a power might refer to different things. 'Target' refers to the stated target of the power, as usually decided by the resolution of a 'Target:' line. 'Enemy' refers to a character's foes in that encounter, which may or may not be the target as determined by context.

An example of this might be a power that goes:

Target: One enemy
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Strength modifier damage, and the target is knocked prone.
Effect: The target is pushed 3 squares, and enemies adjacent to the target are knocked prone.

If you were dominated, you could not be forced to use this power against your companions because they do not stop being your allies just because you are dominated. (Definition of dominated)

 

[Abstruse]

I took the liberty of emailing WotC Customer Service with this question to get a final answer:

1.) A monster has the party's Rogue Dominated. He uses an attack against a player which is granting combat advantage to the Rogue. Does that attack add damage from Sneak Attack?
A.) It depends on how it gets combat advantage against the Ally. While you are dominated your allies are still your allies so the power used to grant combat advantage can't state it only works again enemies. Furthermore, Flanking does not work against Allies. If you do gain combat advantage you would add sneak attack.

I have sent them a follow-up question about what that ruling means for powers that only affect allies or enemies, such as the Mage power Beguiling Strands. So we'll see how that plays out tomorrow or Friday. The main reason why I think it needs a follow-up is because while it's the letter of the law that the power wouldn't work against the party, but it's against the spirit of the law in that the Dominating monster is in the character's head controlling his/her actions.

 

[DracoSuave]

Do bear in mind, in this case, CS has forgotten SA explicitly hits enemies.

Moreover, they've actually answered your Beguiling Strands question:

'While you are dominated your allies are still your allies so the power used to grant combat advantage can't state it only works again enemies'

Beguiling Strands is a power that only works against enemies.


And saying it's against 'the spirit of the law' when they actually put out an errata stating 'No, there is no switch in enemy/ally status' to cover this EXACT question which came up time and time again is... kinda disingenuous. They took the time to figure out the 'spirit of the law' and they've put their foot down in print. The Rules as Intended are VERY clear: They intend for status to not change. Otherwise, they'd have errata'd that status DOES change. Moreover, the enemy is not in your head controlling your actions. He is controlling one single action, and everything outside the perview that action that you're still able to do is still 100% under your control.

Dominated does not mean the same thing in 4e as in 3e.

 

[moxcamel]

I stand corrected, I didn't realize they'd defined "enemy" in Essentials.

RC pg 106:

Enemy means an opponent of the power's user.

So let's go with that definition. Note the use of the word "power" in the definition. The enemy is the opponent of the power's user.

Power has a very specific definition in this game too, so if you're going to go with the letter of the law for enemy, then you need to go with the letter of the law for power. A Power is not a Feature (pg 77, HotFL).

Following your logic that my ally cannot be an "enemy," it means I can't force a Dominated PC to use *any* power against one of his allies. Because if I did, that ally would be "an opponent of the power's user," which would make him my enemy.

In fact, given the strictest reading of this definition, the whole system breaks down. Sneak Attack--a class feature, not a power--depends on hitting an "enemy." But an enemy is the "opponent of your power." So by a completely literal reading, either Sneak Attack is broken, or "enemy" is broken, because both cannot coexist.

And this is why I keep trying to make the point that you need to look at the spirit of the rule, and not to just parse it uncritically. Blame Wizards if you want, but as you can see this is not as clear cut as you insist.

You're insisting that for the sneak attack to work, there would have to be some huge underlying shift on the nature of your party member's attitude towards you, that they would somehow have to become an enemy in the broadest use of the term. I don't see that this has to be necessarily the case, and furthermore I think I've shown that the rules don't support such a strict interpretation. Your ally can be your "enemy" within the confines of the sneak attack being performed. In fact, that fits perfectly within the underlying "specific beats general" design philosophy of 4e.

 

[Aulirophile]

That would imply that the person using the power is the dominator, which would be wrong. If a Warlord grants an MBA to an ally, who is doing the MBA? If your answer was "the ally" then you are correct. So your premise is incorrect, your argument is wrong.

That definition only applies to enemies. You can easily, for instance, target an ally with a power that says "Creature." Why? Because everyone is a Creature. The Creature entry says so (same page).

Need to be careful not to go applying rules that don't apply when making rules arguments.

 

[DracoSuave]

I stand corrected, I didn't realize they'd defined "enemy" in Essentials.

RC pg 106:


So let's go with that definition. Note the use of the word "power" in the definition. The enemy is the opponent of the power's user.

Power has a very specific definition in this game too, so if you're going to go with the letter of the law for enemy, then you need to go with the letter of the law for power. A Power is not a Feature (pg 77, HotFL).

Following your logic that my ally cannot be an "enemy," it means I can't force a Dominated PC to use *any* power against one of his allies. Because if I did, that ally would be "an opponent of the power's user," which would make him my enemy.

Wrong.

Powers that say 'target creature' can explicitly be used against any creature, regardless of their ally/enemy status. On top of that, unlike powers that explicitly target allies, they cannot be ignored by the target.

The section I pointed you too also says that. You should go back and read it.

In fact, given the strictest reading of this definition, the whole system breaks down. Sneak Attack--a class feature, not a power--depends on hitting an "enemy." But an enemy is the "opponent of your power." So by a completely literal reading, either Sneak Attack is broken, or "enemy" is broken, because both cannot coexist.

Sneak Attack is used in conjunction with a power. So a power still applies. Regardless, that point is relevant. The definition of enemy is not 'An opponent of your power.' God, are you even reading the same thing I am?

It is... verbatim:

"Enemy" refers to a foe of your character, and "Ally" refers to your character's companions in an encounter.

This is from the section 'Creatures, Enemies, and Allies' in the 'Choosing Targets' section of RC, and the player's creation books in essentials.

And this is why I keep trying to make the point that you need to look at the spirit of the rule, and not to just parse it uncritically. Blame Wizards if you want, but as you can see this is not as clear cut as you insist.

And when after the question was raised, time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, Wizards responded by adding text to the rules to state, explicitly, that status does not switch, yes, I think it IS the spirit of the rules that status does not switch, because they've not only suggested the spirit is that status does not switch, they've put it in writing.

The question here is not some new question that recently came up, where the intension of design and development has yet to be commented on. The question was asked, and there in the updates to the PHB lies a direct and explicit answer. The intent of the designers is clear.

You're insisting that for the sneak attack to work, there would have to be some huge underlying shift on the nature of your party member's attitude towards you, that they would somehow have to become an enemy in the broadest use of the term. I don't see that this has to be necessarily the case, and furthermore I think I've shown that the rules don't support such a strict interpretation. Your ally can be your "enemy" within the confines of the sneak attack being performed. In fact, that fits perfectly within the underlying "specific beats general" design philosophy of 4e.

Except, the dominated condition TELLS YOU THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. What SPECIFIC? What game rule tells you that the dominated condition does not apply its own rules?

Warning: Reductio Ad Absurdum approaching.

When you play the Specific beats General card, you require two things: You require a specific rule, and you require a contradiction.

So, let's see if we can apply SvG to this situation... the rule being excepted, as you claim, is the dominated condition, as that is the rule you say does not apply.

The specific rule, in this case, what, exactly?

Your argument here is that being dominated allows the switch of ally/enemy status, and thusly is 'an exception to the rules.' Thusly, dominated is the specific rule.

So:

General Rule: Dominated. It states that ally and enemy status does not switch as a result of dominated.

Specific Rule: Dominated. It states... that...ally...and...enemy...status...does...not...switch...as...a...result...of...dominated....

Not only do you lack a contradiction here, you in fact have a tautology! Dominated doesn't act as an exception to the rule on how dominated works! You can't enter the argument that 'Because he's dominated, it therefore is an exception to the rules on how dominated works!'

This is a time to use Draco's Corrolary to SvG. When you have a general rule, and there is no specific exception to that general rule, you apply the damn general rule.

 

[moxcamel]

Ok, I'm tired of chasing moving goal posts. I think I've made my point enough for anyone to make an informed decision.

I'm confident that there's enough ambiguity in the RAW as to make either decision a valid and justified decision. Furthermore, from Abstruse's post we can see that WotC agrees with being able to make the Sneak Attack, although admittedly the Combat Advantage requirements will make it difficult. You can dismiss their answer so lightly if you want, but for me, I'll go with the official source.

[MENTION=86312]Aulirophile[/MENTION], I never said the Dominator was the one exercising the Sneak Attack. In fact, I've been very careful to avoid saying that.

 

[Aulirophile]

Ok, I'm tired of chasing moving goal posts. I think I've made my point enough for anyone to make an informed decision.

I'm confident that there's enough ambiguity in the RAW as to make either decision a valid and justified decision. Furthermore, from Abstruse's post we can see that WotC agrees with being able to make the Sneak Attack, although admittedly the Combat Advantage requirements will make it difficult. You can dismiss their answer so lightly if you want, but for me, I'll go with the official source.

@Aulirophile, I never said the Dominator was the one exercising the Sneak Attack. In fact, I've been very careful to avoid saying that.

I've had CS tell me Fighters can't mark with attacks against non-adjacent enemies. CS is not a reliable rules source. Period.

With that out of the way, if the Dominator isn't the one executing then.. uh, it doesn't work because Dominate says your allies/enemies don't change. Doesn't work. Done. Gee that was hard.

Didn't realize "Informed" meant "wrong."

 

[DracoSuave]

It's not a matter of moving goal posts at all. The goal posts have have never changed:

Ally is a defined rules term.
Enemy is a defined rules term.
Creature is a defined rules term.
How powers interact with regards to targetting allies, enemies, and creatures are defined rules.
Dominated is a defined rules term.
Dominated not switching ally nor enemy, nor how they interract with targetting is an explicitly defined rule.

All of these rules are explicitly defined. The onus is therefore on you to find a rule which counteracts that, something you have yet to do. You have not fulfilled the burden of proof necessary to even suggest the rules intend for ally and enemy to switch!

You're trying to make a case that is diametrically opposed to the explicit text of a game rule... that's going to be an uphill battle, and complaining that 'we're moving the goal posts' is wrong... we're playing fair, it's your position that's problematic.