4ed- Opinion on a house rule

[incubus5075]

I'm thinking about letting multiple effects that cause combat advantage stack. For example if you are blind you grant CA and opponents get a +2 to hit. If you are blinded and flanked you are really easy to hit so oppponents get a +4. So forth and so on. I don't see this happening often but it makes sense in my head. If you are blind and surrounded by foes you should be an easy target. Is this broken or a bad idea?

[Saintjebus]

I think that it will start to overpower rogues to a certain degree, however once status effects like that are applied, it would reach a point of diminishing returns. Blinded already gives CA, and the numbers being the way they are in 4e, that's very significant. An extra +2? yes, you hit more often, but the difference is less than the first +2.

[Guinea Anubis]

I could see that getting out of had really fast. But as long as it works both ways I guess it would be fine.

[Longcat]

Put a hard cap on it, e.g. +2 per tier. Otherwise, things will get out of hand really quick.

[Dekkah]

I think stacking these might make status effect a little too strong. Remember that other effects granting Combat advantage usually have other bonus/penalities built in : Prone give -2 to hit, dazed limit actions, blindness give -5 to hit (total concelment)....

[incubus5075]

It would work both ways, and our party doesn't have a rogue so that is cut out. Only reason I was thinking this was 1) In RP wise it makes sense and 2) i feel that most of the time status effects don't last long anyways. Everyone pretty much has better than a 50% save chance each round so status effects don't last long anyways. I do like the +2 per teir cap idea though.

[valadil]

Are your players having trouble hitting things? 4e already has a lot of bonuses to stack, especially if you have a competent leader. I think that if you let the PCs stack more bonuses (especially one as easily obtained as CA), your combats will get too easy. But if you later take away the bonus you'll look like a jerk.

CA per tier as Longcat suggests sounds decent. I haven't played high tier though, so I don't know how good PCs are at hitting things at that point.

My suggestion is a little less generous. 1st CA grants +2. 2nd is +1. Beyond that you're just showing off. Seriously, if you're in the position to pile 4 combat advantages on one guy you have the situation well under control and don't need more mechanical bonuses.

[tcrudisi]

I'm thinking about letting multiple effects that cause combat advantage stack. For example if you are blind you grant CA and opponents get a +2 to hit. If you are blinded and flanked you are really easy to hit so oppponents get a +4. So forth and so on. I don't see this happening often but it makes sense in my head. If you are blind and surrounded by foes you should be an easy target. Is this broken or a bad idea?

I do not think it makes sense. If you are blind, you are already unable to fully protect yourself (hence the +2 to enemies attacks). If you are also flanked, it's not as though you are unable to protect yourself even more. You are still able to bob and weave, hoping to make yourself a harder target, so I don't see the two combining very well.

Think of it this way: who is easier to hit? Someone who is unconscious, and thus unable to protect themselves (+5 to hit them, though it's usually +7 when combined with prone), or someone who is dazed, blind, flanked, and lit up with the druid power faerie fire (+8 to hit them, using these rules)? Well, in my opinion, definitely the person who is unconscious. The person who is dazed, blind, flanked, and lit up with faerie fire can't see the attacks coming, but that doesn't mean he just gives up. He'll still be bobbing and weaving like a boxer, hoping to avoid the blows. How much extra do the other status effects really help? To me, allowing multiple C.A.'s to stack just doesn't make sense. You either have C.A. against a foe or you don't.

My suggestion is a little less generous. 1st CA grants +2. 2nd is +1. Beyond that you're just showing off. Seriously, if you're in the position to pile 4 combat advantages on one guy you have the situation well under control and don't need more mechanical bonuses.

This is a house-rule that I could support.

[incubus5075]

HMM i like the suggestion of just a +1. To me it makes sense that someone who is blind and dazed should be easier to hit than just one or the other. Just my opinion. But thanks everyone for the critics. I haven't implemented it so maybe I won't.

[jseah]

That's actually an excellent idea. I'll snitch that for my 4E houserules if I ever run one.

That said, I prefer the players to focus on strategic play and making ambushes count. This will go a long way to making surprise more lethal.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

You should be careful with anything that grants attack boni, because it may be overpowered. If you want to stak CA, I would grant any further CA a +1.

[Sir Homeslice]

My suggestion is a little less generous. 1st CA grants +2. 2nd is +1. Beyond that you're just showing off. Seriously, if you're in the position to pile 4 combat advantages on one guy you have the situation well under control and don't need more mechanical bonuses.

OP, go with this. It works.

[Jack_Banzai]

Since we're just weighing in with our opinions, it seems unnecessary. And it will cause players to come to grief in the Paragon tier, where a ton of monsters use darkness and other similar powers to inflict multiple status effects on PCs. And monsters hit 60% of the time anyway.

[Swordgleam]

I think the point of CA was to have one thing where you go, "that guy is easier to hit" and avoid all the fiddly +1 to hit -1 to dodge that various conditions impose. So from a purely book-keeping standpoint, I'm against it - it will make stuff harder to track during combat.