Armor Specialization (Plate)

[KarinsDad]

I find it odd that you're arguing that a monster doesn't know he's been crit, but that he does know the consequences for being marked, given how much information he has about each event.

A critical is a game mechanic.

A monster is an NPC that does not perceive game mechanics.

PCs do not perceive game mechanics either. Players do. PCs don't.

PCs and NPCs do not know about ability score modifiers, feats, criticals, auto failures on a one, etc. These are game mechanics that allow real life humans to understand how to play the game.

The monster knows that it has been hit hard and well. It does not know that it is a critical.

In a monster's perception, a mark is some form of combat intimidation or pressing of the foe. It doesn't understand the game mechanic term mark. It understands that it has a tougher time hitting anyone else other than the creature that marked it.

 

[Goumindong]

You have to explain it once so that it makes sense if you want to be taken seriously.

You keep claiming that it is not an aspect of the mark, but you don't quote a rule that says that it is not an aspect of the mark for the Fighter, but is an aspect of the mark for the Paladin.

That is because the text of the ability that the paladin uses expressly lays out the penalties for disobeying. But the text of the ability that the fighter uses does not.

lets be really clear here

Paladin: Special mark that does damage if you don't attack the paladin

Fighter: Gets an immediate interrupt ability that lets him hit anyone who shifts or does not attack him if that person is marked by him.

So lets lay it out again

Paladin: Special Mark
Fighter: Regular Mark

What difference is there between a Fighter Combat Challenge and a Paladin Divine Challenge with regard to this rule?

one is an effect of the mark and one is another ability that is triggered by enemies who happen to be marked.

I suppose if i was going to be as semantic about this as you were. Despite the fact that wizards has made it abundantly clear with their information in the compendium. I would say that "in addition" is modifying the fighter ability. I.E. Combat Challenge grants 2 things. 1 it grants the mark ability and 2 it grants the extra attack ability.

Whereas with the Paladin, the "also" is modifying the power, or the ability. Such that this is one ability that does two things, not one entry that grants two abilities.

Funny. I can say the EXACT same thing about the Paladin's mark. The damage is a function of an immediate interrupt that triggers when a marked target does something specific.

Except that its not, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

Fighters combat challenge works on any enemy that has been marked by any reason. Its two separate abilities.

No? Where is the rule for this? It doesn't know this for the Paladin Divine Challenge either?

Fighter: Normal mark
Paladin: special mark

The rules disagree with your "it doesn't know what you're going to do to it" idea.

The rules explicitly state that the monster knows exactly what is going to happen if it takes a specific set of actions.

So you're saying that the monster knows whether or not i will attack it and what attack i am going to use against it if it moves adjacent to me? Really?

I also have "come and get it", does that mean the monster is going to know that i will use it on him if he is within 3 squares of me?[does he know that when I don't know it?]


The rules state that the monsters know the effects of abilites imposed upon it. It does not state that the monster knows your power set that you have just because they could possibly trigger one of those powers or abilities.

 

[Goumindong]

Now, I'll do something wierd, but I think it's sound in terms of working out a metric. I'm going to subtract the healing surge percentage he takes in damage from the healing surge percentage that he deals to the wizard. We end up with 20.9%, which is greater than the metric for attacking you (18.2%).

Unfortunately you're not taking into account a few things

1. The relative DPR of the fighter vs the Wizard.
2. The drop in DPR caused by the CC'd person dropping faster than they would have otherwise
3. The fact that the wizard has defensive powers of his own
4. The fact that when healing comes, its, at this level, at around +2d6/surge. And that this evens out the hit point discrepancies between me and the abysmally low AC wizard[Whose hit points you've incorrectly calculated by the way] in terms of how long it takes you to knock him down.
5. It assumes that the wizard is going to stick around and be in range of this enemy each and every time that he attacks. Because if he is not in range of the enemy each and every time that he attacks, then the enemy will not be dropping the wizard and taking his DPR out of the fight which makes the damage/healing surge figure meaningless.

So, in order for it to make sense to not attack the fighter, assuming we are maxing our AC on a defender, we need to have a minimum AC, minimum constitution, minimum defensive power character with an underleveled item, who is going to stick it out in melee until he drops to make the other attack on...

It really just doesn't happen that often, and with good reason.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

In addition, as MadLordOfMilk points out in this thread, each additional point of AC is worth more than the last. Given that plate is already the best armor there is in terms of base AC, an AC bonus on top of plate is worth more than an AC bonus on top of scale.

Woo, the thread saw some use Anyway, it's also worth noting that anything that decreases their hit rolls against you will also be more effective in increasing your survivability (AKA expected length of time you'll live)! So, cover means even more with that extra +1 armor, marks by others are more effective, etc. As to how much more it matters... well, that depends entirely on how likely they are to hit you.

Of course, +1 speed is always nice. And, assuming a typical 5spd in heavy armor, it can seem like a godsend in a number of scenarios. At the same time, though, +AC applies in most rounds in virtually every single combat...

 

[DracoSuave]

I tend to give monsters a bit more credit. I figure if a character with 13 wisdom/intellegence can make a knowledge check to figure out the monster has an attack that marks, then a monster with 15 wisdom/intellegence/training in the appropriate skill can make the same attempt to know things as players do. I have a tendancy to play monsters that are smarter/more perceptive than certain players as though they happened to have access to more information.

In otherwords, if the Monster's got Arcana, I let the thing use it. It's not like character classes are rare things that never pop up in the world. Barring an unusual campaign, the eladrin wizard isn't the only wizard that's ever been, so some knowledge on how they work -can- potentially be available. To a Gelatinous Cube? No. Of course not. To a Human Mage? Absolutely the -potential- is there.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The monster knows that it has been hit hard and well.

How? By your logic, the monster only knows whether he's bloodied or not (because that's a condition), not how many hitpoints he has left.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Once again, you've got the hit point math wrong. A level 8 wizard has a base of 38 + Con HP, meaning that with a typical Constitution of 12 he's going to have 50 HP, not 42 as you've indicated. There's no way he'll have below 46 HP under point-buy.

You're absolutely right. I was going for con 10 actually (it was intended to represent a defense-light wizard), so 48 hps.

That means with his at-will, the foe will take 38.33% of a surge from the wizard, 18% of a surge from the dwarf, and suffer 36.6% of a surge in return for his attack on the dwarf, making attacking the wizard with his at-will a really bad decision. His encounter power is still a bad choice as well - he takes 53% of surge from the wizard, 25% from the dwarf and suffers 36.6% from the dwarf.

It's a fairly delicate balance though - if either AC swings 2 points in the wrong direction, or the hitpoints swing, or any number of other things, the wizard is a better choice again.

1. The relative DPR of the fighter vs the Wizard.

In an ideal world, the wizard would be winning this fight: after all, the fighter is a defender, not a striker or controller, and thus his primary job shouldn't be to deal out the hurt: if it is, then rogues and rangers are obsolete.

In reality though, this is quite possibly not true.

2. The drop in DPR caused by the CC'd person dropping faster than they would have otherwise

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence.

3. The fact that the wizard has defensive powers of his own

As does the fighter. There's not really much in it either way.

4. The fact that when healing comes, its, at this level, at around +2d6/surge. And that this evens out the hit point discrepancies between me and the abysmally low AC wizard[Whose hit points you've incorrectly calculated by the way] in terms of how long it takes you to knock him down.

You're in heroic: healing varies pretty wildly, from a flat X hitpoints(from a healing potion for example), to flat surge value (for the dwarf burning his free action second wind or any number of attack+heal powers), to surge +1d6 (for an unfeated warlord), to surge + 1d6 + some number for a cleric.

5. It assumes that the wizard is going to stick around and be in range of this enemy each and every time that he attacks. Because if he is not in range of the enemy each and every time that he attacks, then the enemy will not be dropping the wizard and taking his DPR out of the fight which makes the damage/healing surge figure meaningless.

It also assumes that we only have melee combatants. Once we've got ranged ones, the meter swings wildly in favour of blasting the mage to bits, because your retaliation counts for naught and your defenses make it the favourable action by a long shot.

So, in order for it to make sense to not attack the fighter, assuming we are maxing our AC on a defender, we need to have a minimum AC, minimum constitution, minimum defensive power character with an underleveled item, who is going to stick it out in melee until he drops to make the other attack on...

It really just doesn't happen that often, and with good reason.

As I pointed out above: it requires the enemyto be sticking it out toe-to-toe with the defender as well. As soon as you've got your scenario above and there's no retaliation involved, the wizard is a nice juicy pincushion, purely because the fighter is so much harder to hit than him.

So the moral is: you're going to be a more effective defender if your defenses are close to the defenses of those you are defending. That was the point.

Also - wow, that's a lot of defend in a single sentence.

 

[Goumindong]

. It's not like character classes are rare things that never pop up in the world..

Player characters actually are. But for the most part, you've no real way of knowing if that guy in the armor is a warlord, a paladin, a fighter, or a cleric. Not until they use their powers.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules state that the monsters know the effects of abilites imposed upon it. It does not state that the monster knows your power set that you have just because they could possibly trigger one of those powers or abilities.

So, it is your contention that WotC intended CC to be a "gotcha" ability instead of a sticky ability.

PC Fighter: "HA HA monster. Gotcha. Didn't see that coming."

How does this class ability actually make the Fighter sticky with your interpretation? Your interpretation means that the Fighter does more damage, not that he defends others better. He becomes more of a Striker and less of a Defender.

I totally understand where you are coming from with regard to CC giving the Fighter the ability to do the attack. It's just that powers and conditions do that.

Let's take Combat Advantage which is an attack modifier, not a power or condition.

Is it your claim that the monster does not KNOW that the PC has Combat Advantage against it since CA gives the +2 bonus to the PC?

Combat advantage represents a situation in which the defender can’t give full attention to defense.

The monster does not know that it is in a defensively bad situation? If CA is granted to a PC with a power, the monster does not know that the PC has CA against the monster?


Your interpretation makes the Fighter non-sticky and instead makes him stealthily vengeful. Being -2 to hit squishier defense targets becomes a no brainer for the monster and then opps, didn't see that coming.

That just does not make sense based on the WotC design philosophy for a defender.


Put another way, the effect on the monster is not that it is marked. It's that it is Combat Challenged. The Fighter is NOT marking the creature, he is Combat Challenging the creature. And the creature knows that the Fighter is doing this because of the rule of it having exact knowledge of what is happening to it because CC is being added to the power. It is being challenged. Not marked.


With my interpretation, if the monster refuses to shift because it doesn't want to be hit, that means Combat Challenge is working as intended. The Fighter is holding the monster there and protecting his fellow PCs.

With your interpretation, it means that Combat Challenge is working as intended to punish those around him. Not to be sticky, to be vengeful. And, it forces the DM to come up with an adjudication on when in the combat each foe starts to figure it out. The DM has to be thinking about which game rules are affected by this and which are not. It's vastly simpler to just run them all the same way.


So, the advantages of my interpretation:

1) It's consistent with other powers like Divine Challenge.
2) It's easy to remember because they all work the same (e.g. no warpriest's challenge different from some other ability or power)
3) It follows the WotC design goal of making fighters sticky.
4) One does not need to be a rules lawyer to figure out the difference for each and every case. The game need not slow up as the players talk out whether Combat Advantage is known by the monster or not.
5) The DM does not have to adjudicate when and if the monsters finally figure it out.

Advantages of your interpretation:

Are there any?

Bottom line for your interpretation:

The fighter's not really sticky. He's just a guy that gets lots of extra attacks.

 

[Goumindong]

In an ideal world, the wizard would be winning this fight: after all, the fighter is a defender, not a striker or controller, and thus his primary job shouldn't be to deal out the hurt: if it is, then rogues and rangers are obsolete.

I don't know what ideal world you're talking about, but in the one that currently exists, the wizard is throwing out d6's and d8's. And the fighter will be throwing out d8->d12's.[with a 5% higher chance to hit due to his one handed bonus]

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence.

Attacking the wizard will affect the number of rounds he can do damage. If he is trying to maximize, then getting another hit in every round can severely reduce his expected damage over the entire fight.

You're in heroic: healing varies pretty wildly, from a flat X hitpoints(from a healing potion for example), to flat surge value (for the dwarf burning his free action second wind or any number of attack+heal powers), to surge +1d6 (for an unfeated warlord), to surge + 1d6 + some number for a cleric.

And any time its anything other than "surge" you're evening out the system in favor of the wizard. Also, at level 6, for a warlord its 2d6, an average of 7 more hit points. For a Cleric is 2d6+wisdom. For a bard, its 1d6+charisma

Considering the fighter in question has 18 hit point healing surge, and the 10 con wizard has a 12 hit point healing surge your real comparison should be roughly at 25 vs 19

It also assumes that we only have melee combatants. Once we've got ranged ones, the meter swings wildly in favour of blasting the mage to bits, because your retaliation counts for naught and your defenses make it the favourable action by a long shot.

One of the best things a fighter can do is get next to a ranged enemy. If it shifts it gets whacked, if it attacks the fighter, it gets whacked[or uses a very weak attack], if it moves it gets whacked, if it attacks the wizard, it gets whacked TWICE.

Furthermore[as you've already ignored], you don't have to assume only melee combatants, you only have to assume one. Why? Because the enemies goal is to win, and if they spread their damage around they're going to have just as many problems.

As I pointed out above: it requires the enemyto be sticking it out toe-to-toe with the defender as well. As soon as you've got your scenario above and there's no retaliation involved, the wizard is a nice juicy pincushion, purely because the fighter is so much harder to hit than him.

So the moral is: you're going to be a more effective defender if your defenses are close to the defenses of those you are defending. That was the point.

Except you don't have to, because your defender can move, and in fact, probably move much more easily than your melee enemy trying to get close to the wizard considering your fighter's OA's end all enemies movement and get a nice big bonus equal to the fighters wisdom score.

The moral of the story is you're not going to be a more effective defender if your AC is closer to your allies[assuming your allies are low], you're going to be a more dead defender.