Armor Specialization (Plate)

[KarinsDad]

Depends on the power. If the power is an ability used on the monster that makes the monster grant CA then yes, it knows. Why does it know? It knows because in the powers text it says "the monster grants CA" and the monsters know the effects of all powers used on it.

If the power was not used on a monster and simply says "you have combat advantage on the next attack you make" then the monster does not know, because you did not use any power on them and it is not within the basic combat knowledge of the game.

See, here is the problem with this type of interpretation.

If there are special exceptions (or specialized rules if you prefer) like this, but they are not crystal clear:

1) Each DM will play it differently since some DMs will be rules lawyers, some will read the boards, and some will be clueless.

2) Powers like No Opening can sometimes be used and sometimes not be used.

This is really bad game design. There is no real good balance reason for segregating this.

Instead, it should be a simple rule so that all DMs play it the same and no DM has to pull out a magnifying glass to analyze the exact text to the nth degree of a power.

DM: "Is that CA given to the PC or does the monster give it?"
Player: "Well, let me bring out the book."

The entire point of 4E was to get away from this type of special case nonsense.

This is separate from the Divine Challenge and Aegis marks because those marks make special allowance for the specific mark created by the power. The ability that they grant is tied ONLY to the mark created by the power and is not a separate ability by itself. If they get a mark assigned to them by any other means, that mark does not grant the special mark abilities.

You keep bringing this up as if this makes a difference in core rules.

Where exactly is the rule that states that an ability that affects any mark for a PC is not known by the foes and a power that affects only the mark created by this PC's power is known?

Answer: There is no such rule. This is merely symantics that you are using to try to justify your POV.


This argument of yours comes back to the same thing. If the Combat Challenge ability is special in this way, so is it's mark. If the special portion of CC is not known by the monster, then neither is the mark created by CC.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

There is no rule line drawn between the two. CC modifies the mark for any power the same way, regardless of the source of the mark.


Now, I will agree that some designer went and changed this in the Compendium so that there is a Combat Challenge ability and a separate Combat Challenge power. Unfortunately, they did not do that in errata (in fact, they errataed CC and did not put this in) or the core book. The did not even do it in Character Builder. So yes, I'll concede that some designer over at WotC probably agrees with your POV here.


But in core, there is no significant conceptual difference between Combat Challenge and Aegis of Assault.

Both have the foe trigger an attack. Having the foe know about it in one case and not know about it in another case is non-consistent and illogical.

Forcing the DM to figure this difference out for every single case is bad game design.

Not all DMs frequent the rules forums.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the solution that was put into the Compendium. If they want the Fighter to get in an extra attack now and then for balance or something, that's ok. As long as WotC makes it crystal clear that this is an exception to the standard rule about monster knowledge.

But in the core rules, there is no definitive RAI or RAW interpretation. So, it makes sense in core rules to use the one that makes the Fighter sticky and is consistent with similar rules like Divine Challenge.

 

[Goumindong]

See, here is the problem with this type of interpretation.

If there are special exceptions (or specialized rules if you prefer) like this, but they are not crystal clear:

1) Each DM will play it differently since some DMs will be rules lawyers, some will read the boards, and some will be clueless.

2) Powers like No Opening can sometimes be used and sometimes not be used.

This is really bad game design. There is no real good balance reason for segregating this.

So what you're saying is that its incorrect because people might incorrectly interpret it? You're aware that you're arguing that I am incorrectly interpreting it... right?


I am also not sure how "no opening" factors into this. It works just like the combat challenge immediate interrupt. It may or may not be used and the enemy does not know about the fact that it may or may not be used until it is used.

In fact, the ONLY difference between "No Opening" and the combat challenge immediate interrupt ability is that one of them is an at-will and one of them is an encounter ability.

Do you make sure that your enemies know about all these interrupt abilities because they might possibly be triggered? Does an enemy attacking your wizard know that he might use a shield to interrupt the attack and not be hit? Where does this mystical insight on powers and abilities come from?

You keep bringing this up as if this makes a difference in core rules.

Because it does make a difference. In fact, i've been laying it out why it makes a difference over and over again.

Where exactly is the rule that states that an ability that affects any mark for a PC is not known by the foes and a power that affects only the mark created by this PC's power is known?

WHERE IS THE RULE THAT SAYS IT DOES!

The rule is that they know what you do to them. The rule is not "they know what you do to them but if its a mark, they also know what you might maybe do to them with any powers that specifically affect marked targets"

edit:

When you're marked, do you know that the ranger might "Fox Shift" if it hits you in melee? That also triggers off a marked enemy.

Does he know that if he becomes bloodied that you can "Jackal Strike" him into the ground?

What about "Menacing Stance", do they know you might possibly use that and make them grant CA as well as the attack for attacking someone else?

I bet they also know about the shield adepts "Sudden Shield Bash" too, and "Marked Beating" because those are all also powers that can only be used against marked creatures.

To answer my rhetorical question, no , they do not know about those powers until they happen, just as they do not know about CC until it happens.

There is no rule line drawn between the two. CC modifies the mark for any power the same way, regardless of the source of the mark.

I am sorry, would you please point out where it says that "all marks the fighter creates have the following ability tacked onto them" or "all marks the fighter or his allies create that are sourced to the fighter have the following ability tacked onto them".

I am waiting with baited breath.

But in core, there is no significant conceptual difference between Combat Challenge and Aegis of Assault.

Except for the fact that combat challenge makes no mention anywhere of the ability being tied to any special mark, and aegis of assault specifically mentions, in the powers description, exactly what you can do, yes.

Which is to say, no, you're entirely wrong.

Both have the foe trigger an attack. Having the foe know about it in one case and not know about it in another case is non-consistent and illogical.

It might not be consistent with your psuedo logic, but it is totally consistent with the way the rules are written.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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]

Which is totally irrelevant: dpr typically is only depending in small measures upon dice size. Really - go read the optimization boards. Most builds could use a dagger and end up dealing only slightly less than using a maul...

Unfortunately, with the way certain powers and feats and items work, fighters abusing multiple-attack powers come out mixed into the top of the dpr pile.

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.

... and I took that into account: why do you think part of the metric included damage taken?

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

There's plenty of powers not taken into account here: but you're right, many heals will give back more than a surge.

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.

And leaves the melee threat to mix it up with the wizard... You'd be far better off making yourself an attractive target for that fire without needing to stand next to the firer.

And, of course, you can't stand next to all of them.

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.

Again - eh? If we're talking focus fire, then balance slides further towards attacking the wizard. I already demonstrated that with the big defense gap you've got, the only thing that stops attacking the wizard being the best deal is your retalition, and that is only marginally and WITH the benefits of distracting shield and mark. On most rounds you'll only get to retaliate against a single foe, so every other foe is at a "no bones about it, gank the wizard".

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.

You're starting to do the "well, I counter your X with my Y!" thing, and it's just going to lead to us running in circles. Simply put, the defender cannot be everywhere all the time.

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.

As a DM, there's no way that my monsters are going to shoot at the full-plate clad, shield wielding fighter when there is any other foe available. Sure that makes you less dead: the problem is that it makes the fighter or rogue or whatever more dead at the same time.

Sooo... your monsters can calculate the effectiveness of their blows by percentage of healing surges used when they hit various targets, but they can't tell that a fight is going against them, badly, and they're taking far more damage than putting out and far worse than they've ever seen before and the enemy isn't breaking a sweat? Sheer silliness. A fighter isn't a "less attractive target" because they lose a little bit of DPR, it's just silly. If a monster can calculate DPR they can calculate they've lost the fight.

That's a good point: but this is all more theorycraft proving that most of the time monsters are better off ignoring the very well armored gentleman who says their mothers wear army boots and slamming the robed spellcaster than an algorithm running in the foe's head.

They don't need to do the maths, they just notice that whenever they use one set of tactics, they get hurt a bit less than otherwise.

The maths will still work out with characters of other levels, more or less. In fact the precise example that we ran through is a rather extreme one: the individual hits extremely hard, has every feat that makes ignoring him a bad idea, yet his (visually obvious) superior defenses are still going to make him a bad target to focus fire on.

 

[Goumindong]

Which is totally irrelevant: dpr typically is only depending in small measures upon dice size. Really - go read the optimization boards. Most builds could use a dagger and end up dealing only slightly less than using a maul...

Unfortunately, with the way certain powers and feats and items work, fighters abusing multiple-attack powers come out mixed into the top of the dpr pile.

This is not true throughout most of the game. Yes, you can get ridiculous DPR with a bunch of high level gimmick builds. That doesn't mean that most builds will have those properties.

That being said, fighters still typically do more DPR than wizards by your estimation, so its tough to come back around and say "the wizard is doing more DPR".

Lets just get to the basics

1. The fighter, on average, hits 5% more often than the wizard does.

2. The fighter, on average, throws 2-3 average damage more per hit than the wizard does[4-6 more on a crit]

... and I took that into account: why do you think part of the metric included damage taken?

No, you didn't. DPR as a flat rate assumes a flat goal. But the goal is not flat. The longer you survive, the more rounds you have to do damage. When your enemies DPR affects your DPR you cannot simply look at it as a simple straight line formula.

There's plenty of powers not taken into account here: but you're right, many heals will give back more than a surge.

The issue is not that heals give back more than a surge, the issue is that the heals work to normalize the value of the surges.

And leaves the melee threat to mix it up with the wizard... You'd be far better off making yourself an attractive target for that fire without needing to stand next to the firer.

And, of course, you can't stand next to all of them.

Which is inefficient on the enemies part[not focusing fire].

Again - eh? If we're talking focus fire, then balance slides further towards attacking the wizard. I already demonstrated that with the big defense gap you've got, the only thing that stops attacking the wizard being the best deal is your retalition, and that is only marginally and WITH the benefits of distracting shield and mark. On most rounds you'll only get to retaliate against a single foe, so every other foe is at a "no bones about it, gank the wizard".

Each individual, but not as a group. You're also assuming that all enemies can alway hit the wizard, which is unlikely. Consider for a moment a 2v2 scenario. 1 melee+1 artillery vs 1 fighter and 1 wizard. The fighter ties up the melee and the wizard and fighter kill it until its deal. The Artillery can either try and kill the fighter with the melee or it can shoot the wizard and split fire. As this expands with more players getting in the way[whether or not they are melee], focusing fire is always easier on the fighter, the guy trying to be close to the melee.

You're starting to do the "well, I counter your X with my Y!" thing, and it's just going to lead to us running in circles. Simply put, the defender cannot be everywhere all the time.

Please, this isn't a "well, ill counter" issue its a "your point does not work because you are making assumptions that are not true" thing.

As a DM, there's no way that my monsters are going to shoot at the full-plate clad, shield wielding fighter when there is any other foe available. Sure that makes you less dead: the problem is that it makes the fighter or rogue or whatever more dead at the same time.

Which makes the party win better.

The maths will still work out with characters of other levels, more or less. In fact the precise example that we ran through is a rather extreme one: the individual hits extremely hard, has every feat that makes ignoring him a bad idea, yet his (visually obvious) superior defenses are still going to make him a bad target to focus fire on.

For all of your "i can make a 130 DPR fighter" swagger you're really discounting the ability of these people to pump out damage.

The reality of the situation that you compared is that of a moderately optimized for combat challenge very high AC fighter compared with a ridiculously low AC wizard(who sat around in melee range all the time and could always be attacked by everyone). And even in that situation the Fighter was easily able to make attacking the wizard unwise.

 

[webrunner]

But in core, there is no significant conceptual difference between Combat Challenge and Aegis of Assault.

This is not true.
When a fighter attacks an enemy, the enemy gets the status effect "Marked by Fighter Mc Swordpants"

When a Swordmage uses Aegis of Assault, the enemy gets the status effect "Marked by Aegis of Assault, and when the marked target blah blah blah blah blah"

The effect on the *monster* by Aegis of Assault includes the reaction. The effect on the monster by combat challenge does not, and there is a clear rule distinction to that.


To put it another way, let's look at Rogues.

When a rogue attacks a target when he has combat advantage against the target, then he can add his sneak attack damage

Now let's say the rogue has a utility power:
target: one adjacent enemy
effect: The target grants combat advantage to you until the next turn.

They use this utility power on a Kobold who has never met a rogue before.

The Kobold now knows it grants combat advantage, and knows that it will grant it until the next turn.

It does *not* know that the Rogue can now do an extra 1d6 damage against him, because that is a separate ability

 

[KarinsDad]

This is not true.
When a fighter attacks an enemy, the enemy gets the status effect "Marked by Fighter Mc Swordpants"

When a Swordmage uses Aegis of Assault, the enemy gets the status effect "Marked by Aegis of Assault, and when the marked target blah blah blah blah blah"

The effect on the *monster* by Aegis of Assault includes the reaction. The effect on the monster by combat challenge does not, and there is a clear rule distinction to that.

As you say, this is not true:

You mark the target.

If your marked target makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls. If that attack hits and the marked target is within 10 squares of you, you can use an immediate reaction to teleport to a square adjacent to the target and make a melee basic attack against it.

Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target.

whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against
that enemy as an immediate interrupt.

The language here is extremely similar. Nothing here indicates that there is a significant explicit rules difference with regard to monster knowledge.

Regardless of people's claims to the contrary, this is open to interpretation. There are no explicit rules one way or the other from the wording here or from the other rule that we have.

 

[Goumindong]

The language here is extremely similar.

No, they are not similar. One is a explicit listing of a powers effects. One is an explicit listing of another ability.

We know this RAW because combat challenge is not a single power, its an ability that grants multiple bonuses. Now, if combat challenge were a separate power that was "free action: whenever you attack an enemy you may also mark that enemy, and if that marked enemy does not attack you, or shifts you can make make a melee basic attack as a immediate interrupt against them" then you would have an argument to RAW. But it doesn't, so you don't.

We know this RAI because

1. Its changed in the compendium
2. There ability works on all marks created from all targets so long as those marked targets are assigned to the fighter.

Look, we've already given you multiple examples of how it works, how similar abilities work, and why they work that way. Either you have some argument other than "nuh uh" or "its too confusing", or "fighters aren't sticky without my rule interpretation", all of which have been thoroughly refuted, or you should stop posting.


Anyway, how about another example for good measure. Some items have both properties and powers. If you get hit with a weapon that has both a property and a power, you do not know the specifics of the power even if that power ties into the property of the weapon. Even if that power is an interrupt ability that requires the triggering creature to have been affected with the property.

In fact, we can do one better. Lets say someone had a power that let them interrupt an attack against an ally and take all the damage instead. Lets say this power is on a Paladin who is in a party with a fighter and a bard. Lets say the bard marks the baddy for the fighter and then the baddy attacks the bard. The fighter interrupts that ability with his CC and the Paladin interrupt that ability with the CC. What is the difference between the two? A: Nothing, both had a condition imposed, both triggered off the exact same event, both were using separate powers from the mark ability.

Now, if you really want to get confusing, in order for your intrepretation to make any sense, you would have to say that:

If an enemy is marked by the fighter from a source that is not an attack, then he does not know about combat challenge. If an enemy is marked by the fighter from a source that is an attack from the fighter, then he does know about the combat challenge.

Why do we know this? Because the combat challenge apparently only modifies fighter abilities and is not a separate ability[well, besides the fact that it is a separate ability, and its the fighters prime advantage over other defenders]. So now you have to justify two combat challenge abilities in the rules.

One that is tied to the attacks and one that isn't. BUT WAIT, it gets worse. The fighter could simply always use the one that wasn't tied to the power, negating your intrepretaiton even if it were true[since the fighter could just avoid it]. BUT WAIT, it gets worse, the fighter could use the marked interrupt ability when he wanted enemies to know he was going to hit them but the other ability when he didn't want enemies to know he was going to hit them! Now the DM has to keep track of marks created by the fighter and marks created by the figthters attacks and marks assigned to the fighter created by someone else, because each one of them has a different rule intrepretation with regards to what the enemy knows.

All of that is, of course, ridiculous. If the enemy simply doesn't know what is up until the power is activated, at which point he knows exactly what is up. Exactly as the rules state; there is no confusion. Once the fighter has whacked someone, enemies know that when they're marked by fighter attacks and fighter powers and other powers where the mark is simply assinged to the fighter that the fighter is going to whack them if they don't attack the fighter.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, they are not similar. One is a explicit listing of a powers effects. One is an explicit listing of another ability.

We know this RAW because combat challenge is not a single power, its an ability that grants multiple bonuses.

No, we know nothing of the sort.

That is an interpretation. If you cannot comprehend that there is no explicit rule here that states "Combat Challenge is an exception to the monster knowledge rule", then it is not worth discussing this.

I totally understand where you are coming from. But, you are talking as if it is fact and written and stone and it's not. There is no rule that explicitly states what you are stating. There is an interpretation that supports your POV, just like there is one that supports mine.

If you cannot see that, then shrug...


If you are using the word "power" in the actual rule ("Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed") to differentiate, then the monster does not even know it is marked by the Fighter because CC is not a power that affects the creature.

This is the only monster knowledge rule we have. If some other rule does not explicitly (i.e. in other words, states that it does so in non-ambiguous terms) override it, then this rule takes precedence.

CC does not explicitly override this. To have it do so is an interpretation, not RAW.

Now, if you really want to get confusing, in order for your intrepretation to make any sense, you would have to say that:

If an enemy is marked by the fighter from a source that is not an attack, then he does not know about combat challenge. If an enemy is marked by the fighter from a source that is an attack from the fighter, then he does know about the combat challenge.

I would have to say nothing of the sort.

Btw, this is called a strawman argument. Trying to disprove my position by attempting to disprove some other position that I have not claimed is a logical fallicy.

 

[Goumindong]

No, we know nothing of the sort.

That is an interpretation. If you cannot comprehend that there is no explicit rule here that states "Combat Challenge is an exception to the monster knowledge rule", then it is not worth discussing this.

No one is saying this except you. Stop strawmanning. Combat Challenge is not an exception to the monster knowledge rule, its a perfect example of its application with immediate action triggers.

If you are using the word "power" in the actual rule ("Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed") to differentiate, then the monster does not even know it is marked by the Fighter because CC is not a power that affects the creature.

This is the only monster knowledge rule we have. If some other rule does not explicitly (i.e. in other words, states that it does so in non-ambiguous terms) override it, then this rule takes precedence.

CC does not explicitly override this. To have it do so is an interpretation, not RAW.

1. This has been explained already. Combat Challenge does two different and separate things. The immediate interrupt power that the fighter can take is not part of the effects imposed by the marked condition or any attack the fighter makes. There is no "getting around the rules" its just that the rules state, explicitly that monsters know what you've done to them. They do not state that you know what you're about to do to them or what they might do to them.

2. This is indeed the only monster knowledge rule we have. But that does not mean that we do things it does not say just because we feel like it. Please stop doing so.

Btw, this is called a strawman argument. Trying to disprove my position by attempting to disprove some other position that I have not claimed is a logical fallicy.

No, its not a strawman. A strawman would be if i were not using your position.

But that is your position, specifically your position that Combat Challenge is a single ability that is applied to any mark that is assigned to the fighter[and therefor enemies always know about if if they're marked by the fighter]. The argument is an argument to the absurd[not to be confused with a reduction to the absurd]. What it does, is show how your position creates an absurd, and known false conclusion, when its logic is carried out. Since any valid logic with a true premise must produce a true conclusion, we know that if the conclusion is not true, there must be something wrong with the premise or conclusion.

For instance, lets say we have the logical construction

All pigs are dirty
All dirty things are diseased
Therefore all pigs are diseased

Alright. Now, we now that "all pigs are diseased" is false. Because we know this, we also know that either the logic is bad, or one of the premises is bad, or some combination of the two.


This is exactly what I have done with your position. You have presented a premise as to how the rules work[enemies know all aspects of the combat challenge ability even the ones that are not affecting them], combine with our second known true premise[powers that mark without attacking and mark for fighters with other powers exist and fighters can make CC attacks agaisnt them], and then we apply our known valid logic [enemies know what you've done to them] and use that logic to solve the conclusion.

The conclusion we reach is absurd, and known false. However, since we know that the logic is valid[its valid by definition, as its the rules], and since we know that one of the premises is true[they are true again by definition, as they're the rules], then we know that the other premise, your premise, must be false.

 

[KarinsDad]

1. This has been explained already. Combat Challenge does two different and separate things.

Yup. You can keep claiming that there is an actual rule hidden in that fact, but you have yet to quote an explicit rule where it changes the rules for monster knowledge. No matter how many different ways you say the same thing, it still does not add a rule.

But, play the game your way and I will play it mine.