Armor Specialization (Plate)

[Goumindong]

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.

What in the world are you talking about. Combat Challenge is two different abilities. This has nothing at all to do with the rules for monster knowledge[at this point]. It does not matter until you apply the rules for monster knowledge which state they know what you do to them. Since its two different bonuses and not an single power[which the Paladin's mark and Swordmages mark explicitly are] you only apply the monster knowledge rule to what you explicitly do to them. You do not add more monster knowledge that the rules do not explicitly call for.


So let me make this explicitly freaking clear for you

There is one rule for monster knowledge: "Monsters know what you have done to them and what conditions you have imposed"

Now, there are TWO different type of mark powers

1. A mark power that places a mark on an enemy, this mark makes them take a -2 penalty if they attack anyone but the person in question.

2. A mark power that places a special mark on the enemy, this mark makes them take a -2 penalty if they attack anyone but the person in question AND they will take extra damage or be subject to another attack if they do that.

If we apply the monster knowledge rule to our two types of mark, the monster knows different things having been marked. Why? Is there a separate rule? No, there are separate powers which do different things and so the enemy knows different things.

If its the first type of mark power, the monster knows he has been marked and will take a -2 penalty if he attacks someone else.

If its the second type of mark power, the monster knows he has been marked and will take a -2 penalty and possibly damage if he attacks someone else.

The fighters mark is the first type of mark, not the second type of mark. There is much evidence for this. Not the least of which that combat challenge is not described in a power block in the PHB, that in the compendium, the immediate interrupt ability is explicitly its own power, that the CC description in the PBH makes no mention of the mark being special[which it would if it was]. With RAI clearly being that the fighter can make CC attacks against marked creatures when the mark does not come from his attack. Etc etc etc.

That is what is important here. The combat challenge immediate interrupt is not a rider on the power that marks, its a separate power that has a trigger based on when a mark does something. This is entirely consistent with the one and only rule about monster knowledge.

Now stop lying about my position. I've explained this many times. I've explained how its not an exception to the single monster knowledge rule. I've explained how it works with the single monster knowledge rule. I've explained other similar scenarios that work just like this under the single monster knowledge rule. I've even explained how your interpretation literally cannot be true.

 

[webrunner]

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

The language here is extremely different, actually.


First, you need to use the current version of Combat Challenge, which reads like this:
"
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, you gain the Combat Challenge power.
"


Which pretty much separates the Combat Challenge marking ability and the immediate reaction, which is now a class power. In order for the monster to know about the Combat Challenge interrupt, it would have to be an exception to the monster knowledge rule: the rule is that they know what they've been hit with. The monster has not yet been hit with the Combat Challenge interrupt power. They would have to also know what they potentially can be hit with to see the Combat Challenge interrupt.

As for between the two, make particular note to these parts:

"If your marked target makes an attack..."

vs

"Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack..."

The Swordmage ability specifically refers to 'target', namely the target of the aegis power. You have to actually aegis a target in order for it to trigger, so they know about it. The Combat Challenge power does not, as the fighter doesn't even have to use the first combat challenge ability to mark a monster in order to get the combat challenge interrupt. If the fighter multiclasses warden or has a bard on his power, he can mark people without using combat challenge, but still gains an attack. The rules make no distinction between marking methods, so there is no rule difference.


The claims you are making require exceptions to the rules. Ours do not.

A monster knows when an effect has been imposed on it, as per the rules. For combat challenge, no effect has been imposed on the monster except "you are marked". for Aegis, it isn't.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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 the wizard hits 3+ targets and sustains another multi-target effect.

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.

Actually you can. Your goal is to reduce all opposing characters to zero hitpoints before they reduce you and your allies to zero.

You're well within rights to say "if I lose 1/2 of a guy, but kill one of their guys, that's better than if I kill 1/4 of their guys.", which is pretty much exactly what I'm saying.

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.

Theres many variables being ignored here because they're simply too complex, and this is just one of them. Even if we assume that every single heal comes from a power with bonuses, the numbers don't shift that much.

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

Yes, you're absolutely right. So the formula for whomever you've marked shifts even further in favour of ignoring you and just attacking the current focus target.

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.

Ah, so you're saying that the defender's job is simply to take up a square on the battlefield, and that pretty much covers it?

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.

Sure you are: you just did it above. You're simply stating "well, my tactic X defeats your tactic Y" without actually doing the simulation yourself. What actually happens is that splitting fire leads to your foes causing more damage on any one target than them both focussing on you.

Which makes the party win better.

Please feel free to support this with... well... anything.

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.

First, you're lowballing the DPR.

Second, I never made any of the builds I suggested.

Third, fighters are not currently kings of DPR: they're merely up there.

Finally: We're comparing against a wizard, and fighters lose their DPR king status once there's a second target available.

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.

Did you just not read the entire thing? Yes, you're a very high AC fighter - and part of the point of the exercise is that this is a bad idea.

How is the wizard ridiculously low AC? He's close to his attribute maximum, and hasn't done anything to boost it, sure, but his AC is far from ridiculously low. Ridiculously low would be if I'd chosen a warlock or melee ranger.

And what makes you "moderately optimised for combat challenge"? You've got 50% of your feats boosting it, and a wisdom in the region of 16+, at a guess. How much more could you do to boost it?

The fighter was able to make attacking the wizard a close thing, but as you've pointed out, focus fire has a certain amount of value. So if that hobgoblin has any artillery buddies, he's still going to ignore you.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now stop lying about my position. I've explained this many times. I've explained how its not an exception to the single monster knowledge rule.

Except that you POV is an exception from my POV. The fine line that you differentiate between a Fighter's CC and a Swordmage's Aegis of Assault is something that many DMs will never see unless they read the boards.

You apparently are incapable of seeing the opposing POV and are only capable of seeing your own. In fact, it's pretty apparent that you did not even try to comprehend my POV. So I'm not going to discuss this any further. It's like talking to a wall.

 

[KarinsDad]

First, you need to use the current version of Combat Challenge, which reads like this:
"
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, you gain the Combat Challenge power.
"

Actually, I agree that if one uses the Compendium language, then it works the way you claim.

Unfortunately, we have core, errata, and Character Builder or 3 sources that do not use that language and 1 source Compendium that does.

The vast majority of DMs are going to use core or core/errata for their interpretations. Compendium is too much of a pain in the butt to look stuff up (especially compared to .pdfs). So until WotC actually changes this in errata, it's not really a rule yet. For all we know, the Compendium change might be something that was just floating around on someone's hard drive as a possible change. One would think that if it were an official change that both Character Builder and Compendium would get their data from the same source. And heaven forbid that if we make it such a definitive change that it go into errata.

Note: It might be changed in Character Builder as well by now. Someone could go look. I do not know because my CB did not upload last week's update and WotC is slowly working on trying to figure out why.

 

[Goumindong]

And the wizard hits 3+ targets and sustains another multi-target effect.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Also, your second reply contradicts this reply. Damaging 3 targets less may not be as strong as damaging 1 target more.

Actually you can. Your goal is to reduce all opposing characters to zero hitpoints before they reduce you and your allies to zero.

You're well within rights to say "if I lose 1/2 of a guy, but kill one of their guys, that's better than if I kill 1/4 of their guys.", which is pretty much exactly what I'm saying.

Sigh, except that is not what you're saying because you're advocating a position where its more advantageous to split fire. You're advocating this position because the situation where it is advantageous to not split fire in, is one that has a very hard time actually existing. It requires the wizard be sitting around in melee all the time. Even if you do get this to occur, it still runs into the flat out marginal DPR problem.

The fighter is probably be going to be marking the primary target, everyone is going to be hitting the primary target as much as possible. When the enemy defects it drops his DPR faster than it does the enemies. We know this, you proved it.

When his DPR drops, the other side gets even more powerful since their incoming DPR has no been reduced, but their outgoing the same.

Theres many variables being ignored here because they're simply too complex, and this is just one of them. Even if we assume that every single heal comes from a power with bonuses, the numbers don't shift that much.

There are very few healing powers that come without flat amounts or bonuses. For the most part, its second winds, which people are loathe to use for a number of very good reasons[std action, means they can't be brought back up with a heal check]

Yes, you're absolutely right. So the formula for whomever you've marked shifts even further in favour of ignoring you and just attacking the current focus target.

Only if they can be the current focus target. If they can't be the current focus target for some reason, many of which exist, then the best focus is going to be the fighter. Because there are always going to be fewer reasons that enemies can not attack the fighter than they cannot attack the wizard[Range, cover, line of sight, other allies getting in the way, etc etc etc].

Ah, so you're saying that the defender's job is simply to take up a square on the battlefield, and that pretty much covers it?

No, but its one of the methods he uses in doing his job. I mean, you're going to tell me that taking up a spot on the battlefield is not valuable? Because each and every melee player should be concentrating on taking up spots so that enemies cannot reach the ranged characters while hitting the primary target.

As a side note, fighters are great at taking up spots on the battlefield and they are designed pretty aggressively towards doing that.

Sure you are: you just did it above. You're simply stating "well, my tactic X defeats your tactic Y" without actually doing the simulation yourself. What actually happens is that splitting fire leads to your foes causing more damage on any one target than them both focussing on you.

What? You're saying that the enemies should attack different players instead of focusing fire? Seriously? And you think this will make them cause more damage on any one target?

Please feel free to support this with... well... anything.

Lanchester's square law is an easy representation and proof, if simple.

First, you're lowballing the DPR.

Second, I never made any of the builds I suggested.

Third, fighters are not currently kings of DPR: they're merely up there.

Finally: We're comparing against a wizard, and fighters lose their DPR king status once there's a second target available.

First, wooo, who cares

Second, wooo, who cares

Third, wooo, who cares, what matters is that they're ahead of wizards, what were comparing against.

Finally: We are comparing against a wizard with a low AC, because wizards have the abysmally low AC required to make your comparison even get close to working. Of course, wizards don't win over fighters until 3 targets are available. Well, for a few reasons. One of which is that the fighter also has AoE capabilities if you choose to go down that route(which do more DPR than the wizards due to throwing higher dice*), and the other is that higher damage single target abilities are stronger than lower damage AE abilities unless everyone has those AoE abilities. That is because the higher damage single target abilities kill the primary target and the AoE abilities do not take that primary target DPR out of the game as fast.


But lets compare to the real king of DPR, the melee ranger. They will have an AC of, at the very least at level 8 [14+4+3+1]= 22. . Realistically they're going to have an AC of either 14+4+3+2+1 = 24[base+dex+hide+enhancement+TWD], or [14+7+2+1]=24[base+chain+enhancement+TWD] a full 3 higher than our wizard[or more, this assumed a 16 base in dex rather than an 18 which is reasonable due to dex bonused races]. Hell, they might even have more if they've invested in scale[not a bad decision on the whole].

Clealy this makes your case all the more weaker.

Did you just not read the entire thing? Yes, you're a very high AC fighter - and part of the point of the exercise is that this is a bad idea.

How is the wizard ridiculously low AC? He's close to his attribute maximum, and hasn't done anything to boost it, sure, but his AC is far from ridiculously low. Ridiculously low would be if I'd chosen a warlock or melee ranger.

And what makes you "moderately optimized for combat challenge"? You've got 50% of your feats boosting it, and a wisdom in the region of 16+, at a guess. How much more could you do to boost it?

The fighter was able to make attacking the wizard a close thing, but as you've pointed out, focus fire has a certain amount of value. So if that hobgoblin has any artillery buddies, he's still going to ignore you

No, i read the entire thing.

The wizard has an abysmally low AC because he has done nothing to boost it and has an under leveled armor. At level 8 you can have up to a +3 armor, but +2 is going to be pretty standard. You're going to have spent a feat or two on AC, either with a shield, or with leather. All of these boost your AC. If you're wearing +2 leather your AC on that wizard goes to 24. If you're wearing +2 leather with a staff wizard or wielding a shield your AC goes to 25, hide bumps it up to 26. You are likely to have shield or expedious retreat, powers that get you out of tough situations.

I have 2 feats boosting the challenge specifically, 2 feats boosting attacks in general, and one feat boosting AC[16 str, 18 wisdom base]. If i wanted to, i could add shield push which would entirely negate attacks unless the enemy had reach or was being flanked and shield the fallen[+2 all defenses and saves for adjacent allies when they're bloodied, helpless or unconscious] if i really wanted to focus on it. In the end, I will be able to spend a maximum of roughly 2 feats over the fighters career to boosting AC. ALL the rest go to boosting offense, or the defense of others. This will hold true for most fighters, as they advance they're going to get damage on a miss from their hammer, or bigger crits with their axes, or they're going to be able to combine shield push with spear push[push 2 on a successful CC which will negate a LOT of attacks when it hits], etc etc etc.

How many times do i have to explain to you that the hobgoblin will not always be able to attack the wizard when it is much more likely that everyone will be able to attack the fighter? The wizard can move out of the way and the fighter can very reasonably ensure that the hobgoblin cannot follow it. Either with the simple mark or OA, or with powers that slow, hinder, and prevent the melee enemies from getting to the other enemies. That is what either forces the enemies to split fire[artillery on the wizard, melee on the fighter/other melee], or to focus fire on the fighter.[the wizard will also be making sure that the hobgoblin cannot close when it attacks it with debilitating effects such as daze, immobilize, prone, difficult terrain, etc]

*And because they hit more[Sweeping blow, AoE +1/2 str mod to attack w/axe, 1[W]+str. +weapon talent and/or +3 proficiency bonus] and because they are likely to hit more targets[come and get it, pulls enemies within a close burst 3 in before making the attack at 1[W]+str, nearly guaranteeing more enemies are getting hit], and because wizards have to be cognizant of hitting their allies.

 

[webrunner]

Actually, I agree that if one uses the Compendium language, then it works the way you claim.

Unfortunately, we have core, errata, and Character Builder or 3 sources that do not use that language and 1 source Compendium that does.

The vast majority of DMs are going to use core or core/errata for their interpretations. Compendium is too much of a pain in the butt to look stuff up (especially compared to .pdfs). So until WotC actually changes this in errata, it's not really a rule yet. For all we know, the Compendium change might be something that was just floating around on someone's hard drive as a possible change. One would think that if it were an official change that both Character Builder and Compendium would get their data from the same source. And heaven forbid that if we make it such a definitive change that it go into errata.

Note: It might be changed in Character Builder as well by now. Someone could go look. I do not know because my CB did not upload last week's update and WotC is slowly working on trying to figure out why.

It is in the Builder that way. It even prints out a power card for it.

However, even if it wasn't it would still work this way: Combat Challenge (Interrupt) does not specify it depends on the marked target, only that the target is marked. Therefore, you don't have to hit someone with Combat Challenge (mark) to use Combat Challenge (Interrupt). Therefore, they are two separate abilities. Therefore the monster doesn't know about the other one. QED.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, even if it wasn't it would still work this way: Combat Challenge (Interrupt) does not specify it depends on the marked target, only that the target is marked. Therefore, you don't have to hit someone with Combat Challenge (mark) to use Combat Challenge (Interrupt). Therefore, they are two separate abilities. Therefore the monster doesn't know about the other one. QED.

It's the logical leap from "Therefore, you don't have to hit someone with Combat Challenge (mark) to use Combat Challenge (Interrupt)." to "Therefore, they are two separate abilities." (i.e. same abillity, just additional text on how it works in the core rules) and the leap to "Therefore the monster doesn't know about the other one." (i.e. no explicit rules on how one makes this leap in regards to the monster knowledge rules) where I find the logic suspect.

Both of these leaps of logic are conclusions not based on actual rules text, but on interpretation. Both of them need an explanation in a certain way in order to understand the concept as opposed to just rules text in the book clearly explaining it.

I do understand that WotC is now changing the rule (minimally, the interrupt is a power now, so this is a change, not just a clarification), but I'm not even convinced that all of the designers at WotC understood the difference when the PHB first came out.

If one goes to the early discussions on this on the web both here and at WotC, there were a lot of people on both sides of the fence who interpreted it either way. The reason for that is that it is NOT crystal clear and the logical leaps you wrote above were not written, but interpreted. Some people might not understand that your POV is an interpretation based on the logic chain that you have forged, but your POV was definitely not crystal clear fact. It is becoming fact now due to the WotC change (but it would still be better if they put it into the errata), but not in core.

 

[webrunner]

It's the logical leap from "Therefore, you don't have to hit someone with Combat Challenge (mark) to use Combat Challenge (Interrupt)." to "Therefore, they are two separate abilities." (i.e. same abillity, just additional text on how it works in the core rules) and the leap to "Therefore the monster doesn't know about the other one." (i.e. no explicit rules on how one makes this leap in regards to the monster knowledge rules) where I find the logic suspect.

Both of these leaps of logic are conclusions not based on actual rules text, but on interpretation. Both of them need an explanation in a certain way in order to understand the concept as opposed to just rules text in the book clearly explaining it.

I do understand that WotC is now changing the rule (minimally, the interrupt is a power now, so this is a change, not just a clarification), but I'm not even convinced that all of the designers at WotC understood the difference when the PHB first came out.

If one goes to the early discussions on this on the web both here and at WotC, there were a lot of people on both sides of the fence who interpreted it either way. The reason for that is that it is NOT crystal clear and the logical leaps you wrote above were not written, but interpreted. Some people might not understand that your POV is an interpretation based on the logic chain that you have forged, but your POV was definitely not crystal clear fact. It is becoming fact now due to the WotC change (but it would still be better if they put it into the errata), but not in core.

I do not understand how there is a leap between Therefore, you don't have to hit someone with Combat Challenge (mark) to use Combat Challenge (Interrupt)." to "Therefore, they are two separate abilities."

If they weren't two separate abilities, then they would only work together. You can attack monster A, get a mark on him (the marking ability). Then a bard can mark monster B for you, and monster B then attacks the bard, triggering the interrupt. Two unrelated events- they're related only in that they occur under the same class feature heading (which they still do). In fact, you never had to attack monster A at all. The interrupt is not contingent on the CC mark. In the rules there's no indication the two abilities are related except being under a common header... and the same is true for, eg, all the individual effects of a magic type as a sorceror. Are the following two benefits:

Cosmic Persistence: While you are not wearing heavy armor, you can use your Strength modifier in place of your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to determine your AC.
Cosmic Power: You gain a bonus to the damage rolls of arcane powers equal to your Strength modifier. The bonus equals your Strength modifier + 2 at 11th level and your Strength modifier + 4 at 21st level.

The same ability, as they are under the same kind of bolded heading ("Comsic Magic") as "Combat Challenge". Do you beleive that if you hit with any sorcerer power then the enemy knows you have STR to AC?

As for the next jump:

Assuming they are separate abilities, that would mean that in order for a monster to know about the 2nd ability after being effected by the first, would have to be an exception to the rule that a monster knows what hits them- so I ask you to find this exception, the one that says "If a monster his hit by an ability they also know a related ability's effects" if you say it exists.

Additionally, your definition of "core" seems to be a bit off: By the rules, the way it's printed in the PHB is emphatically not core any more: Core is the most recent modifications.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not understand how there is a leap between Therefore, you don't have to hit someone with Combat Challenge (mark) to use Combat Challenge (Interrupt)." to "Therefore, they are two separate abilities."

If they weren't two separate abilities, then they would only work together.

See, this is the first preconceived notion of yours.

If one view it as "CC is one ability, here are the rules for CC", then it is a single ability. It has qualifiers. It has times it works and times it does not work and times part of it works and times part of it does not work.

But, it is always a single Class Feature for the Fighter, just like Aegis of Assault is a single Class Feature for the Swordmage.

The monster is not affected by a mark and an interrupt, it is affected by a Combat Challenge. Even if only part of that class feature is applicable in some circumstances.

It's a paradigm shift away from your POV to interpret it this way.

As for the next jump:

Assuming they are separate abilities, that would mean that in order for a monster to know about the 2nd ability after being effected by the first, would have to be an exception to the rule that a monster knows what hits them-

Says who? Again, you are making a logic leap that is not written there.

Just because you can come up with this "that would mean" logic chain conceptionally does not make it a rule in fact.

I'm sorry that I cannot explain this so that you can understand it. People have a hard time breaking out of their thought processes and I'm not smart enough to get you to do so.

In this case, even considering them as separate abilities does not by definition mean that the power is not affected by both of them and hence, the monster knows both of them.

Logically, there could be 50 ways to modify the power (e.g. adding stun to it) and the monster would know if the power was modified that way.

So again, your logic leap here is an interpretation. Just because you might not be able to see that does not change it. In any case, I understand your POV and how you got there. It's unfortunate that you cannot understand mine, but ...

Additionally, your definition of "core" seems to be a bit off: By the rules, the way it's printed in the PHB is emphatically not core any more: Core is the most recent modifications.

And the most recent modifications are the PHB plus errata. Not a paid web service that all DMs do not have access to.