Armor Specialization (Plate)

[webrunner]

Okay, let's look at this again.

If a bard uses Misdirected Mark to cause a monster to be marked by the Fighter, does it now know that the fighter can get extra attacks on it, or not?

If you believe it is, then how? Combat Challenge doesn't give the bard any extra abilities. The fighter didn't do anything at all. All that happened was the bard said "he did it!". It isn't an aura or something that says "whenever a party member marks a creature by you" or something. It doesn't even trigger on when you mark. There are two triggers in Combat Challenge, and neither of them have happened yet.

If you believe it isn't, then how is it different then using the Combat Challenge mark, as the combat challenge 2nd trigger doesn't depend on how the creature was marked? The exact same condition, the exact same game state, exists either way. There are no effects in play that are different.

As for the "that would mean" section: If I understand correctly, you believe that a monster is effected by a different ability then it's been explicitly hit with, just because the rules don't say it isn't? That's what happens under the assumption that they are two different abilities. Why not add Warlock's Curse damage on to the mark while you're at it? Nowhere in the rules say that you don't add warlock's curse damage when a fighter hits a guy!

4e uses exception-based design. You don't rule based on what the rules don't say, you rule it based on what they do with exceptions taking precedence.

From "my POV" this isn't my POV.. this is what the rules say, explicitly. You're adding these things saying "the rules don't say that this isn't an exception", but that isn't th eway the rules work.

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay, let's look at this again.

If a bard uses Misdirected Mark to cause a monster to be marked by the Fighter, does it now know that the fighter can get extra attacks on it, or not?

If you believe it is, then how? Combat Challenge doesn't give the bard any extra abilities. The fighter didn't do anything at all. All that happened was the bard said "he did it!". It isn't an aura or something that says "whenever a party member marks a creature by you" or something. It doesn't even trigger on when you mark. There are two triggers in Combat Challenge, and neither of them have happened yet.

If you believe it isn't, then how is it different then using the Combat Challenge mark, as the combat challenge 2nd trigger doesn't depend on how the creature was marked? The exact same condition, the exact same game state, exists either way. There are no effects in play that are different.

As for the "that would mean" section: If I understand correctly, you believe that a monster is effected by a different ability then it's been explicitly hit with, just because the rules don't say it isn't? That's what happens under the assumption that they are two different abilities. Why not add Warlock's Curse damage on to the mark while you're at it? Nowhere in the rules say that you don't add warlock's curse damage when a fighter hits a guy!

I won't explain in detail again. Bottom line: CC affects the power. All relative to the situation aspects of CC, not just part of it. It does not matter what allows the CC to work (Fighter mark or Bard mark), the power is still affected by it. From your perspective, this is a separate ability of the Fighter that is not part of his mark. From my perspective, this is an ability derived from the Fighter's unique mark (regardless of source) and directly affects the creature.

You won't change my mind, just like I won't change yours. I was just trying to get you to understand my interpretation like I understand yours.

4e uses exception-based design. You don't rule based on what the rules don't say, you rule it based on what they do with exceptions taking precedence.

Precisely. There are no exception rules for the Fighter's Class Feature not being known by the monster compared to the Swordmage's Class Feature being known by the monsters. Both of these are handled the same way unless an exception in the Fighter's Class Feature explicitly states otherwise.

The monster knowledge rules are always run the same way shy of an exception, that is why I think your interpretation (of the original text) is flawed.

You are manufacturing an exception in the Fighter's Class Feature that is not explicitly written as a rule. You need to follow your logic train to get there which means that not all DMs will get there. The only time most DMs get to the same interpretation is if the rule is explicitly and clearly written. Obviously, that is not true for this or we would not have pages of discussion on it in many different forum threads. Once one changes the rule to the new Power in the Compendium, then it becomes explicit and clearly written. Until then, it's two different interpretations of the same text.

From "my POV" this isn't my POV.. this is what the rules say, explicitly. You're adding these things saying "the rules don't say that this isn't an exception", but that isn't th eway the rules work.

If you say so.

If you cannot (or will not) comprehend that your interpretation (of the original text) is just an interpretation, then like with Goumindong, this conversation will go nowhere.

Whether or not WotC changed or clarified their original position on this is non-sequitor.

 

[Akaiku]

Also, if the fighter is outnumbered and the wizard is between 3 and 6 squares around, it's almost always a good idea for most monsters to shift out of melee with the fighter, (One takes the smack, as it's an interrupt and it's even less likely to hit then if they just tried to move) then all charge the squishy. Ironically, if the fighter is only marking one guy at a time, perhaps out of burst encounters or something, it's best for the monsters to have one guy holding the fighter away from the squishys as his friends run around and have a field day. If the fighter shifts to avoid the OA, he can only charge and mark one guy. Wherein the remaining guys can shift out of melee and continue murdering.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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

And applied without any regards to any of it's assumptions. Lanchester's square law applies to forces that are either homogenous or large enough to be considered so. Furthermore it assumes that each member can only damage a single foe. It's completely inapplicable here except in the broadest of strokes, entirely because you've got such a huge disparity between members of your force.

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.

First: who cares? The person whom you're maligning and attacking the character of.
Second: They're not. The supercharger is currently king of the heap, and the supercharger is a wizard.

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.

Nope, anyone not boosting AC has a low enough AC. As I pointed out, if I'd just wanted to push an agenda, I could have chosen something with even lower ac, or even just not gone with a wizard starting at 18 int.

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 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.

I don't actually think you know wizards too well.

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].

A full 3 higher because he's got 2 enhancement and one feat boosting his ac (or for the str-based ranger, 2 enhancement and 2 feats). The point was to make someone not spending many resources on defense, which it seems you've totally missed.

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.

These points are far from guaranteed. The point of the argument is that having a big disparity in defense is a liability, not that the entire party having bad defenses in the first place is.

I have 2 feats boosting the challenge specifically, 2 feats boosting attacks in general, and one feat boosting AC[16 str, 18 wisdom base].

The 18 wisdom over 16 strength alone makes you a heavily CC-based fighter.


It seems to me that you're taking my facts and hypotheses to be a personal attack on your character. You certainly seem to be getting upset. Please be assured that this is not so, and feel free to calm down.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just a point on the "monsters know/don't know about CC".

Recently a WoTC source clarified some of the rogue powers. Specifically there is one power (dance of death I think?) that makes any foe that was hit by it hit themselves instead of the rogue when they target him for the next round. Furthermore, artful dodgers apply a bonus to the attack roll of enemies who end up hitting themselves.

Now clearly: if any foe who is hit by the power gets to read the rules text, they're never going to make that attack: the rogue gets a free pass. Why, then, does an artful dodger make those attacks more potent? That's a bonus without value!

The answer was that the rules text redirecting attacks is not known by the monster, even though it's in the hit text, because it was actually something granted to the user of the power and not a condition applied to the target.

Specifically:
"...you can make it attack another creature of your choice instead, including itself."

Which looks a lot like the CC text.

 

[webrunner]

I won't explain in detail again. Bottom line: CC affects the power. All relative to the situation aspects of CC, not just part of it. It does not matter what allows the CC to work (Fighter mark or Bard mark), the power is still affected by it. From your perspective, this is a separate ability of the Fighter that is not part of his mark. From my perspective, this is an ability derived from the Fighter's unique mark (regardless of source) and directly affects the creature.

So, your point of view, is that the fighter class feature, which only deals with himself and marked enemies, with no mention of allies except as targets for enemy attacks, is a rider on allied powers that mark as well, assuming they give a mark to the fighter?

That somehow, a bard can, with no help from the fighter, induce the "fighter's unique mark"?

 

[Goumindong]

And applied without any regards to any of it's assumptions. Lanchester's square law applies to forces that are either homogenous or large enough to be considered so. Furthermore it assumes that each member can only damage a single foe. It's completely inapplicable here except in the broadest of strokes, entirely because you've got such a huge disparity between members of your force.

I am only using it with regards to the broadest of strokes, as are you. Which means that its entirely appropriate here. The existence of weak AoE does not negate the principle just as the existence of the inability to focus fire at times does not negate the principle.

First: who cares? The person whom you're maligning and attacking the character of.
Second: They're not. The supercharger is currently king of the heap, and the supercharger is a wizard.

I am not maligning or attacking the character of anyone.

The whatercharger?

Nope, anyone not boosting AC has a low enough AC. As I pointed out, if I'd just wanted to push an agenda, I could have chosen something with even lower ac, or even just not gone with a wizard starting at 18 int.

Nope, only the lowest AC classes that do not push AC or have other ways of defending themselves have a low enough AC. Who else has a low enough AC

I don't actually think you know wizards too well.

That is fantastic, i don't actually think you know the optimization procedure to well, so i guess we're even.

A full 3 higher because he's got 2 enhancement and one feat boosting his ac (or for the str-based ranger, 2 enhancement and 2 feats). The point was to make someone not spending many resources on defense, which it seems you've totally missed.

That isn't spending many resources on defense. At the beginning of level 8 you have 5(6 if you're human) feats and have acquired 1 +3 item, and 17 +2 items. This will set a party of 6 up fully with +2 items by the time they are level 8[1 acquired at level 2, 2 acquired at level 3, 3 acquired at level 4, 4 at lvl 5 and 6, 3 at level 7] with 4 items left over. By the time you're level 8 you're starting to upgrade your equipment to +3.[over the course of lvl 8 you will acquire a level 12, 11,10, and lvl 9 item, two of which are +3]

This means that the wizard in question would be focusing a full 1/5th to 1/6th of his feet allocation on AC. The ranger a full 2/5th. onerious... not. I mean, there is still room for weapon focus, expertise, and a superior weapon, d8 marking feat if you're human. The wizard well, he gets distance advantage, and expertise... O.K. all the rest of the wizards feats are more or less defensive in nature until you get to paragon tier[where most of them are still defensive in nature]

These points are far from guaranteed. The point of the argument is that having a big disparity in defense is a liability, not that the entire party having bad defenses in the first place is.

No, the point of the argument is to whether or not boosting your AC is a good idea. It is, and its only possibly not a good idea when you're dealing with abysmally low AC's(and hit points) from your other characters who decide to sit in melee the entire time and do nothing to defend themselves. Its a ridiculous proposition and yields equally ridiculous results.

A wizard who you would expect to stay in the range of a shift+charge on the front line guys is going to be running at least 14+5+2+2+1= 24 AC and will have two immediate interrupt powers to add more AC per encounter[shield and staff mastery] and may even have more AC[he will also have a few more hit points], and the rest will be throwing up status effects to make those situations impossible without provoking OA's from the fighter[which stop moment negating the charge], or impossible in their entirety.

The 18 wisdom over 16 strength alone makes you a heavily CC-based fighter.

Wrong, it makes me one who values my constitution based axe damage feats which increase my damage more than +5% to hit and +1 damage do which i would be unable to get with a higher strength because dwarfs do not have a bonus to strength[base stats before bonuses are 16,13,11,10,16,8]. If i upgraded strength to 18, i would have to downgrade wisdom to 12(14)! This gains me +5% to hit and +1 damage but i lose +1 to hit on my OA's and +1 damage when i get marked scourge and pit fighter]. Then again, maybe i should have went that route and my optimization would have been slightly better. But either way, the speicialization is not "heavy". A full damage optimized fighter will have only a 2 point difference in his CC attack and 1 point in his OA[20 str, a dwarf these will both be 1]

It seems to me that you're taking my facts and hypotheses to be a personal attack on your character. You certainly seem to be getting upset. Please be assured that this is not so, and feel free to calm down.

Do not confuse a vigorous argument for a slight. You're wrong, and that is why I am arguing against you, not because of any personal feelings. But kudo's for the ad hom.

 

[KarinsDad]

That somehow, a bard can, with no help from the fighter, induce the "fighter's unique mark"?

The Fighter can do it. The Bard can only give the mark to the Fighter. Just like with your interpretation.

 

[Goumindong]

The Fighter can do it. The Bard can only give the mark to the Fighter. Just like with your interpretation.

What in the world are you talking about.

The bard has an ability that creates a mark. The ability says "is marked by ally". So the enemy knows he is marked by the ally. That is all he knows. He has not been affected by any power that might even hint at adding any more riders onto that relating to what the fighter can do.

You have, earlier, explicitly said that the enemy knows that if it defects the fighter can whack it. But there is no text anywhere, ever that mentions that this would be the case. There is no text that gives the combat challenge ability to allies. There is no text that says "any mark assigned to the fighter has the following effect". There simply is not text that gives any sort of suggestion that the enemy would know he is going to get hit.

Now, either there is some text that suggests that, or your interpretation fails. It fails because it produces a known false conclusion.


Lets do a little example

Round 1

Fighter attacks enemy 1: Marks him. [At this point, what do you think enemy 1 knows?]
Bard attacks enemy 2: Marks him, assigns the mark to the fighter[at this point, what do you think enemy 2 knows]
Enemy 2 attacks bard: fighter whacks enemy 2 with CC [are you saying this is impossible? because you've said earlier it was possible. At this point what does enemy 2 know?]
Enemy 1 attacks bard: nothing else happens

 

[WalterKovacs]

I don't think I've actually seen this specifically:

If you aren't a paladin you need 15 STR and CON to get plate.

If you are proficient in Plate and you aren't a Paladin, you are automatically qualified for Plate Specialization.

For Hide, you need Con, which doesn't apply to your AC defense. For Chain and Scale, you need Dex, which will not help your AC, and will qualify you for Shield Specialization anyway. This means you need to choose whether to take Shield Spec or Chain/Scale Spec. So, you have to compare the Reflex bonus to getting back the speed or armor check penalty.

On the other hand, you have Scale where you automatically qualify for the feat if you are proficient (unless you are a Paladin). So it's 'easy', and gives just a +1 to AC. If you use a shield you can also go with Dex (meaning you need 15 in STR, CON and DEX if you aren't a Paladin) and get the reflex bonus as well.

In the case of Scale Spec Vs. Shield Spec the prerequisites are effectively the same (proficiency and Dex 15), so each has a different 'bonus'. However, the Scale Spec Vs. Shield Spec have different prereqs. Again, unless you are a Paladin, you don't have to worry about getting the 15 CON to meet the prerequisites in addition to the Scale Prof, so it's pretty much just 1 prerequisite, not two. That is why it gives less, because it costs less.