Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Goumindong" data-source="post: 4777209" data-attributes="member: 70874">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.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.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 constructionAll pigs are dirtyAll dirty things are diseasedTherefore all pigs are diseasedAlright. 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.</blockquote>

Verification