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="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4778295" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>

Verification