Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jurph" data-source="post: 4877246" data-attributes="member: 84577">The rule as written specifies "makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target".  But in combat against invisible opponents, barring abilities that remove the ambiguity, there is no way to know the number or disposition of the invisible opponents.  The PHB specifies that to attack an invisible opponent you pick a square to attack, but if you pick the wrong square "only the DM knows" whether you missed or whether you picked the wrong square.  The question of knowledge is an important one, because Stalker0 would rule that the damage is based on intent whereas keterys would seemingly rule on the facts as the DM alone understands them.  If you rule on intent you can get some broken results from scenarios like the ones keterys proposes:1) The monster attacks an invisible decoy creature (let's say it's a rogue wearing an identical invisibility cloak) where it expects to find a paladin.  It takes no damage because its intent was to strike a paladin.  Because creatures know about the marks that are on them, the creature now deduces that it struck the paladin and continues to strike the rogue in that square without taking damage, because its intent is to kill the paladin.2) ...but then the paladin takes off his invisibility cloak and appears on the other side of the room.  On any subsequent attack against the rogue, the monster would clearly take damage!3) Four turns go by, with the monster hitting the invisible rogue and taking radiant damage each time, and then it is revealed that the paladin who appeared on the far side of the room was actually an illusion cast by the mage in the party, and the paladin is nowhere to be seen.  If the monster decides that the invisible creature next to him is a paladin, he can attack with impunity; otherwise he takes damage.4) Meanwhile another monster, also marked, has crossed the room to attack the illusory paladin.  He is attacking an illusion (and missing!) but his intent is also to attack the paladin.  If we rule on intent the monster takes no damage.5) Rewind the tape and start over.  The rogue and paladin switch places using Fey Switch after each becomes invisible.  The monster strikes at the invisible opponent nearby and connects, but the rogue cries out (in a language the monster comprehends) "Hey, I'm not the holy warrior - if you keep attacking me you're going to get burned!"  Subsequent strikes will damage the monster if we rule on intent.6) Wait, rewind the tape to the part where the rogue cries out.  This time he does a convincing impersonation of the paladin's voice and says "In the name of Moradin, you'll never strike me!"  The monster successfully makes its bluff check, and now knows that it will take damage if it attacks the bluffing rogue.7) Rewind the tape again.  The rogue and paladin both disappear but don't switch places.  The mage manages to use Ghost Sound to emulate a voice which is not the paladin's, emanating from a square next to the monster.  That voice says (in a language the monster comprehends) "Hey, I'm not the holy warrior - if you keep attacking me you're going to get burned!"  The monster fails its bluff check, and the paladin shifts into the square with the sound.  Now no matter whom the monster attacks it takes damage!Because of the spooky action at a distance created by monsters knowing about their marks and markers, you end up with a Schroedinger's Paladin situation where the monster's understanding of the battlefield changes the damage it takes.  But ruling on the facts as the DM understands them is no better; the counterfactual produces gibberish results as well.  Reviewing the previous cases we would get:1) Monster takes damage even though it attacked (what it thought was) a paladin.2) Monster continues to take damage for attacking an invisible non-paladin target because it now "knows" the target isn't a paladin...3) ...but then the non-spooky evidence for that knowledge turns out to be falsified and now the monster's knowledge is retroactively incorrect.  Does the damage go away?  The damage is the only data the monster has to base its decision on.4) Monster takes damage even though it attacked (what it thought was) a paladin.5) If we rule on facts, the monster takes damage for each attack.6) If we rule on facts, the monster takes damage regardless of the bluff.7) ...but in this peculiar case the monster makes an attack against what it thinks is not a paladin, and takes no radiant damage.  Now, assuming it has rudimentary intelligence, it can deduce that the creature in that square is the paladin, despite failing its bluff check.The biggest problem with ruling on the facts is that the players can cause damage to the creature based on unknowable information that only exists in the metagame.  A side effect is that the creature can deduce unknowable metagame information from the results of its attacks.  How do you distinguish between a paladin marking a creature and retreating (via Mordenkainen's Mansion or an Arcane Gate, for example) and a paladin marking a creature and then moving a few squares away?  I think at some point you need to rule that the paladin is unavailable as a target, and the creature is free to change its focus with no penalty.So I think, because it results in more consistent battle logic, that you should rule on the facts at hand (rather than the intent), but there needs to be a DM ruling or a judgment call on when the paladin is no longer available as a target.</blockquote>

Verification