Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5535772" data-attributes="member: 78116">Actually that is quite debatable in itself, because the rule is a bit ambiguous. It's worth noting, now I've slept on the debate with Neonknight overnight that I actually specify these things. For example a PC marked by a creature, knows what the creature will be able to do something if it takes certain actions. I have run all my games this way for some time, due to a very difficult encounter with two enemies with a variety of teleport/mark/free actions. Actually the encounter frustrated and angered my players so much that I actually felt genuinely bad. This is why I chose to just make it clear what an effect placed on a PC lets a creature do. I don't say complete specifics, but they are aware they may provoke an attack under X, Y and Z conditions.Some DMs will run it like Neonchameleon interprets it, where the creature is unaware of the conditions that the mark can be enforced by the character. In my case, I have ruled it as a function of the creatures intellect. The better the intelligence and more "hardened" it is, the more it is self aware of how a PCs powers interact. Things like a zombie are always idiots and have no concept how a PC fights in any manner (so make the most mistakes and fight completely stupidly). Similarly, PCs can tell how monsters will interact with their powers and hence can make sensible tactical decisions. I will tell a PC outright if a monster has no attacks on its mark for example. I do not require monster knowledge checks for this, but a check performed on a monster in advance can key a PC into the creature having such marks and powers available to it first (which can be significant, like in my last DS session with the thri-kreen).</blockquote>

Verification