Marked targets knowing about Combat Challenge

[Hypersmurf]

That's not true.

If a Ftr marks an enemy, the enemy knows what will happen if he attacks someone else, or if he shifts, etc.

Do yuo feel that if the fighter has the Distracting Shield or Potent Challenge feat, the enemy will also know that the attack he incurs by shifting will impose a -2 to his attack rolls, or deal extra damage?

If a Paladin marks an enemy, and he has the Thunder Smite power, does the enemy know that the Paladin might score a critical hit on a roll of 19 if he uses that power? If the Paladin is a Champion of Order, does the enemy know that being marked makes him vulnerable to the Certain Justice power?

Or does the enemy only know the effects of the powers that have already been used, not the powers that might be used in the future?

-Hyp.

 

[Minigiant]

I would say a creature does know that warriors typically that can mark targets have powers and features that punish their target for not targeting them. It would not know the specifics though.

 

[JosephK]

I'd say that the monster doesnt know. It knows that it's affected by the mark, but unless it has fought fighters before, it shouldnt know that fighters are trained to wack people that are marked..

Just like a monster wouldnt know that an orb wizard can reduce its chance to save on 'sleep', simply because it has the sleep spell cast on it. It would know that if it fails a save, it'll become unconscious and can react to that, but it doesnt know that the wizard can impose a penalty on that save (unless it's fought wizards before).

 

[Chen_93]

Caliban- is there an official definition of "condition?"

There's a whole section called conditions in the PHB (which lists the things such as Marked, Restrained, Slowed etc). It stands to reason that those are what is meant whenever condition is referred to. Now I'll grant it could be sloppy rules if that isn't the case, but Wizards did try to steer away from that this time.

 

[Runestar]

Is Orcus obliged to attack a rogue who smacked it with dance of death the previous turn with his death touch, just to prove that the DM is not metagaming?

 

[Saben]

Surely something like "deciding if a monster attacks a particular player" is up to DM discretion rather than having to find something in RaW.

I imagine my Fighter showing a high level of profiency in the battlefield and circling his opponent as part of the combat challenge. If someone is looking at you straight on, weapon drawn and is circling you, it seems dumb to attack someone else. You're almost certain to be whacked from behind.

A Rogue, melee Ranger and Warlord, while adept combatants don't have the same level of combat presence or intimidation that a Fighter represents, to me. A Rogue and Ranger are more interested in delivering attacks when their opponent's back is turned and a Warlord is multi-tasking, trying to watch the flow of the entire battle. A fighter is focused on going head-to-head with his opponent. It'd be like walking away mid-round in a boxing match. Only worthwhile if there is something you really think is a bigger threat and worth being hit over.

In other words, yes, intelligent creatures do know they'll "probably" get hit. The fighter engages with them with body language and eye contact in such a way that they just "get it".

 

[Cadfan]

There's a whole section called conditions in the PHB (which lists the things such as Marked, Restrained, Slowed etc). It stands to reason that those are what is meant whenever condition is referred to. Now I'll grant it could be sloppy rules if that isn't the case, but Wizards did try to steer away from that this time.

Is it your contention that the section on conditions in the PHB covers all "conditions" in D&D? So, if a paragon path ability weakened a foe, it would be covered, but if it allowed you to inflict a -1 on all enemy attack rolls for one round after you used an action point, it would not, because -1 on attack rolls is not a "condition?"

I don't think the rules should be read with that critical an eye. I think it is entirely possible, indeed logical given what appears to be the intent of the rules, that "condition" as it is used on page 57 is not the same as "condition" as it is used much later in the book. It would appear, at least to me, that the designers wanted DMs to not have to second guess what a monster does and does not know about itself and what its suffering under. As such a -1 to attack rolls from a power and a -1 to attack rolls from a paragon path ability should be treated the same. The monster knows about both.

 

[Nail]

Do you feel that if the fighter has the Distracting Shield or Potent Challenge feat, the enemy will also know that the attack he incurs by shifting will impose a -2 to his attack rolls, or deal extra damage?

No.

If a Paladin marks an enemy, and he has the Thunder Smite power, does the enemy know that the Paladin might score a critical hit on a roll of 19 if he uses that power?

You are unclear.

Has the paladin used the Thunder Smite power, or is it just one of several powers he could use? Are you asking if monsters know what powers a PC has?

If the Paladin is a Champion of Order, does the enemy know that being marked makes him vulnerable to the Certain Justice power?

No.

Or does the enemy only know the effects of the powers that have already been used, not the powers that might be used in the future?

There's no "Or" here. The enemy only knows the effects of the powers that affect it (or have affected it in the past).

If the Ftr marks an enemy, the enemy knows what the fighter's mark means. This includes "getting smacked if he attacks someone else".

 

[Patlin]

Marks become a little better if you can finagle in a bit of tactics. Last session, I marked a monster with divine challenge, hit him with staggering smite, and knocked him over to the rogue. The fighter quickly flanked with the rogue, leaving the monster surrounded by two enemies and marked by a third. All his choices were bad!

 

[Alraiis]

Caliban- is there an official definition of "condition?"

The closest is on Page 277: "A condition imposes a penalty, a vulnerability, a hindrance, or a combination of effects."