Marked targets knowing about Combat Challenge

[Deverash]

This was an interesting thread, and really made me think about it. In my opinion, a character will know the details of what effects them. So, when a character is marked by a fighter using his Combat Challenge ability, they'd know all the effects of that. If a feat modifies that ability, then the character would know that as well.

Using this, though, a character wouldn't know about Combat Superiority stopping movement until the fighter does it. I might compare the characters passive History check(since history deals with military and battles) against the "Know Powers" DC to see if they've known about it in the past.

 

[James McMurray]

I think people are focusing too heavily on wordplay and ignoring what the fighter's mark is supposed to represent. It's not "pardon me, but could you hold this marker for a moment? It'll give you a penalty to hit and perhaps others things" <sly wink>. It's "the fighter comes at his foes with fury and accuracy, never letting up long enough for them to get a solid shot in on anyone else. His swordwork is so skilled that even the slightest misstep could let him skewer you." (insert other words if you're not the pointy-stick brand of fighter)

The wording in the book is unclear, but the intent (at least to me) is not.

 

[Chen_93]

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.

In re-reading p.57 I'd grant you are probably correct in the definition of condition. You could replace it with "constraints" in the context of p.57 if I am reading it correctly. It still does specify powers though so the rules on the creature knowing about the combat challenge class feature is still kinda up in the air, it not being a power.

Now again, this could be fuzzy rules, but I chose not to read it that way. Not reading the rules with a critical eye, as you put it, is liable to just put you into more trouble. There are logical reasons as presented here (i.e., the fighter is circling you in a menacing way thus you "knowing" you'll be attacked), but where do you stop this? The example of shield push comes to mind. Would the monster know your combat challenge ability is modified by this? Clearly you'd be ready to knock it aside with your shield in this case. Yet this one is almost unanimously agreed upon that a monster would NOT know you had this feat.

The flaw in using logic over the rules as written, is that some of the rules ARE NOT logical. And intentionally so, for balance reasons. Using logic to justify situations almost inherently assumes it will work for all cases. It seems rather hyprocritical if you say we use logic in some situations but not others...THAT is just illogical (and I guess somewhat ironic too).

 

[Nail]

The flaw in using logic over the rules as written, is that some of the rules ARE NOT logical. And intentionally so, for balance reasons.

FWIW, I agree with this.

That said, I rather not settle on a ruling that makes me have to guess whether or not a monster knows how a certain power works. That way lies madness.

 

[James McMurray]

Luckily we're not locked into a single choice. It's possible to both be logical and set logic aside when balance is threatened. Yay us!

 

[Cadfan]

Now again, this could be fuzzy rules, but I chose not to read it that way. Not reading the rules with a critical eye, as you put it, is liable to just put you into more trouble. There are logical reasons as presented here (i.e., the fighter is circling you in a menacing way thus you "knowing" you'll be attacked), but where do you stop this?

You really think you can get away from reasoning the way I do? You can't. You're trapped. You just THINK you're free.

Don't believe me?

No rule, at all, in the entire fourth edition of dungeons and dragons, says that you know when you receive damage from a non power source.

Radiant Action (11th level): When you spend an action point to take an extra action, you can also choose an enemy within 5 squares of you. That enemy takes ongoing radiant damage equal to your level (save ends).

That's not a power. Its arguably a condition. By your reasoning I can inflict ongoing radiant damage to people without them noticing. 'Cause you're going to have to go extra-textual to explain why I can't.

The example of shield push comes to mind. Would the monster know your combat challenge ability is modified by this? Clearly you'd be ready to knock it aside with your shield in this case. Yet this one is almost unanimously agreed upon that a monster would NOT know you had this feat.

I guess you'll just have to make a call, hmm? My argument would be that "liable to be stabbed" is something of which you're aware, but "liable to be stabbed in this specific way with these specific consequences" is not. But yes, I'd have to admit that I'm interpreting. If someone disagreed with me, I'd think they were interpreting as well. And I'd think that my interpretation was better.

The flaw in using logic over the rules as written, is that some of the rules ARE NOT logical.

I object to the use of the phrase, "rules as written." I think you're using it to add undue weight to a somewhat informally written phrase. Compare the two following hypothetical rules:

1. "If one of your Barbarian powers dazes your foe, that foe falls prone."
2. "When you cast a spell, you may make a Thievery check opposed by observers passive Perception score. If you succeed, the observers do not know that you cast anything, though they may notice the affects of the spell itself. You may not use this ability with any power that directly affects an enemy."

Now, we might argue about either rule. Suppose we argued about the first rule, and I argued that this ability should work if you stun an opponent, because stun is basically just daze in a stronger form. So logically, if dazing a foe makes them fall prone, stunning them (ie, dazing them better) should do the same thing. You could reasonably respond that I was trying to put logic over Rules As Written, because the rule very clearly says "daze," not "daze or stun."

But suppose we argued about the second rule. I argue that this spell works with Stinking Cloud, but not with Fireball, because Stinking Cloud creates a zone, and the zone affects your enemies, so the spell is indirect. Meanwhile the Fireball directly affects your enemies. You disagree with me, based on what you believe "directly affect" to mean. In this sort of argument, Rules As Written are irrelevant, because the rules are not precise. They require interpretation.

We are having the second type of argument. "Condition" is not clearly defined in such a way that one can objectively divide all effects in the game into "condition" and "not-condition."

Rules As Written do not hold sway here.

And intentionally so, for balance reasons. Using logic to justify situations almost inherently assumes it will work for all cases. It seems rather hyprocritical if you say we use logic in some situations but not others...THAT is just illogical (and I guess somewhat ironic too).

Really? Then I dare you to stop. You won't be able to, because neither this edition, nor any past edition, has been written in such a manner as to function flawlessly without interpretation, or even outright DM rulings to cover holes. That's the nature of a game that pretends to be a world-sim.

 

[Shabe]

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

Really its not, combat challenge says "In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt"

If a fighter used Divine Challenge (via a multiclass) there is no attack roll so the fighter doesn't mark it with his combat challenge, the fighter has marked the creature with Divine Challenge (mark is just a condition).
The fighter would still get combat challenge even though it hasn't used combat challenge to mark it because one part of combat challenge is marking on a hit or miss and the second part is as quoted above and would allow you to attack the creature if it shifted/attacked someone else.
Or would you say a creature marked by a fighter with divine challenge would know it would get attacked if it shifted or attacked someone else?

This all leads me to the conclusion that someone marked by a fighter just knows that he will be at -2 to attack anyone but the fighter but nothing else. Get wacked by his combat challenge and sure you know what triggered it but not until then. I'd run it the same way if a monster had the power to.

 

[James McMurray]

It leads me to believe that the author didn't fully explore the possibilities of a Divine Challenging Fighter, and neglected to explain what they felt should happen if this corner case occured.

 

[deleteme123456]

What if it's an NPC Fighter or NPC Paladin? Might they recognize being called out as one of their own tricks being turned against them? "Hey you, Evil Paladin of Tiamat! I challenge you to a duel; in the name of Bahamut, I vow to smite thee!" EPoT: "Whatever. I'm just going to go feast on your friend the Wizard's entrails, because even at -2 to attack, I still have a better chance of hitting him. I'm sure I won't be zapped by divine judgement or antyhing. No sirree, wouldn't want that."

And then where do you draw the line? You play annoying games where some monsters know and some don't, and have to try to resolve that as a DM, while paying attention to what all the players at the table are doing, maintain some seblance of strategy with your monsters (I've played with a DM who doesn't use strategy and tactics in combat and we absolutely wipe the floor with the bad guys every combat [3.5E]).

I think I'll just let my monsters know exactly what restrictions are currently imposed on them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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".

Let's say the Fighter's Combat Challenge was divided into two parts.

Combat Challenge (class feature): You may mark any enemy you attack.
Combat Whack (at-will immediate interrupt): If a marked enemy adjacent to you shifts or attacks your ally, make a basic attack against that enemy.

Would a marked enemy know that the Fighter possesses the Combat Whack power, and that being marked makes him susceptible to being whacked if he shifts?

-Hyp.