Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chen_93" data-source="post: 4458155" data-attributes="member: 68883">In re-reading p.57 I'd grant you are probably correct in the definition of condition. You could replace it with &quot;constraints&quot; 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 &quot;knowing&quot; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chen_93, post: 4458155, member: 68883"] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification