Marking

[keterys]

If so, take the rogue's Dance of Death Power.

Or take the warlords Brash Assault at will.

From what I've been able to tell, at an overwhelming majority of tables observed, play acts as if the target knows what happens - the full effects of the decision to make the attack or not. In the case of Dance of Death, it's been asked in rules Q&A multiple times from what I can tell. In the case of Brash Assault, it's one of the reasons people rate it lower - _because_ the target can make an informed decision.

So... I don't know that the RAW is as clear as you think it is. At least not in actual play.

 

[S'mon]

From what I've been able to tell, at an overwhelming majority of tables observed, play acts as if the target knows what happens - the full effects of the decision to make the attack or not. In the case of Dance of Death, it's been asked in rules Q&A multiple times from what I can tell. In the case of Brash Assault, it's one of the reasons people rate it lower - _because_ the target can make an informed decision.

So... I don't know that the RAW is as clear as you think it is. At least not in actual play.

Doesn't fit my experience. As DM I certainly don't say:

"You never told me my monster would incur an attack by doing that! That's not allowed!"

And nor do I tell the players "If you do X, then Y" where Y is some special monster power.

It seems to me that that sort of play style would tend to result in decision paralysis as the player (and possibly DM) question the result of any mooted action.

 

[eamon]

So... I don't know that the RAW is as clear as you think it is. At least not in actual play.

Actually, I agree . In actual play, people happen to know these things (how powers work), and you just can't help taking that into account. And in any case, after the first time it's happened, it's even reasonable. I just don't think that's the intent (and I'm certain it's not RAW). So while some meta-game knowledge is reasonable and unavoidable in practice, I don't think you want to encourage that.

So, don't mention or dwell on what-ifs the creature doesn't know, and it'll all work out - or at least, work out well enough; perfection isn't needed. For DM's the bar is a little higher - they fight against the same PC's all the time, but then it's the DM's job to take his party into account anyhow.

(Aside on brash assault, I think its low rating is partially DM dependant. It gets a low rating because it's so unreliable. If you don't actively consider it, the natural thing to do as a DM is to avoid the attack - or worse, only take it when the monster's basic attack is surprisingly nasty. And even if the DM tries to let the power work by avoiding the monster knowledge, after the monster has seen it work once, it's just reasonable for it to avoid that gambit - and this is an at-will that needs to be usable many times in a combat, and competes with some pretty decent other at-wills.)

 

[Nullzone]

Uh.

While I understand your desire to retain narrative, that doesn't change the fact that creatures understand the full extent of a power's effects once they have been applied.

If I have a monster that hits a PC with a power that says "If the target moves on their next turn, they take 1d6+4 damage" then I definitely tell that to the player. At the very least I say "A shadowy cage of psychic energy appears around you. It looks like moving through it may be painful." and then give the full text if they're confused.

Something like Brash Assault seems odd but isn't really; a tactician would recognize that they are purposefully leaving themselves open so they can signal an ally to come in for the kill. A mutual strike, of sorts. Nevertheless, I as the DM get to know the full extent of the workings of that power once its been applied, and then it's up to me to apply the intelligence of my monsters to recognize the ploy at work.

It takes a little cognitive dissonance, but putting these things out in the open is the only way to stay on the up and up and to ensure that the full extent of what's really happening is realized.

 

[Balesir]

In the game I'm primarily a player in, I've found that defenders typically end up marking, and then the marked creatures stand there and beat on the defender, regardless of practicality or reason.

Not to pick on Stumblewyk, his post is just an example to respond to out of several similar...

...but a reason I don't always have monsters respect marks as DM is because it would make the marks overpowered with clever players. If every monster never triggers a mark, the defenders should be manoeuvering the baddies into bad positions, locking them there and getting the rogue or ranger onto a flank and the cleric stood directly behind them healing them as they get hit. My players are getting pretty good at giving foes reasons why they might want to trigger a mark - tempting them to take "just one little hit"...

As I mentioned when XP-ing above, I see all marks as deterrents, not traps, so the marked creature (or PC) knows whath they will be punished for and (roughly) in what way. In the fiction this manifests in several ways - lean as if to shift and the fighter twitches his weapon in an implied threat; the Paladin's challenge comes and you just know that the gods will punish you unless you focus on this guy... But all creatures will make risk-reward decisions; any hunter or scavenger will make such decisions every day of its life if it is to get food and stay alive. And if the gain seems worth the risk (hey, the fighter might miss, right?) or the pain (well, divine punishment didn't hurt much last time...) then they'll go for it and violate the mark. Clever players will put monsters in positions where violating the mark looks attractive - preferably when it won't be, really

 

[S'mon]

If I have a monster that hits a PC with a power that says "If the target moves on their next turn, they take 1d6+4 damage" then I definitely tell that to the player. At the very least I say "A shadowy cage of psychic energy appears around you. It looks like moving through it may be painful." and then give the full text if they're confused.

That's an effect (if move, then auto damage) where if the fluff indicates a visible effect then I would tell the player and expect the player to tell me, yes.

I guess Paladin Marks are the one where I really find it a grey area on whether the target should understand what's going on, or not.

 

[keterys]

The paladin's mark (divine challenge / sanction) is the most clear that the target understands exactly what's going on If it attacks, it will take radiant damage, and it knows that. It even gets to know when it'll happen, in case it wants to figure out if it can get its strike off before the mark triggers.

The fighter, not so much - the fighter has a separate combat challenge interrupt that it can use on any mark at all.

As a general rule, the game is not about "gotchas". If you _really_ want to, you could even have enemies make Insight and Knowledge checks against the PCs to figure out what's going on.

'The swordsman pauses before shifting away, and says "Ah - I recognize that stance. You will not catch me unaware!"'
'Hah, you are Hruthgar! Your fury is known even here in the south, particularly when an enemy attacks your friends.'

 

[eamon]

While I understand your desire to retain narrative, that doesn't change the fact that creatures understand the full extent of a power's effects once they have been applied.

This is false; and it's been stated often enough in this thread that I'll bother finding the rules quote.

Player's handbook p. 57:

Whenever you affect a creature with a power that creature knows exactly what you have done to it and what conditions you've imposed.
​

Rules compendium p. 90:

A conscious creature affected by a power knows what a power has done to it regardless of the power's type.
​

Emphasis mine. Again, this chimes with common sense; a creature doesn't suddenly read your mind and learn what the power does to someone else.

Having said that, this doesn't mean creatures can't perceive visible effects or use common sense. It may assume that a wizard knows the spell Shield and might interrupt an attack, but it won't know so until the wizard uses the power. It may assume a defender will retaliate if it violates the mark, but it won't know how until they see it (or if they're experts and know what to expect; e.g. knowledge check). A PC might assume a creature with long agile limbs has threatening reach, but it won't know what the opportunity attack does until it occurs. He might not even recognize that the creature has threatening reach or even reach - depending on the creature, and the PC's perception, insight and knowledge.

 

[Nullzone]

Okay, but in the case of Brash Assault, you've done exactly that; you've hit a monster, which immediately grants them the ability to hit you with an MBA with combat advantage. If they take the attack, they are going to get attacked in return.

I'm not seeing where we're at odds on this. Of course the guy across the map won't know this offhand just because it happened to his buddy, but he may (with some applied intelligence) be able to deduce the effect with some observation.

 

[eamon]

Okay, but in the case of Brash Assault, you've done exactly that; you've hit a monster, which immediately grants them the ability to hit you with an MBA with combat advantage. If they take the attack, they are going to get attacked in return.

I'm not seeing where we're at odds on this. Of course the guy across the map won't know this offhand just because it happened to his buddy, but he may (with some applied intelligence) be able to deduce the effect with some observation.

I was under the impression that you were suggesting the victim of brash assault would know of the trap before he makes his attack. Of course, once he's seen it happen anything smarter than a zombie will put 2+2 together.

This is in contrast to a paladin's Divine Challenge, in which the conditional effect applies to the target, and thus the target knows of it the moment it's applied - i.e. before he gets punished.

How's this for a rule of thumb: if one of a power's effects requires an action to be spent by someone else (even a free action) then that part of the power isn't yet affecting the target, and the target doesn't (automatically*) know of it.

*though possibly through common sense, Insight, Perception, Knowledge, experience, DM fiat, yadda yadda.