Marking

[Nullzone]

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.

Well, no, that's exactly what I'm saying -- the person who is hit by Brash Assault immediately knows that if he takes this free swing, he should expect retaliation.

To be (a little) clearer:

Monster A is hit by a warlord with Brash Assault. Monster A immediately knows he has the option of taking a free attack, but will be attacked in return if he does. Monster B across the field does not, but may be able to deduce as much by intellect. (ultimately this only matters if Monster B has some way of protecting his ally while he takes the free attacks; if Monster B were attacked with Brash Assault, he too would immediately recognize the ploy).

Coincidentally, your rule of thumb applies to Divine Challenge too -- the punishment effect won't happen at all unless the monster willfully ignores it, so if monsters don't know about the result of an effect until they otherwise trigger it, then they'd have no idea what's going to happen if they violate that mark.

It still makes cognitive sense. A tactician can recognize when he's being set up, especially when presented with a blatant and favorable opening (strike back with CA? That's like dropping your weapon as soon as you hit, it doesn't get more obvious than that). Sometimes he'll take that risk, and sometimes he won't.

Doesn't it strike you a little silly to think that a monster would be like "RAR!" and then you would be like "Aha, gotchu!" and then he would say "Oh man I never saw that coming!" with such a technical setup like that?

 

[eamon]

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.

[...]The person who is hit by Brash Assault immediately knows that if he takes this free swing, he should expect retaliation.

[...]

Coincidentally, your rule of thumb applies to Divine Challenge too -- the punishment effect won't happen at all unless the monster willfully ignores it, so if monsters don't know about the result of an effect until they otherwise trigger it, then they'd have no idea what's going to happen if they violate that mark.

The rule of thumb is that the target only knows effects that happen automatically, not those that require someone else to take an action. So something like Divine Challenge would be known - the effect is automatic (if conditional); the punishment isn't caused by some action of a different creature. In any case, regardless of this rule of thumb, RAW is clear; the target of a power does not (automatically) know all of a power's effects, just those on it.

The Rules
Your interpretation (that the target knows all effects) is contrary to both the rules compendium and PHB text which qualify that knowledge by using phrases such as "what a power has done to it". (see previous post for exact rules quote).

Not only is it a misinterpretation of the rules, it makes gameplay more complex by requiring more explanation of effects that (in general) don't even affect the target.

Finally, it renders several powers in the game entirely pointless.

All in all, this interpretation is thus clearly neither RAW nor RAI, nor is there a case that this is a beneficial house ruling.

Common Sense

Doesn't it strike you a little silly to think that a monster would be like "RAR!" and then you would be like "Aha, gotchu!" and then he would say "Oh man I never saw that coming!" with such a technical setup like that?

I'd expect a smart monster to suspect trickery. I'd not expect him to know which trickery. It's kind of like an opportunity attack: if someone provokes an opportunity attack by moving away, I expect they have a good reason for it. That doesn't mean you know what they're up to, nor that it's a trap - just that a creature is taking a risk now for some future gain. And more other powers, such as the rogue's Dance of Death, there's no tip-off that trickery is afoot in the first place.

You use the word "technical", and seem to suggest that the rules are artificial and incongruous. How is it "technical" that a creature knows what's happening to it? The opposite interpretation is far more artificial; it makes very little in-game sense for creature A to be bestowed with detailed knowledge of the effect X on creature B merely because it's been affected by effect Y that happened to be described by the same meta-game rule element called a "power". How does that make sense? It doesn't.

RAW works, makes in-game sense, and power-design supplies evidence that it's intentional too.


Why the DMG's "Avoid Gotcha's" doesn't apply
Don't be mislead by the DMG advice about Gotcha's: that's about something slightly different. The DMG suggests avoiding unfair gotcha's and to ensure that sufficient description and communication occurs. E.g. to describe in-game how an effect might look before the PC's are affected. And indeed, it rarely makes no sense to have a aura of fire that burns creatures at range 5 yet is undetectable at range 6. But that doesn't mean they need to know the exact effects, nor does it mean all effects must be known beforehand. For example, the game still includes traps, which are pretty explicitly gotcha's.

And indeed both Brash Assault and, say, a defender's mark contain in their very rules clear warnings. Brash Assault, as you say, let's a monster get in a hit, and it should be asking itself why the PC is letting that happen. Defenders typically impose the marked condition, and that's known, and they can expect the defender to enfore that mark somehow. And that's even if the affected creature has no prior knowledge; which of course it may.

 

[Nullzone]

Ah, I misunderstood your distinction then. I was still thinking in terms of reading a power block, and that the entire Effect line is known unless the Effect (or some part thereof) first requires a condition be met, in which case they don't know it until the condition is met, which would mean monsters wouldn't understand Divine Challenge until they violate it.

But if I understand you correctly now, your distinction is that if the condition to be met simply enables another, separate action (whether taken by the creature imposing the Effect or some other unit on the field), then they wouldn't be aware of that trigger or its consequence until after it fires...whereas an automatic "If X then Y" response that requires no further action from any party (such as Divine Challenge) is made known immediately.

Is that more in terms with what you're saying?

 

[keterys]

Not sure I really see the rules justification for that, though. Essentially, it makes the following two effects entirely different:

Effect: If the target makes an attack before the end of its next turn, an adjacent ally may make a basic attack against the target as a free action.
Effect: The target is watched until the end of its next turn. While watched, if the target makes an attack, an adjacent ally may make a melee basic attack against the target as a free action.

In one case it's told what happened, in the other it isn't, but the actual game mechanic is the same. Meh.

 

[Nullzone]

Well, no; if my interpretation of @eamon is correct, neither of your proposed instances would allow the creature to know what will happen.

The only time they get to know what happens is if the power says something like "If the target hits you while being watched, he takes damage equal to your CON modifier"; there's no action involved, it just is.

The distinction being actions. If nobody but the affected creature has to interact for it to happen, then they know it'll happen. If it requires action by another creature, then they are unaware of it on application, and only realize the occurrence via applied knowledge/observation after the followup actions have occurred.

 

[keterys]

Heh, that's even worse in a way, since now it's watched... and it has no idea at all what that means

But, revised:
Effect: The next time the target makes an attack before the end of its next turn, any enemy of its may make an opportunity attack against it.
Effect: The target is watched until the end of its next turn. While watched, the first time it makes an attack, it provokes opportunity attacks.

 

[eamon]

Heh, that's even worse in a way, since now it's watched... and it has no idea at all what that means

But, revised:
Effect: The next time the target makes an attack before the end of its next turn, any enemy of its may make an opportunity attack against it.
Effect: The target is watched until the end of its next turn. While watched, the first time it makes an attack, it provokes opportunity attacks.

Right! And of course, that's a well-found fine-distinction there, the actual game doesn't tend to make intentionally confusing situations like that.

But in any case, in you example, the distinction does make sense, right? If you grant your allies unusual perception, so they can make an extra attack, that's different than making your enemies clumsier, so they provoke Opportunity Attacks. Sure, the end result may be the same (an attack), but the cause is entirely different, and thus the targets are different, and thus different creatures end up noticing.

 

[Balesir]

The only time they get to know what happens is if the power says something like "If the target hits you while being watched, he takes damage equal to your CON modifier"; there's no action involved, it just is..

So, just to clarify in my own mind what you mean, what is the difference between triggering damage and triggering an action? Why is the target not told "if you make an attack you will trigger an action" where it is told "if you make an attack you will trigger some damage"?

 

[keterys]

But in any case, in you example, the distinction does make sense, right?

Not really.

If you grant your allies unusual perception, so they can make an extra attack, that's different than making your enemies clumsier, so they provoke Opportunity Attacks. Sure, the end result may be the same (an attack), but the cause is entirely different, and thus the targets are different, and thus different creatures end up noticing.

They're both the same game effect. They should both work the same. Your way only supposes the target is blind to what's going on around them.

And I don't feel that the rules sufficiently support your interpretation over any other, especially not to that specific of a degree.

In overwhelming play at the table, and overwhelming forum discussion, Q&A, Customer Service, etc... when a creature uses a power on you, you're told what the power does. You don't exclude half the lines for some gotcha, based on whether you feel the target has to know or not.

Whether it's Riposte Strike or Brash Assault, or even Dance of Death.

 

[eamon]

They're both the same game effect. They should both work the same. Your way only supposes the target is blind to what's going on around them.

There aren't the same effect. One of them affects the monster, making it provoke; and the other grants a new abilities to the PCs. Would a monster know of a ranger's Disruptive Strike power before he uses it? Of course not - he can't know the exact abilities of his opponents (again barring in-game knowledge, of course). Why would any other ability be different?

And I don't feel that the rules sufficiently support your interpretation over any other, especially not to that specific of a degree.

As point of fact the rules are very slim on this matter in any case. They certainly don't support automatic knowledge of what a power does to others either - I already quoted the relevant bits, and that's all the rules I know of on this matter. The extra knowledge (over the effect a power has on it) - where do you find that rule; or how do you interpret the existing phrase to mean that?

The point I'm trying to make is that you're reasoning from a default (affected creatures know unrelated effects), and are saying that my evidence is slim. Well, it is. But I don't think that's a very reasonable starting point.

In overwhelming play at the table, and overwhelming forum discussion,

These kind of things take on their own life. It's a useful simplification to make; after all: a creature knows what a power does. The distinction rarely matters - so it doesn't surprise me that the less common case of a power affecting others is less well understood.

Q&A, Customer Service, etc... when a creature uses a power on you, you're told what the power does.

Perhaps the rules were ill-phrased and CS has clarified that. But for the various reasons previously discussed (in short, RAW and powers that don't work otherwise), I find it unlikely that RAI is that creatures know of the entire power text. But heck; crazier things have certainly happened. I know it's a hassle finding these things, but if you'd have a link to such a Q&A or CS question, it'd help.

You don't exclude half the lines for some gotcha, based on whether you feel the target has to know or not.

You're suggesting that the rule is vague and difficult to execute. Well, (A) it's D&D, there's a DM for a reason, use common sense. And (B) that's not really true either since there's a clear cut test: who is the power's effect affecting? That's the creature that knows automatically. If the power grants an attack, the attacker knows, not the attackee. If the power forces the target to provoke an OA, the provoker knows, not the attacker.

The only confusing thing is the conditional issue: if a power isn't yet affecting a target but might, does it know? And the Divine Challenge example clarifies that nicely: it doesn't matter whether the effect doesn't kick in until later.