Marking

[Destil]

Can't the monsters just make a 'monster knowledge' check vs. the PCs?

 

[eamon]

Can't the monsters just make a 'monster knowledge' check vs. the PCs?

The DM can just handwave it when appropriate, too - but yeah, that's what I'm referring to with "barring in-game knowledge". If the opponents know the PC's or have experience fighting other's of their class, they could know much more than whatever the rules provide. That's a fun way to make it clear to the player's that they're dealing with smart opponents or that their PC's have been Noticed by the BBEG -- a roving band of NPC, a shout "it's them!", followed by a fight in which the NPC's exploit a few of their weaknesses or strategies...

That's another motivation to avoid using too much metagame knowledge normally, incidentally - those kind of moments work much better if they're clearly in contrast to the usual unsuspecting monster.

 

[keterys]

There aren't the same effect.

There is a semantic difference, and only that. You're presupposing that one affects the monster and the other affects PCs, but it might actually be that one was designed by one guy who writes powers in one way, and the other by another. One might have been written before they started using the concept of adding tags like "watched" to powers, which only came in later.

They might actually be the _same power_, in different sources (ex: Printed vs. Compendium)

Would a monster know of a ranger's Disruptive Strike power before he uses it?

Nope.

They certainly don't support automatic knowledge of what a power does to others either

The rules don't support your distinction. A target provoking OAs when it attacks being "on others" because they get to make an OA vs the target, cause he provokes, isn't defined in the rules. It's a construct you've created to explain a distinction, and if it were in the rules, that'd be fine.

But it isn't.

The only guidance I've ever seen and the only play I've ever seen, is that when a power is used, you explain its effects (and "the target is going to get hit if it attacks" counts, no matter how the wording is manipulated), and folks react accordingly. It's the consistent way to follow the "monster knows what you did to it" rule and it works well in play.

But for the various reasons previously discussed (in short, RAW and powers that don't work otherwise)

What powers don't work?

Dance of Death works great for shutting down further attacks against the rogue, and has extra synergy with attack redirection or target forcing powers.

Riposte Strike and Brash Assault create a very real choice / catch 22.

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.

D&D has rule arguments over simpler stuff, indeed. People just like arguing I wouldn't use the words "common sense" with respect to D&D though... that way leads madness.

 

[keterys]

Eh, for clarity... as long as the group knows how it works, I think you're fine going with whichever way.

Heck, part of my interest in this is that it's very rare that Eamon and I disagree on anything

 

[eamon]

There is a semantic difference, and only that.

Your point being? It's a difference. Due to the phrasing of the rule which says that creatures know what been done to them, it matters. The difference between fire damage and psychic damage doesn't matter either; it's the same effect - right? But it still can matter when the rules make the distinction; and they do here.

I've posted a rules quote, motivated why this interpretation plays well and is reasonable in-game.

You state differently. But with with no identifiable rules support, no RAI motivation, no in-game reasonable explanation, well...

 

[eamon]

Eh, for clarity... as long as the group knows how it works, I think you're fine going with whichever way.

Heck, part of my interest in this is that it's very rare that Eamon and I disagree on anything

Yeah, the number of times this will seriously matter will be... vanishingly small. The only standard mechanic would seem to be marking, but even there it's good practice to keep things varied (i.e. sometimes violate and sometimes not), and if you're doing that it's not like it's very relevant whether the monster should-have-known and wasn't the smartest, or couldn't have known but got lucky, or whatever. So actually I think it's not the best example.

And Brash Strike... well, if the monster knows the details of the power, it's totally pointless, but it's not exactly recommended even if it doesn't. And if a player were to pick such an obviously borked power, it'd be nice to run it in a way that does work, regardless of the rules.

 

[keterys]

And Brash Strike... well, if the monster knows the details of the power, it's totally pointless, but it's not exactly recommended even if it doesn't. And if a player were to pick such an obviously borked power, it'd be nice to run it in a way that does work, regardless of the rules.

Brash Assault works, even if the monster knows. It's not necessarily an optimal choice, but frankly warlords don't have that many of those. It's better than Sure Strike, certainly.

And Brash Assault with Harlequin style is flat out ridiculously good.

I just spent 15 minutes trying to find a single thread where people played it your way. My google skills are failing

Anyhow, even at its core, if you assume the following -
Brash Assault is always known, and will only result in the free attack being taken when the DM feels it is in his best interest...

That's still fairly often. Whenever the monster feels it deals more damage than the ally. Whenever the monster cares more about dropping the healer (warlord) than in being damaged itself. Whenever things are sufficiently close that a monster getting a free crit might shift the course of battle. Whenever it would make the battle more fun or go faster, or the enemy cares more about the "war" than the particular battle. Etc.

And all without needing to make a knowledge check or "gut call" every time the power comes up, to see whether the monster would know that it's going to get attacked when it's used on it.

 

[mneme]

keterys: I get the "sometimes the monster will just act in character even though it's against its best interest."

But...barring that, when are the monster's interest and the warlord's interest aligned? Because barring that (tiny) point of equilibrium, the monster should end up doing whatever's best -- which means the warlord is either using a power that's actively harmful to his or her side or that is actively worse than a basic attack if only because you can't charge with it.

 

[keterys]

If the power increases the chance of the warlord dropping, and team monster winning, at the same time that it increases the chance of the monster dropping, and team PC winning, it can be advantageous for both sides.

It can be advantageous even if all it does is burn up warlord surges, or allow the monster to eke out a tiny more damage done before its inevitable defeat.

It doesn't have to act against its best interest. Its best interests just have to include killing the warlord.

 

[keterys]

How about the following powers:
Hellish Rebuke - If you take damage before the end of your next turn, the target takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier fire damage.
Riposte Strike - If the target attacks you before the start of your next turn, you make your riposte against the target as an immediate interrupt: a Strength vs. AC attack that deals 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Is your feeling that the target should have no way to notice the effects of such powers? Is there no change in the target or attacker, in terms of stance or readiness, lingering flames? Do the powers fail to work if they are a deterrent against further attack, rather than a hidden gotcha of the attack?