Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5566033" data-attributes="member: 51942">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 RulesYour 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 SenseI'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 applyDon'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.</blockquote>

Verification