Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zillah" data-source="post: 4484545" data-attributes="member: 72423">I think you are using the word meta game out of context. If it was meta-gaming, thats pretty much saying cheating. But knowing what effects that you are under after someone uses an ability is not meta-gaming at all because its in the rules.Now, for example, if a rogue uses an attack that knocks you out as part of the attack, and you look through the PHB to see what that attack is, and then tell the party, thats meta-gaming.A creature knows its marked. It knows all the effects of the status. For example, an undead knows that it will take radiant damage if it does not attack the paladin that marked it. That is a part of the mark. If in fact creatures didn't know that they would take damage, or provoke interrupts from the fighter, then defenders would be too good, because monsters would never have a chance to do anything else. They would be dead from too many mistakes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zillah, post: 4484545, member: 72423"] I think you are using the word meta game out of context. If it was meta-gaming, thats pretty much saying cheating. But knowing what effects that you are under after someone uses an ability is not meta-gaming at all because its in the rules. Now, for example, if a rogue uses an attack that knocks you out as part of the attack, and you look through the PHB to see what that attack is, and then tell the party, thats meta-gaming. A creature knows its marked. It knows all the effects of the status. For example, an undead knows that it will take radiant damage if it does not attack the paladin that marked it. That is a part of the mark. If in fact creatures didn't know that they would take damage, or provoke interrupts from the fighter, then defenders would be too good, because monsters would never have a chance to do anything else. They would be dead from too many mistakes. [/QUOTE]

Verification