Riposte Strike, etc., and Page 57

[Stormtower]

As an RPGA DM, I have lately been consistently unimpressed with this "Let the DM handle it" business when it comes to poorly designed and/or implemented rules. I have news for WotC... all that talk about the players and DM entertaining each other is great for home games (no, I mean it... it's fracking great!) but it just won't fly when there is an expectation of a reasonably uniform play experience.

Low levels will be fine, because the complexity is low. But there will be endless conversations and lawyering about the rules' intent in organized play, where - let's face it - there is frequently a competitive element. DMs want everyone to have fun, and they don't want to play favorites or make inconsistent rulings that upset players... but we also don't enjoy giving the game away to aggressive rules lawyers who take up table time arguing their point.

Remind me again how these responses from Custserv (I will grant that this fellow Marc seems to be trying hard to get a solid answer from the devs) are supposed to be encouraging a clean, fast and uniform play experience?

We can do better. 4E is a game with great promise, but these ambiguities and inconsistencies (power knowledge/metagaming rulings, plus stealth rules) need to be erased before they do serious, permanent "system damage" to the new 4E rules set.

 

[ravenwing1234]

How I've been running my games is generally in agreement with marc's second definition in which the only things the enemies know is the attack/spell and its immediate effects from the list of effects/conditions in the PHB.

And the reason why I think monsters know about divine challenge damage is that its effect is essentially an enhanced version of the mark effect. While mark is -2 to attack if you dont attack me, and divine challenge is -2 and damage if you dont attack me.
Monsters don't know about combat challenge still though because the interrupt attack is not directly part of the effect/condition, but part of the fighter's response to a foe under the influence of a condition.

So by this thinking, the enemy does not know about the possible interrupt from riposte strike and other similar powers.

Thats the best way to run it in my opinion.

 

[fuindordm]

Yeah, the second ruling makes more sense to me too.

Why should a creature know which power you're using? Let's take a hypothetical situation:

"Bonnie" has two powers.

One is Str. vs AC for [W]+Str damage, and lets her shift two squares after the attack (which she chooses not to do).
One is Str. vs AC for [W]+Str damage, and lets her make a riposte attack if the creature just struck attacks her before the end of her next turn.

How can the target tell the difference between these two powers? Presumably both are "distracting" in some sense, she just uses the opening for different things in the two cases.

The case of the paladin is more clear-cut, because the Divine Challenge description specifically points out that the creature is aware of the consequences. Specific beats general, and all that.

The fighter's mark is similar to Bonnie's powers. A creature may learn that it has been marked, but it doesn't know immediately whether the PC is a soldier or a FIGHTER. I think all it would know is that it has a -2 to hit other targets, until the first time the fighter whacks someone just for shifting. At that point the enemies realize that they are dealing with someone much more skilled than usual, and react accordingly.

 

[Syrsuro]

I think that the customer service answer is in error and that this begs for errata.

I think that the RAI for a mark (including divine challenge) and for the dance of death are entirely different. The purpose of a mark is to give the target an incentive to attack the marker and thus they should know of the marks effect while the purpose of the dance of death is to create a 'gotcha' situation under which the target does not know what the outcome will be and makes an attack which is then redirected. Thus that is the simplest ruling and the one I think they should have gone with. In other words - marks are distinctly different from other 'future effects' created by attacks and in some way are designed to communicate the relevant information to the opponent. Asking how is a futile exercise in attempted simulationism.

The problem is that they are trying to come up with a unifying mechanic to 'simplify' the situation - and this is a mistake.

I would go with the second answer given (the condition does not rest upon the target but upon the rogue and thus they are unaware) for attacks such as the dance of death and with the first and final answer given for marks (including divine challenge, because in that case the condition does rest upon the markee, and also because that is the purpose of a mark).

That seems to be the intent of the rules.


That said - the idea of making it be dependant upon the intelligence and knowledge of the target has some appeal, although it also would add significant complexity and would definately fall into the realm of a houserule.

Carl