Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4388160" data-attributes="member: 58162">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</blockquote>

Verification