What a creature knows question

[Doctor Proctor]

As a side note regarding Defender's Gambit, the major downside is that it costs the victim something. There are cases where a monster would choose not to lose his one immediate action to make a basic attack. If the monster has, say, an immediate action teleport power to get out of Dodge, then he won't react to this daily and that really sucks for the fighter. Instead of an immediate action, this should be a free action on the part of the victim.

Again though, that's one of those corner cases that's unlikely to happen most of the time. Pulling up the Compendium I did a search for level 15 standard monsters with the keyword "immediate", and got 39 results. Sounds like a lot though, right? Well, there are 116 creatures total at that level though, so that means that maybe a third actually have powers that use immediate actions.

Even still, many of those that do are limited to things like once per encounter, or when they're first bloodied. Meaning, they might easily not have access to these immediate action powers when the Fighter uses this power on them, and so they lose nothing.

Point is, you can come up with 101 corner cases where these cirmcumstances might be more or less likely. However, if you just pick a random monster, fast forward to a random round in the fight, and the Fighter uses this power, with all things being equal why would they ever attack the Fighter? What benefit is there to ever do it unless you're sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will drop the Fighter with that attack (in which case, that was a poor choice of timing on the Fighter's part)?

 

[Rune]

Now, in the case of the above power, the actual hit does no damage. It only grants a power bonus to melee attack and damage rolls until the end of your turn (not next turn, but current turn). The target can make a basic attack as an Immediate Reaction, and then you get to make a 5[W] attack against it as a free action, along with those bonuses.

What incentive is there for the monster to attack? This power is granting the choice to do an extra, special, attack as a immediate reaction. If the monster doesn't take it though, then the Fighter loses the 5[W] counter attack, as well as the bonuses to hit and damage. The monster loses nothing in that scenario though, because it was an immediate reaction basic anyway, not their normal atack. However, they pretty much completely invalidate the Fighter's whole Standard action here, unless he uses an Action Point.

Other than the occassional corner case of a really stupid monster that wants to kill the PC anyway, this power is damn near useless. A small child would see that it's a losing proposition, let alone any reasonably intelligent foe. Heck, I would even argue that most animals, if they knew the effect here, would not take this gambit. So who is ever going to take this power?

That effect can be read such that the fighter gets its 5[W] attack after the target would get its immediate reaction whether or not the target actually chooses to make the attack.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That effect can be read such that the fighter gets its 5[W] attack after the target would get its immediate reaction whether or not the target actually chooses to make the attack.

Not at all. The post by [MENTION=78547]Doctor Proctor[/MENTION] doesn't have the indentation correct. The last three lines are all indented. That means they're all part of the effect, which doesn't grant the secondary attack until the victim attacks.

 

[Mirtek]

So who is ever going to take this power?

Well, that simply is a stupidly designed power. That's it. Sometimes designers don't think their ideas through and you end up with powers or items or whatever that actually does nothing.

 

[Grydan]

[MENTION=6679380]wlmartin[/MENTION]

If I'm playing a defender in your game, I'm going to invest exactly zero of my resources into increasing the penalty for avoiding my mark. All of those items, feats, and powers that increase the punishment are clearly largely useless in your campaign, as you're straight up telling me that my mark is rarely going to be violated anyway.

Instead, I'm heavily investing in resources that increase my AC and durability, and my ability to mark multiple foes. I can lock down an entire encounter's worth of foes into attacking me uselessly.

The designers have discussed the genesis of the marking system before. They explicity opted OUT of an aggro system that forced the DM/monsters to attack the defender, and went with a system that gives the DM/monsters a choice between two bad options.

The classes are designed around the idea that that choice happens, and that there's a balancing act for players between making themselves hard to ignore (resources that increase the punishment for not attacking them) and stupid to attack (resources that make them able to withstand more attacks).

If the mark is never violated, the balancing act disappears in favour of a clear path to making yourself more durable.

If the mark is always violated, then the balancing act disappears in favour of boosts to the punishment.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Well, that simply is a stupidly designed power. That's it. Sometimes designers don't think their ideas through and you end up with powers or items or whatever that actually does nothing.

Which is the whole point. Either it's stupidly designed and useless, or monsters aren't supposed to know quite all of the effects. Perhaps the monster should just know that Defender's Gambit gives him a boost to his attack, but leaves him open to a free attack as an Immediate Reaction. Then it's more likely that the secondary attack is going to go off.

If I'm playing a defender in your game, I'm going to invest exactly zero of my resources into increasing the penalty for avoiding my mark. All of those items, feats, and powers that increase the punishment are clearly largely useless in your campaign, as you're straight up telling me that my mark is rarely going to be violated anyway.

Pretty much, which is why it's a bad idea to go to one extreme or the other. A properly built Fighter would be able to multi-mark just about every round, and have tons of feats and utilities to boost their AC, thus making themselves very hard to hit. Your encounters will just devolve into the Fighter aggroing everything he can, with the Strikers cleaning up any stragglers before taking advantage of all the CA due to monsters being stuck to the Fighter. It's going to be a very boring fight.

 

[Mirtek]

Which is the whole point. Either it's stupidly designed and useless, or monsters aren't supposed to know quite all of the effects.

Since RAW is specific (PHB1, page 57) it's simply the former. Happens from time to time

 

[Ferghis]

[MENTION=6679380]wlmartin[/MENTION]

If I'm playing a defender in your game, I'm going to invest exactly zero of my resources into increasing the penalty for avoiding my mark. All of those items, feats, and powers that increase the punishment are clearly largely useless in your campaign, as you're straight up telling me that my mark is rarely going to be violated anyway.

This happens. And the remainder of your analysis is correct. I find myself playing a warden in a similar situation. I rarely make use of my immediate and opportunity actions.

For what it's worth, I agree that the DM might be unnecessarily prolonging combat by rarely violating your mark. But having this understanding does have one indisputable advantage: defenders are often feat-starved classes, and you can skip over a boatload of feats related to punishment. My warden will take Hide Specialization, and all the new essential NAD boosting feats and some mobility and utility feats. It's liberating to ignore all those fantastic feats and not feel bad about it.