Do 4E monsters realize they are the subject of player abilities?

[Shackled Terror]

Hey guys,

I have a pretty fundamental question about 4E combat rules that I don't think is clearly explained in the core rulebooks, as far as I can tell: Do monsters know that they have been the targets of player's abilities? Even mindless monsters?

As a DM, I would naturally assume that, if powers present a
trade off, the monsters should be aware of them just as the DM is.

HOWEVER, many powers present a tradeoff that implies ignorance on the
part of the monster. For example, there is a Warden power which reads:
"If the monster moves before it's next turn, it falls prone in its
square." If monsters knew about this power they would never move -
it's never tactically advantageous to do so. So the fact that the
power is not simply an immobilization power implies that the monsters
don't know they're affected by it.

On the other hand, if creature's don't know they're affected by
various powers, many of them become absolutely insane. Think of a
fighter and his mark power, for example. Of course as a goblin charger
I want to run right past the fighter and attack the sorcerer. If I
don't know I've been marked, that will be my natural movement. So the
fighter is getting a free attack like every round on every marked
creature, immobilizing them if he hits, which makes the class truly
amazing.

On a more basic level, I'm just not sure it makes sense for something like an ooze or animal to be making such sophisticated tactical decisions - how would something like a bear or a black pudding even understand what a Warden is? Anyone have a better sense of how this is supposed to work?

[Tengu_temp]

I'm 90% sure it's an official rule that all creatures know what is the result of the powers that affect them.

[Flickerdart]

Well, it would make sense that a creature knows it's been marked. You are issuing a challenge, after all. Not so much for the mystical energies that swirl around it, waiting to trip it when it decides to cheese it.

[Holocron Coder]

I generally play it as "they don't know until they learn about it." If they can't really learn or understand it, then they don't know it.

So, play them like a person that's never seen that class before. He gets marked. "Ok, nothing special." Then he notices that whenever he does x, the class gets to do y. Then, he'll figure it out and decide if its worth it. I doubt a slime or even the dumber animals could figure it out. Though, in the case of the fighter, being hit a lot might just make them attack him anyway

[Pyron]

Here's my thought on the matter. I would just interrupt that the creature is aware that they've been 'marked', but they might not know the consequences of that mark until they trigger it.

For example, PC Fighter marks the goblin skirmishers. In character, I imagine that this involved some form of intimidation or battle cry since it was marked after an attack. Now, the goblin knows that fighter is daring him but he does not know what will happen if he tries to dart for the wizard. However, if he did get attacked 2-3 time in the encounter from the mark's AoO then the goblin does have an idea the fighter will intercept him.

That's my basic understanding, but keep in mind I'm not really familiar with the 4e rules.

[Asbestos]

Arcane Power states that creatures can 'feel' when they are cursed by a Warlock. I know we're mostly talking about marks, but I feel that Curse and Quarry matter as well.

[Tyger]

Page 57 of the PHB - last paragraph. There's your answer and that answer is yes, the monster knows what you did, and exactly what the consequences are.

[Limos]

I assume that creatures know that they are marked or challenged or cursed. But they do not know the effect of that until they get hit with it.

So usually I give the players one free ignorance hit before the monsters wise up. Unless the enemies are naturally dense (Ogres, Trolls, Animals) in which case they won't catch on to what is tripping them up until they have been hit several times.

When DM'ing you have to take into account that most of the monsters aren't very smart. Tactics are beyond their grasp and most of them will just lash out at the nearest enemy unless the get repeatedly smacked down for it.

Sure if you are fighting high INT enemies like a Lich or a Drow, then they will avoid the bad effects because they know how it works. But if you are fighting a Hill Giant he won't know much about Arcane spells.

[Tyger]

Limos, look one answer up.

You're certainly free to houserule that, but per RAW, that's not correct.

[OneFamiliarFace]

Page 57 of the PHB - last paragraph. There's your answer and that answer is yes, the monster knows what you did, and exactly what the consequences are.

This. By the rules, the monster knows every aspect of any ability that hits him. (I assume this goes likewise for the PCs, and they shouldn't be tricked by the abilities, by the rules.)

Still, as always, it is up to you as the DM to decide. I kind of decide it on the go, depending on the intelligence of the monsters, obviousness of player abilities, etc. It is a good idea to know how your monsters will react to various things when planning the battle.

Spoiler

Show

An example is that I created a Squig (from warhammer), and wanted him to seem "rampage-y," so I decided that he would attempt to attack the easiest target to reach who had dealt damage to him in the previous turn, regardless of any mark effects, etc.. If he had been affected by that prone warden power, then he would have found himself prone if he had run off after a ranged ranger, and would then be forced to just bite at the warden instead.

Note that you don't have to make such detailed strategies with everyone. That squig was level 3 when the party was level 1, and kind of constituted a day's "boss encounter."

I guess my ultimate rule these days is if it is going to create a cool scene for the PCs, then I go with it (regardless of whatever ruling that is). Of course, I have to be careful not to throw odd rules changes at the PCs in the middle of combat, so if you like to have things set in stone, then go with the PHB ruling listed above.

[tcrudisi]

Page 57 of the PHB - last paragraph. There's your answer and that answer is yes, the monster knows what you did, and exactly what the consequences are.

I read the OP's first post and thought, "I need to go pick up my PHB to find the page to cite." As I was doing my cursory glance through the remaining posts, I found the one I quoted above. I double-checked the page just to make sure, and yes it is the exact paragraph that I was thinking of. Tyger is 100% correct. The monster knows every effect that is on it and what events will set them off.

[Tyger]

This. By the rules, the monster knows every aspect of any ability that hits him. (I assume this goes likewise for the PCs, and they shouldn't be tricked by the abilities, by the rules.)

Still, as always, it is up to you as the DM to decide. I kind of decide it on the go, depending on the intelligence of the monsters, obviousness of player abilities, etc. It is a good idea to know how your monsters will react to various things when planning the battle.

Spoiler

Show

An example is that I created a Squig (from warhammer), and wanted him to seem "rampage-y," so I decided that he would attempt to attack the easiest target to reach who had dealt damage to him in the previous turn, regardless of any mark effects, etc.. If he had been affected by that prone warden power, then he would have found himself prone if he had run off after a ranged ranger, and would then be forced to just bite at the warden instead.

Note that you don't have to make such detailed strategies with everyone. That squig was level 3 when the party was level 1, and kind of constituted a day's "boss encounter."

I guess my ultimate rule these days is if it is going to create a cool scene for the PCs, then I go with it (regardless of whatever ruling that is). Of course, I have to be careful not to throw odd rules changes at the PCs in the middle of combat, so if you like to have things set in stone, then go with the PHB ruling listed above.

Yeah, this is how I handle it too. Sure, the critter may take 2 points of damage, or be attacked once, but that skinny fellow over there just hit it really, really hard. That skinny fellow has to die!!!! :)

Keep in mind that even (and perhaps moreso) intelligent creatures may well decide that it is more tactically advantageous to completely ignore the one who marked them in favour of taking out a more dangerous target, or even one that they perceive as more dangerous. Anything with a vulnerability is going to be targetting the folks hitting it with that force. Anything smart may take out the controller first, or focus its attention solely on the striker, to take it down fast.

[Colmarr]

Tyger is 100% correct. The monster knows every effect that is on it and what events will set them off.

But note the bolded words, because they're important.

A monster would not automatically know that Priest's Shield gives the cleric +1 to AC.

That's perhaps a less-than-useful example, but a better one is the (IIRC) avenger power that causes damage to subsequent attackers.

The original victim of the avenger's power (ie. the monster he attacks with it) would not know about that retaliatory aspect of the power, because it is not a condition or effect imposed on the monster. It is imposed on the avenger.

[herrhauptmann]

So then what would be your ruling for say: the Avenger power "Avenging Echo"
"Until the end of your next turn, any eney that ends its turn adjacent to you or that hits or misses you takes 5 Radiant damage."
It's a power on the avenger that is activated by hitting an enemy. And it affects all enemies, not just the one hit by the avenger.

[Colmarr]

So then what would be your ruling for say: the Avenger power "Avenging Echo"
"Until the end of your next turn, any eney that ends its turn adjacent to you or that hits or misses you takes 5 Radiant damage."
It's a power on the avenger that is activated by hitting an enemy. And it affects all enemies, not just the one hit by the avenger.

EDIT: Hmm, on second thought, I want to check my PHB before answering specific questions (unless someone cares to post the exact wording from the RAW).

[Oracle_Hunter]

Gentlemen, behold!

Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.

Now my standard ruling is: if I would tell the PCs when they were affected by this power, I'll tell the monster too.

Marking - I'd tell the PCs, so I tell the monsters.

Unbalancing Parry - Hasn't been used yet, so I wouldn't tell the PCs until they triggered it.

For Avenging Echo, I wouldn't tell the monsters exactly what happened, but I would note the visual effect - "a nimbus of pure light surrounds the Avenger, sparkling dangerously as you approach." The monster knows it's something bad, but not exactly what triggers it. Same way that I describe dangerous auras around monsters for the PCs.

[Colmarr]

Stuff

In the famour words of Justice McHugh, "I concur".

Except about Unbalancing Parry. I have no idea what that is or what it does, so I'll stay silent on it

The "nimbus of light" is arguably not RAW, but at some point common sense and verisimilitude should step in. Otherwise players will start complaining to DMs that monsters shouldn't know that their robe-wearing orb-wielding PC is a wizard and probably has a low Fort defence.

And then the fun stops altogether (IMO).

[magellan]

I think the real answer is: "we don't know, and we don't want to"

Someone put it much more eloquent than i ever could here:
http://www.thealexandrian.net/archiv...html#20080514b

[Oracle_Hunter]

The "nimbus of light" is arguably not RAW, but at some point common sense and verisimilitude should step in. Otherwise players will start complaining to DMs that monsters shouldn't know that their robe-wearing orb-wielding PC is a wizard and probably has a low Fort defence.

Plus, I've always liked spicing up battles with descriptions of the actions. I always thought "the enemy sorcerer casts Glitterdust, make saves" was much less exciting than "the enemy sorcerer chants a brief invocation before flinging his palm out towards you. A blast of golden motes whips through the party. Make saves."

For instance, I ran an Ettercap encounter last night and I realized I needed an explanation for all the web attacks they had. So I had them have Spiderman-like spinnerets in their hands which quickly wove a net of spiderwebs that the Ettercaps would then throw at their opponents. The Ettercap Webspinner even had enlarged sacks on his arms to account for the massive amount of spinning he does.

[Shackled Terror]

Really nice answers so far, thanks guys. So as I understand it now, only the specific target of the player's ability knows he has been affected, not all the monsters in the encounter. But, for example, can the Goblin Skirmisher shout to his goblin buddies "Hey guys, I've been marked by this fighter here, I'm not going to be able to help you fight the wizard" or "This warden has done something to me guys. I've got to stay in this exact spot or I'm going to fall over for some reason"?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Really nice answers so far, thanks guys. So as I understand it now, only the specific target of the player's ability knows he has been affected, not all the monsters in the encounter. But, for example, can the Goblin Skirmisher shout to his goblin buddies "Hey guys, I've been marked by this fighter here, I'm not going to be able to help you fight the wizard" or "This warden has done something to me guys. I've got to stay in this exact spot or I'm going to fall over for some reason"?

Yes, though he'd probably phrase it more like this:

"Agh, I'm tied up with this warrior dude. Someone else take care of that wizard!"

[TheOOB]

Really, you have time to talk when a fighter uses combat challenge on you, I always imagined it as a flurry of bladework that requires your upmost attention to parry away, and any focus away from the fighter will leave an oppertunity to attack that the fighter will take.

[Ninetail]

Hey guys,

I have a pretty fundamental question about 4E combat rules that I don't think is clearly explained in the core rulebooks, as far as I can tell: Do monsters know that they have been the targets of player's abilities? Even mindless monsters?

Yes.

Personally, I generally except mindless monsters, and I take the monsters' intelligence into account when deciding the action they take. But by the rules, yes, the monster knows what effects are on it and what effects they'll suffer if they trigger a condition.

HOWEVER, many powers present a tradeoff that implies ignorance on the
part of the monster. For example, there is a Warden power which reads:
"If the monster moves before it's next turn, it falls prone in its
square." If monsters knew about this power they would never move -
it's never tactically advantageous to do so. So the fact that the
power is not simply an immobilization power implies that the monsters
don't know they're affected by it.

Not necessarily. I don't have the book handy, but one possible explanation is that not all movement is voluntary. The monster might not want to move, tactically, but if the warden's buddy pushes it, that's still movement unless the power excepts forced movement.

On the other hand, if creature's don't know they're affected by
various powers, many of them become absolutely insane. Think of a
fighter and his mark power, for example.

In addition to the general rule, the marked condition is explicitly called out as something the monster is aware of.

On a more basic level, I'm just not sure it makes sense for something like an ooze or animal to be making such sophisticated tactical decisions - how would something like a bear or a black pudding even understand what a Warden is? Anyone have a better sense of how this is supposed to work?

You're confusing the mechanics for the fluff.

The mechanic is that the monster is aware of the consequence of the Warden's attack.

The fluff is that the big guy who just decked the monster did something magical that caused a bunch of plants to grow out of the ground and start wrapping around the monster's legs, and it needs to take some time (until the end of its next turn) to free itself, or else those plants are going to trip it up when it tries to move.

[Kurald Galain]

In other games, I'd go for telling the players what their characters see and having them figure it out from there, and would tell the player more if he has high perception, or kenning, or some other kind of sense. Likewise, whatever the players do to enemies won't be known by the enemy unless it has prodigous intelligence or some other way of figuring it out. I find this more fun - "well, there's a translucent skull hovering over you. What will you do?"

But in 4E that doesn't really work, so yes, both players and monsters are supposed to be completely aware of what the other party has done to them, regardless of intelligence, perception or anything else. Although I do still adjust monster tactics to account for monster intelligence (e.g. zombies will attack whatever PC is closest to them, unless controlled by a necromancer that knows better).

[Burley]

Here is my answer (and sorry if I'm repeating): Page 57 of the Phb says "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exaclty what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed."
If you head over to page 277, you see the section on Conditions. Being marked is a condition, and a target understands when it is marked. Dealing X damage if the target moves away is not on the list of conditions, and, therefore, the creature is not aware until it happens.

[herrhauptmann]

Here is my answer (and sorry if I'm repeating): Page 57 of the Phb says "Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exaclty what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed."
If you head over to page 277, you see the section on Conditions. Being marked is a condition, and a target understands when it is marked. Dealing X damage if the target moves away is not on the list of conditions, and, therefore, the creature is not aware until it happens.

Therefore I don't need to inform the DM if all the monsters will take damage merely from being near me?

[Colmarr]

Therefore I don't need to inform the DM if all the monsters will take damage merely from being near me?

The rules don't cover what you do and don't tell the DM. That's a playstyle issue, not a rules question.

Having said that, if I were a player and a DM sprung something on me that should have had a warning (such as Avenging Echo) but didn't, then I'd be annoyed. As a DM, I'd expect the same courtesy from the players.

In fact, WotC has gone into print on at least one occasion (in "WotC presents: Races and Classes") to say that 4e as written is heavy on "gotcha!" abilities, and that those abilities should be hinted at wherever possible to avoid unfairly taking players by surprise.

For example, my current DM has significant problems with one of the players routinely tricking him into provoking Combat Challenge attacks from the fighter. He (rightly, IMO) feels that it is against the spirit of a co-operative roleplaying game.

YMMV.

[Asbestos]

For example, my current DM has significant problems with one of the players routinely tricking him into provoking Combat Challenge attacks from the fighter. He (rightly, IMO) feels that it is against the spirit of a co-operative roleplaying game.

Out of curiosity, how is he tricking the DM to provoke Combat Challenge?

[Thajocoth]

Yes. They might not fully understand it though.

I generally look at their int score to decide how tactical the enemies are with what they know how to do. That includes how well effects on them effect them on their turn.

[Colmarr]

Out of curiosity, how is he tricking the DM to provoke Combat Challenge?

A couple of things contribute:

1. The PC is an artful dodger rogue.
2. The PC moves away from the monster in question, provoking an OA. The player says "You get an OA".
3. The DM takes it.
4. The player says "Yay! Now the fighter gets a Combat Challenge attack."
5. The rogue PC then moves straight back into the square it started in - the only reason he moved at all was to trigger Combat Challenge.

It annoys the DM because:

1. The player doesn't warn/remind him about Combat Challenge before he takes the OA; and
2. The player is metagaming Combat Challenge by moving his PC even when the PC has no reason to do so.

Now #2 might ordinarily be acceptable to the DM because at least there's a risk to the PC, but when the monster is at -4 to attack (-2 from Artful Dodger and -2 from being marked by the fighter), it's pretty clear that the rogue is actually in very little danger.

I'm not as annoyed by the tactic as the DM is (mainly because I think I'd fall for it less often than he does), but I must admit that there is a clear lack of "good faith" on the rogue player's part.