I am playing a warden 4th level, and took Earthgrasp Strike as my lvl 3 encounter power.
The DM knowing that the soldier i hit will take the additional 1[w] + Str modifier when it stands up again after being knocked prone, has decided that whenever i use that encounter power, the monster "just doesn't" stand back up. after the root effect ends, for several rounds, the monster just willfully lays there prone.
Now tactically whenever we knock down any monster with any other ability they always stand up immediately. It is only when i use this one ability that does additional dmg to them do they just lay there.
My argument to him was that by doing that, he negates the usefulness of my most powerful ability. By having the monster lay there, we are then required to continue to attack it to finish it off wasting rounds that we could be turning to another monster. Now there are some pros and cons to this.
Pros
Prone targets grant combat advantage or +2 to hit.
Prone targets don't count for flanking.
Cons
no sure thing 1[w] +str mod dmg
cannot move into the square with the prone monster thats still alive.
even with the +2 to hit, i still have to keep using my attack rounds which may be misses even with combat advantage, to finish the monster. (its not a sure thing)
by having this damage not happen, we do not know how wounded the guy "will be" when he stands, thereby making it more difficult to decide what abilities we should use to finish him. the damage i do is 1d 10 +5 so its 6 to 15 dmg a pretty big difference based upon what the roll is.
What we thought as players, was do the monsters know if they stand up they will agravate the wound i caused them and take damage again. It was suggested that they be able to make a nature check to know whether or not they would get hurt again. I replied that my ability says nothing about such a check and it still lessens the power of the ability.
So i guess im asking how would you guys rule this? Is the DM within his rights to have these mobs "avoid" this damage by just laying there and soaking more attacks, or should he play these monsters the same way he plays every other monsters that we knock down and have them stand up and keep trying to fight?
It is kinda mute because we are close to lvl 5 and i will just respec out of that power if he keeps doing it, but i love that ability so id hate to lose it.
thoughts?
As to should he do it? Yep as long as it makes sense for the type of creature that is being targeted (Unintelligent should get up etc). Being prone sucks so you get the 'controlery' type advantage rather than the 'strikery' type advantage (effect vs damage)
here are my reasons for thinking so:
You can move away from that creature, and fight other creatures, so you've effectively taken the soldier out of the fight. He's not doing any damage, (or if he is able to attack, it's with a -5 penalty for being prone?) and you're now "outnumber" the rest of the creatures you're fighting against.
Also, in terms of damage, 1W+Str may be on part with +2 to hit, depending on how many melee PCs there are.
Everyone gains +2 to hit against that target, so... lets say there are 5 of you, a Warden, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Ranger, and a Wizard... well, 4 of those classes can get a +2 to hit on that target.
+2 to hit is roughly 20% chance to hit.. so it's like 20% of the damage your abilities can do to the overall 'expected damage outcome'.
If everyone made just a basic attack, 20% Warden, 20% Barb, 20% Bard, 20% Ranger (lets say it's a DW melee ranger)... boom! in one turn you've already received 80% of 1W + Mod. in 2 turns, your expected outcome should be 160% of 1W + Mod.
And that's assuming they do a basic attack. if they use encounter or daily powers with that +2, then they can do even more damage.
Now I guess it gets more complicated because all of these PCs have to be able to attack the prone monster, and also you have to account for 'how many of them wouldn't have already had combat advantage anyway?' So it's not a perfect comparison.
But the stronger value is eliminating that creature out of the fight until it decides to stand up anyway.
So... I'd say stick with the power, let the DM do his thing by leaving the mob prone, and just take advantage of it by leaving that creature by it's self where it can't do anything.
Take advantage of its prone-ness and unload on it. You're still doing your job as a defender; that guy isn't going anywhere until he stands up (at least, nowhere fast; crawling isn't exactly a way to dart across the battlefield). By not taking the damage from standing up, he's both opening himself up to more damage by being an easy target, and reducing his own ability to do damage by impairing his mobility (assuming he has no ranged attacks, and if he does, you're likely to be standing over him to deal out OAs as he does). Heck, if you've got a rogue in the party, make this a standard tactic; you knock 'em down, and the rogue gets sneak attack every single round until it dies. How many d6 of sneak attack makes up for 1W of damage?
Your DM is playing into your hands here; he thinks he's protecting his monsters, but he's not; he's impairing them.
It is to your advantage, so don't let on that you prefer his response.
Since the extra damage being taken is automatic, it follows that the creature *would* know that it's gonna get hurt more by standing up. I would consider doing the same thing as your DM, but only for intelligent monsters and dumb ones near death.
Don't forget, you actually can move into his space while he's prone
??? No - you can't move through an enemy space unless that enemy is helpless or 2 sizes larger or smaller than you. If you move into a non-helpless enemy's space, he gets an OA against you!
PHB: Moving through occupied squares, PG283
And in addition, if he stands up while you're in his space, you get an OA against him. So even if he doesn't stand on his turn, you get to move over him, smack him while he's down, and then get an OA on him if he stands up the turn after that. Or if he tries to crawl away.
I really think this is wrong - cite reference please. Except the crawling. But if you stand up in an occupied square you automatically shift to an adjacent square.
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.
Is it always the way you'd want it 100% of the time? Probably not. Is it the way a DM should have all monsters act all of the time? Probably not.
But, monsters know what you've done to them just as you (should) know what they've done to you. When they Weaken you for instance, you don't get surprised by the fact your attacks do half damage.
Being Prone is a very serious condition to impose on someone with a power, and Earthgrasp Strike ensures that a creature either stays prone, or gets hurt again.
Prone:
You grant combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against you.
You get a +2 bonus to all defenses against ranged attacks from nonadjacent enemies.
You’re lying on the ground. (If you’re flying, you safely descend a distance equal to your fly speed. If you don’t reach the ground, you fall.)
You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls.
And of course don't forget that you can't move except to crawl when Prone, and standing up eats up your Move action for the round. Prone is a serious control effect, which is good because Wardens are Defender/Controller.
So in total, a monster that's prone from this power:
Takes a -2 to defenses against melee attacks.
Grants Combat Advantage (the source of the -2) which allows many effects.
Takes a -2 penalty on ANY attacks it makes, melee, ranged whatever it doesn't matter.
Is effectively Immobilized, because crawling will just provoke an OA for movement.
You can knock a flyer out of the sky if you can reach it.
While you're adjacent, and I assume marking the enemy, what this means is that you and allies get a significant bonus to attack the enemy, the enemy is now at -2 to hit you, and -4 to hit your friends (thanks to the marking), is susceptible to Sneak Attack and perhaps other abilities, and can't go anywhere. If you Ready it as an action against a flyer who is swooping down to attack, you smash it to the ground and break its flight.
That power works best when they don't stand up.
Up to two rounds for everybody to attack a Prone target? That is much better than 1d10 +4 or so damage, and if you're Earthstrength, they will either stay down on the ground for the rest of their lives, or are guaranteed to take that damage at some point anyway.
The monster who chooses to stay down that long is almost certainly making a horrible mistake, unless you are only using the power off on your own with no friends around or as a "finishing move" all on its own (which is somewhat incorrectly, there are very few "finishing moves").
It works great as an opener to unload the subsequent attacks with a bonus, or once you know the monster is Bloodied and probably lowish on HP: Knock it down, and your friends can swarm it.
It also gets monsters away from attacking your friends; use the sliding Reaction power when they attack your ally, then use this to lock them down out of reach of your buddies.
Aside: Sometimes a DM forgets or intentionally doesn't mention a particular monster ability to the targeted players, but that's often an oversight or in the interest of portraying the monster as unpredictable/special whatever. If it's intentional, then some monsters should likewise "unintentionally" trigger PC effects as well.
Look up monster knowledge check in the skills section.
As for him not standing up, I think that is bunk, no one in their right mind is going to know that they have an effect on them that will damage them more in the middle of battle, especially if they get knocked down.
Last night I had this same thing happen, our paladin had someone marked and I moved by the character, when my dm started to roll, and this is what really got me, he made the attack roll, I told him to take 7 damage for attacking someone else besides the paladin, and he said "well he doesn't do that then". That urks me a little bit simply because we would not be able to get away with that.
For a little bit I let him do this with the paladin mark, but then I stopped telling him before hand and after he would roll I would tell him to take the damage.
Your DM is meta game thinking which he should not do, and before anyone says "He's the DM he has to think meta game" That is a crock, he has to think meta game for the games sake, but when he is playing a monster, he is playing his character just like we are playing our characters, and he should stay true to that character.
Monsters do not automatically know what is happening to them, just like we don't know what is happening to us when we get hit. If your DM is wanting to play that way then make him roll a nature check against you to see if he knows you powers, and he will have to do it for each encounter, and then it will only be the creature he rolls for, not all of them.
So the P57 reference is made up?
Monsters *are* aware of the effects of powers used against them, as are players. If the fighter marks a monster, the monster knows he attacks anyone but the fighter with a penalty, just as you know when you're taking ongoing 5 fire damage.
So the P57 reference is made up?
Monsters *are* aware of the effects of powers used against them, as are players. If the fighter marks a monster, the monster knows he attacks anyone but the fighter with a penalty, just as you know when you're taking ongoing 5 fire damage.
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.
Here is the exact quote from the book, it says nothing about what a monster does to us, which I think is one sided, because in this instance, they know everything we do, but we don't know anything they do. I know that it is there, but I don't agree with it.
And I understand about the effects, everyone should know about the effects, what gets me, is when a DM does something - rolls the dice for it, and "then" remembers that there was a mark, or something else that would have changed his thinking, and changes afterwards.
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.
Here is the exact quote from the book, it says nothing about what a monster does to us, which I think is one sided, because in this instance, they know everything we do, but we don't know anything they do. I know that it is there, but I don't agree with it.
And I understand about the effects, everyone should know about the effects, what gets me, is when a DM does something - rolls the dice for it, and "then" remembers that there was a mark, or something else that would have changed his thinking, and changes afterwards.
It says "A creature", which means both enemies and allies. Monsters know what you do to them, and you know what monsters do to you, by the book.
And I understand about the effects, everyone should know about the effects, what gets me, is when a DM does something - rolls the dice for it, and "then" remembers that there was a mark, or something else that would have changed his thinking, and changes afterwards.
Yea, things should be called before dice is rolled.
And I understand about the effects, everyone should know about the effects, what gets me, is when a DM does something - rolls the dice for it, and "then" remembers that there was a mark, or something else that would have changed his thinking, and changes afterwards.
Sometimes, that happens; it's a legitimate mistake. One would hope no DM would intentionally cheat like that, but sadly, they exist.
The DM knowing that the soldier i hit will take the additional 1[w] + Str modifier when it stands up again after being knocked prone, has decided that whenever i use that encounter power, the monster "just doesn't" stand back up. after the root effect ends, for several rounds, the monster just willfully lays there prone.
thoughts?
Your DM is metgamaing. It is stupid.
Your DM is metgamaing. It is stupid.
No, he isn't. The monster knows what will happen if he stands up. This is by the book RAW.
No, he isn't. The monster knows what will happen if he stands up. This is by the book RAW.
How will it know what will happen if it stands up if it has never before witnessed the effect?
How will it know what will happen if it stands up if it has never before witnessed the effect?
Because the rules state:
"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."
The warden hits the creature with the power, and it knows if it stands up it will take damage, because it knows 'exactly what you've done to it and what condition's you've imposed'.
Because the rules state:
"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."
The warden hits the creature with the power, and it knows if it stands up it will take damage, because it knows 'exactly what you've done to it and what condition's you've imposed'.
I've not the books in front of me. By what mechanism is the additional damage upon standing delivered?
I've not the books in front of me. By what mechanism is the additional damage upon standing delivered?
Earthgrasp Strike
Earthgrasp Strike
The primal power of earth courses through your weapon and slams your foe to the ground, where rocks and roots hold it firm.
Encounter Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock the target prone. The first time the target stands up before the end of your next turn, it takes 1d10 + your Strength modifier damage.
Earthstrength: The target can’t stand up until the end of your next turn, and the first time it stands up before the end of the encounter, it takes 1d10 + your Strength modifier damage.
The primal power of earth courses through your weapon and slams your foe to the ground, where rocks and roots hold it firm.
Encounter Primal, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock the target prone. The first time the target stands up before the end of your next turn, it takes 1d10 + your Strength modifier damage.
Earthstrength: The target can’t stand up until the end of your next turn, and the first time it stands up before the end of the encounter, it takes 1d10 + your Strength modifier damage.
From the descriptive text I would say that the creature knows it will further injure itself when it rips free from the rocks and roots.
That is debatable. The creature does not have an effect upon it, it is being physically restrained.
However, even if it were the case that the creature would somehow know that it will damage itself if standing up while so restrained, it is simply bad DMing to have every single creature and enemy always react in precisely the same manner to the situation.
That is debatable. The creature does not have an effect upon it, it is being physically restrained.
However, even if it were the case that the creature would somehow know that it will damage itself if standing up while so restrained, it is simply bad DMing to have every single creature and enemy always react in precisely the same manner to the situation.
Sorry, didn't mean to state that as fact, just how I would describe it. The facts are 1) a creature under this effect will take damage if it stands up and 2) a creature under this effect knows it will take damage if it stands up. Both of those are RAW.
Edit: Re-reading your post I see that you may disagree that 2) is a fact. I point out that the damage when standing up is part of the Hit: effect of the power. By the rules the creature would know about this effect.
The rest is how you describe the effect. I would describe the rocks as jagged and the roots as bristling with heavy thorns. A creature pulling itself free of the rocks and roots would know that the jagged edges of the rocks and the thorns on the roots will cause it harm.
I agree though that having every single enemy act the same way to the effects of this power is poor tactics and poor roleplaying, IMO.
That is debatable. The creature does not have an effect upon it, it is being physically restrained.
... which is an effect of the power that was used on it.
However, even if it were the case that the creature would somehow know that it will damage itself if standing up while so restrained, it is simply bad DMing to have every single creature and enemy always react in precisely the same manner to the situation.
True, but in this case it's bad DMing because it's handing the players a present. In 99 percent of cases, the monster is better standing up and taking damage once than laying around, not moving, granting melee combat advantage, and not doing its job of smashing PC face.
Why do so many people think damage is the be-all end-all of 4E?
Your DM is making your job easier, reducing damage to the entire party, and is likely ending up with more than just your damage to that creature. Do you really think [w]+Str damage is actually going to remove the implied rounds of combat that you state it ends up needing to kill it? It won't.
And I agree it's within the rights of the DM, as every creature is to know exactly what the powers it's under will do to it. I usually smudge this just a little for the PCs (ie I don't usually tell them exactly how much dmg they'd take) but it applies to every power used on every creature on the battlefield. NPCs and PCs always know what effects are on them.
It is a little lame if he does this with every monster, but be happy he's wasting a monster's existence for a few turns. He's letting you be a controller just to prevent a little damage: be happy!
I'm sort of suprised the original poster was annoyed that he lost out on [W]+Str to essentially nullify a monster for multiple rounds...
Why do so many people think damage is the be-all end-all of 4E?
I got an impression it was more like 'man, he's not letting me do this cool thing I picked a power choice on' rather than referring to simply not getting to do the damage in and of itself (as stated, the party will deal a lot more damage to it, with less paybacks, if the stupid monster stays on the ground). That can be frustrating, when you want to do something cool and never get the chance.
... which is an effect of the power that was used on it.
I'm not convinced of that interpretation, but neither am I denying it. That's why I said I believe it is open to debate, not incorrect.
True, but in this case it's bad DMing because it's handing the players a present. In 99 percent of cases, the monster is better standing up and taking damage once than laying around, not moving, granting melee combat advantage, and not doing its job of smashing PC face.
Whether it is "handing the players a present" or bending them over without even a courtesy reach-around is immaterial. Bad DMing is bad DMing irrespective of whether it favours the PCs or punishes them.