Blocking Movement of Large Monsters

[Paul Strack]

I was prepping a fight with a Large Solo, and realized that it is relatively simple for the PCs to position themselves so that the monster can't move:

  X
XOO
 OOX
 X

If 4 PCs position themselves around the monster, the monster has no direction in which it can move without entering an enemy square. Thus, it can't move.

Bigger creatures don't have this problem, because you can enter an enemy square if you are two size categories bigger, but Large creatures fighting Medium creatures are stuck.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning?

[fafhrd]

Squeeze, bullrush, grab and move?

[James McMurray]

Are those four PCs defenders? It would be an odd party makeup that resulted in four PCs willing and able to stand adjacent to a solo for any length of time.

What kind of monster is it?

[scarik]

In my experience any Large creature that cares about being held in place can fly or teleport or otherwise never end up there.

The basic big creature is a Brute and would love to have a non-Defender just stand there while he smashes its face in.

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Paul Strack

I was prepping a fight with a Large Solo, and realized that it is relatively simple for the PCs to position themselves so that the monster can't move...

Yep!

So what?

We did something similar last session: Trapped an ochre jelly in an area were we could pound on it. Of course, that only worked until it was bloodied....

Solos are meant to take being surrounded. Don't sweat it.

[Paul Strack]

This is not an issue I am especially "worried" about. It is an odd combat situation, and one that the monster can generally get around (via flight, bull rush, etc.) It does like a weird quirk of the rules that it takes 8 PCs to block a medium creature but only 4 to block a large one.

This could come up in a real fight, even with a party without a lot of defenders. For example, your defender could mark the target to allow melee strikers (rogues, rangers) to join the fighters on the front line. Also, one of the PCs could be replaced by blocking terrain.

Anyhow, I thought it was interesting, tactically.

[Starfox]

This used to be a big issue in 3E, but the Solo and Elite roles should mitigate it greatly. Still, I can see that its a problem. In 3E, I made a house rule to let larger creatures walk through the space of smaller ones, might have to do that in 4E too if it proves troublesome.

[James McMurray]

Originally Posted by Paul Strack

It does like a weird quirk of the rules that it takes 8 PCs to block a medium creature but only 4 to block a large one.

It takes 12 of them, because the large creature can squeeze.

[Rafe]

I agree that the solo brute would be happy to pound on someone standing next to him. Even if there's a defender, take the -2 and smash a squishy. Squeezing isn't a good option since it can only move half speed, takes -5 to attack and grants everyone combat advantage and an OA.

If surrounding it is the tactic the players want to take, have the brute use its action point, also. Pound the hell out of one PC and then proceed to do so to the others.

Also bear in mind that moving right up a Large creature likely provokes OAs from it since it may have reach. That makes for a lot of OAs, since anyone can take only one OA per combatant, but as many as are provoked during a round. So if a Fighter moves up, it takes an OA. If the Rogue then does so, he/she takes an OA. Etc.

With all that in mind, I'd be all for having the solo brute just stand there and let the party get pounded before even making attacks. So it can't move... why does it need to?

[infocynic]

Originally Posted by Rafe

I agree that the solo brute would be happy to pound on someone standing next to him. Even if there's a defender, take the -2 and smash a squishy. Squeezing isn't a good option since it can only move half speed, takes -5 to attack and grants everyone combat advantage and an OA.

If surrounding it is the tactic the players want to take, have the brute use its action point, also. Pound the hell out of one PC and then proceed to do so to the others.

Also bear in mind that moving right up a Large creature likely provokes OAs from it since it may have reach. That makes for a lot of OAs, since anyone can take only one OA per combatant, but as many as are provoked during a round. So if a Fighter moves up, it takes an OA. If the Rogue then does so, he/she takes an OA. Etc.

With all that in mind, I'd be all for having the solo brute just stand there and let the party get pounded before even making attacks. So it can't move... why does it need to?

It may have reach but not a whole lot of creatures have threatening reach, so the only OAs are for exiting adjacent squares, not entering them.

If the brute has a fighter with a mark on it, it's going to be pretty hard to hit the squishy, because you're going to take a beating when the fighter takes his OA with +WISMOD. To that end we ruled in our game that a 2-attack action (like most solos have) that includes the fighter for one of the attacks is good enough to satisfy the mark so the fighter doesn't get the OA, but I've yet to see any RAW or CS response that supports this interpretation.

[Rafe]

Originally Posted by infocynic

If the brute has a fighter with a mark on it, it's going to be pretty hard to hit the squishy, because you're going to take a beating when the fighter takes his OA with +WISMOD. To that end we ruled in our game that a 2-attack action (like most solos have) that includes the fighter for one of the attacks is good enough to satisfy the mark so the fighter doesn't get the OA, but I've yet to see any RAW or CS response that supports this interpretation.

Ah, thanks for that! You're right... I thought Fighters got OAs only when the marked target shifted or moved. I didn't see that it also counts if the marked target makes an attack that does not include the source of the mark. Good to know! (Hope the Fighter in my group is a bit more on the ball than I am...)

I think that's a good interpretation to make in this instance and I can see myself and my DM making the same one. That said, an "official ruling" would likely be more along the lines of: "To avoid the penalty to attack rolls as well as the OA, every attack - not simply one attack per round - made by a creature marked by Combat Challenge must include as a target the source of the mark."

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Rafe

Ah, thanks for that! You're right... I thought Fighters got OAs only when the marked target shifted or moved. I didn't see that it also counts if the marked target makes an attack that does not include the source of the mark.

Errr...no. Read it again.

When a target is marked by the Fighter's Combat Challenge, the fighter does NOT get OAs (if the enemy shifts or attacks others). Full stop. The fighter gets a basic melee attack against that ememy as an Immediate Interupt.

That's NOT the same as an OA. So the Fighter doesn't get +WISMOD to the Immediate Interupt basic melee attack from Combat Challenge.

[Syrsuro]

Originally Posted by infocynic

To that end we ruled in our game that a 2-attack action (like most solos have) that includes the fighter for one of the attacks is good enough to satisfy the mark so the fighter doesn't get the OA, but I've yet to see any RAW or CS response that supports this interpretation.

This is, with a slight, clarification the way I believe the rule should work as well.

The clarification is this:

If the attack gives the creature the option of whether to attack two different targets or the same target twice (e.g. Ranger's Twin Strike, Dragon's Double Attack) the creature must choose to attack the fighter with both attacks or suffer an attack from the fighter.

If the attack does not give the creature the option of attacking the same target with both attacks (e.g. FIghter's Passing Attack or Chimera's Triple Threat) then it does not provoke an attack from the fighter.

The purpose of the mark is to cause the creature to focus on the fighter and thus attacks which can be directed at the fighter should be directed at the fighter (or the creature suffer's the consequences).

Aside: The fighter's attack is not an OA.

Carl

[Doctor Proctor]

As a Fighter myself, let me explain what would happen.

If the Solo creature that you had surrounded was marked, then the Fighter can do several things to him. If he attempts to shift, the Fighter gets an immediate interrupt attack in the form of a basic melee attack. This attack will not stop the movement of the monster, and it does not add the Wis mod to it's roll. If the Solo were instead to try and attack a PC other than the Fighter, then the Fighter will also get an immediate interrupt attack in the form of a basic melee attack.

The key thing to remember here though is that a PC only gets one immediate interrupt attack per round. So, if we go with Rafe's suggestion and have the monster spend an action point to really pound someone, then he will only suffer one melee basic attack from the Fighter and a -2 to hit. For a Solo creature, this shouldn't be that hard to soak up. If the person on the receiving end is a Wizard or Rouge though? They might not survive that double whallop, and even if they do, there's a good chance that it might bloody them.

Plus, Solo and Elite monsters should have a lot of other abilities besides just hitting someone, right? What if the monster has a push attack? He can push any one of those PC's out of the way and then be able to move unimpeded...provided he takes the OA's of course.

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Doctor Proctor

Plus, Solo and Elite monsters should have a lot of other abilities besides just hitting someone, right? What if the monster has a push attack? He can push any one of those PC's out of the way and then be able to move unimpeded...provided he takes the OA's of course.

In fact, the solo should push the Fighter first, then pound on the squishy...now out of reach of the Fighter's Immediate Interupt attack.