Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?
- Thread starter SlyFlourish
- Start date
Black Knight Irios
Explorer
I start w/ my view of the "problem" a bit before the actual problem.
Defenders are highly dependend on the DM to use their punishment effect. So the DM controlls the defenders "fun" to some degree. Daze can negate the punishment of all defenders except for paladins. Therefore, daze is a great way to make a defender feel useless. Forced Movement + a movement denial conditions are another way to stop defenders from doing their duty b/c most of them don't work at range.
Close attacks of all kinds make the defender useless (barring corner cases). B/c shared pain is x-times the pain. Even worse if the close attack is at-will but I assume that happens rarely.
Multi-Attack powers are by far more common to be at-will. At-will "I ignore the defender if I hit him once as well" sounds rather lame.
So I ask, are more ways needed to ignore the defender?
@keterys:
You say your group is fine w/ your "house rule" and that they don't know that you "house rule" it. Obviously they will be fine with it if they assume the rule is RAW. (Of course, there are people that argue about RAW
)
Defenders are highly dependend on the DM to use their punishment effect. So the DM controlls the defenders "fun" to some degree. Daze can negate the punishment of all defenders except for paladins. Therefore, daze is a great way to make a defender feel useless. Forced Movement + a movement denial conditions are another way to stop defenders from doing their duty b/c most of them don't work at range.
Close attacks of all kinds make the defender useless (barring corner cases). B/c shared pain is x-times the pain. Even worse if the close attack is at-will but I assume that happens rarely.
Multi-Attack powers are by far more common to be at-will. At-will "I ignore the defender if I hit him once as well" sounds rather lame.
So I ask, are more ways needed to ignore the defender?
@keterys:
You say your group is fine w/ your "house rule" and that they don't know that you "house rule" it. Obviously they will be fine with it if they assume the rule is RAW. (Of course, there are people that argue about RAW
)
keterys
First Post
You say your group is fine w/ your "house rule" and that they don't know that you "house rule" it. Obviously they will be fine with it if they assume the rule is RAW. (Of course, there are people that argue about RAW
It's not my house rule at all - as I said, five groups I _play_ with. I actually would be fine doing it either way. In researching the problem, however - primarily in looking at monster design, I became convinced it made the game better to work that way. One reason I don't object to the DM running it that way, even when I play a defender. Among other things, cause I don't feel like trying to explain the rule since it feels like rules lawyering to explain. Too close to splitting hairs.
Of the groups, two definitely knowingly chose it to work that way, with the full knowledge of the other interpretation. In fact, in one when we had a guest visiting playing a defender who thought otherwise, so it then worked RAW when he had stuff marked, and the other way when he didn't have it marked, in deference to his preference.
I agree with keterys.
WotC dropped the ball here.
Super rules literal DMs would rule that the Hydra's Fury is 6 separate basic melee attacks, hence, one of them that does not target the Fighter results in a Combat Challenge because they are separate melee basic attacks.
A less rules iteral DM would rule that it is a SINGLE attack power, hence, as long as the Fighter is attacked once with that ATTACK, it is still one attack. It just happens to be one attack power resolved with 6 attack rolls, just like a close blast 3 could be resolved with 6 attack rolls.
From my perspective, being too rules literal on this is silly. It makes the Fighter's mark WAY too powerful. The Hydra is not ignoring the Fighter, it just happens to only be concentrating on the Fighter with only one head.
To me, that's RAI for a Fighter's mark.
But, I definitely see the argument. Allowing the less rules literal interpretation does allow 5 attacks on 1 PC and 1 attack on the Fighter. Other solo monster multi-foe attacks cannot typically do this.
But I'm ok with that. When the PCs finally meet Tiamat, there is no way that the Fighter is going to be able to lock her down like that and automatically get a free Combat Challenge every single round.
I just consider Hydras and Tiamat to be special cases. The alternative makes the Fighter's mark way too powerful against a solo if it will be used every single round.
WotC dropped the ball here.
Super rules literal DMs would rule that the Hydra's Fury is 6 separate basic melee attacks, hence, one of them that does not target the Fighter results in a Combat Challenge because they are separate melee basic attacks.
A less rules iteral DM would rule that it is a SINGLE attack power, hence, as long as the Fighter is attacked once with that ATTACK, it is still one attack. It just happens to be one attack power resolved with 6 attack rolls, just like a close blast 3 could be resolved with 6 attack rolls.
From my perspective, being too rules literal on this is silly. It makes the Fighter's mark WAY too powerful. The Hydra is not ignoring the Fighter, it just happens to only be concentrating on the Fighter with only one head.
To me, that's RAI for a Fighter's mark.
But, I definitely see the argument. Allowing the less rules literal interpretation does allow 5 attacks on 1 PC and 1 attack on the Fighter. Other solo monster multi-foe attacks cannot typically do this.
But I'm ok with that. When the PCs finally meet Tiamat, there is no way that the Fighter is going to be able to lock her down like that and automatically get a free Combat Challenge every single round.
I just consider Hydras and Tiamat to be special cases. The alternative makes the Fighter's mark way too powerful against a solo if it will be used every single round.
keterys
First Post
At least the hydra has a choice - a lot of powers _have_ to be multiple targets, and those are where I think RAW falls down the most.
That and I think a lot of players would be shocked if they got marked and did an Icy Rays (or similar multitargeting ranged attack) and then got smacked by the monster that marked them. 'But I included them in the attack!' 'Well, yeah, but not in the attack on him.' 'But, it's the same attack, Icy Rays' 'No, no, it's a different attack as part of the same power' '... what?'
That and I think a lot of players would be shocked if they got marked and did an Icy Rays (or similar multitargeting ranged attack) and then got smacked by the monster that marked them. 'But I included them in the attack!' 'Well, yeah, but not in the attack on him.' 'But, it's the same attack, Icy Rays' 'No, no, it's a different attack as part of the same power' '... what?'
Black Knight Irios
Explorer
Not all monsters that mark can retaliate. Furthermore, if you use ranged attacks while in melee you deserve getting smacked or at least have the fighter mark the monster and smack the monster as well.
I totally agree with you, those damn demigods how dare they use their puny powers and class features against the DMs almighty gods - not.
Bold or Stupid
First Post
I'm inclined to say that if a power specifies that it must be multi target (eg icy rays etc) to treat it as one attack for marking, if the creature can choose targets for each seperate attack (eg hydra) the mark applies to each one.
Black Knight Irios
Explorer
This sounds by far more defender friendly and a lot more like an intended interaction between mark punishment and target selection.
I could live with that. Still if I can have the punishment on the bolded part as well I won't complain.
keterys
First Post
Never said it was in melee. There are things like:
Ranged 5; the target is marked until the death knight uses this power against another target. If the target makes an attack that doesn’t include the death knight as a target, the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls and 15 necrotic damage.
Black Knight Irios
Explorer
Never said it was in melee. There are things like:
Divine Challenge (minor, at-will)Necrotic
Ranged 5; the target is marked until the death knight uses this power against another target. If the target makes an attack that doesn’t include the death knight as a target, the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls and 15 necrotic damage.
Honestly how many monsters are there that a) mark, that b) can punish and that c) can even punish at range. I guess that is the corner case of the corner case.
Similar Threads
