Defeating my powergamer Glave master

[Artoomis]

Minions.

They all go on the same turn, right? So only one OA, no mattter how many there are.

Minions. The scourge of the defender.

 

[Obryn]

Minions.

They all go on the same turn, right? So only one OA, no mattter how many there are.

Minions. The scourge of the defender.

Even though minions tend to go on the same initiative point, they each have their own turn, just like any other creature.

-O

 

[Mistwell]

I'd just call each readied action its own turn. I think that was the intent.

 

[Artoomis]

Even though minions tend to go on the same initiative point, they each have their own turn, just like any other creature.

-O

Do they?

Oh, well.

Still, there is no reason why they all need to approach the fighter.

Good use of minions can be very, very frustrating to a fighter but may let the controller shine.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd just call each readied action its own turn. I think that was the intent.

Eh, I don't know about that. WotC has had quite a bit of time to issue an errata if they felt this was not the way THEY thought the rules should work. It is not like this is a feature of the rules that I uniquely discovered. It is well known that it works this way, though probably most DMs and players haven't picked up on it. I've also seen a few CS responses confirming that it is the correct interpretation. It isn't like this is a case of a poorly worded rule that is ambiguous. RAW clearly works as stated.

It just isn't a problem. In fact it solves a few kind of cheap tactics that PCs can use from time to time as well. Fighters are supposed to be sticky, but not infinitely so and if a bunch of monsters want to rush past one en-masse it should be possible to create that tactic.

 

[Toriel]

You could have a few monsters attack from the front (possibly monsters that mark so the fighter is stuck there) and the rest come in from the rear to attack the others. The fighter might feel better challenged as he will have to choose between helping the others or taking care of what's in front.

 

[Mistwell]

Eh, I don't know about that. WotC has had quite a bit of time to issue an errata if they felt this was not the way THEY thought the rules should work.

I disagree. All prior editions saw errata issued for many many years after the PHB came out. Errata tends too get issued on common topics early, and more obscure topics later. This is a more obscure topic, since it's not all that common that someone would care if it is a distinct turn or not. So I do not think the lack of errata indicates anything.

It is not like this is a feature of the rules that I uniquely discovered. It is well known that it works this way, though probably most DMs and players haven't picked up on it.

It's a rare topic, as you yourself just admitted. Most people have not picked up on it, hence a lack of errata is to be expected on this topic.

I've also seen a few CS responses confirming that it is the correct interpretation. It isn't like this is a case of a poorly worded rule that is ambiguous. RAW clearly works as stated.

I'd like to see those responses. I do not think RAW is clear on this topic, since it does not speak to whether or not the readied action should be considered a turn or not. It merely speaks to when they act, which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is a turn for the purposes of other effects.

It just isn't a problem. In fact it solves a few kind of cheap tactics that PCs can use from time to time as well. Fighters are supposed to be sticky, but not infinitely so and if a bunch of monsters want to rush past one en-masse it should be possible to create that tactic.

Much like your opinion that 4e has no rounds, I feel this is position is a wild exaggeration. Fighters are not infinitely sticky with this tactic. There are already checks in place for this power. We can debate if it is more or less powerful than it should be, but it's not some UBER power that breaks everything and therefore we need to turn to an obscure interpretation of the readied action rules to deal with it. That might be the case, but it's not necessarily the case.

 

[Nail]

Good use of minions can be very, very frustrating to a fighter but may let the controller shine.

That was the intent, IRRC.

Controllers were supposed to be quite good with minions; Defenders were supposed to be quite good at tieing up one high value target.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

That was the intent, IRRC.

Controllers were supposed to be quite good with minions; Defenders were supposed to be quite good at tieing up one high value target.

Well, more accurately, Pally's are really good at tying up one high value target. Fighters, due to Combat Superiority, can hold down a larger area. Plus, the ability to mark multiple opponents, even though you can only hit one, is a strong disincentive because if you try to violate it you know someone is going to get hit.

My group seems to have this problem under control though. I'm a Dragonborn Fighter with Enlarged Dragon Breath. I eat minions like candy.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

And if you were a warden, you could mark everything that survived as a free action.