Actually their wording jives with the way we've done it pretty much all along - multiple attack powers don't trigger marks as long as at least one of the attacks goes against the marker. I know that's not canon but it works better for us. For instance, it encourages solos to spread the love instead of delivering all of their attacks (or none of them) at the defender.
Divine Challenge: Switching targets means you don't have to engage?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Actually their wording jives with the way we've done it pretty much all along - multiple attack powers don't trigger marks as long as at least one of the attacks goes against the marker. I know that's not canon but it works better for us. For instance, it encourages solos to spread the love instead of delivering all of their attacks (or none of them) at the defender.
eamon
Explorer
Concerning Divine Challenge in Particular:
I'm not particularly in favor of that change of various reasons. First, and most critically, it's inconsistent with the basic marking mechanic. Now, you've changed that too, but WotC hasn't: the results is Not Good. Secondly, most monster multi-attacks consist of several other attack powers so even if a power is the granularity at which a mark works, it's too complicated to decide which power. Read straightforwardly, in fact, a power which happens to be used as part of another power is still a power - so such (very common) multiattack powers would still trigger on each attack.
All in all, that's very poor wording. Either marks should be changed to not trigger unless the "outermost" power fails to include the defender (and then with examples to illustrate what they mean), or the challenge should stick to the normal marks.
Concerning marks in General:
As a matter of design, it's preferable not to make rulings like this depend on purely-metagame packaging issues. Sure, I could live with the change you're proposing, but it means that two otherwise identical attacks may play out very differently depending on whether they're packaged as one power or two - that's not very intuitive. Also, by encompassing multiattacks you're exposing the game to unnecessary complexity when the attack vs. the defender is not the first attack and may be prevented by an interrupt. It turns positively quixotic if the defender does the interrupting: can an assault swordmage teleport in the way of an enemy when the marked enemy does attack-move-attack but attacks an ally first? What if the enemy intends to attack the swordmage but decides not to (walks around the corner, sees juicier target...)? Do you "roll back" to the original attack? Because the -2 penalty applies depending on a factor that may be later in time, you've got a temporal paradox.
E.g. take the assault swordmage and a marked enemy using an attack-move-attack power. The enemy intends to attack two allies and thus the swordmage intervenes after the first attack. But when he does, he teleports adjacent as an immediate reaction: now the monster is adjacent to his marker, and decides to complete the power by attacking the SM. That's a paradox: the swordmage could not have intervened because the attack included him, but if he doesn't intervene, then... he can and will intervene?
Almost all marks already have a limiting factor that makes them "less good" against solos: they can only trigger once (and the -2 just isn't such a big deal; the defender is likely to be one of the least attractive targets despite that). Furthermore, solos are a very poor example since they should be very rare and chock-full of special abilities to make precisely these kind of situations less likely or less relevant. Solo's aren't a good example of general gameplay.
Just say no to temporal paradoxes in rule resolution: keep things working based on instantaneous events (bursts, blasts, or singular attacks), and don't depend on meta-game notions where possible (such as easily possible here).
DracoSuave
First Post
This is a moot point. The damage triggers on attack powers... which means the mark applies to each attack that doesn't include you, and the challenge applies on the first attack power that doesn't include you... either way if the enemy does a 'Do 5 claw attacks against seperate targets' he'll take the challenge damage with the first one of those claw attacks that doesn't go after the paladin.
That, by the way, is how it's always worked.
The only instance in which there might be a discrepency is in the case of melee or ranged attacks which do not evoke another power, but do target multiple targets. So:
Ranged 10: One, two, or three targets: +14 vs Fortitude; 2d8+5 necrotic damage and the target is dazed (save ends)
In this instance, each target gets a separate attack, and the mark applies to non-paladin targets, but the attack power is targetting a paladin and therefore does not get DC damaged.
abyssaldeath
First Post
I'm definitely with Eamon with this. To me, multi-attack ranged/melee powers being counted as separate attacks is a defining difference between them and close/area powers. I also see it as one of the balancing factors between the different types of attacks.
Xeterog
Explorer
Agreed that this is how marks work by RAW.
but for the entire run of modules (H1 thru E3), over 2 and a half years of gaming, Multi-attack powers did not trigger a mark/challenge unless the defender was not one of the targets. Never once ran into a situation where something weird happened as a result..no temporal paradoxs..it was simple. It worked well. and the defender did not feel useless or ineffective. There were many times I choose to attack someone without attacking the defender.
Basically, if it was a separate attack on the monster card, it counted as one attack..even if that 'attack' said to use another power multiple times.
(twin strike, for example, would be one attack power and only trigger a mark if the one that marked was not targeted by at least one of the 2 attacks).
but for the entire run of modules (H1 thru E3), over 2 and a half years of gaming, Multi-attack powers did not trigger a mark/challenge unless the defender was not one of the targets. Never once ran into a situation where something weird happened as a result..no temporal paradoxs..it was simple. It worked well. and the defender did not feel useless or ineffective. There were many times I choose to attack someone without attacking the defender.
Basically, if it was a separate attack on the monster card, it counted as one attack..even if that 'attack' said to use another power multiple times.
(twin strike, for example, would be one attack power and only trigger a mark if the one that marked was not targeted by at least one of the 2 attacks).
DracoSuave
First Post
Twin Strike is a terrible example of this principle, because twin strike is not a power that refers to using another power. 'Make two basic attacks' would be an example of such a power; Twin Strike does not do that.
Xeterog
Explorer
same principle applies really. doesn't matter if it's a dragon getting two claw attacks from one power or a hydra making 5+ bite attacks, or the ranger using twin strike..I ran it as one 'attack' that as long as one of the attacks targeted the defender (paladin in this case) then neither the mark (-2 attack) or the damage applied. Like I said, I know this is contrary to RAW..but it worked very well for me in my campaign...and the player of the paladin is running a campaign of his own and is using the same interpetation.
I don't have a problem with Xeterog's houserule. It has a useful effect (letting monsters be less deadly to the party), and fails to penalize the bad guys for playing less than optimally. Sure, you might have to resolve tricky stuff like when the mob -wanted- to attack the defender, but didn't -- but really, not big deal, just make up a ruling and move on.
Also, corwyn, it's "jibes", not "jives". Seriously, look it up.
Also, corwyn, it's "jibes", not "jives". Seriously, look it up.
My group has always run things like Xeterog's. To us, it seems more in the spirit of the rule since with a power that allows a creature to make multiple attacks, the attacks are ostensibly all happening at (or very nearly at) the same time. By the RAW, each hydra head might have to target the fighter to avoid retaliation, but it seems to us that even one head snapping at him would give him plenty to deal with at the moment. The hydra does not (we imagine) first bite the fighter, then another head at the fighter, then at the wizard eliciting the fighter to say, "Hold on a sec before your 4th and 5th heads go so I can take a swing at you..." It just starts biting anyone that's close and looks tasty. And as long as one of those bites targets the fighter, he's got his hands full enough to not be worried what's happening to everyone else.
I'm not saying that's the way anyone else SHOULD play it, but like Xeterog's group, it works for us and makes more sense (to us) than the RAW alternative. It hasn't caused any problems and has probably meant we don't burn through defenders quite so fast.
I'm not saying that's the way anyone else SHOULD play it, but like Xeterog's group, it works for us and makes more sense (to us) than the RAW alternative. It hasn't caused any problems and has probably meant we don't burn through defenders quite so fast.
keterys
First Post
As far as I can tell, the game runs a bit better under that interpretation. About half or so of the games around here run with (either) method. There are pluses and minuses to each, but I've mostly decided that the monster designers - or at least some of them - don't realize how the rule is/was written, so it's safer to go with (Xeterog's interpration).
