Monsters and Multiple attacks.

[bfreakb999]

I was attempting to find a Solo monster for my PC's to fight near a rather large and dangerous swamp. I decided that one of the more obvious choices was a Fen Hydra. Here is the stat block in the MM...


Fen Hydra Level 12 Solo Brute
Large natural beast (reptile) XP 3,500
Initiative +9 Senses Perception +13; all-around vision
HP 620; Bloodied 310
AC 25; Fortitude 26, Refl ex 24, Will 23
Saving Throws +5
Speed 5, swim 10
Action Points 2
m Bite (standard; at-will)
Reach 2; +14 vs. AC; 1d8 + 5 damage.
M Hydra Fury (standard; at-will)
The fen hydra makes four bite attacks.
Many-Headed
Each time the fen hydra becomes dazed or stunned, it loses one
attack on its next turn instead. Multiple such effects stack.
Threatening Reach
The fen hydra can make opportunity attacks against all enemies
within its reach (2 squares).
Alignment Unaligned Languages —
Skills Stealth +14
Str 20 (+11) Dex 16 (+9) Wis 14 (+8)
Con 20 (+11) Int 2 (+2) Cha 8 (+5)



Everyone will be starting at level 12, and i plan on adding a few others mobs in the mix to make the encounter "harder than normal" according to the DM's guide. But I'm afraid if i kept using it's Hydra Fury often ability it would wipe the party entirely too quickly when focused on one character.
The tactic stat block for the hydra states that it uses Hydra Fury when the time is right, and even spends its action points to do it twice, but when is that? when an opponent is isolated? when the hydra is taunted? (which likely be all the time) I've seen other attacks like these on solo creatures and they seem like they can be absolutely devastating if gets ridiculous.

should i be using Hydra fury all the time? Every other turn? Only after x amount of damage has been dealt?

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

 

[Gruns]

Always!

Every turn!
Or at least every chance it can, which should be every turn. It would generally only make a basic Bite attack for Opportunity Attacks. My group is only lvl 7, so I don't have first hand experience with the Hydra, but it doesn't look all that brutal. AC, To-Hit and even Damage are all on the lower end. Granted, if all 4 bites hit every turn then it's going to hurt, but at just +14 that's not likely. The only thing it has going for it is a boatload of hitpoints. However, it has no ranged attack and it's kind of slow, so its tactics are very limited. It doesn't even have swampwalk, so adding some one way difficult terrain isn't even a possibility. This doesn't look like it'd be much trouble at all, really.
Later!
Gruns

 

[-Avalon-]

my thoughts are, look at the intelligence modifier of the monster, treat it as monsters of equivalent modifiers.

A young dragon may be more aggressive, and seek a quick fight, than an older dragon. An old dragon is prone to pride and arrogance, so may think of the characters as trifling until it becomes bloodied when it pulls out all the stops and just wants blood!

Hydras have always been generally on par with wyverns in the area of brainpower, and wyverns were always rumored to accidentally sting their riders from time to time...

I see a hydra as using its 4 attack method each round it has the availability to do so, and when pressed will spend its action points to slaughter as many as possible... or maybe when it notices that every time the guy in chainmail waves his hands the fighter feels better and fights on longer... he may go all 4 on the cleric, and spend an action point for 4 more on him... they are dumb, but not braindead...

Is all a matter of tactics. And those, as always, are in the DM's hands.

 

[Lacyon]

I've heard recently from a friend who had run a Hydra against a similar-level party. His impression was that the Hydra was a relatively weak fight overall, though some of that was due to the party composition, and it's possible he wasn't playing the Hydra to it's fullest. He tried the whole time to take down the Rogue (but he'd ruled that the Hydra could bypass the Fighter's Combat Challenge by directing one attack each action to the Fighter, so he was doing that as well).

The Hydra should be making fury attacks all the time because it's a standard action at-will attack power. It should spend an action point to do it again when one foe has hit with a pretty major attack (like a potent daily or a critical sneak attack), to take out that foe.

The Hydra doesn't have any ranged attacks, and relatively poor movement capability. Each of the Hydra's attacks is doing ~9.5 damage on a hit. Even if it hits with all 8 attacks where it spends an action point, it's not going to drop most Level 12 melee combatants in a single round, and the party can spend some actions healing that guy in the next round if they need to.

 

[bfreakb999]

So i should be doing it everytime. I got it. And after looking at it, the hydra's to hit really isnt that amazing like you said.

I've heard recently from a friend who had run a Hydra against a similar-level party. His impression was that the Hydra was a relatively weak fight overall, though some of that was due to the party composition, and it's possible he wasn't playing the Hydra to it's fullest. He tried the whole time to take down the Rogue (but he'd ruled that the Hydra could bypass the Fighter's Combat Challenge by directing one attack each action to the Fighter, so he was doing that as well).

i like the sound of that.. because.. as long as 1 head is attacking the fighter i see no reason why the fighter should then get AO's everytime. To me that ruling just makes sense. I would understand if it is multiple targets.. but this is one target with the ability to attack multiple times. In fact..i think i might houserule that everytime there is a monster with multiple attacks.

Doesnt the flavor for their mark say "In combat, it is dangerous to ignore a fighter" ? In this case the fighter wouldn't be ignored, he'd get at least 1 attack in the round.

thoughts?

 

[Gruns]

Bite Bite Bite Bite

but he'd ruled that the Hydra could bypass the Fighter's Combat Challenge by directing one attack each action to the Fighter, so he was doing that as well

I have a hard time seeing how this could be ruled "the other way", really.
The attack power "Hydra Fury" is essentially an attack that has 4 attack rolls and potentially 4 targets. So long as the Fighter is at least one of these targets, he was included in the attack. The fact that "Hydra Fury" is worded the way it is worded as opposed to the long way may cause some confusion, I guess. And there are some people that think everytime an attack roll is made that isn't against the marking fighter results in combat challenge effects triggering. But those people and their opinions are just wrong, of course...

Later!
Gruns

 

[Lacyon]

Doesnt the flavor for their mark say "In combat, it is dangerous to ignore a fighter" ? In this case the fighter wouldn't be ignored, he'd get at least 1 attack in the round.

thoughts?

I have a hard time seeing how this could be ruled "the other way", really.
The attack power "Hydra Fury" is essentially an attack that has 4 attack rolls and potentially 4 targets. So long as the Fighter is at least one of these targets, he was included in the attack.

I'm of the opinion that it's totally cool to rule it either way. They're probably technically 4 separate attacks, but it doesn't make the Hydra all that much stronger to let this happen.

However! When my friend ran the encounter he found that it turned into a real grind toward the end, where the party just had to chew through a buckton of hp. If this starts to happen to you, let the Hydra ignore the Fighter's mark and concentrate on one other foe. This will have several consequences:

1) The fighter will get an extra attack each round, chipping away the Hydra's massive hit points a bit faster to speed the fight up.

2) Up until this point it's likely that a striker has been outdamaging the Fighter, so now you're giving the Fighter a chance to shine as you also speed up the combat.

3) Since the fighter's attack is an immediate action, he can only do it once per round. The Hydra can then spend an action point to safely pile on the non-Fighter target a second time in the same round! This makes for a reasonable gambit that shakes up the fight.

4) Concentrating your fire so heavily after several rounds of spreading it out a bit should shake up the fight, possibly forcing one character to tactically retreat. This could let the Hydra show off his Threatening Reach for a second time this fight. The Hydra doesn't have all that many interesting abilities compared to other solo creatures, so I think it's important to let him use the ones he does have!

EDIT: And 5) Don't forget to chase down that guy if he starts to retreat! This gives the Fighter another chance to shine by hitting you with the OA that makes you stand still. You only lose a move action you probably weren't going to use anyway. More importantly , the combat becomes more than just a "let's stand here and whack each other" - the party will likely try to block your path and let the wounded man retreat, even if the Fighter keeps connecting.

 

[Kordeth]

I have a hard time seeing how this could be ruled "the other way", really.
The attack power "Hydra Fury" is essentially an attack that has 4 attack rolls and potentially 4 targets. So long as the Fighter is at least one of these targets, he was included in the attack. The fact that "Hydra Fury" is worded the way it is worded as opposed to the long way may cause some confusion, I guess. And there are some people that think everytime an attack roll is made that isn't against the marking fighter results in combat challenge effects triggering. But those people and their opinions are just wrong, of course...

Later!
Gruns

"The hydra makes four bite attacks." That right there is a pretty strong argument that this power is, in fact, four separate attacks.

The problem is that nowhere does 4E strictly define what an attack actually is. There are clearly some multiple-target attacks that count as a single attack (bursts, blasts, etc.) and some attack powers which are multiple attacks (twin strike and most ranger powers specifically say they are "two attacks"), but the actual definition of an attack is absent from the book, which leads to rule confusions like this one. The fact that attack powers are usually referred to as "attacks" even when they are comprised of multiple attacks further muddies the issue.

Personally, the way I think it's meant to work is thusly:

Attack: Any single attack roll against any of the target's Defenses counts as an attack. Some powers allow you to make multiple attacks as part of the same action. Each attack roll is treated as its own attack (e.g. for purposes of triggering a fighter's Combat Challenge or a paladin's divine challenge.) If a power affects a target without requiring an attack roll, that effect is not considered an attack.

Corollary to that definition, the following bullet point would need to be added to the definition of "area attack" on p. 271:

Counts as One Attack: An area attack is treated as a single attack, even though you make an attack roll against every target in the area of effect.

 

[Gruns]

"The hydra makes four bite attacks." That right there is a pretty strong argument that this power is, in fact, four separate attacks.

It is clearly four seperate attack ROLLS, but to me, it is one ATTACK: "Hydra Fury". The problem here, as you point out below, is that 4E often intermingles the term "attack" to mean anything from an attack roll, to the use of a "power". I take it to mean the use of a power, whereas you seem to take it as each seperate attack roll. CustServ doesn't even agree with itself, so it's pretty much left up to the DM. And as DM, I get to say that the fighter was included in the Hydra Fury attack, therefore, he is not being ignored by the hydra.
If "Hydra Fury" were worded like this would you say it triggered combat challenges?

Hydra Fury (Standard; At Will)
Targets: 1, 2, 3 or 4 creatures
Attack: Reach 2; +14 vs. AC; four attacks
Damage: 1d8 + 5 damage

Fighters are already great at shutting down most creatures. I'm just on the side of DMs that don't think it should limit or outright negate creatures whose sole strength lies in multi-attacks.
Later!
Gruns

 

[Kordeth]

It is clearly four seperate attack ROLLS, but to me, it is one ATTACK: "Hydra Fury". The problem here, as you point out below, is that 4E often intermingles the term "attack" to mean anything from an attack roll, to the use of a "power". I take it to mean the use of a power, whereas you seem to take it as each seperate attack roll. CustServ doesn't even agree with itself, so it's pretty much left up to the DM. And as DM, I get to say that the fighter was included in the Hydra Fury attack, therefore, he is not being ignored by the hydra.

This is why there needs to be official errata on the definition of "attack."

If "Hydra Fury" were worded like this would you say it triggered combat challenges?

Hydra Fury (Standard; At Will)
Targets: 1, 2, 3 or 4 creatures
Attack: Reach 2; +14 vs. AC; four attacks
Damage: 1d8 + 5 damage

Yes, because all you've done is change the organization of the text. The power itself still says "four attacks." If it were worded thusly:

Hydra Fury (Standard; At Will)
Close burst 2, up to 4 creatures in burst; +14 vs. AC; 1d8 + 5 damage

Then as long as the fighter was one of the targets, Hydra's Fury wouldn't trigger Combat Challenge.

Fighters are already great at shutting down most creatures. I'm just on the side of DMs that don't think it should limit or outright negate creatures whose sole strength lies in multi-attacks.
Later!
Gruns

It's the fighter's job to lock down creatures. I'm on the side of the player who doesn't think his entire defender ability should be reduced to soaking up 1/4 of the monster's attack output.