Monsters and Multiple attacks.

[Lacyon]

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

There really doesn't. The game plays fine either way.

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.

I'm on the side that says it's okay if the Fighter locks down 1/4 of a solo creature's attack output. Particularly when the solo in question doesn't have a good mechanism for escaping lockdown.

 

[keterys]

Yes, because all you've done is change the organization of the text.

Actually, I'd say that fighter challenge would definitely not trigger on the 'organized' one, but could potentially trigger on the non-'organized' one. Powers like Twin Strike, Icy Rays, etc hit multiple creatures sometimes, just how they work.

Hydra Fury is in question because it calls something else.

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

I actually would have much preferred if Hydra Fury _was_ a close burst, though preferably one that did more damage. Encouraging spreading damage around can be a good thing, rather than hammering on one target. Especially since it's much easier to make one target really hard to take down.

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.

That's a perfectly reasonable sentiment to take, but it doesn't necessarily change the rule in question.

Personally, I suspect hydras are best off going for the absolute squishiest person first and just bursting them down. Oh no, they get hit along the way. The -2 attack is the more significant penalty.

 

[-Avalon-]

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



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.



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.

I am on the side of the disgruntled DM hehe

I constantly see that 4th Ed is designed to allow players to feel like true heroes in that they give them every tiny thing their heart desires for the most part.

The problem I see is the "Give an inch..." issue, players are hard enough to kill as is, the hydra is a solo! It is meant to take the place of 5 monsters of equal level... so if I had used 5 monsters, all of them have to attack the fighter?? lol

In no way is it ever supposed to be beneficial to use wimps instead of the boss, or vice versa... solo = 5 mobs. So, if solo has multiple attacks, stands to reason the solo would get to attack different people just as the 5 mobs would be able to do so.

Just logic, players live too often anyways, if there is no challenge, then why play? A solo should be something scary, make it that way

 

[Gruns]

Apples to Applesauce

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.

Even though this is a different (and much weaker) attack, it still involves four seperate attack rolls (only if there are four different PCs in range). You used the word "attack" for "attack roll" in the case of the original Hydra Fury, so why not now? I don't see how this is considered any different than making four attack rolls that happened to be named "Bite". Kind of like a function call for you fellow computer geeks out there.

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.

And for most creatures, you soak up 100% of their attack output. That's why there have to be special monster cases such as Hydras that rely on multi-attacks to get the job done. Just as rogues are weaker against swarms and minions, fighters are weaker against creatures with multi-attack abilities. And wizards of course, suck equally against all creatures. (OH NO HE DIDN'T)

Later!
Gruns

P.S.- Just kidding. I <3 wizards. And yeah, they own minions and can even make big, dumb solo creatures sleep all day.

 

[Kordeth]

I'm on the side that says it's okay if the Fighter locks down 1/4 of a solo creature's attack output. Particularly when the solo in question doesn't have a good mechanism for escaping lockdown.

Sure it does: it's called "reach 2."

Actually, I'd say that fighter challenge would definitely not trigger on the 'organized' one, but could potentially trigger on the non-'organized' one. Powers like Twin Strike, Icy Rays, etc hit multiple creatures sometimes, just how they work.

Hydra Fury is in question because it calls something else.

Twin Strike specifically says in its description that it's "two attacks." Icy rays says "one attack per target." Hydra's Fury says "four bite attacks." I don't really see how the language is different, they all say that they're a single power that allows multiple attacks, and that's where the confusion comes in.

That's a perfectly reasonable sentiment to take, but it doesn't necessarily change the rule in question.

There is no rule in question, that's the problem.

Even though this is a different (and much weaker) attack, it still involves four seperate attack rolls (only if there are four different PCs in range). You used the word "attack" for "attack roll" in the case of the original Hydra Fury, so why not now? I don't see how this is considered any different than making four attack rolls that happened to be named "Bite". Kind of like a function call for you fellow computer geeks out there.

Did you miss the last part of my earlier post where I said that, if the rule is "each attack roll is a separate attack," that area attacks should have an exception that says area attacks count as a single attack? That's why this version would count as a single attack when the various "four attacks" versions would count as separate.

 

[malraux]

FWIW, I emailed customer service on this, and their answer to me on that day was that each basic attack had to target the fighter not to trigger the fighter's mark. I can see it either way as far as the literal reading of the rules, so I'd really rather at some point have a designer's intent come out, as obviously this is something that the designers had to think about at some point.

 

[Rafe]

FWIW, I emailed customer service on this, and their answer to me on that day was that each basic attack had to target the fighter not to trigger the fighter's mark. I can see it either way as far as the literal reading of the rules, so I'd really rather at some point have a designer's intent come out, as obviously this is something that the designers had to think about at some point.

I would rule it as being every attack action must have the Fighter amongst its. Thus, if a single standard at-will attack action results in four attacks (or 20), only one of those would need to target or include the Fighter to count.

In the case of Hydra's Fury, as long as the Fighter is in the area of effect, it's all good. It's a burst power. There's no other way to target someone with a burst or blast other than having that person be inside one of the squares of effect! I feel that portion of the conversation is pretty moot. That's like saying any burst or blast attack, if it hits any other creature other than the Fighter who's done the marking, provokes the class ability. It's one attack. It simply includes multiple targets.

 

[Gruns]

In the case of Hydra's Fury, as long as the Fighter is in the area of effect, it's all good. It's a burst power.

You didn't read the entire thread. Hydra's Fury is not a burst power. Start at post 1 and go from there.
Later!
Gruns

 

[Rafe]

You didn't read the entire thread. Hydra's Fury is not a burst power. Start at post 1 and go from there.
Later!
Gruns

Ah, I see my error. Someone had posted "if it were written like this" and that's the part I missed.

I just read the MM entry for Fen Hydra, which I ought to have done earlier. For Hydra Fury, it simply says "The fen hydra makes four bite attacks." Therefore, by RAW, each bite attack from Hydra Fury would have to be targeting the Fighter for it not to trigger Combat Challenge because each is an attack, regardless of the attack's action type (standard, minor or move).

 

[Mort_Q]

How about also letting each head of the hydra be marked separately?