Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?

[keterys]

I'd say it's definitely abusive if you have a triple attack attack once against the defender and twice against the neighboring warlock, say.

That's an odd choice of word: 'abusive'

If you compare the solo with the double or triple attack to a group of 5 monsters instead, the defender (most of whom mark a single target reliably, two with effort, and only get to trigger their mark backlash once a round) likely is not managing to catch all of the attacks, so it's pretty comparable to allowing 1/2 of a double attack or 1/3 of a triple attack.

I think it's an unreasonable nerf to defenders to let most multiattacker ignore the mark like this.

Also an odd choice 'nerf'. If the monsters are intended to work that way with the mark, then it's not a nerf at all. It's working as intended. It is hard to judge what the people making monsters are thinking, of course, but I can pretty much guarantee that at least some of them are fully believing it.

pquote]Most multiattacks have the option of hitting the defender; they should be forced to make that choice.[/quote]

Indeed. So if you have an attack that requires two targets, and it makes one the defender to avoid the mark, it has made that choice. If you say that it can't attack the second target without triggering the mark, by the rules it can't even use the ability at all without triggering the mark. (See that other discussion for a lot more detail)

It's pretty rare (as far as I can tell, I just skimmed through the MM again) for a multiattacker to be forced to pick two different targets; most of the multiattacks are in the style of "the goristro makes two slam attacks".

More than 139, since my first search term of three possibles turned up 139 hits. I wouldn't call that rare, but I'll grant it's uncommon See that other thread for examples, they're pretty good ones.

In general, I'd keep PC's and monsters alike to this rule - marks are intended to restrict an attackers flexibility

Which is why close and area attacks need to include the defender, in order to hit multiple targets. So then you have to ask what's the difference in reduced flexibility between one of two or three targets of a melee/ranged attack being the defender and them all having to be... and the answer is that in conceptual terms, the multitarget melee/ranged power that includes the defenders is the same, but in game execution terms it splits them up. Which means it's largely a semantic difference enforced by the game.

Now, the _real_ reason to have melee/ranged apply mark each attack is because you can do different things to each attack and interrupt them partway through and disrupt movement and such. I've never seen it happen, but it is possible to declare a defender as a target and then never manage to get the attack off.

I think it's a pretty big (unnecessary) nerf to let em split multiattacks. Multiattacks are fairly common too...

I think it's a tiny nerf to let them split multiattacks, that still favors the defender, but makes a fight against some creatures more interesting. And I play multiple defenders.

I could imagine a few specific exceptions; but those would be the exception, not the norm, and I think that'd be a sign of a design flaw in a monster (i.e., in need of errata). If many DM's are regularly playing fast and loose with the marking rules, then there's something wrong, somewhere: those rules were obviously intended mostly for the PC's to use against monsters (though occasionally the other way around), and they should at the very least work in that normal case.

That would, of course, be the best way. Perhaps some keyword to put on multitarget attacks to imply they satisfy mark.

I will note that my main objection is for multitarget attacks, not multiattack. Ie, attacks which _require_ more than one target but are melee/ranged.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

One thing that I think people are missing here is that the Solo doesn't have to attack the Defender, they'll just suffer some sort of consequence for doing so. And yes, I know that the Hospitalier ability that some people have brought up is strong, but that's just ONE Defender ability, and hardly representative of what most of them do (some sort of attack is probably the most common Defender response to a violated mark).

Solos are big monsters with a lot of HP and usually a pretty good attack bonus, and so they should be able to absorb the -2 to hit and a melee basic attack from a Defender pretty easily. In the case of the Dragon Triple Claw attack, for example, the Dragon could direct one attack at the Fighter, and then two attacks towards other targets. He'll get a -2 to hit on those other attacks, and the Fighter will get one Combat Challenge (Only one Immediate Interrupt action per round remember) attack in response. This means the Dragon retains it's flexibility, the party gets some extra damage in during the round (assuming the Fighter actually hits) and the Fighter gets to have some fun using his Combat Challenge ability. What's so bad about this?

I mean, a lot of DM's seem to want to avoid ever violating a mark, which makes things a little boring when playing a Defender at times. Why make it even easier to avoid those consequences for Solos? Just violate the mark with a multi-attack power once in a while and it makes things a helluva lot more fun for the Fighter/Paladin/Warden/Swordmage.

Edit: Heck, look at the picture below... "You'll have to deal with me first, dragon!" makes it sound like the Fighter is going give that Dragon hell if he doesn't. It doesn't say "You'll have to deal with me first in your series of 3 attacks, the rest of which can be dumped on my Warlock ally and I can't do anything about it!". It doesn't seem very Defendery to just let those other attacks go unpunished when the whole point of that role is to protect the party and punish their enemies.

 

[keterys]

And yes, I know that the Hospitalier ability that some people have brought up is strong, but that's just ONE Defender ability, and hardly representative of what most of them do (some sort of attack is probably the most common Defender response to a violated mark).

There are some that weaken all damage, some that provide a free action attack for -every attack made-, ensnarement swordmages can potentially disrupt all other attacks by teleporting the target out of reach, etc. But yes, mostly it just gets one response...

But that method actually encourages ignoring a defender even more...

the Dragon could direct one attack at the Fighter, and then two attacks towards other targets. He'll get a -2 to hit on those other attacks, and the Fighter will get one Combat Challenge (Only one Immediate Interrupt action per round remember) attack in response.

At that point, the monster either directs all against the fighter trying to take him down or directs all against someone else. Splitting them up is just a horrible idea if the mark applies to later attacks. At least, unless the first attack can forced movement, daze, or blind the defender out of reach

What's so bad about this?

What's so bad about the alternative, either? That the solo feels obligated to split its damage and have its multiple target attacks always include the defender, making the fight easier for the party via the mark.

Unfortunately, solos really don't have all that good an attack roll (same as any other creature, but hopefully less likely to be that many levels above the party), especially certain ones that have low attack bonuses but make multiple attacks to make up for it. A -2 to attack can actually be a pretty serious deal.

I mean, a lot of DM's seem to want to avoid ever violating a mark, which makes things a little boring when playing a Defender at times.

Agreed. Overavoiding marks isn't necessarily good.

Why make it even easier to avoid those consequences for Solos? Just violate the mark with a multi-attack power once in a while and it makes things a helluva lot more fun for the Fighter/Paladin/Warden/Swordmage.

But would it make it more fun if it either A) completely thrashed the defender if it has the capability or B) violated the mark always if it doesn't? Because that's the tactical consequence.

Edit: Heck, look at the picture below... "You'll have to deal with me first, dragon!" makes it sound like the Fighter is going give that Dragon hell if he doesn't. It doesn't say "You'll have to deal with me first in your series of 3 attacks, the rest of which can be dumped on my Warlock ally and I can't do anything about it!". It doesn't seem very Defendery to just let those other attacks go unpunished when the whole point of that role is to protect the party and punish their enemies.

So why doesn't the fighter get an attack when the dragon uses his breath weapon on the fighter, cleric, and warlock? Or frightful presence? Or thunderclap. Or...

 

[DreamChaser]

Some quick comments:
I suggest a monster with a triple attack only needs to direct one attack onto the defender, and the rest on whomever.

The fact it needs to make that single attack is in itself a big win for the defender and the party. Now the rest of the PCs simply need to make sure it's awkward for the monster to hit both them and the defender at the same time.

But if this ability meant the monster had to spend all attacks on the Paladin all the time (to avoid triggering the mark) that might mean a small boost to the Paladin players fun, but a big loss to the overall fun of the game.

There is no "has to" in this. For most solos, a -2 and the possibility of some extra damage is a deterrent but not a deal breaker. Also, I don't see how triggering a mark makes the game less fun for anyone? If anything, I find the ease with which it the interpretation you suggest enables a substantial number of creatures to completely ignore the hallmark ability of defenders.

The only time your average solo will ever trigger a mark (if multi ranged & melee don't qualify if one attack is launched at the defender is with the occasional opportunity attack. Given that 2 of the 4 defenders have to use an action to mark a target (specific power selections not withstanding), this makes paladins and swordmages extremely frustrating in concept.

As flashedarling pointed out above, the Player's Handbook is actually very specfic on this topic: multiple Ranged and Melee attacks are treated as separate attacks. This means each one can be "an attack that does not include [you] as the target" and thus the mark applies.

This is more fun for the defender, who gets to use his mark ability against the solos too. It is more fun for the leader and striker because they gain an (often needed) boost to their defenses against the solo's attacks (through the BBEG's penalty to hit). It is especially fun for the bard who can inflict marks. It is fun for the controller who can put arrange things so that it is that much more tempting for the solo to split his attacks rather than just attacking the defender.

DC

 

[flashedarling]

So why doesn't the fighter get an attack when the dragon uses his breath weapon on the fighter, cleric, and warlock? Or frightful presence? Or thunderclap. Or...

I would say simulationist-wise because two claw attacks is making two different attacks while a breath weapon is a single attack. Other than that it is just a rule for the purposes of classifying attacks.

When I play defenders I'm usually disappointed by how often my mark goes off so I feel that making the situation mark go off more frequently probably isn't a bad thing. My swordmage at least doesn't feel like his mark is doing much at all when the solo gets three attacks and thus gets to hit every person adjacent to him. However I spent most my time in heroic tier and so haven't seen first hand all the rider effects, like healing, that can be added to a mark going off. I can also see how the big situation is solos and elites and how neutered they can get if they aren't able to spread the damage out a little more. I'm fairly torn on which way is best. As a player I would want it to be RAW, melee attacks that target multiple people are seperate attacks. I can see the GM concern though. I'm going to try running it RAW for a while and see how it works.

 

[keterys]

As a DM, I'm happy to work with whatever way the party wants. It would affect the type of creatures I use, and probably make certain creatures more dangerous because I won't split damage anymore, but at a benefit of triggering mark effects more often.

As a monster designer, I'd much rather have multitarget have a way to sidestep mark penalties, because I'd much rather have monsters have an ability that _must_ target multiples so you don't spike damage on a single target too quickly, but not always have to make that a close or area attack.

As a PC who plays two defenders, I'm fine either way. If the monster is splitting his attack onto me, he's probably _less_ effective than if he focus fired either me or the other striker in melee, but I'm happy to trigger the mark more too.

I do want, as _all_ of those perspectives, the entire monster's stat block to be used, so I'd frown at anything that made multitarget abilities just not get used.

P.S. This does affect Elites as much as Solos, btw... as well as a number of normals... and they have a lot less hp to just suck it up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a DM, I'm happy to work with whatever way the party wants. It would affect the type of creatures I use, and probably make certain creatures more dangerous because I won't split damage anymore, but at a benefit of triggering mark effects more often.

As a monster designer, I'd much rather have multitarget have a way to sidestep mark penalties, because I'd much rather have monsters have an ability that _must_ target multiples so you don't spike damage on a single target too quickly, but not always have to make that a close or area attack.

As a PC who plays two defenders, I'm fine either way. If the monster is splitting his attack onto me, he's probably _less_ effective than if he focus fired either me or the other striker in melee, but I'm happy to trigger the mark more too.

I do want, as _all_ of those perspectives, the entire monster's stat block to be used, so I'd frown at anything that made multitarget abilities just not get used.

P.S. This does affect Elites as much as Solos, btw... as well as a number of normals... and they have a lot less hp to just suck it up.

But you DO have a way to deal with it as a monster designer. Don't design multitarget melee attack powers. Its pretty simple to describe the power as a close blast/burst target N number of creatures in the AoE and there are probably other ways for a monster to be statted up that will give the same result.

 

[keterys]

That actually doesn't always work. For example, let's say I've got an elite drow combat specialist who wields a rapier and hand crossbow, and I want him able to make an attack each round with both, but not on the same target. The rapier slides, the crossbow has poison. Different effects, all kinds of different rules. But if a player really cared, I'd switch things around so it was two separate attacks in order and could both be on the same target, rather than one power where two targets. The rapier would go first, potentially sliding the defender out of range to get an OA or challenge (rather than just getting an OA when both were simultaneous), and the spike damage on one target would just be higher.

For many other creatures, translating ranged attacks into either close or area negates concealment, as well as a number of reactionary abilities. You'll have PCs going 'Oh he shot a crossbow at just me? I'll use my anti-ranged attack ability. Wait, it's an area effect that targets 2 creature in burst?' and Melee going 'Ooh, I take an OA, wait, it's a close burst pick 2 targets'. It's doable, but the more the PCs get to react appropriately the better.

Which is one thing of note - players seem far more accepting that such multitarget attacks, that include them, satisfy their mark. I've had it run that way for me, knowing it didn't work that way, and let it happen, and I've run it that way, and never once had someone say something.

It is worth note that some PC abilities work like this too. For example, a wizard marked by an enemy soldier who tries to use Icy Rays may be shocked if you try to say he'll trigger mark if he targets more than just the soldier with the multitarget ranged spell.

As long as everyone is on the same page, though, great. I mostly chimed in to note that it's _not_ abusive or breaking to let them work. In my experience so far, in those three roles, it's either a meet (some good, some bad) or an outright benefit for ranged/melee to follow the same 'as long as it includes the defender' criteria as area/close. So, RAW, it totally works that way, no question. But in the interest of fun and some monsters not being screwed up, I'd suggest the house rule. It definitely works out fine.

 

[sfedi]

My experience is the same as Keterys'

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, let's see.

If the power is a melee or ranged power that has multiple targets, it's multiple attacks as per the descriptions of those attack types.

As well, if the power says 'Make three maul attacks' or 'Make three basic attacks' then what is -really- happening is the power is telling you to use some -subordinate- power three times. At that point, each use of the subordinate power is distinct, and considered the same as if you had spent action points to do it; they are seperate attacks as they are seperate power uses.

Close and Area powers are multiple rolls, but a single attack with a single damage roll. Exception to the above, unless the power is 'Make a melee basic attack against all enemies in the burst' in which case it qualifies as above.