Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?

[CapnZapp]

It boils down to my conviction the designers did not take added effects of marking into account when they decided "now, should this critter get one big attack or three small ones".

They most probably took the basic mark into account (the -2 penalty), yes, but that's about it.

I don't want a rule that makes the Hospitaler go "yes! it's a speedy dagger-stabbing quickling monster! My mark is four times as effective against this critter than against a clumsy brute with an oversized greataxe!"

In retrospect, the by far simplest solution that I've seen in the thread is the simple "any extra effect from a mark can only trigger once per monster", in the same way you can only do one opportunity attack during a particular monster regardless of how many times it performs triggering actions.

Not by chance, the fighter's Combat Challenge already works this way (by being further restricted to only once per round, and not merely once per monster turn)

 

[eamon]

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.

It depends somewhat on level; but most defenders can multimark even fairly early on. Sure, they can only trigger the "extra benefit" once (and even that's not always the case), but they can multimark. A fighter with two attacks or a close burst, a warden in any case, a paladin with a divine sanction (or even a divine sanction blast), or a paragon swordmage can all manage multiple marks. The paladin even get's the bonus damage once per creature. In any case, solo's are more vulnerable to all sorts of single-target tricks; it's not surprising this may be the case to some extent with marks too. Many effects simply target only a limited area or limited number of creatures, and that makes it easier to hit a solo with such effects than to hit a group of creatures with those things.

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.

The rules on multiple attacks are quite simple; they are seperate attacks. Each attack is individually targetted and each can suffer from a mark. Multi-attacks aren't that rare; changing this rule represents a significant nerf.

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)

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Multi-attacks are common. Multi-attacks which require two distinct targets are rare. For instance, people in this thread referred to dragons; well, a quick check shows that dragons' "Double Attack" can make multiple attacks vs. one target. Blue dragons even have a "Draconic Fury" which gives them three attacks - again, which can be focused. White Dragons have "Dragon's Fury", which has a clause which is again common on many creatures - if the dragon hits the same target with both attacks he's extra nasty.

Clearly, most multiattacks can target a single target, and clearly, that's not an accident - it's not uncommon for monster powers to explicitly depend on that ability, too.

I'd also like to stress that solo's aren't the only multiattackers under the sun, there are many others that can do so too. The solo's problems with respect to effects aren't specifically related to marks. If the motivation behind a rules change is to be that solo's are getting pwned, then marks would not be the first thing I'd jump to fixing.

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.

These are the exceptionally problematic situations.

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.

I think the base rules are sufficiently clear on the matter. Changing the rules concerning multi attacks changes balance and weakens marks for no particularly good reason; some of these multiattacks are quite strong, and it may matter a lot whether the multiattacker can use one of three attacks on the buffed defender and the rest on the weak, less armored dude that perhaps even grants combat advantage next to him. It also opens up a can of worms in some corner cases. The number of multiattacks that actually need to attack multiple distinct targets are small and I'll wager that even most of these have a reasonable (if less attractive) fallback option which can target just one creature.

Basically, I ask "why would you do this in general"? If you find a few specific cases of poorly designed monsters where you think that the attacks were really intended to be played as a kind of mass-damage area thing (and it actually matters much), then of course the DM should choose to fix those design issues on a case-by-case basis. But what you're suggesting alters far, far more than just those cases, it alters every multiattacker, even those that clearly were intended to (be able to) target a single target usually. When the paladin stands guard next to his fallen friend, the intent is that his mark distracts the critter from attacking his allies.

 

[eamon]

It boils down to my conviction the designers did not take added effects of marking into account when they decided "now, should this critter get one big attack or three small ones".

They most probably took the basic mark into account (the -2 penalty), yes, but that's about it.

I don't want a rule that makes the Hospitaler go "yes! it's a speedy dagger-stabbing quickling monster! My mark is four times as effective against this critter than against a clumsy brute with an oversized greataxe!"

In retrospect, the by far simplest solution that I've seen in the thread is the simple "any extra effect from a mark can only trigger once per monster", in the same way you can only do one opportunity attack during a particular monster regardless of how many times it performs triggering actions.

Not by chance, the fighter's Combat Challenge already works this way (by being further restricted to only once per round, and not merely once per monster turn)

Not just the fighter's CC attack, by the by: almost all mark related extra punishments kick in only once per round.

But there are those things that kick in on each and every attack; such as resistances and vulnerabilities.

Other things are more subtle. For instance, in a group with a cunning bard, it is common practice to try and slide away the victim of an attack when he's expected to be the target of several attacks - i.e. vs. multiattacks, or vs. flanking monsters or somesuch.

In general, a singular attack which deals as much damage as multiple attacks is more powerful than the sum of the multiple attacks.

 

[keterys]

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Multi-attacks are common. Multi-attacks which require two distinct targets are rare. For instance, people in this thread referred to dragons; well, a quick check shows that dragons' "Double Attack" can make multiple attacks vs. one target. Blue dragons even have a "Draconic Fury" which gives them three attacks - again, which can be focused. White Dragons have "Dragon's Fury", which has a clause which is again common on many creatures - if the dragon hits the same target with both attacks he's extra nasty.

I'm referring to a post I did in the thread I linked, where this topic came up two weeks ago. Since you're not the only one...

For example:
Hunger Frenzy (Standard, at-will) The bloodwind makes a bite attack and two claw attacks. The claw attacks must target two different enemies..


Flensing Teeth (Standard, at-will)
The dracolich makes a bite attack against each of two different targets.+9 vs ; 2d6+5 damage..


Dragonborn Wrath (Standard, at-will)

Weapon
Requires greatsword; the annihilator makes two greatsword attacks, each against a different target.; +34 vs ; 3d8+10 damage..


Battle Surge (Standard, at-will)

Weapon
Requires greatsword; +14 vs Armor Class; (+15 while bloodied)1d10+6 damage, and the exemplar makes a secondary attack against a different target.

And that's the first 4 of _139_ creatures in the compendium that hit my search for 'different target', so there are lots more that specifically hit 'two targets' or 'three targets'

Like this one:
Blast of Cold (Minor, at-will)

ColdRanged 10 from frost gem; two targets; +4 vs Reflex; 2d8+1 cold damage. This attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.

I think the base rules are sufficiently clear on the matter. Changing the rules concerning multi attacks changes balance and weakens marks for no particularly good reason

Again, only if you assume the people designing the monsters realized monsters worked that way. Obviously, you do, but I'm a lot more dubious. Ditto on PC powers like Icy Rays, Eldritch Rain, Split the Tree. Split the Tree is a particularly curious instance with the way it handles its attack rolls.

For those encouraging a creature to just make all of its attacks against someone other than the defender, it's worth note that because of Shield Push, Ensnaring Swordmages, Eldritch Strike, etc it's entirely possible that doing so would be a very bad idea since it could move the monster away from its target entirely so it can't successfully make the rest of its attacks.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not just the fighter's CC attack, by the by: almost all mark related extra punishments kick in only once per round.

But there are those things that kick in on each and every attack; such as resistances and vulnerabilities.

Other things are more subtle. For instance, in a group with a cunning bard, it is common practice to try and slide away the victim of an attack when he's expected to be the target of several attacks - i.e. vs. multiattacks, or vs. flanking monsters or somesuch.

In general, a singular attack which deals as much damage as multiple attacks is more powerful than the sum of the multiple attacks.

Well, I agree to everything you say.

Still don't make me convinced it's a good thing to hand out one helping of Hospitaler for each individual attack a monster does.

Whether the problem can be contained by simply fixing Hospitaler, or if it is cleaner to implement a system-wide rule (like I suggested), I of course can't say.

 

[keterys]

Interesting example from our own boards:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5006364-post7.html
Blade Assault (Standard; recharge )
Burst 2; Aspect makes a Blade Strike attack against each enemy in burst;
on miss target takes half damage

So here's an example where a close multitarget only attack triggers the defender's mark effects. Granted, this one would be easy to avoid by just writing it as
Burst 2, enemies only; +23 vs. AC; 2d8+7 damage (crit 2d8+23 damage). Miss: Half damage.
So maybe Mesh Hong intentionally wanted it to deal with that. Or didn't think about it. Dunno if he reads this board, but anyone have any bets before I ask him?

 

[Mesh Hong]

Interesting example from our own boards:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5006364-post7.html
Blade Assault (Standard; recharge )
Burst 2; Aspect makes a Blade Strike attack against each enemy in burst;
on miss target takes half damage

So here's an example where a close multitarget only attack triggers the defender's mark effects. Granted, this one would be easy to avoid by just writing it as
Burst 2, enemies only; +23 vs. AC; 2d8+7 damage (crit 2d8+23 damage). Miss: Half damage.
So maybe Mesh Hong intentionally wanted it to deal with that. Or didn't think about it. Dunno if he reads this board, but anyone have any bets before I ask him?

Read this board? I think you might find I have already contributed to this thread!

 

[keterys]

Read this board? I think you might find I have already contributed to this thread!

Hah - you hadn't on the last page. But I figured it was a good way to summon you. Whereas you own monsters on the home creations subforum

Judging from the other thread, you made it work that way conceptually. From your post in this one, you subscribe to the 'single power counts for melee/ranged/area/close' theory.

Which is great, cause now I've just established that someone who has made multiple monster manual like things is doing so with the understanding that their multitarget melee and ranged attacks don't trigger defender marks. Which is what I was hoping for.

I can't easily do that same confirmation for the wotc monsters. I could probably track down a couple (like that minor action ranged ice ray one is by a freelancer who responds on the boards a lot), if it helped someone, but eh.

Everyone can continue to run their games as they see fit. For multiple groups I'm a part of, that appears to mean with the minor house rule that seems in the spirit of the game (in that none of them has thought it was a house rule and I've never bothered to point out to the ones running it wrong), but definitely not the written. It works great in terms of fun, it's not abusive, and it's not a noticeable nerf. For other folks, their defenders would prefer things to work otherwise, and for them, it works great in turns of fun, it doesn't make the monsters more boring, and it's intuitive for them. Yay.

 

[DracoSuave]

ISo a dragon can't divide its triple claw attacks around without triggering the fighters mark.

Of course not. It doesn't tell you to make an attack against three targets. It tells you to use a particular power three times. By no stretch of the imagination are you doing anything but making three seperate attacks no matter what.

 

[eamon]

===============Thread Necro Warning===============

Concerning the interpretation that a hydra's fury (which grants several basic attacks) consists of distinct attacks (and so all attacks need to target the defender to avoid violating a mark), keterys said on another thread that:

Yes, it is RAW. I'm almost positive that many people at WotC don't realize it works that way - which puts RAI in doubt, and as I said, _every_ group I play with - which is five groups - does not play that way.

In at least two cases, I'm sure if I tried to explain the RAW they'd think I was nuts.

I know a few prominent monster builders outside of WotC who clearly don't work that way too. It's very easy to find monsters from WotC or elsewhere that just aren't designed with that in mind.​

I asked CS a year ago:

The rules text for the "marked" status literally refers to a "-2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't target the creature that marked you".

In that phrase, what's "any attack"? Is that an attack power? Or is that an attack as described by the combat section - i.e. a single ranged, melee, area or close burst attack?

As a specific question, when a ranger that is marked uses the twin strike power (a single attack power granting two attacks) to attack both the creature that marked him and another creature - does he take a -2 to attack rolls for the attack vs. the creature that did not mark him?

A trickier example is Attacks on the run (ranger level 9 power, PHB), which grants movement and two attacks. If the second attack is versus the creature that marked him, does he take a -2 penalty to the attack roll of the first attack? If he does _not_, what happens if he falls into a trap before making the second attack - i.e. he avoided the -2 penalty since the attack power was intended to include the creature that marked him, but before he moves adjacent and can actually make the attack, he is interrupted in a fashion making the attack impossible.

Marks speak of a single "attack" but it's not clear to me whether that means a single attack roll (seems unlikely), an entire attack power (which has consistency issues), or something in between.
​

Customer Support answered:

Hello. When you are marked, if you make an attack that does not include the source of the mark, you will take a -2 penalty to the attack. This means that with Twin Strike and Attacks on the Run you will take the -2 penalty to the attack rolls that do not target the source of your mark.
​

I've gotta say, my wording was perhaps a little too suggestive (by pointing out consistency issues), so I've asked CS again in an attempt to use a less suggestive wording.

Particularly in the case of the hydra, I feel that it's unreasonable to permit the hydra to spread it's attacks without violating the mark. The whole point of a defender is to tie down a target and take the hits; and some of these hydras have more attacks than most parties will have members - requiring just one attack to target the hydra makes it very attractive for the hydra to continue to focus fire on another party member and dispatch just a token effort vs. the (generally better armored, higher-hitpoint, less dangerous) defender.

So, in the vast majority of cases, I think it's clearly the best choice to follow the rules as written because doing otherwise undermines the whole point of the defender role - if a marked creature is not focusing on the defender and not taking the penalties, something is not right.