Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5005577" data-attributes="member: 51942">Some of those multi-attacks can be pretty hefty though; 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.I think it's an unreasonable nerf to defenders to let most multiattacker ignore the mark like this.&nbsp; Most multiattacks have the option of hitting the defender; they should be forced to make that choice.&nbsp; If you look at solo's, for example, many have multiattacks.&nbsp; But if these solos are still effected by things like prone +daze normally (generally), and still usually have the choice to actually focus on the defender.&nbsp; Or; if they don't they violate the mark which is usually OK.&nbsp; In any case, solo's present all kinds of weaknesses (by being vulnerable to status effects), of which marking is certainly not the worst.Multiattacks generally have an option to do something else in any case; it's not like they're forced to multiattack several targets - that's a perk.&nbsp; If an attacker had one big damage attack he couldn't split it half of it away from the defender either.&nbsp; 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 &quot;the goristro makes two slam attacks&quot;.In general, I'd keep PC's and monsters alike to this rule - marks are intended to restrict an attackers flexibility, I think it's a pretty big (unnecessary) nerf to let em split multiattacks.&nbsp; Multiattacks are fairly common too...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).&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5005577, member: 51942"] Some of those multi-attacks can be pretty hefty though; 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. I think it's an unreasonable nerf to defenders to let most multiattacker ignore the mark like this. Most multiattacks have the option of hitting the defender; they should be forced to make that choice. If you look at solo's, for example, many have multiattacks. But if these solos are still effected by things like prone +daze normally (generally), and still usually have the choice to actually focus on the defender. Or; if they don't they violate the mark which is usually OK. In any case, solo's present all kinds of weaknesses (by being vulnerable to status effects), of which marking is certainly not the worst. Multiattacks generally have an option to do something else in any case; it's not like they're forced to multiattack several targets - that's a perk. If an attacker had one big damage attack he couldn't split it half of it away from the defender either. 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". In general, I'd keep PC's and monsters alike to this rule - marks are intended to restrict an attackers flexibility, I think it's a pretty big (unnecessary) nerf to let em split multiattacks. Multiattacks are fairly common too... 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification