Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 5005606" data-attributes="member: 43019">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.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.</blockquote>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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> See that other thread for examples, they're pretty good ones.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 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.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.[/QUOTE]

Verification