Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doctor Proctor" data-source="post: 5005623" data-attributes="member: 78547">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Why make it even easier to avoid those consequences for Solos?&nbsp; 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...&nbsp; &quot;You'll have to deal with me first, dragon!&quot; makes it sound like the Fighter is going give that Dragon hell if he doesn't.&nbsp; It doesn't say &quot;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!&quot;.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doctor Proctor, post: 5005623, member: 78547"] One thing that I think people are missing here is that the Solo doesn't [I]have[/I] 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 [I]one[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification