Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 5005641" data-attributes="member: 43019">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...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 <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=":)" />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.Agreed. Overavoiding marks isn't necessarily good.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.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...</blockquote>

Verification