Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5241581" data-attributes="member: 51942">I understand the argument that it's playable to consider a mark not violated when a creature performs multiple melee attacks.However, I don't see the argument for intent at all.&nbsp; The melee attack rules explicitly point out that multiple targets involve multiple attacks.&nbsp; The vast majority of wotc monsters are quite reasonable under that interpretation.&nbsp; By contrast, letting a hydra focus fire on the adjacent rogue and insert a token single attack vs. the defender is not reasonable.&nbsp; Some (rare) powers work poorly when marked.&nbsp; What's the problem?Marks essentially mean:&nbsp; whenever you can choose a target, you must choose (or include) the defender (or take a -2).&nbsp; Since melee attacks are individually targeted, that means you need to attack the defender with all those attacks - that's kind of the whole point of the role.&nbsp; Of course there's a grey area - multiattacks that target distinct creatures may be modeled as close bursts (with a limited number of creatures in burst) or as melee attacks (with the requirement that all targets must be distinct).&nbsp; The rules are an abstraction; these corner cases are rare and noncritical when they do turn up.The bit about melee attacks being distinct attacks is easy to miss, particularly given the general confusion surrounding attacks/attack powers/attack rolls etc.&nbsp; So if a DM accidentally misses the distinction of the rules I agree it's not that import.&nbsp; But when you say that this is somehow good and even RAI, that sounds wrong: such a DM would be ignoring RAW, ignoring the spirit behind the rules of the mark (namely that the creature must choose to attack the defender or suffer) and given ambiguity interpreting things to the detriment of the PC's (bad practice in my book).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5241581, member: 51942"] I understand the argument that it's playable to consider a mark not violated when a creature performs multiple melee attacks. However, I don't see the argument for [I]intent[/I] at all. The melee attack rules explicitly point out that multiple targets involve multiple attacks. The vast majority of wotc monsters are quite reasonable under that interpretation. By contrast, letting a hydra focus fire on the adjacent rogue and insert a token single attack vs. the defender is [I]not reasonable.[/I] Some (rare) powers work poorly when marked. What's the problem? Marks essentially mean: whenever you can choose a target, you must choose (or include) the defender (or take a -2). Since melee attacks are individually targeted, that means you need to attack the defender with [I]all[/I] those attacks - that's kind of the whole point of the role. Of course there's a grey area - multiattacks that target distinct creatures may be modeled as close bursts (with a limited number of creatures in burst) or as melee attacks (with the requirement that all targets must be distinct). The rules are an abstraction; these corner cases are rare and noncritical when they do turn up. The bit about melee attacks being distinct attacks is easy to miss, particularly given the general confusion surrounding attacks/attack powers/attack rolls etc. So if a DM accidentally misses the distinction of the rules I agree it's not that import. But when you say that this is somehow good and even RAI, that sounds wrong: such a DM would be ignoring RAW, ignoring the spirit behind the rules of the mark (namely that the creature must choose to attack the defender or suffer) and given ambiguity interpreting things to the detriment of the PC's (bad practice in my book). [/QUOTE]

Verification