Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MyISPHatesENWorld" data-source="post: 4834323" data-attributes="member: 65684">Monsters have a move and a standard action. They can both move and attack. Only one of them can be affected by challenge if they shift or attack. Yes, it is. Sorry, but automatically taking damage if you're in a spot at the start of your next turn truly does determine if you stay in that spot the next turn.  Then your idea to add 1[W] damage to opportunity attacks and combat challenge attacks would be equally the "hunter's quarry approach" to being a defender. As would every feat that adds damage or accuracy to combat challenge or opportunity attacks. Which would include the fighter's weapon talent, the weapon focus and expertise feats, etc. The "hunter's quarry theory" is irrelevant and nonsensical, only useful for espousing that one way of being defender isn't valid, because it is like a striker.Withgin the context of being related to the line you cut out, sure. Option 1: Enemy takes -2 penalty to hit unless it moves away and can't attack the ally.Option 2: Enemy takes damage unless it moves away and can't attack the ally.If your goal is to encourage your enemy to move away and not attack your ally, the -2 to hit on the attack your ally in Option 1 is meaningless compared with not being able to attack at all. Option 2 is a real incentive for the enemy to move - not attacking to save its own skin.It doesn't always make it easier. Sometimes the monster(s) and party member(s) will be in positions where the monster(s) have to move to allow the party member(s) to get away from them. Being sticky is (sometimes very) useful, but it isn't all there is to being a defender.This is a good thing. Again, you've imposed your will on them and limited their actions. A good thing.Again, monsters can both attack the ally and move or shift in the same round.There is a lot more incentive to move away from the ally when the damage is at the beginning. You've already been hit once and you're going to be hit a second time if you're still there next round. If the damage is at the end, the monster(s) can attack, stay and take the hit, and then make another attack the next round moving to avoid a second hit. They get two attacks for one round of Rain of Blows damage. It's still a strawman. Doing more damage doesn't make something a striker ability or power. It's nonsense. I play enough that I know you're wrong. It isn't a matter of trust. Damage now and then more damage at the start of your next turn is more of an incentive to move than damage at the end of a turn that you have your entire next round of actions to avoid. If your solo doesn't mind taking autodamage they can avoid by getting away from then yeah, it has no effect at all. Most monsters act differently when they're been wounded and are going to be a lot more wounded if they're in the same spot.You can stick to that, but its defendery enough that both of your two attempts at making it more defendery made it demonstrably less so. Karinsdad explained it perfectly clearly. I've shown the benefits of it for a defender as well. It's a good defender power. Taking it makes you a better defender in some situations, just like the other defender powers.</blockquote>

Verification