Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?

[SlyFlourish]

With the recent change to Hospitaler's Blessing in the errata, a question came up that I want to get people's take on.

Does a multi-attack action, like a dragon's triple-claw attack, count as a single attack action for the sake of run-away interrupts or hospitaler's blessing heals.

For example, if a red dragon is marked by a paladin with hospitaler's blessing, and that dragon performs a triple-claw attack on a single target, will that target heal three times or just one?

Or if a hydra targets a ranger with a multi-headed bite attack, and the ranger has an immediate reaction, will that take place on the first attack or the last?

Thanks,

Mike Shea

 

[Nifft]

There was a good discussion of this recently for Marks in general.

The way my group does it is: one damage roll = one "attack".

So a Close power that happens to catch two PCs is one attack, while an NPC's Twin Strike is two attacks (even if they target the same PC).

Cheers, -- N

 

[CapnZapp]

For player characters, I think it's clear: if it's a close burst (or similar), it's one attack. If it's something like Twin Strike, it's multiple attacks.

When it comes to monsters, theoretically it should be the same. But I can definitely hear the argument that things that key off attacks (such as the Hospitaler ability) aren't really balanced like that.

So it's hard to say something definitive. Each DM needs to make up his own mind.

Probably it's best to consider monsters making double or triple attacks as doing only a single attack. Yes, it's "cheating", but I can't see the benefit of allowing things like Hospitaler's Blessing to trigger three times.

After all, how some monsters make few big attacks and others make several smaller ones is just fluff.

However, several monsters have their actions set up in a way similar to this:

m Double Stab (standard; at-will) Weapon The monster makes two attacks at the target; each at +10 vs AC, 1d6+3 damage.
Combat Advantage The monster makes two Double Stab attacks against any target it has combat advantage against

In this case, I would treat the monster doing one attack in general, but two against any flanked PC.

The point is to treat each "basic" ability as one attack. Other abilities that say "use this other ability more times" translate into that many attacks (from the Hospitaler's point of view)

 

[Mesh Hong]

As CapnZapp says this is (yet another) situation where a DM needs to make a decision and stick to it.

Personally I run it from the point of view that a single action (or power) is one attack for special triggers and effects. (for my own group Divine Challenge and In Defence of Order are probably the only things I currently class as a special triggers)

example.

Tripple claw (standard, at will)
Dragon makes 3 claw attacks

The dragon in question is using a single action to use one power, that power just happens to involve 3 attacks, but I key special triggers and effects from the action (Tripple Claw), not the mechanics (3 claw attacks).

Example to show things arn't necessarily that straight forward.
For divine challenge, if the paladin was one of the three targets (either state the targets when declaring the attack or target the Paladin first) then its divine challenge damage would not occur. If the Paladin is not included in the attack then the divine challenge would activate like normal. (simple enough and follows my stated logic)

But, in the case of divine challenge I actually allow the -2 penalty (marked) to attack rolls against targets other than the paladin when I am making multiple attacks from a single power (the powers mechanic is 3 swipes with its claws). If it was an area attack I wouldn't. (this isn't really following straight forward logic, it is just the way I do it, and attempts to give something back "balance wise" for reducing the occurance of the divine power damage)

My view on your examples:

Does a multi-attack action, like a dragon's triple-claw attack, count as a single attack action for the sake of run-away interrupts or hospitaler's blessing heals.

Or if a hydra targets a ranger with a multi-headed bite attack, and the ranger has an immediate reaction, will that take place on the first attack or the last?

Hospitalers Blessing, Tripple Claw all attacks at a single target other than the Paladin is counted as 1 attack. I would probably say that each creature it targetted with this power would get the Blessing effect, but only once each per power use.

If the paladin was targetted by one of the 3 claw attacks then I would say that the Blessing is not activated.

Interrupt action - run away, I would count each of the 3 attacks seperately (but each PC can only use 1 interrupt action anyway). In this case the first attack would fail and the PC would probably be out of the creatures reach so it would make any remaining attacks against other targets.

Immediate reactions, again I would count each of the 3 attacks seperately, like the above example.

 

[eamon]

The errata to hospitaler's blessing makes it pretty clear that the blessing is intended to apply to attacks that are part of a multiattack action. They specifically fixed close and area attacks after all:

Page 101: Replace “attacks one of your allies” with
“makes an attack against one of your allies that does
not include you.” The former text generates a disproportionate
amount of healing, and it doesn’t give a
monster a good way to use close or area attacks without
healing its enemies.

​

In the last discussion on marking, including explicitly stuff like multiattacks when asked to CS they stated that the intent was to use a "singular" attack as in the combat section; i.e. a single attack is a single ranged, melee, area, or close attack. The combat section even explicitly states that if a ranged / melee attack has several targets that those are actually separate attacks.

Hospitaler's blessing applies to each attack by the marked enemy. On the other hand, according to the FAQ you're not forced to make all secondary attacks that a power grants (see chaos bolt), which would apply here too: the monster doesn't need to violate a mark if a multiattack includes the paladin; he can forgo attacks not including the paladin should it choose to do so.

Essentially, a multiattacking monster should not violate a hospitalers mark; certainly after the first attack when it discovers that it's strikes actually heal the target.

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

Per the RAW, a Foulspawn Mangler or Skeletal Hammerer could trigger Hospitaler's no less than four times in a round. This is not something I'd consider to be in doubt.

It is only if you believe the mark shouldn't be four times as effective against a Mangler than against, say, an Orc Berserker (who makes a single greataxe attack), you might want to consider alternatives.

But these alternatives remain firmly outside the RAW. Hopefully this clears up (at least my post).


A fighter using a Come and Get It can safely damage the pally's allies without triggering the mark. While the same fighter can't use Rain of Blows to damage the pally's allies without triggering the mark. As player abilities, it is reasonable to keep them apart.

As monster abilities, some DMs might think it's too fiddly.

 

[eamon]

Per the RAW, a Foulspawn Mangler or Skeletal Hammerer could trigger Hospitaler's no less than four times in a round. This is not something I'd consider to be in doubt.

It is only if you believe the mark shouldn't be four times as effective against a Mangler than against, say, an Orc Berserker (who makes a single greataxe attack), you might want to consider alternatives.

In almost all cases, however, the mark wouldn't be 4 times as effective. A normal paladin's challenge can only trigger once a round. A fighter can only use CC once a round. A warden could use his interrupt or reaction only once a round.

Of course the plain old mark effect does apply several times. However, it imposes a -2 penalty to separate attacks, rendering each less effective. Similarly, if you could grant resistance to all damage, that resistance would apply to each attack separately. That's actually very similar to what hospitaler's blessing does; except the mechanics are subtly different: instead of granting resistance to the attack, it heals damage per attack.

Now, it's perhaps not a wise mechanic, and perhaps Hospitalers blessing should be fixed again - but as is, it clearly applies to each attack and will apply several times when there are several attacks - just like resistance does.

If there should be a change; it should be to the Hospitaler, not the general notion of an attack or of a mark. Granting resistance is strong, and healing can even reduce damage below 0, so that's even better. On the other hand, let's not exaggerate the effect here; the monster can easily avoid this healing by not violating the mark - that's why these mark penalties are so high in the first place. Further, the hospitaler isn't the only marking defender that has the ability to severely cripple foes that violate the mark.

Getting the blessing right is a matter of balance - I don't think tweaking the interpretation of marks and attacks is the best way to address that balance.

Edit: To be clear, I (now) realize you're suggesting a house rule, but I just don't think the Hospitaler should be the inspiring example here. It's so far from ordinary that changing the way marks on monsters work in general because of the hospitaler is just approaching that problem from the wrong side.

 

[sfedi]

One problem with monsters is, mostly, Elites and Solos, whose attacks are equivalent to several monster attacks.

So if a defender trumps all of these attacks, it's comes as too strong (because he wouldn't be able to mark the equivalent amount of monsters).

Likewise, if only one defender can mark an Elite or Solo, then it's too weak (because anequivalent amount of monsters could be marked by several defenders).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Possible fix:
A character can only benefit from hospitalers blessing once per turn. Problem solved.

 

[sfedi]

So simple.

Nice one.