D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Originally Posted by Fen Hydra Fury (Standard, at-will)
The fen hydra makes four bite attacks.
Say the Fen Hydra is marked and attacks four targets, of which the marking character is one. Does the mark activate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE MARKED CONDITION
When you mark a creature, you force it to engage you or suffer the consequences. While that creature is marked by you, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target. In addition, powers, class features, magic item properties, and feats might have effects that trigger when the creature takes certain actions.
A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time, and a new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place. The effect you use to mark a creature determines how long the creature remains marked by you. Regardless of the mark’s duration, it ends if someone else marks that creature, unless an effect says otherwise.
The essential question here is how to interpret "any attack that doesn’t include you as a target". Is Fen Hydra Fury a series of four separate attacks, or it it one attack directed at four creatures?
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
Each attack is separate and discrete. The ones that don't target the marking character will be effected by the mark. The one that does, isn't. The wording covers not only individual attacks, but also things like close bursts that would effect multiple targets simultaneously.
I was always under the impression that a mark isn't activated during blasts/bursts that also involve the marker.
The hydra makes four seperate bite attacks. Here I could understand that the -2 applies to the three that don't target the marker.
But a blast/burst is a single attack with multiple rolls. Here the creature using a blast/burst would not suffer a -2 to any of the rolls because the marker is in the blast/burst.
Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?
__________________ 4th Ed Characters:
Callie Banthien - lvl 4 Halfling Rogue - 1452xp to lvl 5. The city is blowing up. Who do we save?
Adran Char - lvl 3 Elf Ranger - 1375xp to lvl 4. Living FRealms.
I was always under the impression that a mark isn't activated during blasts/bursts that also involve the marker.
The hydra makes four seperate bite attacks. Here I could understand that the -2 applies to the three that don't target the marker.
But a blast/burst is a single attack with multiple rolls. Here the creature using a blast/burst would not suffer a -2 to any of the rolls because the marker is in the blast/burst.
Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?
That's my interpretation. Sorry if my wording was unclear.
As I read it, Fen Hydra Fury is, itself, an Attack. (Note the little dagger next to the Attack name.) It's just one Attack composed of four separate attack rolls. If the Defender is one of the targets of the Attack, their mark doesn't trigger.
Hydra Fury, in this case, seems to be an action which allows him to make 4 attacks as part of his standard action - it's not an attack itself with 4 targets (one of which could include the defender). My read on it is - if the marked creature can choose to not target the defender with an attack, and does so, it suffers the mark effects. Since the Hydra in question could bite the defender 4 times, if he chooses not to, any such bite would be subject to the -2.
Hydra Fury, in this case, seems to be an action which allows him to make 4 attacks as part of his standard action - it's not an attack itself with 4 targets (one of which could include the defender).
I would disagree, given how it's put in the stat block. It's marked with the dagger symbol, indicating that it is, indeed, an attack.
If there were just a note elsewhere in the stat block that the Fen Hydra can make four attacks with a standard action, I'd agree with your ruling. As it stands, though, I think it's absolutely a single Attack for purposes of a Mark, just like a power such as Icy Rays would be.
It's very strange to resolve the bite attacks sequentially but trigger the mark only if the monster doesn't include the fighter with any of the attacks. What happens if the monster doesn't direct the first attack at the fighter? Does it "promise" to make a future bite attack at him so it doesn't suffer the -2 mark penalty? What happens if an immediate interrupt slides the fighter out of the hydra's reach after it makes this "promise" but before it goes to make this attack? Do you retroactively apply the -2?
It's very strange to resolve the bite attacks sequentially but trigger the mark only if the monster doesn't include the fighter with any of the attacks. What happens if the monster doesn't direct the first attack at the fighter? Does it "promise" to make a future bite attack at him so it doesn't suffer the -2 mark penalty? What happens if an immediate interrupt slides the fighter out of the hydra's reach after it makes this "promise" but before it goes to make this attack? Do you retroactively apply the -2?
That, and more, is mentioned at the link.
My answer (only valid for my table) is that you need to declare all targets when you declare the attack. If the defender is no longer a valid target, that attack is simply lost, and the mark won't trigger because the defender was, indeed, targeted.
I think it's safe to say that RAW is very unclear on this... It's reasonable to read it either way, frankly - much like whether or not "save ends" conditions require a separate save against each instance. I don't think there's a wrong way to do it as long as you're consistent at your own table.
My answer (only valid for my table) is that you need to declare all targets when you declare the attack. If the defender is no longer a valid target, that attack is simply lost, and the mark won't trigger because the defender was, indeed, targeted.
This runs into some tough cases as well. Consider the Marilith; its Weapon Dance power gives it six scimitar attacks and it shifts 1 square on each hit. That means that the Marilith might be able to attack a different target on the second attack depending on whether the first attack hits. You don't want to make it specify the entire conditional distribution of who it's attacking based on what attack hits. It might also be undesirable because it leads to more overkill damage if players aren't paying attention to the damage a monster has taken, and it might increase the chance of accidentally killing a PC.
Quote:
I think it's safe to say that RAW is very unclear on this... It's reasonable to read it either way, frankly - much like whether or not "save ends" conditions require a separate save against each instance. I don't think there's a wrong way to do it as long as you're consistent at your own table.
I agree that RAW and rules as intended seem pretty unclear here. I doubt the designers thought closely about these specific issues in the first place.
I agree - even if you call Hydra Fury or Weapon Dance an attack, it very explicitly says that the monsters then makes additional specific attacks:
As for Icy Rays, it is very specific that the attack targets one or two targets, which may or may not include the defender.
Right. I'd go with: Hydra Fury is an attack that includes Bite attacks, and the mark applies to everything called an attack, so treat the Bite attacks as individual attacks for this purpose.
In my recent use of a razor hydra the following questions came up.
1) The razor hydra gets +2 to attack rolls when the opponent has ongoing damage, and each of their bites does ongoing damage. If hydra fury is one attack, the +2 could not apply until the next round. If they are seperate, he can theoretically get the bonus after the first attack if that attack hits.
2) The bard had a power where after each hydra attack, the person attacked got to heal. Depending on how attack is defined, they were getting healed once per round or 4 times.
A similar situation came up last night in the game I'm playing in. After the first attack of Hydra Fury missed, the bard used his Virtue of Cunning power ("when an enemy attack misses an ally ... you can slide that ally 1 square as a free action,") sliding his ally out of range of the hydra. Does it actually work that way, or does the hydra get to resolve all four attack before the bard is able to slide his ally?
This isn't a RAW argument, but I think that the best way to handle this (and similar cases) is to split attacks into types:
Area attacks (burst, blasts, and zones) that include the character in the effect, of course, do not suffer the -2, and also cannot be "interrupted" by defensive shifting (etc), unless those abilities are specifically "Interrupts", as all foes are effectively attacked simultaneously.
Attacks that specify two or more targets are, like area attacks, attacks that affect all foes simultaneously, and so, do not trigger the -2 for a mark so long as at least one of the targets is the marking character (and similarly, cannot be "interrupted" by a defensive move, unless such a move is actually an "Interrupt".
Attacks which are written as multiple attacks are not treated as a single attack with multiple targets. Thus, each attack which does not include the marking character triggers the mark, and each attack can trigger any defensive maneuvering.
This isn't clearly, or even necessarily, spelled out by the rules. However, this 'ruling' does give a wider variety of power and defensive effects. Some attacks don't trigger a mark, and others do. Some attack sequences can be "interrupted" by defenses, and others can't.
Not ruling this way means that ONLY single target single attacks are always punished by marking, and means that defenses which shift you away from attacks ONLY prevent attacks in subsequent turns, or from an attacker with a second attack action available. As a matter of personal preference, I'd like marks to be a little more useful, and defensive "maneuvers" to be a little more useful than that.
Otherwise, there is no functional difference between an attack with multiple targets, and an attack action which allows multiple attack rolls to be made (barring any other rule specifications). I'd prefer to imagine that the writers wrote different rules in these cases so that they would be different in play, rather than functionally identical.
2) The bard had a power where after each hydra attack, the person attacked got to heal. Depending on how attack is defined, they were getting healed once per round or 4 times.
I ran into that power last session - it's actually more gross, since it's 'every attack roll', not every attack.
So, big AoE attack that targets 4 people? Heal 4 times. Each of the three hits triggers a secondary attack for ongoing poison? Heal 3 more times.
Otherwise, there is no functional difference between an attack with multiple targets, and an attack action which allows multiple attack rolls to be made (barring any other rule specifications). I'd prefer to imagine that the writers wrote different rules in these cases so that they would be different in play, rather than functionally identical.
Icy Rays is pretty different from a close burst 10, two targets in burst, even ignoring this aspect.
* Ranged provokes, close doesn't
* Ranged deals with concealment, close doesn't
* Ranged is penalized by prone, close isn't
* Defensive abilities often work on only certain types of attacks (Body Shield, etc)
I discussed this with the Defender player in question. His line is that an "attack" and an "attack power" are two different things. Marks trigger of attacks, not attack powers. An attack power might allow you to make four attacks, which are each separate and can each trigger a mark effect (and other powers).
Of course, area and close attacks are still just a single attack, even if they have several attack rolls.
This is the Defender's line, but it does sort most of these arguments.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
