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.
Marks apply a penalty when you make an attack that doesn't include the person/creature who marked you. It's resolved per attack, not per power usage.
In the case of Twin Strike, the power tells you to make 2 different attacks, 1 with your main and 1 with your offhand (or just 2 attacks in the case of the ranged version). For each of these attacks, look at who your target is. Is the target of your first attack the person who marked you? Yes, then no penalty. Target of the 2nd attack the person who marked you? No, then you suffer the penalty.
Area Blasts/bursts are different. You make 1 attack, that targets each creature in the area. If this single attack (that may or may not hit multiple creatures) includes the person who marked you, none of them suffer the penalty.
I don't see it as being all that different. You're still effecting multiple targets with a single power, making a separate roll for each.
Now I'm curious how many people with Icy Rays or Eldritch Rain actually roll different damages for each target, instead of just rolling once and applying it to each target.
Now I'm curious how many people with Icy Rays or Eldritch Rain actually roll different damages for each target, instead of just rolling once and applying it to each target.
How is the target line written keterys? Don't have my books at work and all.
I don't know why people give these rules so much credit as to read de RAW.
This ruleset has consistently proved that it's RAW sucks. Big time.
Wow, way to *not* contribute at all! Let's derail this into an edition war!
I'm with AbdulAlhazred, I think he has put it best so far...and unlike many things in gaming that are a little to abstract, this rule can be looked at fairly logically.
The defendermarks someone to encourage them to attack him and only him. If they have an attack that hits an area, they are best served by including him in that area (because of magical/divine compulsion or fear or hate or what have you). If they have the option of splitting an attack between the defender and someone else, they should be best served by attacking only the defender, and if they divert their attention even a little bit they get smacked.
So twin strike, where you *can* split attacks, should not get a pass if only one of those attacks hits the defender. If the attacker can chose to only hit the defender, he needs to do that or get punished.
True - but there are other attacks where you don't get an option to focus multiple attacks on one target. In some cases you can simply target less creatures (like Icy Rays), making the attack much less effective, but in some cases you simply have more than one target for the attack. This is most common for monsters - the closest PC examples off the top of my head would be Passing Attack, Tempest Dance, etc.
But if a power says 'targets 2 creatures' and a monster wanted to use it, there'd be literally no way for the monster to avoid triggering the mark.
I agree that the "damage roll" shortcut is the best interpretation of the RAW, but I also think it fails the RAI.
I disagree. I think the point of the mark ability is that you want the enemy to attack you. If that happens to mean throwing a fireball big enough to hit you and your friends, then so be it. If that means spinning around rapidly hitting everyone, then so be it.
But any power that makes "two attacks" are specifically targeted attacks and the enemy is choosing not to hit you with the second one.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
I disagree. I think the point of the mark ability is that you want the enemy to attack you. If that happens to mean throwing a fireball big enough to hit you and your friends, then so be it. If that means spinning around rapidly hitting everyone, then so be it.
But any power that makes "two attacks" are specifically targeted attacks and the enemy is choosing not to hit you with the second one.
A mark encourages an enemy to attack you, but it doesn't force the enemy to attack only you. To avoid its effects, an enemy must include you in its attacks. If an enemy is making two attacks at effectively (flavor wise) the same time ("make two claw attacks"), I see no compelling flavor reason for that to be treated mechanically different from a close burst that is effectively a claw attack against each surrounding enemy.
But any power that makes "two attacks" are specifically targeted attacks and the enemy is choosing not to hit you with the second one.
Except, sometimes it's not choosing not to hit you with the second one. Sometimes it has no choice at all.
For example: Hunger Frenzy (Standard, at-will) The bloodwind makes a bite attack and two claw attacks. The claw attacks must target two different enemies..
Flensing Teeth (Standard, at-will)
The dracolich makes a bite attack against each of two different targets.+9 vs ; 2d6+5 damage..
Dragonborn Wrath (Standard, at-will) Weapon
Requires greatsword; the annihilator makes two greatsword attacks, each against a different target.; +34 vs ; 3d8+10 damage..
Battle Surge (Standard, at-will) Weapon
Requires greatsword; +14 vs Armor Class; (+15 while bloodied)1d10+6 damage, and the exemplar makes a secondary attack against a different target.
And that's the first 4 of _139_ creatures in the compendium that hit my search for 'different target', so there are lots more that specifically hit 'two targets' or 'three targets'
Like this one: Blast of Cold (Minor, at-will) ColdRanged 10 from frost gem; two targets; +4 vs Reflex; 2d8+1 cold damage. This attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.
Except, sometimes it's not choosing not to hit you with the second one. Sometimes it has no choice at all.
I'd prefer not to penalize monsters in these situations, and I do not believe that the "attack" wording is unambiguous, but I'm still compelled to ask:
1) How many of these creatures do not have a different attack they could use that would only hit a single target? How unreasonable would it be to have the Defender's mark factor in their (the DM's) decision as to which power to use?
2) In cases where the creature really can only attack two or more targets at once (or where that's the only effective choice), what if anything would be the problem with changing the power to include the possibility of only hitting one target? FREX: change "two targets" to "one or two targets". (Because: it seems somewhat silly to have a creature that cannot effectively fight back if the party sends a single PC in alone to deal with them.)
I wasn't looking closely, but I imagine that they all have a basic attack that is single target, at a minimum. I imagine that few of the creatures suffer extraordinarily to forgo using the two target power.
I agree that it'd be reasonable to allow it to target one creature with it.
I find the discussion interesting in either direction. I actually lean most towards melee and ranged being covered, as well as area and close, because that way is easiest and most intuitive for my players to understand. Close behind that is because I feel that creature design does not seem to reflect an understanding that melee and ranged multitarget attacks would trigger marked penalties.
But if it ever bothered a player that it worked that way, I could just as easily run it the other way.
It mostly punishes elites and solos, who already have enough problems keeping up with the action economy of a full group. These creatures need to be using these kinds of attacks in order to actually pose any kind of threat, which means the strict interpretation makes defenders overly powerful against elites and solos with these mechanics.
For an extreme case of a Solo being randomly punished, check out the Beholder Eye Tyrant's aura vs. Strike of the Watchful Guard....
Marks apply a penalty when you make an attack that doesn't include the person/creature who marked you. It's resolved per attack, not per power usage.
In the case of Twin Strike, the power tells you to make 2 different attacks, 1 with your main and 1 with your offhand (or just 2 attacks in the case of the ranged version). For each of these attacks, look at who your target is. Is the target of your first attack the person who marked you? Yes, then no penalty. Target of the 2nd attack the person who marked you? No, then you suffer the penalty.
Area Blasts/bursts are different. You make 1 attack, that targets each creature in the area. If this single attack (that may or may not hit multiple creatures) includes the person who marked you, none of them suffer the penalty.
This is how we run it as well, the power says 2 attacks so we run it as such. Also seems to go with the flow of the mark intent to prevent an attacker who is marked from ignoring the fighter.
Area attacks however are just one attack that are happening to hit other folks as well as the fighter, so do not trigger the mark penalties. This also seems to go with the flavor as far as I'm concerned.
__________________ Whatever you read in my post, I actually do like 4e
All my questions are for 4e unless otherwise stated.
"A true slacker needs no excuse to slack" - Evan G.
Now I'm curious how many people with Icy Rays or Eldritch Rain actually roll different damages for each target, instead of just rolling once and applying it to each target.
I actually suspect the number is no more than half, myself. Insufficient data to know, though.
Get someone used to rolling once for damage for multiple targets, and they'll keep on doing it.
Honestly I think the roll once for area attacks was an effort to speed up play. I don't really see a reason why it would make any difference if you did the same for ranged or melee multi-attack powers. On average it works out the same, though you may get more mileage out of a really high damage roll. Probably won't change things enough to matter though.
Personally I don't see die rolls (within reason) really being a big factor in slowing down combat though, unless its one of those damage rolls where there are 3 different kinds of dice involved and 12 different static bonuses. Players should have all that stuff on their sheets though.
It doesn't say one attack roll, it says it is one attack and that melee and ranged attacks are separate attacks. This is why an area or close attack rolls one damage roll and melee and ranged attacks roll separate damage rolls. See my previous post. One damage roll indicates a single attack. Multiple damage rolls indicate separate attacks.
RAW is 100% clear on this subject. Twin Strike etc will suffer the mark penalty on any of their attacks which are not targeting the marking opponent. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in this rule. Of course you can play it any way you like, but in RPGA play that's how it will work and if the DM at any given table is playing by RAW that's how it will work. I assure you with 100% certainty that any of the competent posters on the WotC boards or CS will answer the same way. Its not even a subject of debate.
Well, CS indeed agrees with you:
CS (Ethan): Hello. When you are marked, if you make an attack that does not include the source of the mark, you will take a -2 penalty to the attack. This means that with Twin Strike and Attacks on the Run you will take the -2 penalty to the attack rolls that do not target the source of your mark.
Twin strike + Attacks on the Run were specific examples. My question:
I asked: The rules text for the "marked" status literally refers to a "-2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't target the creature that marked you".
In that phrase, what's "any attack"? Is that an attack power? Or is that an attack as described by the combat section - i.e. a single ranged, melee, area or close burst attack?
As a specific question, when a ranger that is marked uses the twin strike power (a single attack power granting two attacks) to attack both the creature that marked him and another creature - does he take a -2 to attack rolls for the attack vs. the creature that did not mark him?
A trickier example is Attacks on the run (ranger level 9 power, PHB), which grants movement and two attacks. If the second attack is versus the creature that marked him, does he take a -2 penalty to the attack roll of the first attack? If he does _not_, what happens if he falls into a trap before making the second attack - i.e. he avoided the -2 penalty since the attack power was intended to include the creature that marked him, but before he moves adjacent and can actually make the attack, he is interrupted in a fashion making the attack impossible.
Marks speak of a single "attack" but it's not clear to me whether that means a single attack roll (seems unlikely), an entire attack power (which has consistency issues), or something in between.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
Weapon
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
