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.
Twin strike and area attacks ignores the fighter mark?
If i use twin strike, one attack at the fighter who marked me and another in his ally, the marks apply? Or no because i put the fighter as one target?
Same think to blasts and bursts, when the fighter is in the area and i hit the other allys the marks apply or not?
If i use twin strike, one attack at the fighter who marked me and another in his ally, the marks apply? Or no because i put the fighter as one target?
The two targets are different attacks. Tee attack against the ally suffers the mark penalty. The attack against the fighter doesn't.
Quote:
Same think to blasts and bursts, when the fighter is in the area and i hit the other allys the marks apply or not?
In this case, the enemy is only making one attack (the blast or burst). As the attack targets the fighter, none of the targets gain the benefit of the fighter's mark.
I have the other understanding: if you use a power that has multiple targets and one of them is the guy who marked you, then no penalty. Whether they be ranged, melee, close, or area attacks.
__________________ I will build a throne with the skulls of my foemen.
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.
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 correct. A quick rule of thumb is if you're using the same damage roll against all the targets of your power, then its one attack and if you roll to-hit AND damage separately (like Twin Strike or Icy Rays) then its multiple attacks. Ranged powers and melee powers make attacks on each target separately, close and area attacks hit every target in the AoE/zone with a single attack.
I think RAW, the Mad Arab's interpretation is correct.
I prefer to run it like the others, though - if a single attack ability has multiple targets, it fulfills the mark if at least one of those targets is the Fighter.
I have the other understanding: if you use a power that has multiple targets and one of them is the guy who marked you, then no penalty. Whether they be ranged, melee, close, or area attacks.
Expect significant table variation. DMs should make whatever ruling they prefer for their games.
Personally, I lean towards 'as long as the defender is one of the targets, it doesn't matter how it's done', though I wouldn't make that a RAW argument. I'd not be surprised if it were RAI, but it's way too muddied for me to, say, bet on it
It really has to be run that way. Too many elites and solos have powers that say "make a melee basic attack against two different targets." They could have just as easily written the attack as "close burst one, target: two creatures in burst." Those two wordings should not function as differently as they do by RAW, so I just play that they don't work differently.
It really has to be run that way. Too many elites and solos have powers that say "make a melee basic attack against two different targets." They could have just as easily written the attack as "close burst one, target: two creatures in burst." Those two wordings should not function as differently as they do by RAW, so I just play that they don't work differently.
And unfortunately for those elites and solos, they suffer the mark penalty for the attacks that don't include the person who marked them.
The rules seem pretty clear to me, however people may dislike them. Pg 277 of the PHB has the marked condition described as "You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t target the creature that marked you."
For what consitutes an attack, refer to pages 269 onwards where you can find helpful information such as:
* "A melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll." - pg 270
* "A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll." - pg 270
Which states that the twin strike attack (for example) is actually two seperate attacks, and as marks are resolved per attack, they are subject to the condition on any of these attacks that don't target the person that marked them.
This is correct. A quick rule of thumb is if you're using the same damage roll against all the targets of your power, then its one attack and if you roll to-hit AND damage separately (like Twin Strike or Icy Rays) then its multiple attacks. Ranged powers and melee powers make attacks on each target separately, close and area attacks hit every target in the AoE/zone with a single attack.
This is how we handle it at my table.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
I currently play it as counting a single attack power as an attack: i.e. if you can attack multiple targets, and at least one of them is the creature that marked you, you have not violated the mark.
However, I must say that the interpretation by AbdulAlhazred + Nifft has something going for it. For one, there are some odd "impossible" corner cases if you consider that attack powers may be interrupted:
For instance, a ranger using attacks on the run may stop unexpectedly before making the second attack. What if the second attack was the one you intended to use to target the creature that marked you? If you take the -2 penalty, then under this interpretation that was incorrect if you do attack the marked creature. Or, you don't take the -2, but then the marked creature could conceivably just change it's mind half-way - but that's just asking for metagaming abuse.
So, I'm thinking that Nifft+AbdulAlhazred interpretation is probably more solid without overpenalizing a marked creature too commonly. I sent a question to CS, let's see what they say...
__________________
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
I've adopted a two-tier approach. If a power lists the attacks together, like Twin Strike, then I define those attacks are simultaneous. Among some other clarifications (declaration of targets, timing of extra damage effects), they're part of the same attack for purposes of marks. If a power lists the attacks separately, like Dance of Blades or All Bets are Off, I define those attacks as sequential. Among other things, they're different attacks for marks.
Where is the book does it say one attack roll for area attacks? I know you roll one damage roll, but I was of the belief that you still rolled an attack roll for each target.
Where is the book does it say one attack roll for area attacks? I know you roll one damage roll, but I was of the belief that you still rolled an attack roll for each target.
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.
The term "Attack" is used in so many different ways in the rules.. a power with two attacks, which are each area attacks is:
an attack (attack powers are called 'attack')
with two attacks (each of the attack's attacks)
each with multiple attack rolls (each of the targets of each of the attack's attacks)
RAW can't be "100% clear with no ambiguity" when it relies on interpreting a word that is used with at least four different meanings in the PHB. Any D&D rule that references an "attack" has at least some ambiguity.
I agree that the "damage roll" shortcut is the best interpretation of the RAW, but I also think it fails the RAI.
The term "Attack" is used in so many different ways in the rules.. a power with two attacks, which are each area attacks is:
an attack (attack powers are called 'attack')
with two attacks (each of the attack's attacks)
each with multiple attack rolls (each of the targets of each of the attack's attacks)
There are attack type powers (everything except utilities) but in all cases when discussing attacks as things PCs do the term means an attack made with a power. An attack roll is not the same thing as an attack and there is no place in the rules AFAIK where you could be in doubt as to which is meant. The attack roll is just a specific part of an attack, an attack is a consequence of the use of an attack power. I don't see any ambiguity there at all. Its actually one of the terms in 4e that is pretty well precisely defined. There are plenty of them that aren't, but attack isn't one of them.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
