Marking and multiple attacks

[Starfox]

A Fen Hydra (MM) has these attacks:

Reach 2; +14 vs Armor Class; 1d8+5 damage.

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?

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?

 

[Ryujin]

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.

 

[Majushi]

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?

 

[Ryujin]

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.

 

[Obryn]

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.

-O

 

[Shaker]

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.

 

[Obryn]

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.

-O

 

[Elric]

This exact same discussion came up in http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...9-mm2-excerpt-adamantine-dragon-question.html.

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.

 

[Obryn]

This exact same discussion came up in http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...9-mm2-excerpt-adamantine-dragon-question.html.

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.

-O

 

[Elric]

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.

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.