Marking and multiple attacks

[Obryn]

This runs into some tough cases as well.

Yep, there are tough cases in both circumstances. I don't know that one is tougher than another, honestly.

-O

 

[Shaker]

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:

The fen hydra makes four bite 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.

 

[Elric]

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.

 

[Stalker0]

This is actually a very important question:

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.

 

[Arcadio]

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?

 

[Skallgrim]

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.

 

[keterys]

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.

Sigh.

 

[keterys]

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)

 

[Starfox]

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.

 

[blargney the second]

Man, thank god they fixed the problems with hydras in 4e.
-blarg