Twin strike and area attacks ignores the fighter mark?

[Diirk]

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.

 

[the Jester]

Or one can interpret the term "attack" to mean "attack power."

The thing is, it isn't clearly defined, so this is clearly a case of "check with your dm."

 

[Nifft]

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

 

[eamon]

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...

 

[tiornys]

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.

t~

 

[Stalker0]

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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

 

[webrunner]

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)

 

[tiornys]

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.

t~

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.