Twin strike and area attacks ignores the fighter mark?

[sfedi]

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.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

 

[keterys]

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.

 

[CovertOps]

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.

 

[keterys]

Targets: One or two creatures

 

[Turtlejay]

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.

Jay

 

[keterys]

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.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

 

[tiornys]

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.

t~

 

[keterys]

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.