A marking question

[Joker]

Let's say a marked creature targets a defender and hits. He has a secondary attack which is a burst centered on the defender but doesn't include the defender as possible targets.

Does the marked creature get punished for attacking the defender's allies in the secondary attack?

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes. A secondary attack is a separate attack from the primary attack.

 

[the Jester]

Yes. A secondary attack is a separate attack from the primary attack.

Do you have a reference or cite for this? I'm not disputing your answer, but it seems a bit counterintuitive if it is part of the same power.

 

[Droogie128]

Do you have a reference or cite for this? I'm not disputing your answer, but it seems a bit counterintuitive if it is part of the same power.

Part of the same power does not mean same attack. It's a seperate attack from the initial, therefore not including the fighter subjects it to combat challenge.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I think the distinction is that if a secondary attack needs a to-hit roll, then it would be subject to CC.

On the other hand, if a primary attack is followed by splash damage or some other sort of damage that is immediately applied, then that damage wouldn't be subject to CC.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally, as a DM, I wouldn't treat the secondary 'attack' as a separate thing which prompts combat challenge - I would consider it ridiculous to do so; especially in the case you give (hits fighter, explosive burst damages other creatures nearby).

Just because mechanically it uses a second roll, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is a logically a separate attack for the purposes of combat challenge.

Now, if you (or your DM) decides that they want to follow any rules as literally as possible, then you might end up with a weird situation here, but that is down to them.

Regards,

 

[DracoSuave]

Because a secondary attack is a secondary attack. That which is labeled as something is that something.

Combat Challenge is triggered by 'attack' not by 'power.'

That's the big difference, is that secondary attack powers are not 'One attack hits everyone' but 'There is an attack, and then another attack.' And in the case of ranged or melee powers, those are additional attacks by definition even if it was all part of the same Attack: line.

 

[Destil]

Now, say I target two creatures with twin strike instead?

[I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that this is just a gray area in the rules, and can be addressed by the DM as such]

 

[DracoSuave]

Now, say I target two creatures with twin strike instead?

[I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that this is just a gray area in the rules, and can be addressed by the DM as such]

Twin Strike is either a melee or ranged power. Both work the same way however, each target is affected by separate distinct attacks. (Contrast area and close powers, which are usually a single attack with multiple attack rolls.)

 

[Thundershield]

While I can't (and won't) disagree with DracoSuave's literal interpretation of the rules, I (for one) am also curious about the other interpretations of the rules and their consequences.

How would it affect the game flow if multi-attack powers don't prompt Combat Challenge (and similar abilities)? Would it weaken the Fighter's, Paladin's, and other defenders' abilities too much for the class to be enjoyable? Would it make the game more challenging in a good way? Would it allow for more interesting monster abilities to play out without a defender "spoiling the fun"? Or does it work better in that a defender can make the use of this ability less desirable? What if this ability is the monster's basic attack?

There's plenty of questions and possibilities to explore if we keep an open mind about this, rather than simply say "that's what the book says".

Could this exploration end up improving the gaming experience of our individual gaming groups?