Attack bonuses on multi-attack powers

[Saagael]

I'm wondering if bonuses that add to your next attack occur on all targets of a multi-target power, or just the first creature you target.

Specifically I'm looking at the Blood Mages AP feature "Blood Action":

When you spend an action point to take an extra action, if you use your action to make an attack that hits, that attack deals ongoing 10 damage (save ends).

If you were to use an action point to make an attack that targeted more than one creature, would all creatures hit by the power take the ongoing 10 damage, or just the first creature you target. My first reaction is to say no, because an attack is defined by an attack roll; each time you roll an attack roll is a separate attack (except in cases where you re-roll the attack).

Of course, this logic breaks down when you look at the fighter's marking feature. If each attack roll is a separate attack then no attack can ever include the fighter AND another creature, which the PHB suggests can happen.

Is there a distinction between "attack" and "power", or are they one and the same?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is no CLEAR distinction. An attack is distinct from a power use but there are cases where a single attack can clearly hit multiple creatures. Some situations will require DM mediation. Not everyone will always agree on which these are.

 

[DracoSuave]

You look at each attack individually and ask if it follows the criterion.

In this case 'Is this an attack I got from an action that I gained spending an action point for?'

If the answer is 'Yes' then you get to apply the bonus involved.

For multi-attack powers, this is usually true for every attack.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

You look at each attack individually and ask if it follows the criterion.

In this case 'Is this an attack I got from an action that I gained spending an action point for?'

If the answer is 'Yes' then you get to apply the bonus involved.

For multi-attack powers, this is usually true for every attack.

I'd have to agree with DracoSuave. There are powers which specifically say "your next attack roll", so they could've put that here if that was their intent (or perhaps "your next successful attack roll"). Since they didn't, I would assume that they wanted this to be a really nasty thing that you could tack onto a multi-target power. Now, that might make it really strong...but that's what errata is for.

 

[Stalker0]

You look at each attack individually and ask if it follows the criterion.

In this case 'Is this an attack I got from an action that I gained spending an action point for?'

If the answer is 'Yes' then you get to apply the bonus involved.

For multi-attack powers, this is usually true for every attack.

I think this is a good criteria.

Now following that example, if one of those hits triggered another hit through some power (like the barb's free attack after a crit) when I would not count that attack as being generated from the action point

 

[Mengu]

Now following that example, if one of those hits triggered another hit through some power (like the barb's free attack after a crit) when I would not count that attack as being generated from the action point

I'd be inclined to rule the same way, but I can also see a DM going the opposite direction. You are still resolving attacks generated by your action point. I couldn't in good conscience tell them they were wrong, despite my inclination.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think this is a good criteria.

Now following that example, if one of those hits triggered another hit through some power (like the barb's free attack after a crit) when I would not count that attack as being generated from the action point

No, because those are not the same action.

For example, Swift Charge of a barbarian is a free action... that's not the action granted by the action point, however. So, therefore, it is NOT an attack generated by the action granted by the action point, and it fails the criteria.

The attack not only has to be a result of the action point, it has to be part of the singular action the action point granted... subsequant actions are not generated by that action point, but by something else.

 

[UltimaGabe]

No, because those are not the same action.

For example, Swift Charge of a barbarian is a free action... that's not the action granted by the action point, however. So, therefore, it is NOT an attack generated by the action granted by the action point, and it fails the criteria.

The attack not only has to be a result of the action point, it has to be part of the singular action the action point granted... subsequant actions are not generated by that action point, but by something else.

Here's a (slightly exaggerated) example that further proves this point, in my opinion:

Let's say a Fighter multiclasses Wizard and takes the aforementioned Paragon Path, and uses an action point to attack an opponent, and misses. On that opponent's turn, he attacks a creature that is not the Fighter- so the Fighter gets to attack him. This attack would NOT gain the 10 ongoing damage, even though it was the result of his Action Point.

 

[DracoSuave]

Here's a (slightly exaggerated) example that further proves this point, in my opinion:

Let's say a Fighter multiclasses Wizard and takes the aforementioned Paragon Path, and uses an action point to attack an opponent, and misses. On that opponent's turn, he attacks a creature that is not the Fighter- so the Fighter gets to attack him. This attack would NOT gain the 10 ongoing damage, even though it was the result of his Action Point.

Exactly. The action point did through a long chain of events permit that attack to occur, but the action point was not what created the action that attack was a part of.