Difference between Attacks and Attack Rolls.

[King-Panda]

That makes my brain hurt. Is there errata or CS on this subject? I'm hesistant to make any decisions after seeing how farspread this is.

 

[Arilee]

The ranger uses a Twin Strike against the fighter and the wizard; defined as 'two attacks', this is one attack that includes the fighter as a target, and a second attack that does not include the fighter as a target, so the attack against the wizard takes a -2 penalty and the fighter gets his free shot.

We had a similar situation come up in our game.

I was running the "Inside the Kobold Lair" encounter from KotSF. The Goblin has a Dual Axe which allows him to "make a basic melee attack against 2 adjacent targets" as long as he doesn't move. He attacked the fighter and the ranger at which point the fighter wanted his mark to kick in.

We weren't sure how to rule it, because the goblin had included the fighter in his attack but didn't focus the whole attack on him. I got a couple of the more level headed players to check up and as the description of the attack specifies 2 target we ruled that the mark would not kick in in this particular situation.

I don't know if we made the right call or not, but I guess it depends on the situation and the precise wording of the power / attack being used.

 

[balard]

I'd go for the fighter mark being an attack ACTION, but the Divine Oracle being an attack ROLL. The most intuitive interpretation of the fighter is that a burst or a blast doesn't activate the mark, but in a burst/blast you make an attack for each target. So or each attack in a burst/blast that doesn't includes the fighter has -2, or each attack action that doesn't include the fighter has -2. This way double attacks like twin strike and solo monsters can can hit the fighter and the wizards without penalty.

 

[ki11erDM]

This is one of the few places i think they really need to clear up the rules. Over all I personally think 4e did a good job... but this is just messy.