Marking and AoE

[Mort_Q]

I don't like the notion of not getting a save on the Fear attack. YMMV.

 

[Deverash]

I don't like the notion of not getting a save on the Fear attack. YMMV.

It doesn't seem to bad, just a long term debuff(there just don't seem to be many of those). The run away part is only turn, so you don't need the save there(and that's the part that's a real killer).

 

[Oldtimer]

But if the fighter misses, the adjacent creature doesn't get hit and is thus not included in the attack. Since you don't know if you hit before rolling, the -2 still applies. (But Divine Challenge might not.)

I would say that is wrong. It is still one attack, even if it does damage to two different targets.

Going down that road of logic, you should always get -2, since you can never be sure of hitting the target. But the mark only requires an attack, not a hit or any damage. Including the marking creature in your Cleave attack must be valid and without penalty from the mark.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

I think it all comes down to target. Cleave does not target the enemies hit with the secondary attack so it incurs the mark penalty even if the marker would be hit by the secondary effect. The two eye beams are on attack with 2 targets. As long as one of the targets is the marker then no penalty.

 

[Staffan]

I don't like the notion of not getting a save on the Fear attack. YMMV.

The beholder has to hit your Will defense. That's the same as getting a save in 3e.

 

[keterys]

But the mark only requires an attack, not a hit or any damage. Including the marking creature in your Cleave attack must be valid and without penalty from the mark.

You don't target the extra hit from the cleave until you hit, ergo you suffer the -2 penalty.

1) Declare attack and target.
2) Make attack roll. If attack does not include marker as a target, suffer -2 penalty.
3) Roll damage and choose an adjacent foe to take cleave damage.

 

[Mort_Q]

The beholder has to hit your Will defense. That's the same as getting a save in 3e.

I was speaking of the ongoing effect... the -2 penalty for the rest of the encounter.

 

[Oldtimer]

You don't target the extra hit from the cleave until you hit, ergo you suffer the -2 penalty.

1) Declare attack and target.
2) Make attack roll. If attack does not include marker as a target, suffer -2 penalty.
3) Roll damage and choose an adjacent foe to take cleave damage.

That is still far from obvious. The mark doesn't use the word "target", it uses the word "include". You must include the marker in your attack. The attack includes the marker, even if you don't need to specify it as a target until you've hit. It's still a single attack.

If you were to use Passing Attack, though, I would agree with you. There the secondary target is subjected to a secondary attack. New attack, so the first one gets a -2.

Single attack (even single attack roll) where the marker risks getting hurt seems to completely fulfil the requirements of the mark.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

That is still far from obvious. The mark doesn't use the word "target", it uses the word "include". You must include the marker in your attack. The attack includes the marker, even if you don't need to specify it as a target until you've hit. It's still a single attack.

If you were to use Passing Attack, though, I would agree with you. There the secondary target is subjected to a secondary attack. New attack, so the first one gets a -2.

Single attack (even single attack roll) where the marker risks getting hurt seems to completely fulfil the requirements of the mark.

But it does give an advantage to characters that have AoE powers. Non-casters can generally only target one or maybe two, including the marker. Wizards or other spell casters have plenty of area effect powers or spells.

 

[Hellzon]

I would assume the latter Hellzon, since the ability used is Eyestalks, a ranged attack. That is has two targets doesn't make it 2 attacks imo.

Makes sense.