Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Marking and multiple attacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Skallgrim" data-source="post: 4808029" data-attributes="member: 79271"><p>This isn't a RAW argument, but I think that the best way to handle this (and similar cases) is to split attacks into types:</p><p></p><p>Area attacks (burst, blasts, and zones) that include the character in the effect, of course, do not suffer the -2, and also cannot be "interrupted" by defensive shifting (etc), unless those abilities are specifically "Interrupts", as all foes are effectively attacked simultaneously.</p><p></p><p>Attacks that specify two or more targets are, like area attacks, attacks that affect all foes simultaneously, and so, do not trigger the -2 for a mark so long as at least one of the targets is the marking character (and similarly, cannot be "interrupted" by a defensive move, unless such a move is actually an "Interrupt".</p><p></p><p>Attacks which are written as multiple attacks are not treated as a single attack with multiple targets. Thus, each attack which does not include the marking character triggers the mark, and each attack can trigger any defensive maneuvering. </p><p></p><p>This isn't clearly, or even necessarily, spelled out by the rules. However, this 'ruling' does give a wider variety of power and defensive effects. Some attacks don't trigger a mark, and others do. Some attack sequences can be "interrupted" by defenses, and others can't.</p><p></p><p>Not ruling this way means that ONLY single target single attacks are always punished by marking, and means that defenses which shift you away from attacks ONLY prevent attacks in subsequent turns, or from an attacker with a second attack action available. As a matter of personal preference, I'd like marks to be a little more useful, and defensive "maneuvers" to be a little more useful than that.</p><p></p><p>Otherwise, there is no functional difference between an attack with multiple targets, and an attack action which allows multiple attack rolls to be made (barring any other rule specifications). I'd prefer to imagine that the writers wrote different rules in these cases so that they would be different in play, rather than functionally identical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Skallgrim, post: 4808029, member: 79271"] This isn't a RAW argument, but I think that the best way to handle this (and similar cases) is to split attacks into types: Area attacks (burst, blasts, and zones) that include the character in the effect, of course, do not suffer the -2, and also cannot be "interrupted" by defensive shifting (etc), unless those abilities are specifically "Interrupts", as all foes are effectively attacked simultaneously. Attacks that specify two or more targets are, like area attacks, attacks that affect all foes simultaneously, and so, do not trigger the -2 for a mark so long as at least one of the targets is the marking character (and similarly, cannot be "interrupted" by a defensive move, unless such a move is actually an "Interrupt". Attacks which are written as multiple attacks are not treated as a single attack with multiple targets. Thus, each attack which does not include the marking character triggers the mark, and each attack can trigger any defensive maneuvering. This isn't clearly, or even necessarily, spelled out by the rules. However, this 'ruling' does give a wider variety of power and defensive effects. Some attacks don't trigger a mark, and others do. Some attack sequences can be "interrupted" by defenses, and others can't. Not ruling this way means that ONLY single target single attacks are always punished by marking, and means that defenses which shift you away from attacks ONLY prevent attacks in subsequent turns, or from an attacker with a second attack action available. As a matter of personal preference, I'd like marks to be a little more useful, and defensive "maneuvers" to be a little more useful than that. Otherwise, there is no functional difference between an attack with multiple targets, and an attack action which allows multiple attack rolls to be made (barring any other rule specifications). I'd prefer to imagine that the writers wrote different rules in these cases so that they would be different in play, rather than functionally identical. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Marking and multiple attacks
Top