Marks "Attack that does not include you..."

[Unwise]

Hello all, I have a rather newbish question, which is a little embarrassing as a DM.

With regards to triggering defenders' marks (more specifically, the punishment factors like Mindspike), what constitutes an "attack that does not include you amongst its targets"?

AE effects in which you are a target are clear enough. Even if they say, 1,2 or 3 targets in burst I guess.

It is the following scenarios I am interested in:

A duel weilding monster has a single melee attack that targets "1 or 2 creatures". Assuming it puts one of those attacks on the defender, is the other 'attack' a seperate attack that is not touching the defender at all, or is it part of the same attack, therefore triggering the punishment?

What if a very similar ability is written as "Dragon's Fury: The Dragon may make 2 Claw attacks". Is "Dragon's Fury" therefore a single 'attack', so that if one of the targets is the defender it won't trigger the mark. Or is it, two seperate Claw attacks, both of which better attack the defender or the mark will trigger?

(Side note: I find that Hydras are fun enemy as they can attack lots of people easily. I tend to use them a fair bit. If a defender can lock down all 5-7 attacks from the Hydra they become a lot less interesting. This also means the defender generally dies in two turns.)

What about in the case of a Hydra who is not allowed to put more than X amount of its attacks on a single target. If the defender is not a valid target for the attack at all, how do you DMs handle that? Do you still let it trigger the punishments?

What do you do when a tank is hidden or completely inaccessible to the target of its mark? Do you let tanks mark a target then run away and hide, keeping it marked? Is there a RAW regarding this, or is it just a houserule to say that any 'threat' from the mark has worn off?

An example of this is an Eladrin Blackguard (NPC) putting a quasi-mark on you that does 6 damage on any turn you don't attack it. Then running away and hiding.

I would be grateful for any insights on these topics. Thanks in advance.

 

[Locutus Zero]

I'm assuming the types of punishments you are talking about trigger at the same time marks trigger, so I'll just talk about marks.

A duel weilding monster has a single melee attack that targets "1 or 2 creatures". Assuming it puts one of those attacks on the defender, is the other 'attack' a seperate attack that is not touching the defender at all, or is it part of the same attack, therefore triggering the punishment?

That one attack targets 2 creatures, so the mark does not trigger.

What if a very similar ability is written as "Dragon's Fury: The Dragon may make 2 Claw attacks". Is "Dragon's Fury" therefore a single 'attack', so that if one of the targets is the defender it won't trigger the mark. Or is it, two seperate Claw attacks, both of which better attack the defender or the mark will trigger?

It is making two attacks. Each one needs to target the defender or marks will trigger.

What about in the case of a Hydra who is not allowed to put more than X amount of its attacks on a single target. If the defender is not a valid target for the attack at all, how do you DMs handle that? Do you still let it trigger the punishments?

If a marked creature makes an attack that doesn't include the marker, the mark will trigger.

What do you do when a tank is hidden or completely inaccessible to the target of its mark? Do you let tanks mark a target then run away and hide, keeping it marked? Is there a RAW regarding this, or is it just a houserule to say that any 'threat' from the mark has worn off?

That PC strategy you describe is completely valid. I don't think you should houserule against it. Plus, most marks only last one turn.

An example of this is an Eladrin Blackguard (NPC) putting a quasi-mark on you that does 6 damage on any turn you don't attack it. Then running away and hiding.

You could have him do that. At level 12, 6 damage per turn isn't crazy, in fact you are giving the PCs a bargain if the eladrin counts toward the difficulty of the encounter but is only doing 6 damage per turn (if he can do anything effective, someone should be able to target him and kill him, even if it isn't the marked person).

 

[Unwise]

Thanks for the reply Locutus Zero. That is how I have been playing it so far.

It seems to me that the monster designers seem to use "1 or 2 targets/May make this attack again" and "May make two X attacks" fairly interchangeably, when really they have have a very different effect on the game.

As a DM it seems we really need to nail down whether we intend for somebody to be able to completely lock down the monsters targetting or not. I am fine with that for standard and elite mobs.

I think it is far more interesting for the group when solo monsters can share out the punishment a bit. A solo beholder that can't use their "everyone gets hit by an eye ray" attack at least somewhat efficiently, is pretty pathetic.

As such, choosing/creating monsters with the appropriate wording on their powers can be very important.

 

[Obryn]

Here's the thing. There's wide table variation, and the rules have not (to my knowledge) been very well-clarified.

The problem is the definition of "attack." To some, it's "attack power." To others, it's "attack roll." There are strong arguments to be made for both, and I'd just strive to be consistent at your own table.

-O

 

[Colmarr]

That one attack targets 2 creatures, so the mark does not trigger.

I'd rule the other way, which I suppose proves Obryn's point.

My rule of thumb is that unless it's an area or close power, it involves more than one attack.

As a DM it seems we really need to nail down whether we intend for somebody to be able to completely lock down the monsters targetting or not. I am fine with that for standard and elite mobs.

I think it is far more interesting for the group when solo monsters can share out the punishment a bit. A solo beholder that can't use their "everyone gets hit by an eye ray" attack at least somewhat efficiently, is pretty pathetic.

I think you may be overestimating the effect of a defender's mark. It doesn't "lock down the monster's targetting at all", simply lowers accuracy and (often) imposes some punishment for ignoring the mark.

If it makes sense for the solo to ignore the mark (such as if the wizard is foolish enough to be within melee range), then it should do so. If it doesn't make sense for the solo to ignore the mark, then the defender gets to enjoy having the monster's full attention.

 

[DracoSuave]

There's a number of different templates, but basically it comes down to the target line or what the power in question is doing.

If the target line includes multiple targets, even tho melee and ranged powers make distinct attacks, the target line is what is being referenced and the marker, being included, does not subjugate the marked enemy.

If the power is of the 'Make 2 claw attacks' type, however, then there's a different story. This power is actually telling you to use a different power twice. You're not making an attack against two targets, you are using the claw attack power twice in succession. The claw attack that targets the fighter is irrelevant to the claw attack that targets the ally, in the same way that if you use a power that allows someone to make two melee basic attacks, those two attacks are distinct and do not share targets or anything like that.

The two are also not interchangeable. A power that grants a bonus or penalty to the next attack that creature makes would affect all the attacks of the first power, but it would only affect one of the claw attacks.


As for marking and running away, again, that is fair game, and is actually suboptimal for a defender or soldier to do. A defender's job is to make the ratio of healing surges spent to attacks dealt more efficient. A defender does this by marking, but it also does it by taking attacks that are more likely to miss, more likely to be reduced in damage, more likely to be mitigated through higher healing surge values, or some combination. If the defender isn't there to take the hit, it's just a -2 to attacks; basically it's just a large shield, without the other benefits of avoidance and mitigation that defenders bring to the table.

As well, many defenders require proximity in order to do their additional damage or maintain their marks, so running away is counterproductive to keeping the mark up. It'd be better for such a character to roll a wizard and lob Illusory Ambush at the target... you'll debuff their attacks as much but with the benefit of never having to close to set the mark in the first place.

 

[Locutus Zero]

To add to what DracoSuave said, I feel like there is a pretty clear line between an attack with multiple attack rolls and doing multiple attacks in one action.

Let's say a monster swings with his claw, cuts through one guy and hits another. That will be statted as a single attack with 1 or 2 targets. If he uses his claw to swing at one guy, pulls his arm back, and does the same thing again, that's going to be statted as "use your claw attack twice" (with the claw attack being a basic melee).

The only time you are making two attacks in a single action is when a power says "make a second attack" or "use your dagger attack twice".

I feel like the OP is treating marks as some game breaking thing. Marks are what defenders do, let them do it. Barring the odd poorly designed monster, monsters are statted with the knowledge that defenders exist.

There may be table rules some people are following, but RAW is pretty clear about what marks do and what counts as including someone in an attack. I don't see a good reason to go against RAW on this.

 

[Colmarr]

Let's say a monster swings with his claw, cuts through one guy and hits another. That will be statted as a single attack with 1 or 2 targets. If he uses his claw to swing at one guy, pulls his arm back, and does the same thing again, that's going to be statted as "use your claw attack twice" (with the claw attack being a basic melee).

The only time you are making two attacks in a single action is when a power says "make a second attack" or "use your dagger attack twice".

There may be table rules some people are following, but RAW is pretty clear about what marks do and what counts as including someone in an attack. I don't see a good reason to go against RAW on this.

Can you provide rules reference for the bolded statements?

I acknowledge the logic behind them, but they strike me more as self-justification than any RAW I've ever seen on the matter.

 

[Unwise]

I think you may be overestimating the effect of a defender's mark. It doesn't "lock down the monster's targetting at all", simply lowers accuracy and (often) imposes some punishment for ignoring the mark.

Yes, your right, the example I was thinking of was the Battleminds Mindspike. It simply makes attacking other people very seldom worth it, as you take 100% of the damage that you do to them back onto yourself. Barring bezerkers, it is hard to visualise a monster deciding to do that. Many mark mechanics and many situations are less absolute than this.

It seems that most people here are on the same page with the distinction on attacks being who is in their target information.

The issue I have is that I don't really have Locutus Zero's faith in the monster designers. I really doubt that this is well thought through on many monsters. Even amongst the same types of monsters, some will say "2 targets" some will say "2 attacks", seemingly arbitarily. I just can't shake the feeling the designers have just randomly copied and pasted whichever mechanic they had on hand first.

This is of course a subjective opinion and not something I would house rule anything on. After all, frustrating defenders should really just be the role of skirmishes and the occassional lurker.

At the moment, I just let the chips fall where they may, some monsters will arbitarily be able to hit the defenders friends as well (without much punishement), some won't. The defenders in my group are rightfully confused by this though, which is why I brought up the topic.

I think that a defender should be able to see the logic behind the rules distinctions, not just randomly find that the flanking rogue has been hit and the GM telling them they don't get their basic attack/mindspike/radiant damage.

Do you folks find this to be an issue too? I imagine I would if I were a defender.

To that end, I am considering modifying the monsters in my games to be a little more consistent. At its simplest:
- People that use two weapons will have "makes two attacks" powers
- People who are attacking multiple people because their weapons are huge eg Dragon's Tail. Ettin's sweeping club. Will have "targets 1 or 2 creatures" attacks.
There would of course be a lot of exceptions and magical stuff that can be case by case.

Do you think that it would help to make things a little clearer and keep defenders happier?

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me that the monster designers seem to use "1 or 2 targets/May make this attack again" and "May make two X attacks" fairly interchangeably, when really they have have a very different effect on the game.

I think that this is an astute observation - unfortunately I've given out too much XP in the past 24 hours!

To add to what DracoSuave said, I feel like there is a pretty clear line between an attack with multiple attack rolls and doing multiple attacks in one action.

<snip>

RAW is pretty clear about what marks do and what counts as including someone in an attack. I don't see a good reason to go against RAW on this.

The issue I have is that I don't really have Locutus Zero's faith in the monster designers. I really doubt that this is well thought through on many monsters. Even amongst the same types of monsters, some will say "2 targets" some will say "2 attacks", seemingly arbitarily.

Unwise, I agree with you here also. The "RAW" for the various monster descriptions seem to be unclear and arbitrary.

And in fact (and consistently with what Obryn said) I don't agree with Dracosuave on this - at my table, for example, I would say that a "1 or 2 creatures" melee or ranged attack violates the mark if one of the attacks goes against a non-marker, because two separate targeting decisions are being made (as per the reference in the Rules Compendium, pp 100-101, to melee and ranged attack targeting individuals). So at my table, a "1 or 2 creature" power plays the same as a "make two claw attacks" power. To get multiple targets without mark violation you need to use a close or area attack. (One consequence of this approach is that the vagaries of the monster designers' wording matters less. Which is, perhaps, a reason in favour of it as an approach.)

To that end, I am considering modifying the monsters in my games to be a little more consistent.

<snip>

Do you think that it would help to make things a little clearer and keep defenders happier?

It sounds like it might.