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

[Locutus Zero]

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.

There is no rules reference, I was making an observation about how one translates fluff into game mechanics. There's nothing in the rules stopping a monster designer from making a single tail swipe into two different attacks, that would just be a poorly designed monster. I was just trying to help you see how two attacks and one attack targeting two people are, flavor-wise, not interchangeable.

As for "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 can't think of any other ways to get two attacks out of one action for a monster. I'm trying to point out that it's rare. Let me approach it another way:

Imagine a power call tail swipe, its melee, targets all adjacent creatures. That's one attack that targets multiple creatures.

Now let's say they fiddle with tail swipe, it stays melee, but only targets one or two creatures. If you choose to target two, it's a single attack targeting two creatures.

Now let's say they fiddle with tail swipe some more. They make it a basic attack, but also give the creature a power named "double swipe". It says "make the tail swipe attack twice". If you use "double swipe", you will be resolving two instances of the tail swipe attack, each one targeting 1 creature.

This is because an attack is not an attack roll. If that were true, nothing would target more than one person. An attack is an attack power.

 

[Nullzone]

I treat every "Make two attacks" power as equivalent to "Melee 1 (one or two creatures)" myself, under the assumption that "Make two attacks" is simply an effort to save space on the stat block rather than rewriting the MBA with a slight word change or letting the MBA hit more than one creature naturally (dangerous on OAs). It makes elites and solos a little less prone to lockdown and keeps the squishies on their toes.

Most any elite or solo will still have one or more attacks that can flat out only target one creature, so there's plenty of opportunity for defender soaking, plus the prospect of provoking OAs.

 

[Colmarr]

There is no rules reference, I was making an observation about how one translates fluff into game mechanics.

Fair enough. I was mainly responding to your earlier comments that "There's no reason to go against RAW on this." A more accurate statement IMO is to say "There is no clear RAW on this"

Imagine a power call tail swipe, its melee, targets all adjacent creatures. That's one attack that targets multiple creatures.

Now let's say they fiddle with tail swipe, it stays melee, but only targets one or two creatures. If you choose to target two, it's a single attack targeting two creatures.

Now let's say they fiddle with tail swipe some more. They make it a basic attack, but also give the creature a power named "double swipe". It says "make the tail swipe attack twice". If you use "double swipe", you will be resolving two instances of the tail swipe attack, each one targeting 1 creature.

This is because an attack is not an attack roll. If that were true, nothing would target more than one person. An attack is an attack power.

All of your examples start from the premises that 'attack' = 'attack power', and there isn't really anything to support that supposition over any other supposition.

The Compendium defines 'attack' as "an attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls. The word "attack" is sometimes used as shorthand for "attack power". Some attack powers include multiple attacks, and some powers, such as magic missile, are designated as attacks yest lack attack rolls (using such a power counts as making an attack if the power has a target)".

(My underline and bolding)

The underlined wording suggests that sometimes your interpretation is correct, but the bolded wording implicitly indicates that "attack power" and "attack" are two different terms.

Like Obryn says, the rules are unclear here.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. I'm pointing out that there is no right interpretation on this particular issue.

 

[Zaran]

Twin Strike is a single attack power that attacks two targets. You aim your first attack at the fighter that is going "Booga Booga Booga!"? No problem, because your attention is on him. Your second attack is at the wizard in the back picking daisies when he should have his eyes on the game? Well that let's the fighter pounce on you. Lesson learned. Shoot the fighter until he no longer says "booga"

I have to say that I think the Area or Close attack mentality is correct. Having to select a target diverts your attention even for a second from the Marker and that is enough for them to punish you.

 

[Locutus Zero]

I wish I could select text in my copy of the Rules Compendium, as it clarifies attacks beyond how the Player's Handbook describes them. I'll just paste in what the PHB says first:

Page 269 of PHB says:
MAKING AN ATTACK
All attacks follow the same basic process:
1. Choose the attack you’ll use. Each attack has an
attack type.
2. Choose targets for the attack (page 272). Each target
must be within range (page 273). Check whether
you can see and target your enemies (page 273).
3. Make an attack roll (page 273).
4. Compare your attack roll to the target’s defense
(page 274) to determine whether you hit or miss.
5. Deal damage and apply other effects (page 276).

That is confusing, because 3 seems to assume all attacks only have one target. The rules compendium has the same block of text (with different page references of course and slightly different wording) only it adds a 6th step: "If an attack power has more than one target, repeat steps 3 through 5 for each of them.".

Keep in mind that this is all under the heading of "Making an Attack". Reading through some other passages, I agree that they tend to muddy up attack power and attack roll, but the passage from the Rules Compendium clearly states what it means to make an attack.

So, any time you do 1 and 2, that is a new attack with a new target or group of targets.

Here are a couple of examples
Claw At-Will Attack: Melee 2 (one creature); +8 vs. AC Hit: 2d8 + 4 damage.
Dragon’s Fury At-Will Effect: The dragon uses claw twice.

In this example, if he chooses Dragon's Fury, he makes two Claw attacks.
Step 1: Claw
Step 2: the Striker
Step 3: roll against Striker (since the Defender is not another target of this attack, as described in step 2, this does trigger marks)
Step 4: hit!
Step 5: damage!
Step 6: no other targets.
Let's do 1-6 again:
Step 1: Claw
Step 2: the Defender
Step 3: roll against Defender
Step 4: missed!
Step 5: nothing happens
Step 6: no other targets.


Mighty Fist At-Will Attack: Melee 1 (one, two, or three creatures); +32 vs. AC Hit: 6d6 + 14 damage.

In this example, if he chooses Mighty Fist, he makes one Mighty Fist attack.
Step 1: Mighty Fist
Step 2: the Striker and Defender (darn, they are the only two in range)
Step 3: roll against Striker (since the Defender is another target of this attack, as described in step 2, this does not trigger any marks)
Step 4: hit!
Step 5: damage!
Step 6: let's do 3-5 again for the Defender
Step 3: roll against Defender
Step 4: he missed!
Step 5: nothing happens.

 

[Colmarr]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then

 

[Pickles JG]

You can argue this perfectly reasonably either way. What attack means is ambiguous & the stupid rule compendium entry quoted earlier even says as much.

I get disproportionately annoyed by this lax writing & their inablility to fix it.

FWIW I go with the "damage roll" approach so blasts &c are one attack. I can see powers that let you make 2 MBAs or powers that target 2 creatures with separate melee attacks as being covered too but I would rather the defenders got some defending in - there are plenty of the attacks that definitely bypass marks.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, this really is a "no clear RAW" case. All I can tell you for sure is how I do it and why.

I treat "make two claw attack" powers and "target 1 or 2 creatures" powers the same- they are a single attack.

Why? Because, to me, it's more fun. My monsters get to use their powers against a spread of enemies instead of just the warden; meanwhile, the warden doesn't get killed by the hydra in a single round.

 

[Locutus Zero]

I still don't understand the argument for treating two attacks that each target one creature and one attack that targets two creatures as the same thing. I mean, beyond deciding to houserule it, I don't see an argument for thinking that's the way the game is meant to be played. I agree they never come out and spell it out in the rules, but when I read the passage on making an attack in the RC, it seems like there is only one way to read it.

So what I'm saying is, could someone cite something that makes you think these two different mechanisms (two attacks vs. one creature each and one attack vs. two creatures) should be treated the same way?

 

[the Jester]

The issue is the lack of a good clear definition of 'attack' as referring to an attack roll vs. an attack power. "Dragons Fury" (or whatever it is called) is one attack power. While I can see both arguments and have tried it both ways, the way I run it now has proven to be more fun at my table.