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

[DracoSuave]

Given the general lack of consensus on the issue, I have to disagree.

Yes, there are multiple attacks made with (f'rexample) Draconic Fury. The question is, do they count as separate attacks for marking purposes? Does marking trigger when you use an attack power that targets the marker, even if it also includes attacks that don't target the marker?

How about a power where the marker was the primary target, and on a hit, you make a secondary attack on an adjacent enemy? Would you have the secondary attack trigger the mark?

It's not a problem; Draconic Fury isn't an attack. It doesn't include an attack roll, nor does it have the attack descriptor, either of which is what is necessary to call a power an attack by RC. It doesn't even have targets. It simply calls on other powers and executes them. If I use a power that doesn't target an enemy, and grants anyone a melee basic attack or two, or even one of their at-will powers, I am not attacking the targets of those MBAs with my power. The same concept applies here.

Another way of looking at it: If I Draconic Fury, and you get the brunt of both the gore attack and the two claw attacks (looking at the blue dragon here), how many times have I attacked you? If Draconic Fury is an attack, then I would have attacked you four times; once with Draconic Fury, once with a Gore, and twice from two Claws. In reality tho, I've only attacked you three times, which means the Draconic Fury itself is not an attack.

Secondary attacks are considered distinct attacks from the primary attack. Targetting-based effects consider only the secondary target, and not the primary target.

 

[Unwise]

Thanks for all the input folks.

I was a bit reticent about making this thread as I thought I was missing something that was crystal clear to everyone else. Given the interesting arguments though I feel a bit better about not knowing the answers off-hand.

All up I think I will stick with the approach I mentioned earlier, based on whether the attack looked like a huge sweeping blow or two separate attacks. I think that that gives a degree of certainty to players.

With regards to the post above, I think that my players would expect a Chain Lightning attack that hits the tank to be able to freely bounce to hit them without triggering punishment. I also think that skirmishers who have the hit-move-hit attacks would not be expected to trigger punishments as long as they hit the tank. I very much doubt that they were designed with that in mind. In my games it is the nature of skirmishers to annoy tanks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The most simple solution is asking yorself, what makes the game more fun. And it usually is, when the defender may punish a monster for violating a mark.

This way it is clear:
if you use two attacks, the mark punishment triggers. Only bursts and blasts don´t trigger a mark if aimed not at the defender.

Yo don´t win anything, if you don´t allow the mark to trigger. If you target all your attacks at the defender, it makes no difference if the solo would otherwise be penalized. If it can really bring down the defender in 2 rounds, it is usually wise to do so...
it does not serve as an apology to tell the player: hey, you marked the monster, this is the only reason why you died... i didn´t have a choice...

 

[S'mon]

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

I would definitely go with "attack power" or "attack action", not "attack roll". Eg if the Ranger PC is marked by the Swordmage NPC he should be able to do a Twin Strike power which attacks both the Swordmage and another NPC without triggering the mark. Same goes for a dragon NPC marked by a Fighter PC who uses a two-claw attack power, one on the Fighter, one on another PC. The point of marks is that they trigger if the marker is ignored. If you're attacking the marker with your action then you're not ignoring him.

 

[S'mon]

The most simple solution is asking yorself, what makes the game more fun. And it usually is, when the defender may punish a monster for violating a mark.

This way it is clear:
if you use two attacks, the mark punishment triggers. Only bursts and blasts don´t trigger a mark if aimed not at the defender.

Yo don´t win anything, if you don´t allow the mark to trigger. If you target all your attacks at the defender, it makes no difference if the solo would otherwise be penalized. If it can really bring down the defender in 2 rounds, it is usually wise to do so...
it does not serve as an apology to tell the player: hey, you marked the monster, this is the only reason why you died... i didn´t have a choice...

It's much more fun IMO for the dangerous multi-attacking monster to split attacks between the defender and the squishy PC, rather than focusing all attacks on the defender (and thus taking him down quickly) or focusing all attacks on the squishy PC (and thus taking him down quickly, possibly even killing him) - which latter two are the two possibilities what will happen if attacks on the squishy trigger the mark. Either the monster obeys the mark and focuses on the defender, or ignores the mark and focuses on the squishy.

If the mark is not triggered by a split attack on defender + squishy, then the defender has done his job most effectively, he has forced the monster to spread damage around. He takes some damage, but is probably ok. The squishy takes some damage, but is probably still alive.

Edit: Although pre-MM3 monsters did so little damage, and fights were so grindy, there was a case for having monsters routinely focus attacks and violate marks, just so that more damage happens overall and PCs feel slightly threatened by the focused attack.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, the game seems a lot more fun and generally more well designed, when you consider marks based on a per power basis rather than on a per attack roll basis.

 

[Aegeri]

I have always ruled that multiple attack powers, like draconic fury will trigger a mark if a creature makes an individual attack against a non-defender. This made certain defenders immensely hard to deal with by paragon/epic, but with MM3s new damage numbers is fairly irrelevant problem that is firmly in the past (also marks when when a creature falls unconscious now). You can easily slap the defender silly with a couple of hits from a multiple attack power and then direct the remaining attacks against other PCs.

This isn't really considering RAW or RAI, probably RAI to be honest as the RAW is in pure mud here. Does an attack that targets one, two or three creatures (which is three separate attacks), which includes the defender not violate a mark? What about if you can use a power or multiple powers in some combination of attacks like Draconic Fury?

Honestly, ruling it that if you attack an enemy with a non-burst or blast that doesn't include the defender, it triggers the mark. Much easier, clear to understand without getting into multiple power by power minutae and everyone understands how a power works. I've go no problems challenging PCs with this ruling with the new maths, especially as a single turn can see a defender turned into gooey mulch if he tries to over-mark like they could easily get away with pre-MM3.

I'm amazed that Wizards have never clarified this issue. I remember having these exact same discussions in 2008.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, the game seems a lot more fun and generally more well designed, when you consider marks based on a per power basis rather than on a per attack roll basis.

I agree.

And when Draconic Fury starts being an attack power, this would apply.

No targets, no attack descriptor = not an attack power.

 

[keterys]

I'm sure that's exactly what wotc was thinking when they put the "melee attack" symbol right next to it, too. Not an attack.

They used short hand for it, that's just how they did it. It's a lot easier for them to put "make 3 attacks" than it is for them to have 3-7 lines for the effect, attack, and hit separately.

Every group I've DMed or played in, I let the group decide, and sometimes I even mention the hubbub about it, and some players go "But that's stupid, how can they think that" and not necessarily for one side or the other. But I can say flat out that some designers don't act like it triggers marks, and some WotC folks don't play like it triggers marks, and at this point every group I play with regularly has it not trigger... without me telling them one way or the other.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm sure that's exactly what wotc was thinking when they put the "melee attack" symbol right next to it, too. Not an attack.

They used short hand for it, that's just how they did it. It's a lot easier for them to put "make 3 attacks" than it is for them to have 3-7 lines for the effect, attack, and hit separately.

Other monster powers manage to do that sort of thing just fine; they tend to have the 'Requires ______' addendum. Draconic Fury simply states that you use other powers. That's not an attack, that's using other powers.

As an example: If I have a power that allows me to apply my warlock's curse to the target as part of the effect, is that power a warlock's curse? No. It's just a power calling on some other ability or power as part of its execution. Draconic Fury is not magically different than that in any way.

And even then, if it states its an attack power, it has no targets, which means that using it would trigger the mark because none of its targets are the defender. Cause it has no targets. That doesn't make sense. If you had an effect on the dragon that allowed it to shift a square after each attack, if Draconic Fury were an attack, the dragon could shift four times, once for the Draconic Fury, then once each for the two claw attacks, and ones for the bite. That's not the case either.

Draconic Fury isn't an attack; the two claws and the bite are.

Every group I've DMed or played in, I let the group decide, and sometimes I even mention the hubbub about it, and some players go "But that's stupid, how can they think that" and not necessarily for one side or the other. But I can say flat out that some designers don't act like it triggers marks, and some WotC folks don't play like it triggers marks, and at this point every group I play with regularly has it not trigger... without me telling them one way or the other.

Nothing wrong with ruling however you like. That's what Rule 0 is for.