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

[keterys]

You can say whatever you want, and it can be as correct by RAW as you want it to be...

It doesn't make it the intent or spirit of the game, nor does it make the designers of the game understand how your reading makes any sense (in some cases) or have the energy to care to change older products (in many others). And it _really_ doesn't make it how it's played at a stunning number of tables.

If you took a poll of DMs and just showed them the draconic fury power, with its little melee attack symbol and its "make three attacks" and you said "Is this an attack power", oh boy might you be disappointed in how many sided with you. At a certain point, much like in real world languages, the language of the game almost collapses inevitably towards the overwhelming majority.

You can see that the "short hand" which used to be ", three attacks" and "make three claw attacks, each against a different target" _often_ says something else instead nowadays (like, one or two targets). But not always. And, really, even then we've got things like "web grab" on the haures which are an attack with targets, that then call a sub-attack on those hit, because again... too much bother to repeat the whole effect, attack, hit lines and take up space in the monster stat block.

Until the day that it's no longer convenient to shortcut rules text and clarity in the interest of page count and legibility, the game will be covered by the speed bumps of rules debate.

P.S. In the meantime, I (and others) have had a request in for _months_ to have them clearly FAQ and/or rewrite the rules to make it more clear. Hence, a change in Rules Compendium that only made things less clear.

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't know that it's shorthand. I know what it says, and what it says is to use other powers.

I also know that they've said it is intentional for solos to have the ability to take multiple attack actions. Draconic Fury does exactly that, it's a power that gives the solo an advantage in the action economy by allowing the use of three standard action powers in one standard action.

That doesn't imply to me that it's a shorthand or not. The only thing implied is that you make two claw attacks and one bite attack. Designer intent as to whether it is short hand or not isn't included.

The only certainty? That using Draconic Fury ends up in at least three attacks made: claw, claw, bite. Those are distinct attack powers, and no argument can be made that either claw or the bite is not an attack: They have an attack roll which satisfies the definition for an attack in the RC. By RAW, they are individually attacks, and no exception exists to state otherwise.

So, with respect to marks, if I target the defender with a bite, the striker with a claw, and the leader with the other claw, the ONLY question at hand is this:

Does either claw attack share a target with the bite? If yes, mark doesn't trigger. If no, mark triggers.

If Draconic Fury is itself a fourth attack, is that relevent to the above question?

 

[Nullzone]

Abstract what marking means though; it's a representation of the idea that the defender has presented himself as the most meaningful threat on the field, and that if the monster chooses to ignore him he will be punished. Since three attacks are being made on one standard 6 second action, and one of those attacks is striking the defender, does he have time or the opportunity to retaliate?

By my standard, no. And I've not seen a table to date that objects.

Though I will also say that it's rare that the elites or solos with their 2x-4x attack actions get to attack multiple creatures, or at the very least they receive some tangential benefit for attacking the same target, so the defender often gets whomped anyway (or the creature violates the mark).

 

[DracoSuave]

Abstract what marking means though; it's a representation of the idea that the defender has presented himself as the most meaningful threat on the field, and that if the monster chooses to ignore him he will be punished.

Abstracted further, it means the marker is doing something that makes it harder to not attack him.

The punishment is separate to marking. That represents the ability to react to an attack that isn't him, and doesn't always represent a physical reaction. A paladin doesn't do -anything- to react, he simply has a prayer placed on the target.

Since three attacks are being made on one standard 6 second action, and one of those attacks is striking the defender, does he have time or the opportunity to retaliate?

Of course he must, he has an ability that says he can retaliate. It's no different than if the monster spent an action point, the defender can still react to that, regardless of how other actions were spent. He just can't use that reaction more than once per round... that 'six second period' encapsulates the -round-, not the -turn-.

By my standard, no. And I've not seen a table to date that objects.

Not really relevent to a rules argument, but that's fine, different tables do different things, and this isn't a huge deal worth raising an objection over at a table. Most players with things like this have the decency to let the DM use his rule 0 as he sees fit. That doesn't indicate that something is the RAW.

Though I will also say that it's rare that the elites or solos with their 2x-4x attack actions get to attack multiple creatures, or at the very least they receive some tangential benefit for attacking the same target, so the defender often gets whomped anyway (or the creature violates the mark).

Yep. The defender doesn't want a solo focusfiring on him, he shouldn't mark a solo. It's similar to how if you don't want five enemies all wailing on you, don't mark all five enemies.

This decision, of course, will change from round to round.

At the end of the day, I prefer multi-attacks being treated distinctly. The reasoning is very simple... if something mechanically inclines defenders to be a more capable combatant against certain solos, that means the player has a moment to shine. It's no different than including a minionwavescramble for sorcerers to play with and shine in... or a fight where leaders have to leverage their powers to swing a battle from defeat to victory... or a fight where strikers get to go out and assassinate hard targets other characters can't reach.

The game is better for having mechanical advantages for certain characters at certain times.

 

[Nullzone]

The six second round happens simultaneously, technically speaking. There has to be a bit of dilated time to ensure there's not total chaos on the battlefield as it goes down, but it's not like an RPG combat has everyone standing around like drones until their turn comes up and something actually happens; the principle is that opposing melee units are continuously dodging, parrying, and otherwise maintaining a defensive stalemate until they find an opening and exploit it with their attack action, or take advantage of a weakness when someone runs by, or lowers their defensive weapon to instead launch a fireball from their hands.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

So? This sounds like the issue self corrects by round 2. Just because a poorly thought out class / ability causes a problem with the rules, that should not cause the rules to be changed. Marks should be willing to apply, maybe the warden should consider judiciously applying his mark if being focused on is that dire for him with the new monster damage.

 

[Aegeri]

I have exactly the same attitude frank. If the defender is dumb enough to pick a fight with a heroslayer hydra with current damage (+2 bonus to attack and +10 damage vs. marked enemies, combined with current epic tier damage numbers...) then they are going to eat the consequence. Especially when the Hydra is done with him, no longer marked and then tears into the rest of the party with an AP immediately after.

Marking requires some careful attention now and managing your mark is important to survival. Not that a mark forces a creature to attack the defender at all, they can pick another target and you should. It's just more fun this way and means a creature can take advantage of a situation that suits it.