Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?

[keterys]

Yeah, when you're talking about mark retaliation, you're mostly in the 'template' area when monsters have PC abilities. So it's pretty DM dependent. I mean, I avoid marks like the plague myself, redesigning monsters I use to remove them cause I think they're too much bother.

That said, I do intend to use a black knight type enemy against my PCs in the not too distant future, and if the Seeker is challenged and does a Feyjump Shot (2 targets), he might be pretty surprised if he took the damage and penalty. Or maybe not, dunno his particular rules acumen. Either way, doesn't hurt me any to ignore the rule, like I have been.

 

[Xeterog]

For what it is worth. I've always played that one attack line is one attack..so the Hydra has to just target the defender with one head, and the Beholder is not unduly punished because it has to target separate enemies with it's eye rays.

Been playing it this way since before 4E came out (Keep on the Shadowfell came out with preview rules), so over 2 years now. The Party is level 28 now and has had no problem with this at all.

Our Defender is a Paladin. I trigger his mark often enough (or target him instead of one of his allies)...he does not appear to feel weaker or nerfed by this at all. And there are plenty of monsters that multiattack out there.

Maybe one of the reasons is the party is mostly ranged attackers (Greatbow Ranger, Warlock, Wizard, Cleric are 4 of the other 5 pcs), but often, the Paladin is the only target in range for a Melee multi-targeter anyway.

I really feel that not doing it this way greatly increases the defender's power. Currently, if I violate the paladins challenge/sanction, not only does the monster have a -2 to hit, but takes 17 radiant damage and is weakened if the attack actually hits. But if I target the Paladin, his 49+ AC is a pain to hit (missing on a 15 consistantly is annoying, even for a DM).

Heck, everyone I play with plays it this way (whether I'm a player or a DM)...I come to expect it that way (and I play mostly defenders)...and I don't feel like I'm not able to defend or am weakened/nerfed that multi-attackers probably won't trigger my mark (not even the -2) if they include me...at least they are splitting up their attacks and not focusing fire on anyone in particular.

 

[DracoSuave]

The way I do it is pretty simple.

A) If it has multiple targets in the Target line (or monster equivalent) then it's all one attack (even if it's resolved as separate attack and damage rolls) and if the defender is included, the mark doesn't trigger.

B) If it doesn't have -any- targets but instead requires the repeat of the same power two or more takes ("Make three claw attacks") then those ARE separate attacks completely, and each individual attack is considered individually.

 

[keterys]

Yep, I think that interpretation is one of the best RAI.

 

[Nifft]

A) If it has multiple targets in the Target line (or monster equivalent) then it's all one attack (even if it's resolved as separate attack and damage rolls) and if the defender is included, the mark doesn't trigger.

I do something similar, but I use the damage roll as my gold standard for counting attacks.

If you roll damage once for three targets: it's one attack.

If you roll damage three times for three targets: it's three attacks.

Cheers, -- N

 

[keterys]

Most wizards I know roll damage once for Icy Rays type spells, even though it should in theory be multiple damage rolls

 

[Nifft]

Most wizards I know roll damage once for Icy Rays type spells, even though it should in theory be multiple damage rolls

My yardstick for PC powers tends to be: would I feel guilty using this on my players, if I built an Elite NPC with one of the class templates?

Imagine an NPC Invoker with Hand of Radiance, or an NPC Ranger with Twin Strike. Would your Swordmage feel unhappy if his Mark never triggered?

Cheers, -- N

 

[keterys]

No, if an NPC invoker made my swordmage one of the three targets for Hand of Radiance I wouldn't mind at all.

I'd also vastly prefer if everyone who ever used Hand of Radiance did it as one damage roll.

 

[eamon]

No, if an NPC invoker made my swordmage one of the three targets for Hand of Radiance I wouldn't mind at all.

I'd also vastly prefer if everyone who ever used Hand of Radiance did it as one damage roll.

How often are marks actually triggered in your games?

 

[eamon]

Yep, I think that interpretation is one of the best RAI.

I understand the argument that it's playable to consider a mark not violated when a creature performs multiple melee attacks.

However, I don't see the argument for intent at all. The melee attack rules explicitly point out that multiple targets involve multiple attacks. The vast majority of wotc monsters are quite reasonable under that interpretation. By contrast, letting a hydra focus fire on the adjacent rogue and insert a token single attack vs. the defender is not reasonable.

Some (rare) powers work poorly when marked. What's the problem?

Marks essentially mean: whenever you can choose a target, you must choose (or include) the defender (or take a -2). Since melee attacks are individually targeted, that means you need to attack the defender with all those attacks - that's kind of the whole point of the role. Of course there's a grey area - multiattacks that target distinct creatures may be modeled as close bursts (with a limited number of creatures in burst) or as melee attacks (with the requirement that all targets must be distinct). The rules are an abstraction; these corner cases are rare and noncritical when they do turn up.

The bit about melee attacks being distinct attacks is easy to miss, particularly given the general confusion surrounding attacks/attack powers/attack rolls etc. So if a DM accidentally misses the distinction of the rules I agree it's not that import. But when you say that this is somehow good and even RAI, that sounds wrong: such a DM would be ignoring RAW, ignoring the spirit behind the rules of the mark (namely that the creature must choose to attack the defender or suffer) and given ambiguity interpreting things to the detriment of the PC's (bad practice in my book).