Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?

[Bold or Stupid]

This sounds by far more defender friendly and a lot more like an intended interaction between mark punishment and target selection.

I could live with that. Still if I can have the punishment on the bolded part as well I won't complain.

Neither would I to be honest, but what I stated was how I've run in in the past, most notabley my first hydra that spent many round weeping as it missed the paladin, but only had him to hit in range.

 

[keterys]

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.

Hundreds of powers signifies intent to my mind. What I've witnessed of how several of the WotC folks plays establishes state of mind for rules interpretation to me. That I got this house rule from playing with people who regularly play with WotC folks. That the basic rules concept of many powers is 'I use a power to make three attacks and include the guy who marked me' holds true, whether it's melee or close.

Hence, for me, the case for intent has been made and sealed.

For you, not so much.

As I said, I don't particularly care about the hydra one way or another - it's the other attack types that do concern me, but...

It is _extremely_ reasonable that a defender be unable to capture every single attack from a solo.

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

They work just fine, from what I can tell

But when you say that this is somehow good and even RAI, that sounds wrong

To you and some other responders, and right to several other responders. If only each group could play and enjoy the game as they see fit.

ignoring the spirit behind the rules of the mark (namely that the creature must choose to attack the defender or suffer)

Hardly. They did include the defender as a target.

 

[keterys]

At any rate, as a player who plays defenders about half the time... I wholly support this. That's why I let the DMs rule that way without complaint. I think it makes the combat _more fun_.

Sure, it makes four of my characters less effective. But the combats are more interesting, and the DM has more fun. Win/Win.

 

[KarinsDad]

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 argument is easy to see if you step back for a second.

The intent is that the Fighter has to be included in any attack power. Otherwise, close bursts wouldn't work as they do.

Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.

It is crystal clear from this terminology that when we are talking a Close Burst Attack, we are not talking attack rolls, we are talking Attack Power.

This does not state "attack roll". It states, attack.

Let's take an example of a monster with the Fighter template who has Fighter powers:

Passing Attack Fighter Attack 1
You strike at one foe and allow momentum to carry you forward into a second strike against a second foe.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Primary Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you can shift 1 square. Make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: One creature other than the primary target
Secondary Attack: Strength + 2 vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

According to your literal and restrictive definition, this power would provoke Combat Challenge because the secondary attack is not against the Fighter.

The foe attacked the Fighter, but that isn't good enough. Intent from your definition of intent is that all such secondary attacks must also target the Fighter, even though they are all part of a single "Encounter Attack" power. They are all part of the same attack action.


I now bring us back to "attack" vs. "attack roll".

In this case, the target used his "Passing Attack" encounter ATTACK power against the Fighter. He didn't use every attack roll against the Fighter, but he did use this attack against the Fighter.

Ditto for every single close burst attack that targets the Fighter.


I do not see anything in the rules that in order for a creature to target multiple foes with an attack power, all of those attacks must be against the Fighter or he gets Combat Challenge.

This is called a rules interpretation. In your case, you interpret every single basic attack roll from a Hydra as a separate attack. In my case, I interpret every single attack power as part of a single attack action.

So, the rules intent here from my perspective: When you use an attack power, if you do not attack the Fighter with that power, then he gets a Combat Challenge attack against the marked creature. If you do, then he doesn't.

The rules intent of Combat Challenge is met.


It all depends on how one interprets the single word "attack" in the Combat Challenge power.

I choose to interpret that word to mean "attack power" or "attack action", not individual attack rolls. I can understand your interpretation, but I think your interpretation is too restrictive when a Fighter fights a Hydra or other multi-attack creature. From a rules and intent perspective, a multi-attack from a Hydra should be no different than a creature that does a Close Burst attack with its claws. IMO.

Did it include the Fighter in its attack action? Yes. If so, no Combat Challenge. The Fighter already sucked up one attack. He did his job.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I simply rule that the power must attackthe marker to avoid the mark, and do not worry much about how the power actually happens, fluff wise. So, in the case of the dragon's triple claw, or the hydra, if one of the attacks goes ofr the marker, all the rest can go where they want.

But then again, I do not allow marks to be mind domination on where the next attack is going. Marks can be ignored, at some or no penalty.

 

[Aulirophile]

That power would trigger a mark, just like Twin Strike would if you split the attacks. No confusion about that, that is the RAW, it says it under melee attacks, specifically declaring multiple attack rolls = multiple attacks for melee. The full definition of "attack" in 4e, according to pages 269-276 of the PHB and Monster Manual 1-3, is you roll a d20 to see if you hit AC, Fort, Reflex, or Will.

As has probably been noted, several things are designed and worded by people not familiar with this definition. Doesn't change the printed rules.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Doesn't change the printed rules.

If RAW was perfectly understandable in the same way by all people, we would not have 80% of the discussions on this board.

How it is written is really -- how I interpret it.

 

[Aulirophile]

If RAW was perfectly understandable in the same way by all people, we would not have 80% of the discussions on this board.

How it is written is really -- how I interpret it.

Or that is how it is written. Many, many things are very clear, some things require putting together different rules, and some things exist in a rules vacuum. The fact that many of the things that are very clear are argued about is usually a result of people not reading the rules, in my experience.

 

[eamon]

As I said, I don't particularly care about the hydra one way or another - it's the other attack types that do concern me, but...

Why is it reasonable to put heavy weight on multiattack melee powers that must target distinct targets, but not put such weight on multiattack melee powers that don't have such a requirement?

It is _extremely_ reasonable that a defender be unable to capture every single attack from a solo.

Solo's are problematic in any case precisely because they have the acknowledged weakness that status effects can easily be abnormally useful against them. Being marked is not so onerous as to require attacking the defender - it's one of the weaker status effects. Solo's have advantages when it comes to marking as well, though - they're a single entity and parties with multiple defenders cannot divide and conquer nor could a single defender choose to mark those that have a particularly hard time of hurting the defender. Edit: Let me rephrase less confrontationally: Solo's get screwed by marking but that's due to issues with solo's more than issues with marking.

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 argument is easy to see if you step back for a second.

The intent is that the Fighter has to be included in any attack power. Otherwise, close bursts wouldn't work as they do.

The fighter has to be included in any attack power - but why? - what's the purpose of marks in general? The way I see it, they restrict choice - your choice of target must include the defender. Each time you have a distinct choice to make, you must choose to target the defender. That means that if you have multiple melee attacks, each individually targeted, each must target the defender. If you've a close burst, you must target the defender - which may happen to include collateral damage.

Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.

It is crystal clear from this terminology that when we are talking a Close Burst Attack, we are not talking attack rolls, we are talking Attack Power.

How that? It doesn't say attack power - it says attack. There's some discussion of what else is an attack depending on context, but so far as I know, it's generally acknowledged that the attacks defined in the PHB section on attacks (being melee, ranged, close and area) are certainly attacks.

Let's take an example of a monster with the Fighter template who has Fighter powers:
[...]

According to your literal and restrictive definition, this power would provoke Combat Challenge because the secondary attack is not against the Fighter.

The secondary attack - which is called a secondary attack in the power - is an attack. That attack, just like the primary attack, must include the defender or it's an attack which does not include the defender and thus suffers the consequence of violating the mark.

The foe attacked the Fighter, but that isn't good enough. Intent from your definition of intent is that all such secondary attacks must also target the Fighter, even though they are all part of a single "Encounter Attack" power. They are all part of the same attack action.

Let's suppose that attack powers are attacks. That does not mean that individual sub-attacks within complicated powers are not themselves also an attack. We call these things multiattacks colloquially because they're powers which consist of multiple attacks.

Fortunately, for an attack power (at least all common ones) we never need to make the decision whether the attack power itself independently of it's sub-attacks is considered an attack. It's also clear that even though something having an attack roll may automatically be an attack, an attack roll by itself does not make an attack - it's just a key component.

As such, if a power has secondary attacks, they're considered attacks. If a power includes attacks with multiple attack rolls, each attack roll is not necessarily an individual attack.

I do not see anything in the rules that in order for a creature to target multiple foes with an attack power, all of those attacks must be against the Fighter or he gets Combat Challenge.

The marked condition specifies:

You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't target the creature that marked you.
​

So for any attack of "all of those attacks" the above condition must be satisfied or the mark is violated.

From a rules and intent perspective, a multi-attack from a Hydra should be no different than a creature that does a Close Burst attack with its claws. IMO.

There's a big difference though: a close burst is targeted not individually but as an area of effect, whereas a hydra can choose each target - and so could, for instance, happily attack the flanking rogue 7 times and the fighter just once.

(Force Orb is an example of a misdesigned power - the secondary attacks on that almost certainly make more sense as an area burst rather than as individual ranged attacks by the wizard).

In summary: Solo's and some monsters can be particularly affected by a mark, but it's not clear whether that's by design or by accident. Monsters are there to be killed; and whatever you decide. the marked condition isn't powerful enough to be battle-ending (it's not like a stunlock, say). Secondly, the attack power vs. attack distinction isn't a pretty one, but you don't need that distinction for marking effects to work per melee/ranged/close/area attack - they're called attacks and if you consider them attacks for the purposes of marking you arrive at my position.

All this gets extra messy with things such as the new magic missile

 

[eamon]

Hundreds of powers signifies intent to my mind. What I've witnessed of how several of the WotC folks plays establishes state of mind for rules interpretation to me. That I got this house rule from playing with people who regularly play with WotC folks. That the basic rules concept of many powers is 'I use a power to make three attacks and include the guy who marked me' holds true, whether it's melee or close.

I've been looking over monsters more since you said this - and it looks like such powers are becoming more common. Certainly MM3 has more such monsters compared to MM1. In the original MM, it was rare for a power to require distinct targets, in the MM3, it seems to be common.

At this point, I think a FAQ update would be great.

_{And secretly, I wish the whole marked condition would never have been written. It doesn't much make sense for a fighter in general.}