Multi-attack actions = one attack or three?

[keterys]

Yeah, if it were just a couple of monsters, handful of powers, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that I did.

But it's really a _lot_.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Yeah, if it were just a couple of monsters, handful of powers, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that I did.

But it's really a _lot_.

An alternate theory is that WotC started making more monsters with melee/ranged multi-attacks because a common complaint from players is that their DM's never violate their defender's marks. These powers would give the DM a good incentive to violate the mark(compared to a single attack power) without forcing them to do so.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

Except that would rule out close and area attacks because they too only make one attack roll per target, and you don't make the same attack roll for two different targets.

If you have two interpretations of the rules, and one leads to utter nonsense, you go with the one that makes sense. Because the other is obviously incorrect.

The marked condition cares about the Target: line, not the attack: line or the Hit: line. If the fighter is included in the Target: line (or the equivalent for monsters) then the mark does not trigger. It's that simple.

In the case of Twin Strike, it has one target line. So therefore, if the marker is one of those target, the mark does not work.

In the case of a 'make three claw attacks' powers, it's -three- target lines. You're not executing a power that says 'Target: one, two, or three creatures.' You're executing a power that says 'Use the Magic Missile power three times' or 'Use Eldritch Strike three times.' The claw attack is a seperate power, and you are using a separate power three times.

An alternate theory is that WotC started making more monsters with melee/ranged multi-attacks because a common complaint from players is that their DM's never violate their defender's marks. These powers would give the DM a good incentive to violate the mark(compared to a single attack power) without forcing them to do so.

This.

Defenders are not ubertanks who are supposed to take all the attacks ever. They are to take a proportionately higher number of attacks, but not all of them. This isn't WoW where the defender is tanking five huge internet dragons and is expected to take more incoming damage than the apocolypse. This is D&D, where your other guys are gonna take hits now and then.

I think many people in this thread simply have too much of an expectation that tanks be able to 'tank it all.'

 

[Aulirophile]

Close/Area attacks have a specific rule. PHB ~274. So no, it wouldn't.

 

[eamon]

The marked condition cares about the Target: line, not the attack: line or the Hit: line. If the fighter is included in the Target: line (or the equivalent for monsters) then the mark does not trigger. It's that simple.

In the case of Twin Strike, it has one target line. So therefore, if the marker is one of those target, the mark does not work.

Well, let's see.

If the power is a melee or ranged power that has multiple targets, it's multiple attacks as per the descriptions of those attack types.

[...]

Close and Area powers are multiple rolls, but a single attack with a single damage roll. Exception to the above, unless the power is 'Make a melee basic attack against all enemies in the burst' in which case it qualifies as above.

 

[keterys]

Out of total bemusement:
"A melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks"
"You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't target the creature that marked you."

So, depending on whether you think marked's use of the word "attack" refers to the "melee attack" that can have multiple enemies or to any one of the separate attacks that can spawn, you feel RAW says one or the other. Interesting, at least.

Reminds me of some of the discussion around whether magic missile is an attack or not

 

[KarinsDad]

I have to change my interpretation of RAW on this from pages 269 and 270.

When you attack, you make an attack roll to determine whether your attack hits your target. You roll a d20, add a bonus for whatever attack you’re using, and compare the result to one of the target’s four defenses: Armor Class, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will.

Targeted: Melee attacks target individuals. A melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll.

Targeted: Ranged attacks target individuals. A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll.

This means that the DM should probably just have the Hydra shift back and attack whomever it wants cause the Fighter's either going to get his Combat Challenge every round anyway, or the Hydra's going to be attacking the Fighter.

I wouldn't allow -2 CC penalty stacking though.

 

[keterys]

Whatcha mean by penalty stacking?

 

[Nifft]

Reminds me of some of the discussion around whether magic missile is an attack or not

Yep. Both refer to the same definitional failing: WotC has never been very clear on what "an attack" means in 4e. Before this power revision, though, the ambiguity didn't have a whole lot of tactical implications.

Similar deal for multi-attack critters: there are (proportionally) more now than there were in the past, so now the ambiguity has more tactical implications.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

Whatcha mean by penalty stacking?

I mean that I got 3 hours sleep last night and might type just about anything at this point.