Struggling with Swordmage //Questions about monster

[Blackbrrd]

Dimensional vortex, and from the wording I think it does use the attack roll. It's also 'when an enemy hits an ally' =(

If I remember correctly, Dimensional vortex is a ranged attack that, so it gives an opportunity attack. It's a bit of a gotcha with that power.

Btw, there is nothing wrong with an encounter being easy, especially if they are fast. I would actually say it makes the game more fun. Just add some harder encounters occasionally. Usually you can do this by using less brutes/soldiers and more artillery and such.

 

[pemerton]

The lack of definition of what "an attack" is means that this is up to you as the dm to adjudicate.

IMHO and IMC, a single power that includes multiple attack rolls is one attack. So if the golem's rampage includes the swordmage as a target, no -2. Likewise, a creature with a "Double Attack" power that lets it use its basic attack twice? I consider it to be an attack that includes the swordmage as a target, even if only one of the two basic attacks targets him, and do not apply the -2 to the other attack.

By the RAW they're separate attacks.
Personally, I always ruled it as multiple attacks BUT the mark penalty only applied if the creature didn't hit the defender the max times they could (ie. if they can only hit each creature once, hitting the defender once removes the mark penalty)

I play it the way that Kingreaper described as RAW. But I agree that it's up for grabs, table-by-table.

 

[Balesir]

We tend to play it that all of the attack rolls that are the result of a single action constitute one attack, just as is specified for Stealth and Hiding.

Whether you do this or treat each roll as a separate attack, though, it's important to note that the Swordmage's Aegis, as an Immediate action, can only be used once between the end of his turn and the start of his next turn. It can't be used on his turn at all (because it's an Immediate action).

Re. the "L10 encounter was easy" - what monsters are you using? Prior to MM3 monsters had too low damage, especially at levels higher than 4-5. If you are using the Monster Vault or MM3 you should be fine, otherwise it's a good idea to revise monster damage upwards. Guidelines for this are downloadable (free) from the WotC site, and some of the MM monsters are available (in Dragon? I forget) in updated form as PDFs.

 

[Ajar]

We also play it by strict RAW -- each attack roll is an attack, the mark penalty applies to all of them, and the defender's punishment can trigger on any of them. This gives the defender the option to react to any one of the attacks that doesn't include them (since, as others have noted, you can only take one immediate action per round).

Using Dimensional Vortex would count as that reaction, so a Swordmage couldn't also do mark punishment.

 

[Ferghis]

We also play it by strict RAW -- each attack roll is an attack, the mark penalty applies to all of them, and the defender's punishment can trigger on any of them.

If this were RAW, the fact that the marked penalty applies attacks that do not include the defender is a bit confusing. The word include indicates being part of a greater group. If the attack targets a greater group, it must mean that the attack is not each individual attack roll.

At my tables, we usually end up defining as one attack any one thing that is tied to one damage roll. Under this rubric, twin shot and monster attacks that allow them to make multiple basic attacks are separate attacks, while a fireball is one big attack.

 

[Ajar]

I don't find it confusing. The "attacks that do not include you as a target" language is there to cover area attacks that associate a single attack roll with multiple targets. Your "tied to one damage roll" rule of thumb ends up working the same way in practice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't find it confusing. The "attacks that do not include you as a target" language is there to cover area attacks that associate a single attack roll with multiple targets. Your "tied to one damage roll" rule of thumb ends up working the same way in practice.

Right, I think the consensus a couple years ago on the Q&A board was that RAW is probably that each time you roll an attack roll and apply a separate damage roll to the target on a hit, that's an attack. It may well NOT be the BEST interpretation, but its the one that actually seems to fit with all the other rules. Frankly though, in general I think its better to go with the looser interpretation, and I believe there was one time when Mike or someone answered some questions and stated they'd been doing it that way internally as well.

As for too-easy encounters... They happen. Look at the strengths and weaknesses of your party and consider maybe using a weak group of opponents (equal level) but which concentrate on some tactic the party has a problem with (swarm of minions, archers, etc). You can tweak things to make a variety of interesting challenges.

 

[Ferghis]

... area attacks that associate a single attack roll with multiple targets.

This is probably just me, but I find this confusing. I don't know of any power that uses one attack ROLL against multiple targets. If there are many targets, there are as many rolls.

 

[Jhaelen]

I don't find it confusing. The "attacks that do not include you as a target" language is there to cover area attacks that associate a single attack roll with multiple targets.

There is no such area attack. Maybe you're confusing attack rolls with damage rolls?

Actually, that's how I draw the line: If you roll damage separately, then it's different attacks if you don't then the attack rolls all belong to the same attack.
If a monster has a power saying: 'Use the basic attack twice', then I'd roll damage twice, hence it's two different attacks.

 

[pemerton]

I think the consensus a couple years ago on the Q&A board was that RAW is probably that each time you roll an attack roll and apply a separate damage roll to the target on a hit, that's an attack. It may well NOT be the BEST interpretation, but its the one that actually seems to fit with all the other rules. Frankly though, in general I think its better to go with the looser interpretation, and I believe there was one time when Mike or someone answered some questions and stated they'd been doing it that way internally as well.

The reason we do it the way we do is simply that that seemed the smoothest reading of the rules. As a matter of gameplay I don't think it has anything special to recommend it - it produces more focus-fire on the defender, which introduces a certain dynamic into the game but I don't have any argument that it's a better dynamic than the alternative.