Marking and multiple attacks, what is an attack? question.

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
I tried looking for an answer about this but couldn't find one, so i'm hoping you guys can help me.

Let me give a quick summary of a situation I found myself in:

Party has a paladin in it, they were fighting firebats. Part of a firebat's standard attack is that it shifts 4 squares and makes an attack on any player whose square it shifted through.

The paladins divine challenge ability triggers when the marked creature first makes an attack that doesn't include you, but ignores this for bursts and blasts.

So paladin player argued that:
1) on all attacks that did not include it it should get a -2 (as it is marked).
2) that the very first attack that it makes against someone other than him should trigger the challenge dmg.

At first that made sense, but another player pointed out that the whole shift 4 and attack action by the bat was only 1 standard attack action. He pointed out that as long as he attacked the paladin as part of the shift4 action he technically did not trigger the auto dmg on the challenge. As the bat did indeed include the paladin in its attack, very much like a blast or burst (1 standard action attack many players).

So the debate(argument) became what constitutes an attack, is it the individual attack roll? or is it the whole of the attack action. This debate went on for a while and really slowed down the game, i made an executive decision (whether correct or not im not sure) that:

1)in this situation the creature would get a -2 on all attacks not including the player (as it is indeed marked)
2)I decided "attack" means the entire attack action, not the individual rolls, meaning as long as the creature attempts to attack the paladin(in this case) it does not trigger the auto dmg on the challenge.

So what do you think? did i make a bad call?
Hmm... that's an interesting situation...

I think the key line in this power is "It makes a melee basic attack against any creature whose space it enters." From this line, I think that because each attack roll is a Melee Basic Attack, and the Fire Bat's Melee Basic Attack targets a single creature, they are separate attacks and the Bat would take radiant damage.
there's an easy way to resolve this kind of situation:

if you roll damage once(as with all area spells), the paladin counts as included.
if you roll damage per attack roll, the paladin counts as not included.

wizard + thunderwave: one damage roll, no challenge.
ranger + twin strike: two damage rolls, challenge triggers.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
As the GM it's your call. How I read the description, those attacks that it makes from shifting are a side effect of the at-will power it has. The icon for the power shows it as a single attack power.

According to the paladin's argument, if a Gargantuan Dragon stepped on the party, (since it's foot is at least a Large burst), he would be able to make 4 radiant damage rolls, just because the single attack hits more than one party member, and more than one attack roll is made.

The way I read it, the fire bat has an ability to make up to 4 attacks with a single attack action.

However, whatever you decide as GM is law. They might not like it, but as long as you explain your ruling, they should accept it. Basically, the only way that the paladin mark should hit a target twice in a round is if it uses its action point, and makes two separate attack actions, that's how I would rule it.

To address what the previous person said, I don't think twin strike would count, as long as one of the arrows is targeted at the paladin, and if neither attack was, the paladin would only roll for radiant damage once, because the ranger is using a single attack action that allows him to hit two targets.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
1) the paladin mark triggers only the first time each round, so you can never get the damage twice (also, it is not rolled, its fixed damage, you should read up on the issue before replying)
2) any area attack is rolling damage only once, that's the distinction whether it's just one area attack or many single target attacks. a dragons feet would be one attack.

i really dislike the ambiguity wizards has once more given to such simple words, but in this case, attack definitely does not mean the whole power.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
1) the paladin mark triggers only the first time each round, so you can never get the damage twice (also, it is not rolled, its fixed damage, you should read up on the issue before replying)
2) any area attack is rolling damage only once, that's the distinction whether it's just one area attack or many single target attacks. a dragons feet would be one attack.

i really dislike the ambiguity wizards has once more given to such simple words, but in this case, attack definitely does not mean the whole power.

Whether the damage is rolled or fixed (sorry for not committing a class I don't play every day to memory), the point is the effect of the mark would not apply in the case of a fire bat using it's shift ability. The way I interpret the rules, while it is making a single attack, the bat is basically making a "bombing run" that may or may not hit everyone in the squares it shifts through. As such, makes a separate attack roll for each person it shifted through, however, even if it hits all four characters, it is still a SINGLE attack MANEUVER. But again, that is my interpretation

Now, I can respect someone interpreting it as each attack roll; however, that would mean that if an enemy paladin marked the fighter, and the fighter used cleave, the fighter would have to take radiant damage twice, too.

To the OP, whatever your decision, point out to them the drawbacks of the interpretation: it could be used to kill the Player characters just as easily as the monsters your fighting.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Now, I can respect someone interpreting it as each attack roll; however, that would mean that if an enemy paladin marked the fighter, and the fighter used cleave, the fighter would have to take radiant damage twice, too.

Er, you're misreading his interpretation. Cleave rolls for damage once and thus would only be one attack, targeting one person.

In addition the Paladin doesn't deal damage more then once per turn as noted by both the OP and whitebaron.

To the Op: I would say Whitebaron is essentially correct. You can tell if it's a multi targeting attack by how many times you have to roll damage. In this case the bat takes damage and takes a -2 to hit everyone but the Paladin. Paladins are annoying that way.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
To the Op: I would say Whitebaron is essentially correct. You can tell if it's a multi targeting attack by how many times you have to roll damage. In this case the bat takes damage and takes a -2 to hit everyone but the Paladin. Paladins are annoying that way.

That's the major point that I disagree with.

Say for example we were talking about a Wizard instead of a fire bat, and the Wizard cast Burning Hands. The target of the attack is anything within Close Blast 5, and the attack roll is Intelligence vs Reflex.

Let's assume that 3 PCs are within the Wizard's range of Burning Hands, and the one furthest away is the Paladin, but he is within range of the spell.

The Wizard would make 3 attack rolls, because there are three targets within the area of effect/range of the attack, including the Paladin.

The Paladin mark power the target is at a "-2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include you [the paladin] as the target."

Now, let's look the Burning Hands ability again. It says the target is anything within Close Blast 5. If the paladin is within the Close Blast 5, the Wizard doesn't take a -2 on the attack rolls to hit the other two within range of the power, because the paladin is included.

Now, Burning Hands is an Encounter Attack power, which targets multiple targets, and you roll more than one Attack Roll to see if you do damage to none, some, or all of your targets within the area of effect. Now, let's read some more about Divine Challenge:

"While a target is marked, it takes radiant damage equal to 3+ your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn."

Now, look what I highlighted. It says attack, not attack roll (which determines if the attack will hit one or more targets of the attack) or damage roll (which determines if how much damage is done by an attack).

As such, since burning hands is a Level 1 Wizard Encounter ATTACK, as long as the paladin is within range of the burning hands, the wizard would not take radiant damage, because the Paladin is one of the targets affected by the attack.

If we now replace the Wizard with the Fire Bat, we see that the same rules apply. The ability used is called Fiery Swoop, which is a Standard At Will Attack according to the Monster Manual. According to the description, the targets of the attack are any characters that are within the 4 squares that it shifts through using the attack. As such, as long as the Paladin is within the 4 squares that it shifts through using this attack, the Fire Bat would NOT take a -2 for attacking anything else, and would NOT take any radiant damage, because the Paladin was included in the attack.

I'm sorry for not being more explicit earlier, but I didn't think I would need to resort to writing a small novel in terms of how I am interpreting the rules for everyone to get it (it probably didn't help that I got 3rd edition and 4th edition Cleave mixed up). The main part of the argument hinges on the fact that the terms "Attack" and "Attack Roll" and "Damage Roll" are three separate terms: an Attack is a single action (which may or may not target more than one thing), an Attack Roll is a roll to determine whether or not the Attack was successful, and a Damage roll determines how much damage a successful Attack actually does.

Again, this is what I'm saying: since Fiery Swoop is a SINGLE ATTACK that has multiple attack rolls, just like Burning Hands is a SINGLE ATTACK that has multiple attack rolls, and as long as the Fire Bat shifts through the Paladin, it would not take -2 for any other targets, and it would not take any Radiant Damage.

If you were to interpret the rules the same way that DaidojiTaidoru and Whitebaron are, then if a Paladin marked a wizard, and the wizard cast any type of attack spell that could even accidentally target another thing besides the paladin, it would take -2 to hit everything except the pally, and would take radiant damage just because it used an AOE spell (and higher level spells usually target more than one thing). That just doesn't make sense.

The wording of Divine Challenge and the obvious spirit of the power is to make sure that the Paladin is the focus of damage, not that it would prevent ANYTHING from even TOUCHING the other player characters.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
CorrinAvatan you misinterpreted our positions again. The roll to determine if it is one attack that includes the Paladin or not isn't the attack roll, it's the damage roll if that attack is successful. Burning hands uses one damage roll, meaning it is one attack against multiple targets. Twin strike uses two damage rolls, making it two attacks against one or more targets. In this case the firebat rolls damage separately against each opponent, making it a multi attack power.

It should be noted that this attack is screwed much more by the fighters combat challenge. It is a dangerous attack to do when targeted by a defender.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
I'm a little confused about your stance, Daidoj. Basically what I am saying is that Fiery Swoop is an Area attack with multiple damage rolls, and that determine whether or not you do damage by an AC roll of Melee (or whatever the fire bat has) vs AC. It is still just a SINGLE ATTACK ACTION that allows it to make multiple attacks.

I think that the difference between the way that you are interpreting it and the way I am interpreting it is that you see it as if the Bat is getting the same benefit as though it just spent 3 action points: that it makes 3 additional attacks, and as such gets -2.

Even Twin Strike, which you resort to so much, is, in my opinion, a Single Attack, that just happens to have more than one Attack roll and has separate damage rolls for each successful attack.

Whether or not Burning Hands uses one damage roll or not is irrelevant: Fiery Swoop is a SINGLE ATTACK POWER that happens to grant the bat the ability to attack each thing it swoops through, but the overall action is ONE ACTION that has multiple ATTEMPT ROLLS and multiple Effect Rolls (specifically it is One Attack that has multiple Attack Rolls, and each Attack Roll determines it's own Damage Roll).

If you want to convince yourself that the Paladin is that broken, go right ahead. You interpret it the way you want. I am saying that since the Fiery Swoop is a SINGLE STANDARD ACTION, even though it makes up to four attack rolls on 4 targets, as long as the Paladin is targeted as one of the targets of that SINGLE ACTION, the Bat would NOT take -2 and would NOT take radiant damage.

What you're saying about the roll to determine whether the paladin is part of the attack is wrong, btw. There is no roll to determine whether or not the pally is part of the attack At that point you are using the term attack (as in action) and attack roll (as in seeing if the attack was successful or not), which was my point in the first place.

The paladin is a target of the Fiery Swoop attack action if the Bat decides to swoop through his square. There is no roll involved, it is the choice of the bat. The only rolls involved are the attack roll to see if the Bat hits with the attack, and the damage roll if it does.

What you are focusing on is that the effect of the Fiery Swoop action has more than one attack roll and more than one damage roll, and you're using that to justify it, because you're treating it as if the bat has the ability to make four four standard actions in a round, which is why it takes -2 and radiant for your interpretation.

I am treating it as if it is A SINGLE ACTION (since that is what it says on the card) that has more than one attack roll, and more than one damage roll. As such, since I interpret it as a single action, it would not take -2 and it would not take radiant.

Now, if you still can't see my point, and will keep insisting that I am wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Now, if you still can't see my point, and will keep insisting that I am wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I see your point, and I hope that you finally see mine. However In my view what you consider horribly broken I consider working as intended. Especially because my terminology works with attack redirection as well. I consider being able to redirect every attack of blade cascade or twin strike to be far more broken then a tiny bit of radiant damage and a few -2s to hit.

BTW, If this were a fighter mark he'd get his combat challenge smack in regardless of the ruling and deal more damage to boot.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
I see your point, and I hope that you finally see mine. However In my view what you consider horribly broken I consider working as intended. Especially because my terminology works with attack redirection as well. I consider being able to redirect every attack of blade cascade or twin strike to be far more broken then a tiny bit of radiant damage and a few -2s to hit.

BTW, If this were a fighter mark he'd get his combat challenge smack in regardless of the ruling and deal more damage to boot.

I see your point: you're interpretation is much more friendly to the PCs, and since I don't know about attack redirection off the top of my head, I'll let it pass.

Better solution: don't have fire bats.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Wow... there are a lot of good arguments for both sides here. Quite interesting. I am going to throw my own interpretation and my reasons into the ring.

PHB270 under the heading Melee Attack explains that a melee attack is targeted. A melee attack targets a one enemy and notes that some powers allow you to make multiple melee attacks. Most importantly: "a melee attack against multiple enemies consists of seperate attacks, each with its own attack and damage rolls." (emphasis mine)

The language under Ranged Attack on the same page is almost identical.

Close and Area attacks (on 271) do not have this language. They note only that multple attack rolls are made, but they do not explicitly state they are multple attacks. It is thus strongly implied that close and area attacks are considered single attacks, regardless of the number of targets.

By a strict reading, then, melee and ranged attacks never have multiple targets. They have single targets. Any melee or ranged attack that includes multiple targets is actually multiple attacks.

Now it is pretty simple to just check the Fire Bat (MM27) and discover that the Fiery Swoop power is a melee attack power that allows the fire bat to make multple melee attacks. According to the quote above, this is not just four attack rolls, it is four distinct attacks. The three that do not target the paladin suffer a -2 penalty for the marked condition and the first attack triggers the damage from Divine Challenge.

By the same strict reading, Twin Strike suffers the same problem when used against a Paladin and another target, but a power like Blinding Barrage (a close rogue attack) does not provided the Paladin is one of those being targetted.

The Angry DM: D&D 4th Edition Advice with Attitude http://angrydm.com Follow me on Twitter @TheAngryDM "D&D is a world where you are a great champion, and the creator of the universe is frequently disorganized, highly distractable, and alarmingly vague on the rules of the universe he’s trying to run." -Shamus Young, Twenty Sided Tale (DM of the Rings)

@corrin: read simonides. he explains where i got my reasoning from, and all's based on the rules.

if the fire bats attack was an area attack, it would roll damage only once. there is no such thing in 4e as an area attack with multiple damage rolls. (exception: crits)
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
@corrin: read simonides. he explains where i got my reasoning from, and all's based on the rules.

if the fire bats attack was an area attack, it would roll damage only once. there is no such thing in 4e as an area attack with multiple damage rolls. (exception: crits)

I know it may seem like just semantics, but I will point out that how many times you roll which dice is not a determinant. While that might be a good shorthand to remember it, you never know when they might add a melee power that targets three creatures but says "roll damage only once and apply the result to all creatures that are hit." That will still constitute multiple attacks because it is a melee power.

The Angry DM: D&D 4th Edition Advice with Attitude http://angrydm.com Follow me on Twitter @TheAngryDM "D&D is a world where you are a great champion, and the creator of the universe is frequently disorganized, highly distractable, and alarmingly vague on the rules of the universe he’s trying to run." -Shamus Young, Twenty Sided Tale (DM of the Rings)

there's an easy way to resolve this kind of situation:

if you roll damage once(as with all area spells), the paladin counts as included.
if you roll damage per attack roll, the paladin counts as not included.

bolded for illustration. yes, i know it's not perfect. but it's faster.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
I know it may seem like just semantics, but I will point out that how many times you roll which dice is not a determinant. While that might be a good shorthand to remember it, you never know when they might add a melee power that targets three creatures but says "roll damage only once and apply the result to all creatures that are hit." That will still constitute multiple attacks because it is a melee power.

And that is how I am reading it, that is a melee attack power.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
My interpretation is a bit different than those posted, but comes in on the side of CorrinAvatan.

I realize I'm getting into RAI territory and not necessariy strictly RAW, but the point of the mark is that ignoring the Paladin with an attack is the trigger that causes the negative effects. With that in mind, in a case where there are multiple attacks, the rule of thumb I use that there are two kinds of multi-attack maneuvers.

1) The kind where the attacker can choose to use all of the attacks on one target, or to split them up, like Twin Strike.

2) The kind where the targets must be split up by the nature of the power.

For type 1 attacks, choosing to not attack the Paladin with one of the attacks triggers the mark, for type 2, as long as the Paladin is included among the targets, the mark is not triggered.

The Fire Bat ability falls squarely into type 2 territory. You can't shift 4 times through the same square, so as long as the Paladin is one of the 4 attacks, the bat is unaffected by the mark.
@brashnir: you resolve the shifting and the attacking one by one. you way could become a lot more complicated.

look at this example:

lets say, someone has an immediate action, that allows to make a counterstrike.
the bat goes swooping down on buddy#1, hits it with his attack, moves on. strikes buddy#2, hits with his attack, gets hit be the reaction, and dies. buddy#3 would have been the paladin.

what now? it only attacked buddy#2 and #1, so these attacks might have never hit, as the bat did not attack the paladin at all. also, does the bat need to decide all its movement upfront? no, it doesn't, as move is always resolved one-by-one. thus, the only logical conclusion should not be intent - it should be what you're really doing.

you're attacking someone without direct connection to attacking the paladin => mark triggers.

take the same example, with different bonus-adding: the bat swoops down, intent on triggering the challenge, and gets hit by a reaction. because it is afraid it will now suffer death from the paladin, it attacks the paladin instead of the wizard. all previous -2 to rolls will have to be recalculated.

This can not be the way to go, much to complicated (besides, RAW backs us up on this, even though some do not want to use it like that.)


Your RAI is ok, but i'll put it otherwise: a paladins mark forces you to focus on him. The last consequence of the mark is that you'll have to attack the paladin as well, but the reasoning is, that you should focus on him because he "challenged" you. Attacking 3 people is definitely not focussing.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
I tried looking for an answer about this but couldn't find one, so i'm hoping you guys can help me.

Let me give a quick summary of a situation I found myself in:

Party has a paladin in it, they were fighting firebats. Part of a firebat's standard attack is that it shifts 4 squares and makes an attack on any player whose square it shifted through.

The paladins divine challenge ability triggers when the marked creature first makes an attack that doesn't include you, but ignores this for bursts and blasts.

So paladin player argued that:
1) on all attacks that did not include it it should get a -2 (as it is marked).
2) that the very first attack that it makes against someone other than him should trigger the challenge dmg.

At first that made sense, but another player pointed out that the whole shift 4 and attack action by the bat was only 1 standard attack action. He pointed out that as long as he attacked the paladin as part of the shift4 action he technically did not trigger the auto dmg on the challenge. As the bat did indeed include the paladin in its attack, very much like a blast or burst (1 standard action attack many players).

So the debate(argument) became what constitutes an attack, is it the individual attack roll? or is it the whole of the attack action. This debate went on for a while and really slowed down the game, i made an executive decision (whether correct or not im not sure) that:

1)in this situation the creature would get a -2 on all attacks not including the player (as it is indeed marked)
2)I decided "attack" means the entire attack action, not the individual rolls, meaning as long as the creature attempts to attack the paladin(in this case) it does not trigger the auto dmg on the challenge.

So what do you think? did i make a bad call?

I asked a question similar to this on the Rules Forum.. Someone ended up sending it to CS and this is what we got back:

The question is:
If a marked ranger uses twin strike, applying one of the strikes against the marking target and applying the other strike against another target, does the consequence of making an attack that does not include the marker as the target apply?

The two mutually exclusive interpretations are:
Twin strike counts as two separate attacks, each governed independent of the other with regard to the marking rules. If the second attack is against a target other than the marking agent, the penalties apply.
Twin strike counts as a single attack with two independently-rolled targets. Even if the second attack is against a target other than the marking agent, the penalties associated with marking would not apply.
The broader application of this lies in the use of any power that allows a secondary attack when the power user is marked. Marking would "prevent" (or at least provide disincentive) characters from using powers with secondary or multiple targets.

Originally Posted by Customer Service
The answer is:
Yes, the consequence would apply.

The rule of thumb you can use is if there's one damage roll with multiple attack rolls, it's one attack (example: Fireball). If each attack roll has its own damage roll, it's multiple attacks (example: Twin Strike).

One or both of the Twin Strike attacks can have the -2 penalty if the Ranger is marked and is not attacking his marker.

Thanks, and Good Gaming!

Josh
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast

Hey thanks guys for all the feedback, i think I'm going to revisit my decision.

Looking back I was getting caught up in the thought that the whole of the attack was a single action, and that if any part of the attack included the marker his mark was satisfied. But at the same time i thought it proper to also apply the -2 to hit on all targets that did not include the player who marked it.

I think these are based on two opposing views, if the first thought were true then a tomb guardian with its four attacks would only have to attack the fighter once in order to not take a -2 penalty on its three other attacks vs the rest of the party.

So i would conclude that if the effects of the -2 mark extend to the rest of the fire bats attack that the other class specific penalties attributed to the mark should also apply.

Also thinking in damage rolls instead of attack rolls will be a useful guide for future.

Thanks
I think the biggest misinterpretation on this is a lot of people see "Attack Power" and think it's a single attack because it's a single attack power, but marking does not say anything about attack powers, it simply says attack.. Twin Strike is always the example I use.. In the Attack line of twin strike it tells you what you roll then says "Two Attacks", I can't see why you'd interpret that as one attack.. It's one attack power, that grants two attacks. With the fiery bat it has a melee power Fiery Swoop.. This is a single melee attack power, but the power grants a basic melee attack against any creature whose space it enters. So, by exactly what the power says, it gets one attack every time it passes through an enemy square.. passes through 2 square, takes 2 attacks.. Seems pretty cut and dry.. One attack power, granting multiple attacks.. Though the first attack may include a marker, any other attack would not..
thinking of it, i love the interpretation of twin strike being one "attack", and you get to make two "attacks" for every twin strike... horray for infinite twin striking!

there is a lot of ambiguity still going on in role playing games.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
thinking of it, i love the interpretation of twin strike being one "attack", and you get to make two "attacks" for every twin strike... horray for infinite twin striking!

there is a lot of ambiguity still going on in role playing games.

That's the exact misinterpretation I was talking about.. Twin Strike is NOT an attack, Twin Strike is a power.. The effect of the Twin Strike power is to make 2 attacks.. Attack Power is a classification of a power, but an attack power in itself is NOT an attack. In fact there are Attack powers that grant no attacks (Ex. Rain of Steel).
I think Witchslasher has it right.

Here is my take on the situation. According to the PHB (pg 270-271) there are 4 categories of "Attack": Melee, Ranged, Close, and Area.

Twin Strike is Melee, but it specifies two attacks. Each attack roll would be considered its own attack, even if they are against the same target.

Sweeping Whirlwind is Close (burst 1). Though an attack roll is made against each eligible target, they are all part of one attack .

Looking at the Fiery Swoop ability
Originally posted by the D&D Compendium
The fire bat shifts up to 4 squares and can move through occupied squares as it moves. It makes a melee basic attack against any creature whose space it enters. The fire bat cannot attack a target more than once in this fashion, and it must end its movement in an unoccupied square.

The power allows the bat to make one or more attacks - it is not an area attack, such as fireball.

I would rule that each basic melee attack that does not target the Paladin is at a -2. The first such attack that does not target the Paladin triggers the Divine Challenge.
"If we now replace the Wizard with the Fire Bat, we see that the same rules apply. The ability used is called Fiery Swoop, which is a Standard At Will Attack according to the Monster Manual. According to the description, the targets of the attack are any characters that are within the 4 squares that it shifts through using the attack. As such, as long as the Paladin is within the 4 squares that it shifts through using this attack, the Fire Bat would NOT take a -2 for attacking anything else, and would NOT take any radiant damage, because the Paladin was included in the attack."
look at this example:
lets say, someone has an immediate action, that allows to make a counterstrike.
the bat goes swooping down on buddy#1, hits it with his attack, moves on. strikes buddy#2, hits with his attack, gets hit be the reaction, and dies. buddy#3 would have been the paladin.
what now? it only attacked buddy#2 and #1, so these attacks might have never hit, as the bat did not attack the paladin at all. also, does the bat need to decide all its movement upfront? no, it doesn't, as move is always resolved one-by-one. thus, the only logical conclusion should not be intent - it should be what you're really doing.
you're attacking someone without direct connection to attacking the paladin => mark triggers.

Well i agree with everything corrin said except from that part and i agree with your example whitebaron, as long as the paladin is the target of an attack the attacker doesnt get the penalty, lets take corrin burning hands example, the way i see it since its a burts it hits all the targets within its range at the same time, so as long as the paladin is inside the burst the attacker doesnt get the penalty (you can see it as the wizard wanting to scorch the paladin and everything that is inside the burst besides him its a plus).

Now regarding the swooping abilitie lets see the following 2 sentences:

"As such, as long as the Paladin is within the 4 squares that it shifts through using this attack, the Fire Bat would NOT take a -2 for attacking anything else, and would NOT take any radiant damage, because the Paladin was included in the attack."

"the bat goes swooping down on buddy#1, hits it with his attack, moves on. strikes buddy#2, hits with his attack, gets hit be the reaction, and dies. buddy#3 would have been the paladin"

The first sentence is wrong and the second one is right; why?, because the divine challenge states that the attacks that an enemie makes that doesnt include you as a target take the penalties and the radiant damage.

Now lets see the following examples with the swooping attack: we have 4 targets, A, B, C, and the Pally.

1)The bat uses swoop attack in A, it takes Radi damage, then attacks B and dies, both attacks take the penalties, because it never targeted the pally.

2)The bat uses swoop attack in A, it takes Radi damage, then attacks B, then attacks the Pally, and then attacks C, the attacks on A and B take the penaltie because the pally wasnt included as a target up to that point for this Attack, the attack on C doesnt take any penalties because now the pally has been included as a target on the power

3)The bat uses swoop on the pally then procedes to attack A,B,C, none of the attacks take penalties since the pally was included as a target at the beggining of the power.

So thats my point of view, with burst and blasts (like a dragon breath, a fireball etc) doesnt matter how many ppl it hits as long as the pally is inside the blast it doesnt get the penalties (the pally was the target of my ball of awesome, its not my fault that the whole party is clustered together) and with powers with multiple attacks (Twin strike, Fiery swoop, etc) it takes radi damage and the penalties to attacks until one of those attacks hits the pally.
You're reading the firebat's power incorrectly.. The swoop ability is not a single attack that targets everyone whose space it moves through, the swoop ability allows the bat to shift through enemy spaces and make an attack against each enemy whose space it entered. Each attack needs to be resolved separately. Again, Marks do not effect powers, marks effect attacks. As the bat shifts it makes an attack, so if we got enemy A, B, C and C is our marking paladin, if it shifts through their squares no matter which order it goes through, each of these attacks it makes are separate attacks and should be resolved independently.. So if he hits pally first, nothing special happens, shifts to enemy B he'll take a -2 penalty and radiant damage if he chooses to make the attack granted by the swoop power, shifts to enemy A he'll take a -2 penalty if he chooses to make the attack granted by the swoop power (and the radiant damage if he didn't take it from the attack on B).
Sign In to post comments