What does "attack" mean with respect to mark?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
I am wondering, when is mark punishment applied. If, for instance, a creature has a melee attack power that has two targets, and one of those targets is the marker, is mark penalty applied to the attack against the non-marker? Or is that whole attack sequence considered an attack that includes the marker, which would mean that mark penalty does not apply?
Rule of thumb:

Melee and ranged attacks are evaluated individually, one target per attack.  If a monster makes two melee attacks when using a power, they both must target the marker to avoid punishment.

Close and area attacks are one attack that includes all targets.  These are what bypass mark punishment, both the -2 and any further retribution.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The rule of thumb I use:

If they use the same damage roll, they are considered 1 attack even it attacks targets that are not the marker, and do not provoke punishment, as long as the marker is a target of that attack.

If the damage rolls are seperate, they are seperate attacks and would provoke punishment as well as the attack penalty on attacks that do not include the marker.
To be even more specific you really have to carefully read the attack power to determine how many attacks you are really doing.  It can get complicated and isn't always totally clear, but the guys above are generally right.  Twin Strike, for example, is two seperate attacks so unless both attacks target the marker he is going to get punished and take a penalty on at least one attack.  Fireball, on the other hand, as a Close attack, has multiple targets and multiple rolls to hit but is one attack, so as long as the marker is one of those targets the attacker won't get punished.

Also, mark punishment can be triggered by different situations.  Most mark punishment is triggered when the marked attacker ATTACKS someone other than the marker and doesn't include the marker in the attack.  Other punishment (like Divine Challenge) is triggered when the marked attacker TARGETS someone other than the marker with the power and doesn't include him as a target.  That can make a difference sometimes in terms of when the punishment triggers.

(I'd quote specific powers but for some reason the Compendium is bugging out on me right now.)

So when in doubt, read the attack power carefully or ask the DM to do the same if you have time.  It can get a little tricky.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

The attack vs target discrepancy doesn't change the result.  Close and area choose targets all at once, melee and ranged choose one target per attack.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
From the forum FAQ, if desired:
"Do multi-attack powers satisfy the marked condition the same way that area attack powers do? The concensus is no (discussed here, here, here and here, and custserv has answered similarly). Also, PHB FAQ answer #41 lends itself towards ruling each attack of a multi-attack as a separate attack."
Has this been discussed post-Rules Compendium (where the text "a melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks" does not appear)...?  Or is the consensus "we'll just ignore that and use the original, clearer rule"?

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.

The lack of a rule in the RC doesn't invalidate a rule.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
is the consensus "we'll just ignore that and use the original, clearer rule"?

I believe so. Since I don't see an indication that the writers intended an actual change here, I can support the notion.
The Rule Compendium could lead to different conclusions depending if ATTACK  is taken to refer to using Attack Powers and not using Attack Types while following the Making Attacks Process (RC 214).

The RC now homologue Attack Type as Powers and not Attack Types (ex. Melee Power vs Melee Attack) meaning that a Melee Power who can multi-target like Twin Strike or One-Two Punch, who'd include the Marker as one of its Target would (arguably) not Trigger Punishment on the Marked attacker since it's not Making An Attack (1. Choose Power, 2. Choose Targets 3. Make Attack Roll etc...) that doesn't include the Marker as a Target. The Attack (Power) Twin Strike or One-Two Punch would include the Defender as a Target.


RC 100 Multiple Targets: If a Melee Power has multiple Targets and include attack rolls or damage rolls, those rolls are made seperatly against each target.    

RC 308 Attack: An Attack Roll and its effects, including any damage rolls. The word ¨Attack¨ is sometimes use as shorthand for ¨Attack Power¨.

Combat Challenge: Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or  makes an attack that does not include you as a target, you can make a melee  basic attack against that enemy.
Maybe if we come at this from a different tack...  Could you explain (using the RC text only1) why area attacks do not trigger marks, but multi-target melee attacks do trigger marks?

1 I cannot subscribe to the theory, Mand12, that you must consult both PH and RC for any rules to determine if you have "all" of the rules.  I'm going to take them at their word when they say on pg. 5 that RC contains "the most up-to-date versions" of the rules, and anything missing or altered from the previous ruleset was done so intentionally.

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.

I cannot subscribe to the theory, Mand12, that you must consult both PH and RC for any rules to determine if you have "all" of the rules.

Agreed... you should also consult the WotC FAQ's, the Rules Update archive, the Rules of the Game articles, and (if something is still unclear) this forum... where we'll probably scour every sourcebook and compendium entry for an answer. ; )

Has this been discussed post-Rules Compendium (where the text "a melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks" does not appear)...?

It has.  At length.  The RC rules make many situations involving attacks far less clear ... but I'd hazard to say that overall the consensus is still generally that Melee and Ranged attacks are seperate, and Close and Area attacks are not.  And I say that as someone who argued quite vehemently that the RC rules could be interpreted otherwise.

  For that matter, I argued in the past the the PHB rules could also be interpreted otherwise ... but those arguments were far more shaky IMO. 

Sign In to post comments