In our last session, there were, among the monsters, a defender and a vampire. The defender marked one of the PCs. After that, the vampire used an attack on this PC that commanded him to attack another PC.

The defender monster's mark gives -2 to attack rolls that does not include that monster, so the ruling was that this penalty applied to the attack from the first PC to the second one.

This makes sense according to the rules, but should it work that way? The way I see it, when a defender marks an enemy, they do that to prevent the enemy from attacking their allies, not to prevent them from attacking their enemies.

  • \$\begingroup\$ oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh... that's nasty \$\endgroup\$
    – DForck42
    Commented Oct 26, 2011 at 20:28

1 Answer 1


Yes absolutely. The penalty applies. In fact if that attack triggers the mark then the Defender can even make an attack on the PC in this case.

Something important to note. The Language used in the entry for "Marked" says "-2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include the marking creature as the target." (RC 313, emph mine).

This is a classic case when used by PCs. Either the striker will trigger an opportunity attack which will then trigger his defender's mark, or a controller will force a monster to take an attack which will trigger the mark. Both are great strategies when in the hands of PCs and there is no reason they should not work as well for monsters.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The mark in question only applied a penalty to attacks that didn't included the marker. What I found strange is that the attack that was prevented would benefit the monster that was marking, so it's counter-intuitive to give a penalty to it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Wilerson
    Commented Oct 26, 2011 at 13:55
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Marked is actually a condition. All marks are the same, they all apply a -2 to attacks that do not include the marker, thus yes in this case it would be to the monster sides' detriment, but also potentially to their benefit if it triggers the mark in some beneficial way. \$\endgroup\$
    – wax eagle
    Commented Oct 26, 2011 at 13:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you need it explained, whats going on here is that the defender is distracting the marked target. The target is fullying facing the defender, and is moving in such a way to keep the defender always in it's sights. Just because the vampire compelled the attacker to target someone else, doesn't mean he is any less distracted or positioned to target the defender. \$\endgroup\$
    – GMNoob
    Commented Oct 26, 2011 at 14:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .