Secondary Targets

[VinAlanson]

I have what is probably a simple question regarding powers with secondary targets e.g Lightning Bolt.
Let's assume that the primary target is hit.
Does the PC have to use the secondary target feature of the power?

Example: Wizard uses Lightning Bolt against primary target. Hits. But there aren't any other enemies present.
[Don't get into the fact the PC should probably not have used the power. The PC just did].
There are however allies present and the power says 'target creatures' not 'target enemies'.
Does the Wizard have to attack his allies?
Common sense would say no ... but what do the rules say.

The only ruling I can find is that Powers don't have to be maximised, so the Wizard can make the close burst a 1x1 instead of a 3x3.

So what do you say?

 

[aco175]

Not sure on the specific rule, but would agree that the wizard could choose not to target another creature. Heck, I may so generous as to allow the creature to be slowed if only one creature is targeted, just to make the controller aspect more available to the wizard, but that is just me.

 

[Turtlejay]

I'd not make him do so, based only on the fact that the faq for the chaos sorcerer's Chaos Bolt specifies that he does not have to attack his allies if he wishes.

Jay

 

[babinro]

The only ruling I can find is that Powers don't have to be maximised, so the Wizard can make the close burst a 1x1 instead of a 3x3.

Are you sure the above statement is true? I actually didn't know about this rule and it would really help my players (particularly my swarm druid from hitting allies).

Is it actually in the rules that you choose to lower the radius/distances of a close burst, Close Blast, Area Burst, Wall, or Zone if you so choose?

As for the main question, I agree. It seems silly that you'd have to target allies after the initial target. I don't have rules to back this up though. The secondary aspect is intended to improve the power, if the player does not want to follow up on it, that's fine. Sort of like how you don't have to shift or move when powers give you option to do so.

 

[Tale]

Secondary attack rules are on page 59 of PHB1. Reading it over, I note that it says "allow" and "if you can." The wording is permissive instead of insistent.

As an example of insistent effect, look at Chaos Sorcerer Unfettered Power feature, which says "you must" with regards to the result of rolling a 1.

As for "maximized," I've never heard of such a ruling. Maybe you are confusing forced movement rules which, generally, don't require you to move the target the full movement.

 

[VinAlanson]

I think I am wrong about the maximised idea.
The RAW say Close Blast/Burst [number] and Area Blast/Burst [number] within [number], and not Close Blast/Burst up to [number] and Area Blast/Burst up to [number] within [number].

Ok so the 'secondary target/attack' does say 'allow' and 'if' but what confuses the situation is why use the word creature instead of enemy because who in their right mind would attack an ally. So I thought maybe you had to attack if you had secondary attacks to do, and if you had to attack and there weren't any enemies then you had to attack allies .... but maybe you don't have to.

 

[Stuntman]

I believe I read it in a Q&A page where it says secondary targets are optional. The question was specific with regard to Chaos Bolt so that if there are no enemies with range of a hop, you do not have to target an ally instead.

 

[Nightson]

why use the word creature instead of enemy

Players with high lightning resistance. Or casual writing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Players with high lightning resistance. Or casual writing.

Hey, some players want the opportunity to be dicks.

 

[Tale]

Hey, some players want the opportunity to be dicks.

If another party member is standing at the intersection of two halls, I'll be damned if I don't use him to send my chaos bolts around corners.