Split the Tree: Help me convince a player who doesn't agree

[Caliber]

My group always rolls damage with the attack to speed up play. When we had a Ranger (before he was croaked) he would roll his two d20s with a damage die for each ... and then keep the damage die for the higher d20 and apply it to both targets. Not sure if that's right, but it's how we did it!

Edit: Using Rig's chart up above, we always used option 3. Just sayin.

 

[Pielorinho]

Given Rigamortus's chart, options 1 and 2 give identical results over time (except, again, with a minor bulge in the middle of the bell curve). Options 3 and 4 don't seem supported by the rules: the only place in the power that two-rolls-take-the-highest is mentioned is for attack, not damage.

Daniel

 

[LowSpine]

Do it either way. It doesn't really matter. The player gains no advantage or disadvantage either way so it is completely up to you. Keep the player sweet or tell him no if you can think of a good reason.

If in the future you get some official info use that, or not.

 

[DracoSuave]

From Ranged Attacks in the attack section:

Targeted: Ranged attacks target individuals. A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll. Ranged attacks don’t create areas of effect (page 272). If you’re using a projectile weapon to make a ranged attack against multiple targets, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.

From Split the Tree:

Daily - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action - Ranged weapon

Which means Split the Tree uses the same rules for damage as all other Ranged powers, as per page 270. Nothing in Split the Tree's text says otherwise about damage, only how the attack rolls are resolved. Therefore, it is two seperate damage rolls.

 

[DracoSuave]

Argh accidental repost. Argh slowloading forums

 

[Mengu]

I hadn't even thought about this. It seemed natural to me to roll two separate damage rolls. I like this a bit better because an unfortunate minimum roll doesn't ruin your daily. You still get a separate roll for the second target where you may do better.

I can see where the ambiguity may be coming from, but the power says make two attack rolls, so it is still multiple attacks. You just happen to apply the higher result to both targets. After thinking about it, I'd still rule for two separate damage rolls.

I also just realized, we've been rolling separate attack and damage rolls for burst powers like Dire Wolverine Strike and Sweeping Blow. I guess by RAW we shouldn't. It just feels odd to treat a weapon attack as an AoE. But they would resove faster this way.

 

[Pielorinho]

Targeted: Ranged attacks target individuals. A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll.

The question is whether the specific in this case contradicts the general rule. The specific may do so: it doesn't include the language that otherwise indicates multiple attacks for a ranged attack, and it furthermore uses a single ranged attack roll to apply to multiple enemies.

I don't think there's a perfect case to make either way. Since it doesn't much matter, I'd be willing to let the player choose how to play it, as long as the player chooses before using it and is consistent.

Daniel

 

[Drakhar]

From a pure fluff reasoning stand point I'd rule it as one damage roll for both. You're fireing both arrows at the same time with the same force not quickly shooting off two arrows.

 

[Jack Colby]

You know, I don't mind making rulings on unclear things in a game,
but I admit I'm disappointed in how 4e descriptions are written.

On the one hand, they are brief and to the point, so you don't have to read much in order to understand them... in theory. The problem is that many power descriptions and other rules are worded so carelessly that it's hard to know exactly what they mean unless you already know (i.e.: you were one of the designers.)

Basically, they had the right idea, but the implementation was off. It should not be this hard to settle on the right interpretation of a rule. In fact, we shouldn't need to interpret them - they should be clear to everyone.

 

[PHGraves]

The question is whether the specific in this case contradicts the general rule. The specific may do so: it doesn't include the language that otherwise indicates multiple attacks for a ranged attack, and it furthermore uses a single ranged attack roll to apply to multiple enemies.

I don't think there's a perfect case to make either way. Since it doesn't much matter, I'd be willing to let the player choose how to play it, as long as the player chooses before using it and is consistent.

Daniel

I have an issue with this reading. While it is a personal one, it strikes to the heart of most rules disputes over 4E.
Let's face it - we are constantly arguing RAW vs RAI based off of some rather ambiguous wordings most of the time. For these arguments, the best that we can do is treat the main rules as the baseline and only modify them as per the power/feat/class ability in question.

Let's apply this to Split the Tree.

Ranged attack wording from PHB270:
Ranged attacks target individuals. A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll. Ranged attacks don’t create areas of effect.

One attack roll per target.
One damage roll per target.

Now, let's look at Split the Tree:
Make two attack rolls, take the higher result, and apply it to both targets.

Knocking some chocolate into the peanut butter, we now have:

Best of two attack rolls for two targets.
One damage roll per target.

This is as far as we can go without a DC25 Conclusionary Jump check. While it is fascinating that they do not have the "two attacks" explicit statement, note that the rules on page 270 separates the attack/damage rolls for Ranged attacks on a per target basis, not per attack.


Within my game, however, I have left this up to the Ranger's player to decide (he chose separate damage rolls). I must agree with a previous commenter that it is more important for the game to be fun than to the letter.