To split or not to split

[vhailor]

Can a ranger use Split the tree to attack only one target (targeting the enemy and an empty square)?

 

[Maleketh]

I would say no. Some other powers that can target multiple foes (such as a paladin's Arcing Smite) say "one or two creatures" on the Target line. Split the Tree has no such entry, which indicates to me that you have to have two targets.

Your milage may vary, however.

 

[yesnomu]

Why not? The other target can be the ground, or a tree stump or something. You're throwing away half the damage, so it ain't like it's too powerful.

Just make sure not to miss the ground, or your friends will never quit making fun of you.

 

[Blizzardb]

Can a ranger use Split the tree to attack only one target (targeting the enemy and an empty square)?

I have allowed it in my game.

 

[Krensus]

I've allowed a Ranger to use an ally as a target for the two creatures stipulation. I don't think I'd allow them to use it if there was only one enemy and they chose not to shoot an ally as well.

 

[Blizzardb]

This sounds a bit strange. The player not only sacrifices the additional attack, but has to attack an ally with it! In any case using split the tree against a single oponent is suboptimal and not disbalanced, I don't see a reason to make it even more undesirable.

However, in the end its your call.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Why not? The other target can be the ground, or a tree stump or something. You're throwing away half the damage, so it ain't like it's too powerful.

Just make sure not to miss the ground, or your friends will never quit making fun of you.

Because it's too blatant an attempt to manipulate the power's dumping of the worse attack roll. If you want to be able to take the highest roll, you're going to have to designate two targets which are NOT bags of rats.

 

[Krensus]

This sounds a bit strange. The player not only sacrifices the additional attack, but has to attack an ally with it! In any case using split the tree against a single oponent is suboptimal and not disbalanced, I don't see a reason to make it even more undesirable.

However, in the end its your call.

Honestly, I don't see anything unbalanced about the Ranger choosing to attack only one target and not getting the second attack roll for Split the Tree, but RAW, he'd have to have a second target to use the ability and doesn't have the option to choose only one target.

 

[Kordeth]

Because it's too blatant an attempt to manipulate the power's dumping of the worse attack roll. If you want to be able to take the highest roll, you're going to have to designate two targets which are NOT bags of rats.

So, what you're saying is that a single 2[W] attack with a reroll option is somehow more powerful than, say, a 2[W] attack that also inflicts slow and ongoing 5 damage, plus half damage and slow on a miss?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Wasting half of the damage potential of the power is quite balancing enough, forcing the ranger to shoot an ally is way too punitive.

 

[Krensus]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Wasting half of the damage potential of the power is quite balancing enough, forcing the ranger to shoot an ally is way too punitive.

It's not about being punitive, it's about playing by the rules. If you'd like to houserule that he can use it without two viable targets, then that's your option, and one of the great things about D&D. All that I'm saying is that RAW you'd have to have a second target.