To split or not to split

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

So go ahead and have your fighter use cleave on the bags of rats or empty air in 4E. That's not overpowered anymore either, the damage on the adjacent target isn't all that high. If an option being massively overpowered is your only concern then ignore whether someone is using a bag of rats, it's not going to matter for you.

 

[Kordeth]

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.

Except that, by RAW, you can target an empty square with a melee or ranged attack (PHB p. 272). In fact, you have to be able to, or there's no way to try to hit invisible creatures. Would you deny the ranger the use of split the tree if there was an invisible enemy on the battlefield, and the ranger thought it was in a square that made it a valid target for the power?

 

[Kordeth]

So go ahead and have your fighter use cleave on the bags of rats or empty air in 4E. That's not overpowered anymore either, the damage on the adjacent target isn't all that high. If an option being massively overpowered is your only concern then ignore whether someone is using a bag of rats, it's not going to matter for you.

Cleave wouldn't work against empty air, the extra damage only triggers on a hit and you can't hit empty air. You can, however, target an empty square. Bag of rats is irrelevant in this example, because the bag of rats rule specifically refers to cheesing the system to get the beneficial effects of the Hit result of a power. That's not what we're doing here.

 

[Krensus]

Except that, by RAW, you can target an empty square with a melee or ranged attack (PHB p. 272). In fact, you have to be able to, or there's no way to try to hit invisible creatures. Would you deny the ranger the use of split the tree if there was an invisible enemy on the battlefield, and the ranger thought it was in a square that made it a valid target for the power?

I have to concede this point and agree with you here. RAW you are able to attack a square, and you are given an additional attack roll that you can use for Split the Tree if it's higher. I forgot all about this, that's my fault. Thanks for the catch.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Cleave wouldn't work against empty air, the extra damage only triggers on a hit and you can't hit empty air. You can, however, target an empty square. Bag of rats is irrelevant in this example, because the bag of rats rule specifically refers to cheesing the system to get the beneficial effects of the Hit result of a power. That's not what we're doing here.

Empty air, ground, empty square, all same thing in this gamist system. So fine, I'll play with your empty semantics. You hit the bag o' rats/ground/empty square with your cleave to get the beneficial effect. And that is exactly what is being done here.

 

[Kordeth]

Empty air, ground, empty square, all same thing in this gamist system. So fine, I'll play with your empty semantics. You hit the bag o' rats/ground/empty square with your cleave to get the beneficial effect. And that is exactly what is being done here.

Wrong. You cannot hit a creature that isn't there. You can target an empty (or seemingly empty) square, but unless there is a creature in that square, you do not hit. Cleave has a Target: One creature and a Hit: Damage + additional Str damage to an adjacent creature. Any attempt to use Cleave that does not hit a creature does not trigger the extra damage. The bag o' rats is covered by the bag o' rats rule and in any case is irrelevant to the discussion.

Split the Tree, on the other hand, works completely differently than Cleave. You choose two targets, make two attack rolls, and use the best of those two rolls for both targets. You then apply the Hit result to any creature hit by the attack. As previously established, an empty square is a valid target for any melee or ranged attack that targets a creature, so this is 100% rules-legal. No part of the results of Split the Tree (aside from the basic damage) is reliant on two targets actually being hit, so this is 100% rules legal.

It's not "empty semantics." It's not a bag o' rats scenario. It's a sub-optimal but still entirely RAW use of the power.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Empty air, ground, empty square, all same thing in this gamist system. So fine, I'll play with your empty semantics. You hit the bag o' rats/ground/empty square with your cleave to get the beneficial effect. And that is exactly what is being done here.

Tone down the attitude a bit, please.

And to Krensus and any others tempted to do so, don't try to appeal to authority of "my opinion is according to the rules, your's isn't".

Everyone is welcome to debate how they wish to interpret the rules.

Thanks

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Wrong. You cannot hit a creature that isn't there. You can target an empty (or seemingly empty) square, but unless there is a creature in that square, you do not hit. Cleave has a Target: One creature and a Hit: Damage + additional Str damage to an adjacent creature. Any attempt to use Cleave that does not hit a creature does not trigger the extra damage. The bag o' rats is covered by the bag o' rats rule and in any case is irrelevant to the discussion.

For all effective purposes empty air, the ground, and a bag of rats are all identical as far as attacking a square goes, right? A main reason we still have the bag o' rats rule in 4E is because you can always come up with something to Hit in an "empty square" if you try hard enough. And it's not necessarily over-powered to do so, as with 4E's cleave. It just leads to ridiculous scenarios.

Split the Tree, on the other hand, works completely differently than Cleave. You choose two targets, make two attack rolls, and use the best of those two rolls for both targets. You then apply the Hit result to any creature hit by the attack. As previously established, an empty square is a valid target for any melee or ranged attack that targets a creature, so this is 100% rules-legal. No part of the results of Split the Tree (aside from the basic damage) is reliant on two targets actually being hit, so this is 100% rules legal.

It's not "empty semantics." It's not a bag o' rats scenario. It's a sub-optimal but still entirely RAW use of the power.

Yes, Split the Tree triggers off the Attack line and not the Hit line. You're still shooting at a leaf blowing through the air so you can get two effective attack rolls on one real target. You're still abusing that bag 'o rats.

You're trying to make a lot out of the targeting empty squares to hit invisible creatures and it seems to me that the tail is wagging the dog. Because you should be able to try and hit creatures you can't see, you can target the square you think an invisible creature is in. A character would have no reason to try and target it if there was no invisible creature *or the character didn't think there was an invisible creature* and if in some bizzare circumstance they still really wanted to, since it can have no mechanical effect the DM can simply handwave it away. Without a credible threat, without an actual defense to hit, there's no point to an attack roll in the first place.

I suppose that targeting an empty square is not the same thing as making an attack roll against an empty square. Two separate lines on a power entry, just as an Attack Line is generally separate from the Hit line. We already knew that from Area powers, but this appears to illustrate the truths of that for multiple-target non-area powers as well.

 

[Branduil]

I really don't see a good reason not to allow a Ranger to use split the tree against one opponent.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Yes, Split the Tree triggers off the Attack line and not the Hit line. You're still shooting at a leaf blowing through the air so you can get two effective attack rolls on one real target. You're still abusing that bag 'o rats.

Well, actually you are using up a daily power to get two effective attack rolls on one real target. The daily power is still used up - you are just affecting half the possible number of targets with it.