Acrobatic Assault - 1 target or 3?

[evilbob]

This may have been asked before, but I need some help clarifying the Martial Power level 25 rogue daily power Acrobatic Assault.

When I first read the power, I thought it was ambiguous as to whether or not you could use all three attacks against the same target (you don't have to shift, obviously). Then, I read A Murder of One (the level 29 rogue daily power in the same book), which specifically says it targets something "other than the primary" and "other than the primary and secondary" targets.

It seems that many attacks specify "other than the primary" when they mean to spread the damage around, and Acrobatic Assault does not. It also technically says "a second target," which according to the target line is "one creature" - which should include as a possibility the original target.

What sayest thou?

 

[PHGraves]

I have not seen this power in action, but I am leaning on the side of three separate targets. The phrases "second target" and "third target" don't make much sense if you are attacking the same target each time.

ymmv

 

[Bigwilly]

It doesn't specifically say a different target, although the flavor text does indicate that you attack multiple targets. However, RAW there is nothing to stop you just shifting around the same target and attacking it with all 3 attacks.

I would houserule it that it needs to be 3 different targets. At the very least I would rule that the second target needs to be different. This would allow the PC to tumble (shift) back to the original target for the 3rd attack (also hinted at in the flavor text).

 

[evilbob]

It doesn't specifically say a different target, although the flavor text does indicate that you attack multiple targets. However, RAW there is nothing to stop you just shifting around the same target and attacking it with all 3 attacks.

The flavor text also says you return to your starting position, which doesn't make much sense, either. But yes, this is how I read the power as well.

In fact, you really don't even need to shift: you can just attack three times while standing still, at least how I read it. It makes for a weird comparison with Cruel Pursuit, however - a power that specifically does target one thing twice. This is vs. reflex instead of AC and you can move the enemy around as well, but it seems like three hits is still way better than two.

Secondary question: do the second and third attacks from Acrobatic Assault also do half damage on a miss? The effect says "repeat the attack" so again, it seems like it does... Other thoughts?

 

[evilbob]

Same question(s): Blade Storm, fighter level 29 daily (also Martial Power).

 

[evilbob]

Any other thoughts on Blade Storm or Acrobatic Assault? I feel pretty sure that they do 1/2 damage on a miss, since you repeat the attack - but just wondering if there's any good reason to not allow targeting the same creature multiple times.

 

[Mengu]

Tempest Dance and Blade Dance have the same wording also. My interpretation is that the targets have to be different. That's why it says pick a second target. Second target is not first target, it must be different.

Storm of Blows (Fighter 13) I think makes it clearer what is meant by this wording, because it says "another" and "a third" instead of "a second" and "a third". But I believe they are all intended for the same mechanic of picking different targets.

 

[chitzk0i]

If the power uses the same wording as Tempest Dance, then this Ask Wizards would be helpful

 

[evilbob]

If the power uses the same wording as Tempest Dance, then this Ask Wizards would be helpful

Ah, ok - yes, they all have the EXACT same wording in the effect line, with the only difference being how far you can shift between attacks.

So it seems like even though A Murder of One specifically says that the second target must be different than the first, Cust. Serv. is going with "second target" always means that, regardless of whether or not it specifies being different from the first. Which honestly still leaves me confused as to whether or not this could still be open to interpretation, or if the authors just didn't make a decent attempt at standardizing their language. Given that the WotC books are STILL being printed with omissions and bad copy editing, the later seems at least as likely.

Well, guess I was wrong. Thanks for the link!