[Exploits] Ranger Daily: Split the Tree

[Mercule]

I don't see this as an issue. The ranger places one arrow on either side of the bow to fire, or turns the bow and fires separated arrows. As someone who has done some archery, I understand that the above isn't particularly likely within the bounds of physics, but it's a subtle enough bend that I'm okay with it.

 

[Klaus]

I think it was Costner in his Robin Hood version who ripped off part of the fletching of two arrows, nocked and shot them as one, only to have them veer apart somewhen inbetween him and his targets. Could be faulty memory, though..but i'm sure I saw that scene somewhere. I'd not ascribe magical properties to that ability outright.

Actually, IIRC, he ripped the fletching of one arrow, so one flew more or less straight, and the other veered to another foe.

 

[Cadfan]

Its functionally the same as firing twice, except not quite as good because you have to shoot at targets close to each other. So if you hate the flavor text, ignore it. Shooting two different targets is hardly TEH BORKEN!!! 3e rangers who select the Archery track can do it at will.

I've been ignoring and redescribing flavor text for... years. Literally years. I'm sure you can get the hang of it.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This could be explained as the ranger nocking an arrow one on each side of the bow and releasing them that way - a little over the top, as I don't know how plausible that is in real-life use, but no so much that it bothers me.

And Sitara - we mods occassionally do post our own thoughts, too rather than just our "moderator" opinions...

Generally if we need to get all mod-ish, we'll post in Mod Voice.

Or from time to time, we'll post in what I like to call Voice of an Angry Mod.

Otherwise, its just regular old poster voice, just like anyone else.

 

[Stormtalon]

Its functionally the same as firing twice, except not quite as good because you have to shoot at targets close to each other. So if you hate the flavor text, ignore it. Shooting two different targets is hardly TEH BORKEN!!! 3e rangers who select the Archery track can do it at will.

Except it's better because while you DO make two attack rolls, you get to pick the better one and use it against BOTH targets. Therefore, if you crit one, ya crit both. "Hi, my name is World O'Hurt and I'll be serving you today."

 

[TerraDave]

In play: really cool fun.

I thought the new ranger was great. But, he needs toughness or something. Was a little fragile, but still seemed very entertaining to play.

 

[Incendax]

The flavor text explicity states the arrows split in middair. I know heroes are heores at first level, (they always have been, in this edition they are more so).I just was not aware that heroes at first level also have latent telekinetic abilities.

The problem you are suffering is over analyzing the term 'Midair'. Strictly speaking, that does effectively mean 'the middle point of their travel distance', but I strongly believe the term was simply meant to intend 'while in the air'. In your interpretation, the arrows suddenly change trajectory. In the more casual interpretation, they started to veer the moment they were launched. (ala Robin Hood)

Just another case where the true depth and specific nature of the English language is smudged by common jargon. I don't know about you, but when my friends tend to screw up grammar and mis-use words I don't get too upset with them. But as you said, I don't pay them to deliver a well edited product.

 

[Wulfram]

Exactly the same way I explain Greater Manyshot. It's a Legolas-style trick where the archer puts his fingertip between the two arrows, which fire off in different directions, striking different targets. I don't see what's so hard about that, when you compare it to, say, falling damage.

Minimum Greater Manyshot level = 6
Minimum Split the Tree level = 1

The same thing goes for those bringing up star footballers, Legolas and Beckham. None of those guys are 1st level.

Has anyone ever claimed that 3.5e falling damage was a good rule?

It's a per encounter power because between encounters the Ranger prepares the fletching of a couple of arrows so they will do this. He doesn't want to prepare all the arrows this way because then they will all do some funky bending, and most of the time he wants his arrows to fly straight and true.

It's actually daily rather than encounterly, though that doesn't effect your argument much.

His straight and true arrows don't seem to be much more accurate than his wonky ones - unless I've messed up somewhere, against targets which he's got a 50% chance or better of hitting with his normal "Careful Attack", he'll have a better chance of hitting both targets with his Split the Tree attack.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

In your interpretation, the arrows suddenly change trajectory. In the more casual interpretation, they started to veer the moment they were launched. (ala Robin Hood)

Either that or it's just a matter of how geometry works. If you launch two arrows 3 degrees off from each other, they'll be close together a foot in front of you and will have separated considerably by the time they're 40 feet away from you.

 

[Dausuul]

Just another case where the true depth and specific nature of the English language is smudged by common jargon. I don't know about you, but when my friends tend to screw up grammar and mis-use words I don't get too upset with them. But as you said, I don't pay them to deliver a well edited product.

*shrug* Flavor text has never been WotC's strong point. The quality and clarity of flavor text in WotC books is conspicuously worse than that of the rules text, and there is often no more than a token effort to make the flavor text match what the rules do.

It's mildly irritating, but eh. Mainly what I want from WotC is solid rules. I can take care of any flavor tweaks that are needed.

Minimum Greater Manyshot level = 6
Minimum Split the Tree level = 1

The same thing goes for those bringing up star footballers, Legolas and Beckham. None of those guys are 1st level.

1st level is the new 4th level. WotC seems to have realized that making "1st level PC" equal "wet-behind-the-ears novice" is stupid; characters at that level of skill would still be at home training, not out adventuring.

Adventuring is, frankly, a suicidally dangerous profession. You're taking on foes who are typically more numerous and/or much bigger than you, and you're doing so on their turf, where they've had plenty of time to plan and prepare defenses. And this is what you do for a living.

You have to be pretty damn bad-ass to take even an entry-level job as an adventurer. Hence, you get abilities commensurate with being bad-ass, even at 1st level. Either you've already had a fair bit of experience as a guard or militia member or the like, or you are, in the grand tradition of adolescent fantasy heroes, possessed of prodigious natural talent.