Newb question on two weapon powers.

[Aduro]

Just starting up in DnD and am seeing this line or some similar variation in some of the Fighter and Ranger powers that require two weapons;

Targets: Two creatures
Attack: Strength vs AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), one attack per target

Now, does this mean I'm hitting them each with both weapons, or I'm hitting one with the main weapon, and the other with the off-hand?

 

[Mort_Q]

Two attacks; one on one target (main), one on the other (offhand).

 

[Amaroq]

Yeah - for a new player understanding this, it might be easier to read this as

Attack: Strength vs AC, using main weapon
Target: one creature
Damage: 1[W]
Effect: Make a Secondary Attack using your off-hand weapon
Secondary Attack: Strength vs AC, using off-hand weapon
Secondary Target: one creature not targeted by the first attack
Secondary Damage: 1[w]

Where upper-case W is main weapon damage, and lower-case w is offhand weapon damage.

Note that there is a huge difference in the way I've phrased it, and this is why the game designers haven't phrased it this way:

In the power as originally written, both attacks are simultaneous. You declare the targets concurrently, you roll to-hit concurrently, and you roll damage concurrently. Therefore, an Immediate Reaction triggered by the main weapon's attack doesn't have any chance of stopping the off-hand-weapon's attack.

The way I've written it above - for example purposes only - would change that, making it so that an Immediate Reaction triggered by the main weapon's attack to conceivably affect or stop the off-hand-weapon's attack.

Hope that's helped to clarify things - if those last two paragraphs are confusing you, re-read the original power, compare it to the way I've got the example worded, and re-read the PHB (Players Handbook) section on Immediate Reactions until it makes sense!

 

[Starfox]

Sorry to the OP for going off on a tangent. I think Amaroq explaination answers the original question perfectly well, but the note is not kosher.

Note that there is a huge difference in the way I've phrased it, and this is why the game designers haven't phrased it this way:

In the power as originally written, both attacks are simultaneous. You declare the targets concurrently, you roll to-hit concurrently, and you roll damage concurrently. Therefore, an Immediate Reaction triggered by the main weapon's attack doesn't have any chance of stopping the off-hand-weapon's attack.

The way I've written it above - for example purposes only - would change that, making it so that an Immediate Reaction triggered by the main weapon's attack to conceivably affect or stop the off-hand-weapon's attack.

This reading depends on how you define "attack" - one of the most nebulous terms of 4E. I think I'd let a reaction occur between the two attacks, since (even if they are on the same line) they are still two separate attack rolls.

 

[Amaroq]

True enough - there has been quite a bit of debate on that subject; I've seen very good arguments on both sides.

So as not to overwhelm our new player with that debate, I'm quite content to agree to disagree, and simply point it out as something that your group should agree upon ahead of time!

If the attacks resolve simultaneously, then
- a Ranger has to name both targets before rolling attack dice, so he doesn't know if one attack is sufficient to kill the target.
- an Immediate Reaction power to one of the attacks cannot apply modifiers to or prevent the other attack.

If the attacks resolve sequentially, as in my example text, then
- a Ranger can roll one attack, learn the result, and then name the target for the second
- but an Immediate Reaction power to the first attack could apply modifiers to the second, or prevent the second attack.

Clearly, this can work both in the party's favor or against the party, depending on the circumstances. Just be consistent!

 

[Starfox]

Actually, it is close to a non-issue for PCs, as few monsters have powers like this. But if the Dm starts using monsters with Twin Strike, this will come up all the time.

 

[Samir]

True enough - there has been quite a bit of debate on that subject; I've seen very good arguments on both sides.

So as not to overwhelm our new player with that debate, I'm quite content to agree to disagree, and simply point it out as something that your group should agree upon ahead of time!

If the attacks resolve simultaneously, then
- a Ranger has to name both targets before rolling attack dice, so he doesn't know if one attack is sufficient to kill the target.
- an Immediate Reaction power to one of the attacks cannot apply modifiers to or prevent the other attack.!

Per PHB p268:

An immediate reaction might interrupt other
actions a combatant takes after its triggering action.
For example, if a power lets you attack as an imme-
diate reaction when an attack hits you, your action
happens before the monster that hit you can take
any other action. If a monster has a power that lets
it make two attack rolls against you as a standard
action, and the first one hits, you can use an immedi-
ate reaction before the next attack roll.

Thus even if you choose to resolve multi-attacks simultaneously, you can use an immediate reaction before the second attack roll, RAW.