Split the Tree: Help me convince a player who doesn't agree

[Radiating Gnome]

Here's my problem. I have a player who believes that, as he reads the "Split the Tree" power, he should roll one damage roll for both targets of the spell.

Here's a quote (phb 106)

"Attack: Dexterity vs. AC. Make two attack rolls, take the
higher result, and apply it to both targets.
Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage."

Now, I don't see anything in the rules that indicates to me that, while you use the highest attack roll on two targets, the damage roll is also shared. So, as I read it, roll two attacks, take the highest roll, roll damage for each target separately. It seems awfully clear to me.

Anyone out there see where my player is coming from? Does he have any sort of leg to stand on?

-j

 

[Larrin]

He has a leg to stand on.....in general an individual attack deals the same damage to each foe (barring crits), whether it is a basic attack against a single foe or a scorching burst against 9 opponents. Separate attacks deal differing damage. The question is 'is split the tree one attack or two?'. Your player obviously thinks its one attack, you think its two (but they happen to use the same roll).

It isn't overly clear.

I would say its one attack, and you just roll twice and choose the best one. Ie its one attack with a built in re-rollish thing. I say this because it says " apply it to both targets" not "apply it to both attacks". Its a close call, though. Either way you rule your aren't really cheating the player out of anything (unless his first damage roll is always really high...).

 

[baberg]

PHB, Page 270 is the answer you're looking for.

"A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll."

Split the Tree overrules the first part of this rule (specific beats general) so you roll twice and take the highest for the attack, but you still have separate damage rolls as per the rule on 270, because there is no "area of effect" which leads to a single damage roll for all targets.

 

[Pielorinho]

I dunno. Look at twin strike, two-fanged strike, and jaws of the wolf. All of them, under attack, end with the words "two attacks." This one doesn't, which leds me to think that it's one attack, for which you make two rolls and keep the higher.

Really, though, the damage will average out the same, won't it? I can't see any advantage at all to one approach or the other, except that over a very long time, making two damage rolls will make the damage bell curve slightly higher in the middle.

Daniel

 

[Bison]

The advantage is that the power lets you roll twice and use the better result for both attacks, which will give you a higher average damage if you read that the power applies to both attack rolls and damage.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

It does seem like a striking ommission to lack "per attack", which is so uniform on the other attacks.

And, ultimately, the results will even out, as you've said.

Still, I prefer the reading suggested by the quote on page 270 . . . and not just because that's the reading that makes me "right". I'm close to that shallow, but not quite.

-j

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW We've just gone with the simplicity of one damage roll. Of course, the first time it came up, the ranger got a crit with his 'split the tree' so it was obviously 24 damage to both targets. We just followed on from there.

Cheers

 

[Radiating Gnome]

You guys are totally letting me down. I can't believe that I'm actually starting to see it your way.

I made a rule for myself a couple of weeks ago, trying to sort out the "right" take on some other rules -- if you look at the possible options and pick the one that is the simplest, easiest way to handle it, that's almost always the "right" one. And, rolling one set of damage is easier than rolling two.

Sheesh. I tell this guy he's right he's going to be impossible to live with . . .

-j

 

[PHGraves]

Multiple target damage resolution boils down to attack type (PHB 270-271).

Melee - resolved with separate rolls
Ranged - resolved with separate rolls
Area - resolved with single roll
Close - resolved with single roll

While it may be easier to roll once for damage, there is nothing in the power that overrides this basic rule.

 

[Squire James]

Hmm... I don't know. The last time I saw a Split the Tree resolved, the ranger rolled a natural 1 and a natural 20 vs. 2 full-HP Gravehounds! Talk about an unexpectedly easy encounter...

I'd call it two attacks, rolled seaparately. I might change my mind when we play tomorrow.