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

[Radiating Gnome]

See, now, that's the sort of help I was looking for -- people who agree with me.

Ultimately, I think you can read it either way if you're inclined to read it that way.

One thought -- on the subject of why the power does not specify "two attacks" the way others do -- this power must be use on two targets, and in all of the other cases the PCs is able to make two attacks on either two targets or a single target.

Since the power clearly states that you're attacking two targets, there's no need to make it clear that you're making two attacks, the way the other powers might need that clarity. And, without clearly deliniated changes to the basic rules, I think I'm going to end up sticking with the reading based on the descriptions on page 270. Simplicty be damned!

-j

 

[Danceofmasks]

*shrug*
It's not a big deal to do everything at once anyway. You just need some way of telling the difference.

Example:

Player picks up a handful of dice.
Says, "Split the tree, these two targets, red for ogre."
Rolls: 2D20, 4D10, 1D8 (2D10 are the same colour as a D20 .. for the usual stuff like twin strike)
Pick up the D20 that rolled lower, and put it aside.
Deal damage.

 

[essenbee]

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

Two attack rolls, take the highest. Roll damage per target as per the rules for Ranged attacks.

 

[essenbee]

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

The guy is wrong and your original reading of the power is correct.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't really see how either interpretation is more powerful than the other, as long as you're consistent.

 

[Kobu]

It's one applied attack roll, one damage roll. Taking the better of the multiple attack rolls has no bearing on the damage roll.

If it had the "this is two attacks" phrasing, then it would be a different story.

 

[am181d]

In situations where it makes no difference, choose the option that is more fun for the player.

 

[Pielorinho]

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.

I'm not sure how to get that interpretation from the powe; I don't see anything there about rolling twice for damage.

Daniel

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I don't really see how either interpretation is more powerful than the other, as long as you're consistent.

These arguments usually seem to arise after the dice have been rolled. The player rolls a 10 on his 10-sider, and by sheer coincidence favors the ruling that it applies to both targets. You'll see the opposite POV after a 1 comes up.

All players named in this post are purely fictional. Any resemblance to real players is purely incidental, and should for no reason inspire lawsuits, car bombs or malicious rickrolling.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The way I read it is, it's one attack that can hit 2 targets. You get to choose the best roll out of two d20 rolls.

As for damage, you roll damage once and apply that result to both targets.

Compare to how Twin Strike works, where it specifies Hit: 1[W] damage per attack.. StT lacks "per attack", so it is clear (to me anyway) that it is just a single attack dealing x damage to 2 targets.

Edit: Prestidigitalis brings up a good point. At what point during the game did the player question how this works? Was it after the damage roll was made? If so, what was the result of the first damage roll?

Ask your player this: Had you rolled minimum damage, would you have applied that damage to both targets, or would you have made a 2nd damage roll for the 2nd target?

Edit 2: Just to be clear what the OP is asking (because there is more than 2 options here):

Regarding the Damage roll. Which is your player assuming, and which are you assuming?
1) You make 1 damage roll, apply that result to both targets. (1 roll total)
2) You make 1 damage roll for each target. (2 rolls total)
3) You make 2 damage rolls, take the best of the two rolls, and apply that damage to both targets. (2 rolls total)
4) You make 2 damage rolls for each target. Take the best of the two rolls for the first target, and apply the damage. Take the best of the two rolls for the second target, and apply the damage (4 rolls total).

I'm under the impression your opinion is 3 and your player's is 1. Just want to make sure your player isn't assuming option 2, and you're not assuming option 4...