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

[DracoSuave]

The question is whether the specific in this case contradicts the general rule. The specific may do so: it doesn't include the language that otherwise indicates multiple attacks for a ranged attack, and it furthermore uses a single ranged attack roll to apply to multiple enemies.

I don't think there's a perfect case to make either way. Since it doesn't much matter, I'd be willing to let the player choose how to play it, as long as the player chooses before using it and is consistent.

Daniel

In a house game, sure. In an RPGA game, you generally have to go for the correct interpretation.

In terms of the power, the exception is how the attacks are rolled. The damage, on the other hand, is not mentioned, so there exists no exception. Therefore one refers to the general rule.

'Exception Trumps General' isn't a catch all excuse to start saying everything is an exception to the general rules. It's just a way of saying 'Look, if the power blatantly says it works differently, then it does.' This power blatantly works differently in how the attack rolls are resolved, and does not blatantly work differently in how damage rolls are resolved.

The converse of Exception Trumps General is 'When there's no exception, apply the damn general rule. That's why we have it.'

And the power DOES have language indicating multiple attacks.

"Targets: Two creatures within 3 squares of each other."

By the rule, two targets for a Ranged power means two seperate attacks. That's the rule. What other powers say or do not say is irrelevant.

 

[Pielorinho]

In a house game, sure. In an RPGA game, you generally have to go for the correct interpretation.

In an RPGA game, you're right, you have to go for the interpretation adopted by the RPGA. I'm not convinced that the interpretation you espouse is the one they'll adopt. It may well be, but the language in this case is ambiguous.

Daniel

 

[smerwin29]

In an RPGA game, you're right, you have to go for the interpretation adopted by the RPGA. I'm not convinced that the interpretation you espouse is the one they'll adopt. It may well be, but the language in this case is ambiguous.

Daniel

This is a bit of a misconception. The RPGA no longer makes "interpretations" or otherwise makes clarifying rulings. The RPGA uses the rules, along with any errata or clarifications handed down directly by WotC. In cases where interpretations are different, the power rests solely with the DM to rule as he/she deems appropriate.

Thanks,

Shawn
Global Administrator
Living Forgotten Realms

 

[Pielorinho]

Thanks for the clarification, Shawn!
Daniel

 

[DracoSuave]

In an RPGA game, you're right, you have to go for the interpretation adopted by the RPGA. I'm not convinced that the interpretation you espouse is the one they'll adopt. It may well be, but the language in this case is ambiguous.

Daniel

There is no ambiguity in language, however. Rule A says Do Procedure X, then Do Procedure Y. Power B says Do Procedure Z instead of X. Nothing says don't do Procedure Y, so you do Procedure Y.

Procedure X is roll a seperate attack roll for each monster. Procedure Z is roll two attack rolls and apply the better to each monster. Procedure Y is roll separate damage rolls for each monster. Nothing's replaced it.

Where 'ambiguity' comes into play is when someone takes the rules for Area and Close attacks (which are irrelevant to this instance) and tries to apply them in one way or aother. This is not an Area nor Close attack, so why introduce this complication to the argument? The ambiguity does not exist, only a confusion between how to resolve Ranged attack-types and Area attack-types.

Plus, the inclusion of 'two attacks' text on certain powers is misleading in this argument. In every case, one of the following is possible:

1: You may select one or two targets, in which case, an exception needs to be explicitly made so you can target one target with two attacks.
2: The power in question is modal and can be used as a Melee or Ranged attack-type power. With the Melee attack-type, the attacks are with two different weapons, main-hand and off-hand, and the Ranged attack-type, for clarity sake, mentions two attacks so you know you can use the same bow twice.
3: All of the above.

Split the Tree does not have any of these qualities, and therefore, does not need the language to do what the General Rule already states it does.