To split or not to split

[Larrin]

Worst case senario: One target allows only one attack roll only. Basically it gives you a single chance to make a 2W attack. Pretty harsh gimp of a daily, but might be worth it. maybe....actually you're probably almost better off twin striking. Still, if you're a DM and you feel the rules really mean '2 targets' this is at least a compromise.

Best case senario: One target allows for two attack rolls, take the best result. you get two chances to make a 2W attack. Pretty good for a daily, but significantly less good than it usually is against two targets. Not overpowered, not going to break anything, not going to punish the player, not going to swing the encounter. Its basically just a rolled in Elven Accuracy, once a day. There is NO 'brokeness' reason not to allow this, just a rules one....and the rules one has a few (loop)holes in it (targeting 'invisible' enemies, etc.) While i don't think the 'targeting invisible' enemies qualifies as a bag of rats, it is silly enough that i would say 'don't bother, just attack the one target'.

Stupidly overgood case senario: DM lets you consider the single enemy as both targets, allow two 2W attacks against it. Obviously too powerful. never even consider this.


BOTTOM LINE: While an initial look at it seems to say 'you must have two targets', they are plenty of reasons to allow just one target and not really any reason that its a bad idea to allow just one target. It helps the ranger, whose daily is otherwise not useable in solo fights, and 'punishes/gives-unfair-advantages' to no one. Let it happen.

 

[Kordeth]

Yes, Split the Tree triggers off the Attack line and not the Hit line. You're still shooting at a leaf blowing through the air so you can get two effective attack rolls on one real target. You're still abusing that bag 'o rats.

I've already explained how it's perfectly legal by the rules; can you please explain how it's "abuse?" You aren't:

1) Making the attack roll any easier on yourself.
2) Gaining any additional effects.
3) Gaining the advantage of a power at no cost or risk.

You are:

1) Sacrificing 2[W] + Dex modifier damage output
2) Giving up the ability to hit two targets with one action (and with a higher likelihood of hitting both targets than with two separate attacks).

There's no conceivable way that's "abuse," unless you seriously think that hitting a single target with a single attack is somehow more powerful than hitting two attacks.

If a ranger twin strikes a hobgoblin but kills it with the first of his two attacks, is it "abuse" for the ranger to forego his second attack if there are no other enemies around? Or would you force him to attack his fighter ally because twin strike says "two attacks?"

Multiple targets are a benefit, not a balancing factor.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

I've already explained how it's perfectly legal by the rules; can you please explain how it's "abuse?" You aren't:

I'm sorry, my use of the word "abuse" apparently misled you. My usage there was just another way of saying "you are still hitting the proverbial bag of rats". If you don't have a problem with a ranger shooting at a leaf on the wind, a bag of rats, the ground, etc, whatever narrative mechanism you choose for the non-credible threat the second attack roll is being made against, then go right ahead. The OP asked a question and my response is that I think it's a bag of rats situation.

There are other powers which say "One or two targets, one attack per target." There is an actively used structure for powers doing what the OP asked, and that structure wasn't used in Split the Tree. It easily could have been and would have been much clearer. Multiple targets is usually a benefit, but it can also be a limit. Maybe you find that idea objectionable. That's fine, I happen to feel much the same way about the way you apply the rule for targeting invisible creatures.

 

[Caliber]

I'm sorry, my use of the word "abuse" apparently misled you. My usage there was just another way of saying "you are still hitting the proverbial bag of rats". If you don't have a problem with a ranger shooting at a leaf on the wind, a bag of rats, the ground, etc, whatever narrative mechanism you choose for the non-credible threat the second attack roll is being made against, then go right ahead. The OP asked a question and my response is that I think it's a bag of rats situation.

There are other powers which say "One or two targets, one attack per target." There is an actively used structure for powers doing what the OP asked, and that structure wasn't used in Split the Tree. It easily could have been and would have been much clearer. Multiple targets is usually a benefit, but it can also be a limit. Maybe you find that idea objectionable. That's fine, I happen to feel much the same way about the way you apply the rule for targeting invisible creatures.

This is slightly off-topic, but in a similar conversation on another message board a poster asked if you HAD to take the extra attack with the Fighter's Passing Attack if no enemies were about (ie, if you Passing Attacked and dropped a guy, do you then have to make your Secondary Attack into your buddy?) Thoughts? Rulings?

 

[nittanytbone]

Put me solidly into the camp that would allow the ranger to just target one enemy. This is clearly not within the intent of the "bag o' rats." The bag of rats, IMHO, is meant to prevent abuse of something like a cleric's Sacred Flame -- you can't just attack the ground to trigger a save or some temp HP.

Using Split the Tree against just one target doesn't trigger any sort of benefit. Its actually a poor way to use it. Using it against a single target almost puts it on par with Encounter powers, even with the reroll!

 

[Gort]

I'd allow it. Using the ground as a target could get abusive in other circumstances, but not these.

 

[mischa84]

I will have to search for the correct phrase in th rulebooks but in one place there is mentioned that you can always target an object instead of an creature/enemy/ally.
So if your DM gives you a DC to attack a rock on the floor everything should be perfect.

(Although I think another phrase somewhere else allows you to target and attack an empty space instead of an object.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

(Although I think another phrase somewhere else allows you to target and attack an empty space instead of an object.)

As somebody has probably already mentioned, it would be pretty difficult to attack anyone who was invisible if you can't target an empty space!

Cheers

 

[vhailor]

Thank you all for your replies. Well, our DM allowed me to use it targeting an empty square as the second target. Well he is a God, what can we say?

 

[Syrsuro]

The rules are actually pretty clear on this.

DMs are, of course, free to rule however they wish.

PHB, page 272:

When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy.

In addition, from the errata:​

“Some powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential target.”

A ranged attack with a bow certainly falls into the category of attacks which ought to logically be allowed to attack objects, so I would definately allow it.​

I don't think there is much doubt that the power can be used to attack a single target, doing - of course - only a single arrow's worth of damage. Yes, it essentially allows a reroll of the attack since you are rolling two dice and using the best. But the catch is that there is no miss effect and it has no other effect aside from damage.

Carl

Note: Some powers indicate "one or two targets" not because to indicate that the second target is not necessary, but to indicate whether or not both attacks can be directed at a single opponet. In the case of Split the Tree, this means that both attacks must be targetted at different opponents (or squares).​