To split or not to split

[Smeelbo]

An "object" could be as insubstantial as a shadow. One could legitimately shoot into a shadow, or a square granting concealment if you insist, if one suspected there might be someone hiding there.

I did think that "without a credible threat, without an actual defense to hit, there's no point to an attack roll in the first place," while clear and insightful, is trumped by the specifics of attacking an empty square. There are many powers with secondary attacks that attack a different target. Can you only make those primary attacks against a foe who has a nearby buddy?

I conclude you can attack the empty square.

Smeelbo

 

[mischa84]

For this secondary effects i would really set a DC to hit that damn square.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For this secondary effects i would really set a DC to hit that damn square.

For Split the Tree, it doesn't matter, though.

Let's say you decide to set the DC of hitting the square at 30. (You're feeling contrary.) The AC of the creature is only 15.

The ranger rolls two attack rolls, and the higher attack roll is applied to both targets.

He rolls a 9, and a 22.

The 22 is applied to the square, and misses. It's applied to the creature, and hits.

The ranger doesn't care that he missed the square. All he cares about is whether or not he hits the creature.

The only way it would make a difference is if there was, in fact, an invisible creature hiding in that square!

-Hyp.