Twin Strike or similar powers & target selection

[Infiniti2000]

I don't think the flavor or the RAW agree with this interpretation. In fact, I'm rather surprised you changed sides on this. Was some errata released that I'm not aware of?

I didn't realize at first this was my quote. Sorry, I would respond more quickly if you identify the originator.

Anyway, yes, I changed my view. I didn't post such a change in that other thread, but essentially I (now) agree with the idea that you choose the targets of a power when you first use it unless the power itself has clear text to the contrary (e.g. follow-up or secondary hits). And, I play a ranger so this isn't about a DM decision to nerf TS.

 

[eriktheguy]

When the rules aren't clear I always go for what is more fun for the player. Having an attack wasted because the first one killed the target is not fun. I say let them choose before each individual attack roll.

That's what I like to call 'Final Fantasy Syndrome' (FFI anyways)

 

[KarinsDad]

When the rules aren't clear I always go for what is more fun for the player. Having an attack wasted because the first one killed the target is not fun. I say let them choose before each individual attack roll.

Why does the player have to be informed?

Player: "I do Twin Strike on the Hobgoblin."
DM: "Roll your attacks."
Player: "22 and 25."
DM: "Both hit, roll damage."
Player: "17 with Hunter's Quarry on the first attack and 9 on the second attack."
DM: "Your two swords slice across the legs and chest of the Bugbear, dropping it dead to the ground."

The Bugbear had 1 hit points remaining. Who cares? The player still had fun dropping a foe.

There is no "this ruling is more fun than the other ruling" here. Both can be fun.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Agreed, KD. However, the opposite can be not fun by extending the action. Most of the time when it won't matter, you'll simply be consuming more time by resolving both actions independently with the DM. Roll attack, confirm hit, damage, check if dead, if not then repeat ....

 

[KarinsDad]

Agreed, KD. However, the opposite can be not fun by extending the action. Most of the time when it won't matter, you'll simply be consuming more time by resolving both actions independently with the DM. Roll attack, confirm hit, damage, check if dead, if not then repeat ....

Yup. The chances of this corner case occurring at all (i.e. a) using Twin Strike, b) both attacks hit, and c) the first attack kills, the second attack is wasted) are extremely rare and a lot less time consuming compared to the constant:

DM: "Ok, you hit with the first, roll damage."
Player: "12. Did that kill it?"
DM: "No. What are you doing?"
Player: "I'll attack the same foe with my second attack.", etc.

The game is a lot more streamlined, efficient, and (dare I say it) fun when the player just declares what he is doing, rolls the dice, totals them, the DM applies the totals, and then declares any special results.

It is more fun because almost any time combat is streamlined (no need to wait, no long decision making, no need to look rules up, etc.), then each player's turn comes around quicker.

 

[Danceofmasks]

There are corner cases when it does matter, though.

Such as a rageblood barbarian/wildrunner using a close burst 1 attack.
In the same party as a bard with a ranged weapon.

3 enemies in a line, with a boss right behind them.
Barbarian walks up to the line and swings with a close burst 1.
First attack is deliberately rolled vs the guy in the middle of line.
Misses by a mile.
Bard chimes in and replaces attack roll with Rewrite the Future (which was used recently).
Bam. Surprise, it's a crit. We already knew it was gonna happen.
Barbarian plays Press the Attack and Rampage as free actions, to shift into the square the fallen enemy was standing in, and smack the boss.
Misses by 3.
Bard chimes in with Rhyme of the Blood Seeking Blade, pegs the boss, which also turns the Barbarian's rampage attack into a hit.
Barbarian activates the daily power on his lightning weapon, to zap all those enemies for a little bit extra.
The boss reacts by pushing the barbarian 2.
Check to see if the rest of the close burst 1 attacks are still valid (in this particular case, they still are).
Resolve the attack vs. the unbloodied guy first.
Resolve the final attack. But wait! That guy just dropped.
Barbarian plays swift charge, uses howling strike, and the boss dies.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Rats. I knew there was a problem with the scenario, I just didn't immediately see it.

Just say the boss is 1 square further away, the barbarian is a dwarf and uses a reach weapon.
That should fix it, I think.

 

[DracoSuave]

There are corner cases when it does matter, though.

Such as a rageblood barbarian/wildrunner using a close burst 1 attack.
In the same party as a bard with a ranged weapon.

Close attacks are all rolled at once and the damage is applied after the attacks are rolled. It's all one go. The crit on one does not occur until all the attacks are in, so to speak.

This corner case is some other corner case, but has nothing to do with Twin Strike.

 

[KarinsDad]

Close attacks are all rolled at once and the damage is applied after the attacks are rolled. It's all one go. The crit on one does not occur until all the attacks are in, so to speak.

This corner case is some other corner case, but has nothing to do with Twin Strike.

Yup. Not only that, but free attacks are not immediate interrupts. They do what they claim, but they do not interrupt any actions unless they state that they do.

 

[eamon]

What DracoSuave says is accurate (see PHB attack types starting page 270).

In particular, it's worth noting that this does not hold for twin strike; twin strike's melee "attack" vs. multiple enemies actually consists of multiple attacks each with their own attack/damage roll (as per the aforementioned section). These attacks might be individually interrupted - there are lots of effects which trigger off attacks, hits or misses. Now, if these attacks are individually resolved, why would the targeting portion of each attack not be individually resolved?

RAW looks clear to me; melee attacks with several targets actually consist of multiple independent attacks; since a reaction to one attack might affect the resolution it is necessary to evaluate the attack rolls in succession and quite reasonable to evaluate the targets in succession. Playing it differently makes reactions (in particular, but also interrupts) quite a bit more effective.

In practice, there's no problem with rolling both attacks simultaneously. If something's going to act (or die) in response to the first attack, the DM can always mention that and let the player redo the second attack. Just because raw explicitly needs to mention each phase of each attack separately for clarity does not mean you actually need to seperate all those phases in actual gameplay, after all... It's just relevant for corner cases and strict adjudication of effects.