Twin Strike question

[ForbidenMaster]

This template is almost always for attacks where the second attack depends on the first attack hitting.

There was a lot of debate on gleemax about this, and I don't think it's nearly that cut-and-dry. A good case can easily be made for treating the attacks as sequential, allowing you to resolve the first attack before picking the target for the second.

Which is why the effect line is put in. Fact of the matter is that (TMK) the above is never presented in the book and there is no other template for subsequent independent attacks. So either "two attacks" is the determining factor, or there are no subsequent independent attacks in 4th edition.

 

[Samir]

Which is why the effect line is put in. Fact of the matter is that (TMK) the above is never presented in the book and there is no other template for subsequent independent attacks. So either "two attacks" is the determining factor, or there are no subsequent independent attacks in 4th edition.

In my opinion, "two attacks" is the determining factor to signify subsequent independent attacks. CSR responses have supported this and there is some evidence in the PHB as well, but beyond that it remains a grey area.

 

[DracoSuave]

Except for PHB2 saying that things happen in an explicit and specific order, I'd agree.

So, yes, it -was- ambiguous. And that ambiguity has since been solved by later rules. It's happened before (errata, Stealth), it'll happen again (MM rule on immunity to foo).

Sequence: The order of information in a power description is a general guide to the sequence in which the power’s various effects occur. For example, an “Effect” entry might appear above attack information in a power description to indicate that something happens before you make the attack.

 

[Samir]

Except for PHB2 saying that things happen in an explicit and specific order, I'd agree.

So, yes, it -was- ambiguous. And that ambiguity has since been solved by later rules. It's happened before (errata, Stealth), it'll happen again (MM rule on immunity to foo).

I think I know what part of PHB2 you are talking about, so let's look at it for a second.

Sequence: The order of information in a power description is a general guide to the sequence in which the power’s various effects occur. For example, an “Effect” entry might appear above attack information in a power description to indicate that something happens before you make the attack.

Underline is mine. I'm not sure I would call a "general guide to the sequence" an "explicit and specific order." It says it's the order in which the "power's various effects" occur. The Target: line isn't one of the power's "various effects" any more than the Keywords are. It's a descriptive phrase, not an effect to be applied in a specific order.

The Special: line always appears at the very end of the power, as corroborated by this section in PHB2. Does this mean that anything listed under Special isn't considered until after the Attacks and Effects are resolved? Of course not.

Now let's go back to PHB1 for a sec.

Pg. 270:

Targeted: Melee attacks target individuals. A melee
attack against multiple enemies consists of separate
attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll.

...

Targeted: Ranged attacks target individuals.
A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of
separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and
damage roll.

So Twin Strike is two separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and damage roll. Now how do we make each of these attacks?

Pg. 269:

MAKING AN ATTACK
All attacks follow the same basic process:
1. Choose the attack you’ll use. Each attack has an
attack type.
2. Choose targets for the attack (page 272). Each target
must be within range (page 273). Check whether
you can see and target your enemies (page 273).
3. Make an attack roll (page 273).
4. Compare your attack roll to the target’s defense
(page 274) to determine whether you hit or miss.
5. Deal damage and apply other effects (page 276).

So for each attack in Twin Strike, you choose a target, make an attack roll, and deal damage. There are two attacks, so you do this process twice. Hence, you choose your target at the start of each attack, not at the immediate moment when you use the power.

IIRC, post PHB2 CS agreed with this interpretation.

 

[Chimerasame]

I agree that by RAW you can choose your targets at the beginning of each attack, but honestly, Twin Strike is arguably the best single-target damage at-will power in the game--it's not like restricting it to require the player to choose the targets ahead of time would cause the power to become underpowered.

 

[Samir]

I agree that by RAW you can choose your targets at the beginning of each attack, but honestly, Twin Strike is arguably the best single-target damage at-will power in the game--it's not like restricting it to require the player to choose the targets ahead of time would cause the power to become underpowered.

Nor will allowing the player to choose to the targets one at a time cause the power to become significantly more powerful--just more fun and intuitive (IMHO). That goes for all multi-attacks, not just Twin Strike. I agree that Twin Strike is plenty powerful as it is, and certainly needs no help, but losing an attack on ANY multi-attack power because your target is already dead is rather silly and unnecessary (also IMHO).

Keep in mind that choosing this interpretation also means that the many monsters with multi-attacks will get this same benefit, which is fair.

 

[Chimerasame]

I agree that Twin Strike is plenty powerful as it is, and certainly needs no help, but losing an attack on ANY multi-attack power because your target is already dead is rather silly and unnecessary (also IMHO).

I kinda read the power as, you are shooting two arrows at the same time. (I think Legolas did this? -- or was it Robin Hood?) Or, swinging two blades, etc. In this case it makes sense that you have to choose the targets up front.

I'm not sure how I'd rule it if I were DMing, though. I keep wondering if Wizards will nerf Twin Strike on their end.

I would allow all Encounter/Daily multi-attack powers like this to choose sequentially.

 

[Samir]

I kinda read the power as, you are shooting two arrows at the same time. (I think Legolas did this? -- or was it Robin Hood?) Or, swinging two blades, etc. In this case it makes sense that you have to choose the targets up front.

I'm not sure how I'd rule it if I were DMing, though. I keep wondering if Wizards will nerf Twin Strike on their end.

I would allow all Encounter/Daily multi-attack powers like this to choose sequentially.

I choose to read it as per the flavor text: "If the first attack doesn't kill it, the second might." That seems to imply a sequence.

Changing the way multi-attacks work for encounters/dailies vs. at-wills can be troublesome. If you established it to your players initially, they'll either not care or notice (if there's no Ranger in the party) or feel singled out (if there is). IMO consistency one way or another is more valuable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I kinda read the power as, you are shooting two arrows at the same time. (I think Legolas did this? -- or was it Robin Hood?) Or, swinging two blades, etc. In this case it makes sense that you have to choose the targets up front.

Doesn't that flavor create a logical problem in some cases, like when the two targets are on opposite sides of the ranger from each other? I would view that flavor instead as Split the Tree where you are essentially using one attack roll (the better one).

 

[Chimerasame]

Doesn't that flavor create a logical problem in some cases, like when the two targets are on opposite sides of the ranger from each other? I would view that flavor instead as Split the Tree where you are essentially using one attack roll (the better one).

Hmm, yeah, you're right.