Twin Strike Resolution

[Diirk]

I didn't see anything in the book about how exactly rangers' Twin Strike (and similar ranger powers) is used exactly. If you have 1 almost dead creature, and a second creature, can you:

a) Make the first attack and wait to see if it kills the almost dead creature, then decide which to hit with the second attack ?

or

b) Decide which creature each attack targets before rolling either of them ?

Thoughts and references appreciated !

 

[Syrsuro]

Pick your targets, then roll your dice.

No choosing the second target based upon the first target.

By the 4E system, if you could make the second target after seeing the result of the first attack, the second attack would be a secondary attack, not part of the primary attack.

Carl

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I would always go with option (a). Make one attack then decide what to do with the second attack.

BTW, I don't agree with Syrsuro's reasoning - normally secondary attacks are dependent upon primary attacks hitting - the twin strike attacks are independent.

 

[jaelis]

The problem is that in one sense Twin Strike is one attack, since it is a single exploit, but in another it is two attacks (since it says "two attacks".) So it's not really clear how you are supposed to treat it.

Personally, I would go with (a) here. Compare to Cut and Run or Cruel Cage of Steel, where it seems almost certain that you get to pick your targets in order because of the shifts.

But on the other hand, I would make you declare all your targets at the beginning for Mesmeric Hold or Force Volley, since your attack bonus depends on how many targets you choose.

 

[keterys]

The rules feel clear to me, PH269. You choose all targets for an attack then make the rolls. It's not like Passing Attack where there is a Secondary attack. It's just two attacks as part of the exploit.

 

[jaelis]

The rules feel clear to me, PH269. You choose all targets for an attack then make the rolls. It's not like Passing Attack where there is a Secondary attack. It's just two attacks as part of the exploit.

You'd say the same for Cut and Run?

 

[ki11erDM]

You'd say the same for Cut and Run?

I would because nothing is dependent on if you hit with the attacks. You can announce everything you are going to do with that exploit before you roll a single die. You say "I am going to attack the goblin and shift 3 squares past him and attack his boss". And Cruel Cage of Steel looks to be the same.

 

[Benimoto]

Not that this is anything binding to D&D, but in D&D Minis, which has a very similar attack sequence, double attacks go through two separate iterations of the attack sequence.

My personal litmus test would be that if you roll damage for each attack separately, you should go through the entire attack sequence separately for each attack. That is, you would resolve the first attack entirely before you choose the target for the second attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

Secondary Attacks is the game mechanic used for selecting the same or a different target on a secondary attack. And, there are examples where it is used without a hit succeeding first.

Since they did not use the game mechanic for allowing targeting after the first attack hits or misses, it seems reasonable that the intent is to declare all targets and then attack (as per b).

I do suspect, however, that Cust Serv might give the opposite answer. This is definitely one which should have errata. If they do errata it to a, then they should change the wording to secondary attack, that way they keep the door open for the writing as it currently is meaning b (for other powers in the future). They should have both types of options available for their design.

 

[keterys]

You'd say the same for Cut and Run?

Yes. You get to the 'Target: One or two creatures' and declare. Similarly, when doing Mesmeric Hold's three targets you can't declare one and see if you need the +4 before declaring the other two