When do you choose your target(s)?

[Zeven]

When using Twin Strike (or a similar power), when do you determine who you target? More precisely, do you have to choose your targets before you roll any attack or damage roll, or can you choose to target one creature, roll attack and damage, and then choose your second target?

7

 

[dvorak]

From PHB pg 269 under Making an Attack:

1) Choose the attack you'll use. Each attack has an attack type.
2) Choose targets for the attack. Each target must be within range. Check whether you can see and target your enemies.
3).....

So by RAW you are expected to designate each target before making a roll.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

From PHB pg 269 under Making an Attack:

1) Choose the attack you'll use. Each attack has an attack type.
2) Choose targets for the attack. Each target must be within range. Check whether you can see and target your enemies.
3).....

So by RAW you are expected to designate each target before making a roll.

The only addendum I would add is that it is per attack. Twin strike gives you two attacks, so yes you can choose a target, attack, choose a target, attack.

 

[dvorak]

Same question covered on the D&D forums just over a month ago: Ranger Twin Strike and Hunter's Quarry - Wizards Community

 

[KarinsDad]

The only addendum I would add is that it is per attack. Twin strike gives you two attacks, so yes you can choose a target, attack, choose a target, attack.

Yes. Page 269 indicates what one does "per attack", not "per attack power". Twin Strike can be interpreted as two attacks.

This interpretation also leans in favor of the player and prevents the player from getting annoyed because he targeted foe #1 with two arrows and the foe dropped after arrow #1 hit him.

Unfortunately, WotC left enough room to drive a truck through some interpretations when discussing "attacks". Sometimes, they mean the power. Sometimes, they mean something else.

 

[Zeven]

Okay, the general consensus seems to be that:

1.) RAW tends towards target-target-attack-attack;
2.) We have no clue what WotC intended;
3.) It's more fun for the player to target-attack-target-attack.

I would really like to know what the designers intended. Does anybody agree that the following information from PHB2 about the Power Format supports the target-target-attack-attack interpretation?

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.

 

[fba827]

I've seen this question come up several times since the game's release. And I've seen it argued both ways - so, really, bottom line is, it's unclear enough that it keeps coming up and people have enough reasons to give support in either direction.

Personally, I prefer it at declare your targets before making your attack rolls. I choose to interpret it this way because just reading top down in the power description, it is the target line and then the attack line. Also, using an example, in PHB2 the shaman has a power (don't have the book handy, but it is a low level shaman attack power) that is also two attacks BUT after the target and attack line, it then has an effect line that says repeat the attack on the same or a different target. By extension of that, if you could choose targets per attack roll, then that effect line is entirely unnecessary and they could have kept the wording the same as the ranger twin strike wording.

Having said that, yes, I realize other people read it other ways and they have just as much support for other interpretations. So, my point being -- come up with a table decision for your group and just be consistent with it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, using an example, in PHB2 the shaman has a power (don't have the book handy, but it is a low level shaman attack power) that is also two attacks BUT after the target and attack line, it then has an effect line that says repeat the attack on the same or a different target. By extension of that, if you could choose targets per attack roll, then that effect line is entirely unnecessary and they could have kept the wording the same as the ranger twin strike wording.

This is invalid logic.

It's possible (and maybe even probable) that they put that sentence into the PHB 2 Shaman power BECAUSE this issue has come up so often for Twin Strike that they wanted to be crystal clear for that new power.

 

[fba827]

This is invalid logic.

It's possible (and maybe even probable) that they put that sentence into the PHB 2 Shaman power BECAUSE this issue has come up so often for Twin Strike that they wanted to be crystal clear for that new power.

I don't deny that it is possible that it is that way in PHB2 because of the number of times it came up in wording of PHB1. But we have no evidence one way or the other - so I was just giving an example that had not yet been mentioned in the thread. But, yes, I agree it is possible.

The point of my post was to say that it isn't clear because the question keeps coming up and people continue to have different interpretations of it.

I was just tossing in my own opinion as an aside but, frankly, my own opinion has no actual bearing on what the OP does in his/her own game... As you pointed out

Unfortunately, WotC left enough room to drive a truck through some interpretations when discussing "attacks". Sometimes, they mean the power. Sometimes, they mean something else.

So, really, all just a matter of opinion; that's what I was trying to say. The original poster has heard opinions on both sides to know it isn't a clear answer and should have the DM make a ruling for their group and be consistent with it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

3.) It's more fun for the player to target-attack-target-attack.

Given this point, how can any argument that isn't "allowing this causes serious problems in the game" matter? RAW and RAI don't really matter: if it's more fun to allow it, why would any DM disallow it?