PDA

View Full Version : Target: One or two creatures (Twin-strike and the likes)



hoff
2011-03-31, 10:15 PM
Some powers have targets defined by "one or two creatures" like twin-strike and many of ranger powers.
Can a player target one creature and if it kills it with the first attack make the second attack to another creature and if not make both attacks against the same creature?

As the rules put it it seems that the answer is no, but it makes sense to attack another creature if the one you just hit died.

As a more elaborate question can a player use IF statements when performing a single action? Example: "If I miss the first attack I will not fire the second so I don't lose my stealth.", or "If I kill my first target I will attack this other one with my second attack".

Surrealistik
2011-03-31, 10:20 PM
Some powers have targets defined by "one or two creatures" like twin-strike and many of ranger powers.
Can a player target one creature and if it kills it with the first attack make the second attack to another creature and if not make both attacks against the same creature?

As the rules put it it seems that the answer is no, but it makes sense to attack another creature if the one you just hit died.

As a more elaborate question can a player use IF statements when performing a single action? Example: "If I miss the first attack I will not fire the second so I don't lose my stealth.", or "If I kill my first target I will attack this other one with my second attack".

No, unless the power/action explicitly says you can. In the case of Twin Strike you have to select both targets for both attacks at the same time. You could select one target, or two targets, but you could not work in a conditional 'IF' statement.

Kurald Galain
2011-04-01, 03:36 AM
Can a player target one creature and if it kills it with the first attack make the second attack to another creature and if not make both attacks against the same creature?
While a technical reading of the rules would indeed prohibit this, I don't think any reasonable DM would have a problem with it.

KingFlameHawk
2011-04-01, 11:21 AM
Some powers have targets defined by "one or two creatures" like twin-strike and many of ranger powers.
Can a player target one creature and if it kills it with the first attack make the second attack to another creature and if not make both attacks against the same creature?

As the rules put it it seems that the answer is no, but it makes sense to attack another creature if the one you just hit died.

As a more elaborate question can a player use IF statements when performing a single action? Example: "If I miss the first attack I will not fire the second so I don't lose my stealth.", or "If I kill my first target I will attack this other one with my second attack".

The power (Twin Strike) specifically says that there are two attacks so instead of just saying at the start that both are for one target you say the first attack is for target A and after the attack is done you choose who to target with the second, A or B.

Also I don't know if you know but Twin Strike recently got updated to make it more in line with other striker powers: Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/AprilFools2011.pdf)

RTGoodman
2011-04-01, 11:31 AM
I'm not sure which is the strict RAW reading, but I always allow my Ranger to pick the second target AFTER seeing if the first hits/kills the target.

Telasi
2011-04-01, 11:48 AM
The power (Twin Strike) specifically says that there are two attacks so instead of just saying at the start that both are for one target you say the first attack is for target A and after the attack is done you choose who to target with the second, A or B.

Also I don't know if you know but Twin Strike recently got updated to make it more in line with other striker powers: Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/AprilFools2011.pdf)

You realize that's labeled April Fools 2011, right? I'm not sure if it's a real change or a joke.

Zombimode
2011-04-01, 11:56 AM
Its labeled and you're not sure? *mind boggles*

Surrealistik
2011-04-01, 12:14 PM
That was pretty lulzy. It would have been funnier (and only slightly more believable) if they actually balanced the power though.

hoff
2011-04-01, 12:26 PM
Well, that 1 damage per attack thing would balance twin-strike with the other ranger at-wills...

Artanis
2011-04-01, 12:49 PM
Rangers have other at-wills?

RTGoodman
2011-04-01, 12:52 PM
Rangers have other at-wills?

I think it was another April Fool's joke.

Doug Lampert
2011-04-01, 01:14 PM
Well, that 1 damage per attack thing would balance twin-strike with the other ranger at-wills...

Yeah, my wife plays a human ranger, I think it's hilarious that WotC decided she should be allowed to trade in her human "advantage" of having three at-wills for one of a selection of other advantages (including one of the best racial powers in the game as a choice, and that one didn't even cost a feat).

Hint: If the at-wills are ballanced options then having extras is at best a minor gain in versatility (as for a wizard), if the at-wills are unballanced then one will tend to get spammed and the rest are trash (as with a ranger). Either way the extra at-will isn't actually worth all that much.


Rangers have other at-wills?

Yes. IIRC my wife had one that let's her ignore cover or concealment which she used once just because she wanted to see if it actually sucked.

IIRC She has another which lets her attack and then move 2 spaces. She keeps claiming that someday this may be useful enough to actually use.

There ARE possible ballanced alternatives. WotC simply hasn't published them. Something like an at-will usable on a charge, or an at-will that imposed a minor condition, or an at-will that let you do Favored Enemy damage on a miss or to a creature not your favored enemy (useful in surprise round). But all rangers have is twin-strike.

Dekkah
2011-04-01, 01:39 PM
By raw, you choose both targets before you roll.
A DM could let the player the option, but to be honest, Twin-strike is already powerful enough without this gain. :smallsmile:
Anyway it doesnt happen so often that an arrow (or sword strike) is lost ... at least in the games I play.

AS for other rangers option, one was interesting when it came out (Throw and stab) and for the fun of it I made one with it... but they changed it so you dont charge anymore (it is a move + basic attack now) and you have to target two different creature now... making it not so interesting anymore. Since this change, I am considering getting twin strike along with it for when I have only one possible target.

Kurald Galain
2011-04-01, 07:50 PM
Either way the extra at-will isn't actually worth all that much.
QFT.

That's one of those options that looks great on paper, but the various forums are slowly beginning to realize that in practice it really doesn't do anything.

hoff
2011-04-01, 08:01 PM
The extra at-will is pretty good for classes that have a power with "this power can be used in place of a charge/basic attack". But for most classes it's pretty useless indeed. This goes against the "human D&D way" of being decent with everything.

Surrealistik
2011-04-01, 09:06 PM
QFT.

That's one of those options that looks great on paper, but the various forums are slowly beginning to realize that in practice it really doesn't do anything.

Slowly? I thought it was generally understood that an extra at-will typically isn't that great.

Also, I am trying to convince my DM to use this 'errata' so the party can make unlimited clones of our characters, and thereby conquer the multiverse with ease.

MeeposFire
2011-04-01, 10:16 PM
There are around 5 different versions of April 1st twin strike. I like the one that does something for every role.

Vknight
2011-04-01, 10:42 PM
It does make sense beyond RAW.

A Ranger is shooting both arrows or slashing both swords at the same time.
Meaning it can kill with the first but you can't change the seconds target

Kurald Galain
2011-04-02, 05:57 AM
It does make sense beyond RAW.
No it doesn't. Neither shooting arrows nor slashing swords works that way.

Vknight
2011-04-02, 08:17 AM
Ok you have 6seconds.
You can attack one guy with both your swords twice or that guy and another guy once. You choose to do the first, do you have enough time to change the trajectory of the attack and make one which will have any effect upon the new target creature

Daftendirekt
2011-04-02, 11:03 AM
No it doesn't. Neither shooting arrows nor slashing swords works that way.

Gotta agree there. Swinging both swords at once would be incredibly awkward. You wouldn't be able to get much power behind either. If you swing one and then the other, you can get your full body behind each swing. Generally there's nobody else adjacent when the Ranger I'm playing kills something with the first hit, but I think my DM would have no problem letting me change targets.

oswulf
2011-04-02, 03:52 PM
I can just see this playing out in OOTS--especially one of the earlier strips. Haley fires two arrows. The first lands and the target falls. The second arrow suddenly does a u-turn and flies into a different target.

amaranth69
2011-04-02, 05:34 PM
I would not allow the "if" stipulation in the attack. I usually rule that the targets must be proclaimed before the dice are rolled. With a TWF ranger, they I would see the character swinging both weapons essentially simultaneously, with the Archer build, the second shot is in the air before the first even lands. Just my take on the subject.

oswulf
2011-04-02, 08:43 PM
I tend to agree--thinking from a realism standpoint.

But if realism were my prime concern I wouldn't be playing fantasy RPGs.

From a "do what's fun for the players" standpoint I lean toward allowing it

EXCEPT

from a game balance standpoint the general sense I'm getting from earlier in the thread is that people consider it all ready a sufficiently powerful power that all other ranger at-wills are pointless by comparison. Perhaps it doesn't need the bonus. (Although, I'm inclined to think for archery at least it's good to have the one that lets you shift somewhere so your attack doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.)