Ranger vs Paladin

[Hypersmurf]

We have a Paladin and a Warlock who are fighting a combat against a Ranger.

The Paladin places his Divine Challenge on the Ranger.

The Ranger uses Split the Tree, shooting arrows at both the Paladin and the Warlock. He makes an attack which includes the Paladin as a target; he takes no damage from Divine Challenge.

Next round, though, he can't use Split the Tree again, since it was a Daily power; accordingly, he uses Twin Strike to shoot an arrow at each enemy.

Targets: One or two creatures.
Attack: Dexterity vs AC, two attacks.
Hit: 1[W] damage per attack.

So, is this a single attack which includes both the Paladin and Warlock as targets? Or, given the explicit note of "two attacks" and "damage per attack", is this one attack which includes the Paladin as a target, and one attack which does not include the Paladin as a target (triggering the Divine Challenge damage)?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

One attack which includes the paladin.

 

[generalhenry]

a single attack which includes both the Paladin and Warlock as targets

I'd say yes.

Attack power = attack

 

[ForbidenMaster]

EDIT: Never mind

 

[generalhenry]

two separate attack rolls

scorching burst, nine attack rolls. Is it really nine attacks?

EDIT: Never mind

Edit: gah!

 

[Hypersmurf]

scorching burst, nine attack rolls. Is it really nine attacks?

I'm not making any argument from the 'number of attack rolls' direction. I'm just looking at the fact that Twin Strike specifies "two attacks".

If the power tells us straight out that there are two attacks, can there really be only one attack?

Attack power = attack

So where do you stand on the Wall of Fire question?

-Hyp.

 

[jaelis]

Like you've pointed out, the rules seem to use "attack" ambiguously. Personally, I would say the ranger does not take divine challenge damage here.

 

[Jack99]

I'm not making any argument from the 'number of attack rolls' direction. I'm just looking at the fact that Twin Strike specifies "two attacks".

If the power tells us straight out that there are two attacks, can there really be only one attack?

-Hyp.

It's definitely two separate attacks, and thus the ranger takes damage. Think of it this way. Had the ranger been in melee, dual-wielding swords, and using twin strikes, would you have had any doubts? I know I wouldn't.

Cheers

 

[jaelis]

It's definitely two separate attacks, and thus the ranger takes damage. Think of it this way. Had the ranger been in melee, dual-wielding swords, and using twin strikes, would you have had any doubts? I know I wouldn't.

I would not have the ranger take damage then either, any more than I would if he used dire wolverine strike.

 

[Jack99]

I would not have the ranger take damage then either, any more than I would if he used dire wolverine strike.

DWS does not work of the same premise as TS.

1) ranger is facing two monsters, a gnoll an orc
2) ranger uses TS to hit both. He deals 1d10 with his bastard sword to the gnoll, and 1d4 with his dagger to the orc
3) the next round, the ranger uses DWS to hit the both. This time, he deals 1d10 to both targets, since the power states nothing about using the offhand weapon damage.

See the difference?