Does Reverent Mettle affect the entire area of effect?

Question

Reverent Mettle

Trigger: An ally within 5 squares of you takes damage from an attack.

Effect: Reduce the triggering attack's damage by 5 + your Cha modifier.

Special: When you use your Channel Divinity power you may regain the use of reverent mettle.

Scenario: Puff the Magic Dragon attacks a group of PC's with a breath weapon and hits all 4 PC's for 25 points of damage. Does Reverent Mettle:

A. Reduce the triggering attack's damage by 5+Cha, resulting in 20-Cha points of damage to all 4 PC's?

B. Reduce the triggering attack's damage by 5+Cha for one person, resulting in 20-Cha points of damage for that one person?

The way the ability is worded, I would go with A, but that seems very overpowered.

Answer 1

Only that ally has the damage reduced

Note the trigger and target: "Trigger: An ally within 5 squares of you takes damage from an attack Target: The triggering ally in burst"

The trigger notes an ally within 5 squares takes damage and the target is very specific about the triggering ally

While there are powers that attenuate the attack, the trigger and target would be different, reflecting a different intent of the designers.

Answer 2

B.

Area attacks apply the same damage to all targets, however damage reduction can change the actual damage sustained on a per target basis.

The rules for resolving attacks against multiple targets are on p132-3 of the Essentials Dungeon Master's Book. Simplified a bit, it gives this process:

1. Chose targets
2. Resolve attack against one target
3. Repeat step 2 for any other targets.

Answer 3

This power would be much clearer if effect line read "reduce the damage taken by the target by..."

As Brian and Pat have noted, the power appears to (probably) be targeting just the portion of the attack levied at the triggering target.

If they had wanted reduce all damage, they could have written the target line to target the power causing the damage. If they wanted to reduce one target's damage, they could have written my variation above.

But the "protect one target" interpretation is much more balanced, and probably what they intended.