why should monsters always use full attacks?

[slaydemons]

My dm is quite new just like me as a player so keep this in mind while I explain.


Our dm set up fights where it will be something a punch and bite attack for its full attack I am thinking their probably not going to use their full attack, every turn.

is there any other dm who helps me support my idea as we can't find it in the rule book

[aeauseth]

My dm is quite new just like me as a player so keep this in mind while I explain.


Our dm set up fights where it will be something a punch and bite attack for its full attack I am thinking their probably not going to use their full attack, every turn.

is there any other dm who helps me support my idea as we can't find it in the rule book


If the creature moves over 5 ft then it typically only gets 1 attack. If it stands still (or just 5 ft of movement) then the creature typically makes a full attack.

REF: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

[Zaq]

The monsters want you dead, or at least incapacitated. You're an active threat to them. Nine times out of ten, if they don't prevent you from doing so, you're going to kill them. Monsters don't generally want to die. They're going to use everything in their power to prevent you from killing them, which generally includes killing you. So yes, if they're in position to make a full attack and they don't have a compelling reason not to (like if they need to use their actions for something else), they're bloody well going to full attack you.

To be perfectly serious, why wouldn't they full attack you? This kind of baffles me. I mean, if you can prevent them from successfully doing so, that's a big part of D&D tactics, but they're sure as hell going to try.

[slaydemons]

Thanks people, I actually needed to know because it was bugging me even if it isn't the answer I thought it was.

[graeylin]

because in general, full attacks are the best tactics to use, and smart monsters would have honed themselves to use the best tactics possible.

If it can fly, it probably should. If it can burrow, it should do that. If it has reach, it should use it. Mass? Use it. Monsters should be played to their strengths, with tactics to go along with it.

My players just found that out about a chimera: it attacked them, then flew off.... to gain altitude. They thought it was gone, turned their backs for a few moments, and the chimera returned... swooping in with dragon breath blazing, and all 500 pounds of body weight sliding across a stone floor like a bowling ball, smashing into them and knocking them around like pins.

Damage was actually minimal from the slam, but I guarantee you, they are already talking about it. That is a monster they won't forget, it's already becoming an epic story in their minds.

Your monsters should do the same... great monsters make great stories.

[Shpadoinkle]

The monsters want you dead, or at least incapacitated. You're an active threat to them. Nine times out of ten, if they don't prevent you from doing so, you're going to kill them. Monsters don't generally want to die. They're going to use everything in their power to prevent you from killing them, which generally includes killing you. So yes, if they're in position to make a full attack and they don't have a compelling reason not to use their actions for something else, they're bloody well going to full attack you.

To be perfectly serious, why wouldn't they full attack you? This kind of baffles me. I mean, if you can prevent them from successfully doing so, that's a big part of D&D tactics, but they're sure as hell going to try.

Yeah... I was pretty much going to post this.

slaydemons; why, exactly, did you think that something that wants you dead would NOT want to attempt to do that in the most efficient and expedient way possible?

[Aharon]

Well, actually they sometimes can do more interesting stuff. Wolves trip, purple worms grapple, quasits use their spell-like abilities...

But if they don't have anything better to do, it's indeed the most intelligent thing for them to full-attack (or surrender, or flee, but those probably weren't the answers you were looking for).

[slaydemons]

In my head it made no sense as they had bite attacks what creature do you know that every single turn punchs you, kicks you, and bites you in that order all on the same guy I probably would mind it less if it since its an animal attacked one gut with its claws and tries to bite someone else with its fangs, to me that makes more sense.

[nyarlathotep]

In my head it made no sense as they had bite attacks what creature do you know that every single turn punchs you, kicks you, and bites you in that order all on the same guy I probably would mind it less if it since its an animal attacked one gut with its claws and tries to bite someone else with its fangs, to me that makes more sense.

The monster can attack more than one person. Also it is for practicality reasons. If the monster is intelligent it will use all of its power to kill someone fighting you to the death as frequently as possible.

[slaydemons]

The monster can attack more than one person. Also it is for practicality reasons. If the monster is intelligent it will use all of its power to kill someone fighting you to the death as frequently as possible.

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.

[Aspenor]

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.

No. They wouldn't. They would pummel you with impunity.

[TurtleKing]

If you want a real life example of a creature using full attack then just mess with your friendly rambuctious kitty. They will most likely get on their back and grapple you with their front claws, kick with the back ones, and bite at you. Just make sure the kitty is playful and not mean.

[Douglas]

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.
Only if they value being lazy more than avoiding potentially fatal surprises.

If it were an obvious mismatch on the scale of a tiger vs a mouse, for example, to the point where the weaker side can't even hope to hurt the stronger one enough to be noticed, then I could see the tiger playing around for fun. Anything capable of hitting back enough to hurt is going to get taken seriously, though, even if it can't do enough hurting to threaten death.

[KillianHawkeye]

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.

This actually depends greatly on the personality of the monster, as well as how much stronger they actually are.

A 20th level Assassin isn't going to waste time playing around just because you and your party are level 10, he's gonna kill you dead. But a Balor facing the same party might want to spread out the pain and make the fun of battle last longer. Practically no monster will play around unless it's fairly sure that it's safe or has a means of escape, though.

[hangedman1984]

If you want a real life example of a creature using full attack then just mess with your friendly rambuctious kitty. They will most likely get on their back and grapple you with their front claws, kick with the back ones, and bite at you. Just make sure the kitty is playful and not mean.

CAUTION: 1st level commoners should not attempt this at home
:smalltongue:

[slaydemons]

CAUTION: 1st level commoners should not attempt this at home
:smalltongue:

luckly my cat is venerable and I am a second level commoner.

[NNescio]

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.

Only if they are intelligent, sadistic, and stupid.

Yes, intelligent and stupid.

(AKA 'high' INT low Wis)

[Kuulvheysoon]

Only if they are intelligent, sadistic, and stupid.

Yes, intelligent and stupid.

(AKA 'high' INT low Wis)

Wouldn't that just be more a lack of common sense (low wis)?

I mean, I've always viewed Int as the "smartness" stat, while Wis is the more... zen stat. Like common sense, for instance.

[Zaq]

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.

Would you, given that your life is literally on the line, and that even things that can't kill you can still probably sting a bit? I mean, if you're playing Joe Barbarian and you're standing next to a foe (that is, you're capable of making a full attack on it) that you want dead, are you ever going to say "eh, I'm not really feeling it. I'll just swing once," even though it's still actually trying to kill you? If not, then why should the monsters? It sounds to me like you're just trying to talk your GM into having the monsters go easy on you.

Now, I can see a powerful caster-type not wanting to waste their best spells on someone who may not be a threat of their level (though the more paranoid types might, of course), because they can run out of the biggest and best stuff. A more martial monster, though, really has no reason not to full attack at any opportunity. They lose nothing by doing so. They stand to gain a lot. No cost. All benefit. Why the hell wouldn't they?

[Kantolin]

I mean, if you're playing Joe Barbarian and you're standing next to a foe (that is, you're capable of making a full attack on it) that you want dead, are you ever going to say "eh, I'm not really feeling it. I'll just swing once," even though it's still actually trying to kill you?

It's not smart, at all, to do this.

That stated, there are actually a number of situations in real life where people have made similar declarations. From the 'Oh yeah?! I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back!' style of bully, to the popular in literature 'You're not worth my time' swordsman who then walks right past whomever the other person is when they have swords.

So while not smart, it certainly fits arrogance - especially in a literary/fantasy setting ^_^ In a setting without magic, for example, I could see a powerful half-orc barbarian backhanding someone beneath his notice out of his way and proceeding.

Now of course, this falls apart if the opponent is aware that the scrawny gnome could turn him into a potato salad with a wave of his hands, but still.

[Zaq]

That stated, there are actually a number of situations in real life where people have made similar declarations. From the 'Oh yeah?! I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back!' style of bully, to the popular in literature 'You're not worth my time' swordsman who then walks right past whomever the other person is when they have swords.

Both of those examples only really apply before the arrogant guy's opponent has actually started attacking them. When they've started swinging (and possibly connecting once or twice, but not necessarily), it makes no sense for even the most arrogant of characters to just not bother to make them stop, assuming that they bother to attack at all. I could see not bothering to actually attack, but to just make a standard attack instead of a full attack really just kind of boggles my mind.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's not smart, at all, to do this.

That stated, there are actually a number of situations in real life where people have made similar declarations. From the 'Oh yeah?! I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back!' style of bully, to the popular in literature 'You're not worth my time' swordsman who then walks right past whomever the other person is when they have swords.

So while not smart, it certainly fits arrogance - especially in a literary/fantasy setting ^_^ In a setting without magic, for example, I could see a powerful half-orc barbarian backhanding someone beneath his notice out of his way and proceeding.

Now of course, this falls apart if the opponent is aware that the scrawny gnome could turn him into a potato salad with a wave of his hands, but still.

Again, it all comes back to risk versus reward. If the enemy truly poses no risk (like in your examples), then there's no point in attacking him at all, and likely little reward in doing so either. If, however, you are only moderately more powerful than your opponent, such that said opponent does pose some tangible danger to you, any sane person would either remove themselves from said risk or remove the risk itself as quickly as possible.

The only exception I can think of is if your goal is something other than defeating your opponent. If, for example, your aim is to humiliate them, then impairing your ability to fight may increase your expected reward despite the risk. Another example is an NPC I've been working on who has heard of the PCs and wants to see how interesting fighting them will be, so he plans on challenging their strongest warrior to a duel while using a misaligned weapon to give himself a handicap. How well the fight goes will determine if he comes back to fight the group "for real."

So yes, there are reasons one might hold back during a fight, but they are rare. Neither of your examples (the bully and the master swordsman) have the goal of defeating their opponents, so not fighting (or not fighting to their full potential) becomes an option. Most monsters, on the other hand, are trying to kill you and eat you, and they WILL try their hardest to accomplish that.

[AslanCross]

Thank you, this answer is perfect maybe you can answer my next question, if the monsters are stronger then you and more numerous wouldn't they feel cocky and attack only once until they are being beaten.

"Stronger" is a metagame thing in general, and most monsters will not have a way of telling whether they are stronger. The average orc cannot tell if a wizard has seventh-level spells or only first---usually, their reaction to ANY spellcaster at all would be "FEATHER THAT MAGE WITH ARROWS UNTIL IT STOPS MOVING!"; failing that, "RUN!"

Some (dragons, perhaps) will tend to be far more arrogant and see anything smaller as food. Other dragons, on the other hand, might already know the PCs' reputation and be more cautious---and possibly set up a trap that tilts the battle in its favor. (Which I enjoy doing.)

Animals will have simple fight or flight responses (fight if it thinks it can win; if it hurts too much, run away); mindless creatures like oozes, zombies, and golems will likely fight until destroyed or commanded otherwise.

[Kantolin]

I do agree with many of the responses, and AslanCross then stated many of the points I was about to make about it. :P

If a hungry animal sees the party (Hungry enough to attack with his pack, which means pretty hungry), he's going to avoid the big half-orc or human because they're big, even if they're level one. He's then going to try to attack the smaller halfling or gnome, even if they're actually level 24 Monk/Cleric/Crusader tanks or something (Although this may change if they're wearing a lot of metal or something).

Now, animals will then almost certainly use everything they have, immediately, with no intention of withholding resources or anything. :P

But really; there isn't a situation in literature where one party feels so nonthreatened by the other that they're not taking things very seriously? It could be arrogance, it could be 'Look, I don't really want to kill you so I'll go easy on you to force you to withdraw', to actually being immune to what you percieve the enemy can attack you with, to being stupid.

A setting of mine had a group of spellcasters in a plane/world where everyone had damage reduction/magic of a large amount based on how much magical ability you had, and there was no such thing as a magic weapon. So when the planeswalking PCs went there, a sizeable amount of the evil spellcasters provoked attacks of opportunity by not bothering to cast defensively as they focus on the actual threats before dealing with the guys trying to whack them, which made a lot of the encounters pretty easy until word started to get around.

Creatures [particularly dumber ones] with damage reduction, in particular, have no real incentive to worry about things. Three humans run up to the troll or something, he sits down in the middle of combat and begins eating one while the other two poke at him ineffectually with their pitchforks.

This also helps a lot if the person is attempting to demoralize their opponents more than kill them, but that was stated.

Another example is if a child rushed a warrior with a knife. The child, in fact, means bodily harm to the warrior, but the warrior isn't really threatened and has reason to backhand the child as a nonthreat.

Now, if said child was actually a halfling swordsage who teleported around the backhand and maimed the warrior, he'd almost certainly change his mind - in almost all of these cases if the bully or master swordsman or ogre or whatever is suddenly feeling threatened, off come the kid gloves and fast.

And in a D&D setting, where that may presumably happen frequently, after at absolute most the second time, the warrior would stop backhanding children, assume any 'child' attacking him was a halfling swordsage, and eviscerate children who threatened him on that basis. But until then, there's no percieved threat, and that's what's focal. :P

(To say nothing of the evil demons/etc who like to toy around with their food/victims before killing them)

[Azernak0]

I'm surprised this thread has gotten so many hits and a multitude of responses other than "why the hell wouldn't it?"

I understand the concept. It doesn't seem right to just have the orc and the fighter bludgeon each other over the head with clubs over and over rather than kick or whatever. The mechanics don't really include the notion of fluff in combat. A movie using DnD combat would probably look similar to a rousing game of Rock-Em Sock-Em Robots.

The only character that I know of that is capable of dealing fluff type attacks without compromising mechanical attacks is the Monk. It states that a Monk's unarmed attacks could be either a punch, a kick, an elbow, or whatever. It makes it seems a little more varied but in the end it's exactly the same as a Fighter: "I hit, and roll this dice."

Earthdawn, however, specifically states that Horrors (the super, nasty evil bad guys; think Hitler eating baby seals evil) play with their victims and do the best they can to prolong combat. Horrors have mechanics and abilities that can pretty much instantly blow players to Kingdom Come; think Dragon versus Commoners. Without the DM trying to just fool around with the party when fighting a Horror, the lower level Horrors would be a group wipe to anyone aside from the much higher levels. For DnD, I think most things just focus on "I Full Attack you so you die."

[sengmeng]

If you want to make it realistic, it may spend a round or two fighting defensively, making single claw attacks in a half-hearted way, while trying to determine if the PCs are tasty. If, after the PCs have defended themselves and have not damaged it very much, it will probably focus on a single one, and you can decide for yourself who it wants to eat. Then it will do exactly what every other monster does and full attack that one guy until he's dead, and flee with the corpse to eat it. That would seem to me to be like a true-to-life large predator. They only want to kill one guy and make a meal of him, and once they've figured out who, they do it as quickly as possible. Also, I would have monsters flee a lot more. If a cape buffalo gored a lion at all, that lion would probably run.

[Ursus the Grim]

"Stronger" is a metagame thing in general, and most monsters will not have a way of telling whether they are stronger. The average orc cannot tell if a wizard has seventh-level spells or only first---usually, their reaction to ANY spellcaster at all would be "FEATHER THAT MAGE WITH ARROWS UNTIL IT STOPS MOVING!"; failing that, "RUN!"


I thought I've seen an optional rule somewhere using Sense Motive to gauge relative strength (using HD as a benchmark). Generally, I have the players roll when they aren't sure if they can handle another fight.

Anyway, if I saw a bunch of heavily armed people (half my size, in the case of an ogre), I'd know they meant business and proceed to unleash everything I had. A cat playing with a mouse is the only kind of power discrepancy that would warrant single attacks when a full is available.

Sounds suspiciously like the OP's party was recently trounced by someone with multiple attacks. Its kind of like saying "well, why isn't he just trying to knock us out?"

[Goober4473]

In my head it made no sense as they had bite attacks what creature do you know that every single turn punchs you, kicks you, and bites you in that order all on the same guy I probably would mind it less if it since its an animal attacked one gut with its claws and tries to bite someone else with its fangs, to me that makes more sense.

Just as a note, remember that a round is 6 seconds long. I donno what has that attack routine specifically, but imagine a martial artist with fangs. It could probably throw a punch, a kick, and a bite pretty easily in 6 seconds.

[AslanCross]

I thought I've seen an optional rule somewhere using Sense Motive to gauge relative strength (using HD as a benchmark). Generally, I have the players roll when they aren't sure if they can handle another fight.



I think that was in Complete Scoundrel. Still, most monsters don't have Sense Motive as a class skill.