OMG, have we always misused a basic rule?!

[Demorden]

Hello fellow adventurers!

I go straight to the point:

Shame on me, for I have a doubt on a very basic rule!
Should Multiple Attacks target always the same creature, or can they be split as I'd like among legal targets?

I.E. in the example below, can the PC hit once every enemy (assuming he has enough attacks)?




NPC
:smallfurious:


NPC
:smallfurious:


NPC
:smallfurious:




NPC
:smallfurious:


PC
:smallsmile:


NPC
:smallfurious:




NPC
:smallfurious:


NPC
:smallfurious:


NPC
:smallfurious:




I've played for years with people who swear you can attack only one target per attack, either single or full attack.
So, I've absorbed the concept without really questioning it.

But the rules seem to say that yes, he can.


Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

Now I'm slowly re-reading all the manuals much more carefully and I'm finding out that many rules were misenderstood (I'm being gentle).
But this would be too big, I need to clarify such a basic point once and for all.

Eventually, can you think of something that might have generated such a misunderstanding?

Thanks.

[BWR]

If you have multiple attacks you are free to target any creature in range, barring any special circumstances that might prevent this. In your example, if you had enough attacks you could target every opponent in the same round, or any combination thereof up to your total number of attacks.

So, yeah, it seems you've been Doing It Wrong so far. No worries, everybody makes mistakes.

[Bronk]

Well, there are other games where that is how it's done, maybe even old versions of DnD, I'm not positive, so that might be where you guys got that from. Definitely not DnD 3.5 though. Since you were all doing it the same way all this time, I'm sure it worked out for you, and you can all switch over to the actual rule together.

[Demorden]

If you have multiple attacks you are free to target any creature in range, barring any special circumstances that might prevent this. In your example, if you had enough attacks you could target every opponent in the same round, or any combination thereof up to your total number of attacks.

Just as I understood from the manual, thanks.


So, yeah, it seems you've been Doing It Wrong so far. No worries, everybody makes mistakes.

Yes, but shame on me nevertheless; I'm a fairly experienced DM, and it's... you know... quite embarrassing when a noob player points out such a mistake. :smalleek:

My excuse is that when I switched to 3.5 some years ago, I was taught a wrong rule. And I'd never think they other guys could be wrong on such a basic thing, so I never really thought about it, and just passed that piece of text when re-reading the manual for the casual check.

I need to talk to those people, since we still play together.:smallwink:

1000x thanks for now, bye! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:


Well, there are other games where that is how it's done, maybe even old versions of DnD, I'm not positive, so that might be where you guys got that from. Definitely not DnD 3.5 though. Since you were all doing it the same way all this time, I'm sure it worked out for you, and you can all switch over to the actual rule together.

Yes it's worked decently for us, except for the casual frustration... this will be a game changer as from our POV it's better than "free Cleave". :D
I'm going to talk about it. It probably comes from some other system, possibly AD&D2nd (can't remember combat details except THAC0, that was an unforgettable nightmare :smallbiggrin: ).

[Necromancy]

We always misused full attacks in the opposite way

Player "Ok third attack does 14 damage, is it dead yet?"

DM "yes"

Player "ok fourth attack against the guy beside him"

[Elderand]

We always misused full attacks in the opposite way

Player "Ok third attack does 14 damage, is it dead yet?"

DM "yes"

Player "ok fourth attack against the guy beside him"

That's not a misuse, that's exactly how it's supposed to be done.

[With a box]

We always misused full attacks in the opposite way

Player "Ok third attack does 14 damage, is it dead yet?"

DM "yes"

Player "ok fourth attack against the guy beside him"

Is that wrong?

From upper post:
You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

[Demorden]

That's not a misuse, that's exactly how it's supposed to be done.

Assuming the other guy is reachable with a 5ft step (or with no movement).

[Elderand]

Assuming the other guy is reachable with a 5ft step (or with no movement).

Of course.

[Feint's End]

Assuming the other guy is reachable with a 5ft step (or with no movement).

Technically you can take swift actions at any point during a round so if you have a way of swift action movement (like hustle for example) you can move in between multiple attacks.

[Bronk]

I'm going to talk about it. It probably comes from some other system, possibly AD&D2nd (can't remember combat details except THAC0, that was an unforgettable nightmare :smallbiggrin: ).

I hear ya! I try to block THAC0 and the rest out as best I can!

[danzibr]

Technically you can take swift actions at any point during a round so if you have a way of swift action movement (like hustle for example) you can move in between multiple attacks.
Or True Strike? :D

[HammeredWharf]

Full attack rules are pretty lax in D&D. As others have pointed out, you can also do a 5ft step between your attacks. You can even attack different targets after you charged one of them.

[Necromancy]

That's not a misuse, that's exactly how it's supposed to be done.

It's a fine line you cross into metagaming

[HammeredWharf]

It's a fine line you cross into metagaming

How's it metagaming? Being dead is an in-game thing. Hitting a dead enemy is usually pointless and not something an experienced warrior has to do. It's only metagaming if the player character doesn't know if the thing he hit is dead, but that would be the DM telling unnecessary details to the player and doesn't really have much to do with the subject at hand.

[sideswipe]

How's it metagaming? Being dead is an in-game thing. Hitting a dead enemy is usually pointless and not something an experienced warrior has to do. It's only metagaming if the player character doesn't know if the thing he hit is dead, but that would be the DM telling unnecessary details to the player and doesn't really have much to do with the subject at hand.

agreeing with this.

also if you were in a real combat and you just ran someone through the neck and the lights leave his eyes, it would not be psychic powers telling you he was dead and you could now attack the next guy.

[Necromancy]

Yeah didn't quite explain I suppose, but a lot of metagaming happens during full attacks. You plan out every move like you're playing chess, trying to get maximum effect

Example, boss is a (something) and I know they're hard as hell to hit, so I will focus my iteratave attacks on the 3 goblins beside us

[Elderand]

Yeah didn't quite explain I suppose, but a lot of metagaming happens during full attacks. You plan out every move like you're playing chess, trying to get maximum effect

Example, boss is a (something) and I know they're hard as hell to hit, so I will focus my iteratave attacks on the 3 goblins beside us

That's.....not metagaming, that's just in character tactical decision.

[Demorden]

If you have multiple attacks you are free to target any creature in range, barring any special circumstances that might prevent this. In your example, if you had enough attacks you could target every opponent in the same round, or any combination thereof up to your total number of attacks.


Does this apply to the Flurry of Misses too?
It DOES apply to tripping, sundering and disarming, I assume. Might seem a silly question, but as I explained, I never felt I had to analize this stuff.


I hear ya! I try to block THAC0 and the rest out as best I can!

I still wake up screaming in the middle of the night; I've had a hard time explaining my fiancée that I've passed through hard times in battle, and that my demons are not going to disappear any soon. :smallbiggrin:


Technically you can take swift actions at any point during a round so if you have a way of swift action movement (like hustle for example) you can move in between multiple attacks.

Good reminder. :)


Full attack rules are pretty lax in D&D. As others have pointed out, you can also do a 5ft step between your attacks. You can even attack different targets after you charged one of them.

When you speak about charges, I suppose you assume the character has Pounce, or something else.


agreeing with this.

also if you were in a real combat and you just ran someone through the neck and the lights leave his eyes, it would not be psychic powers telling you he was dead and you could now attack the next guy.

This leads me to think... how do you rule if someone wants to pretend to be dead?
That would likely misguide the attacker and give the defender some time... and surprise effect. :smallwink:

Do they ever discuss this specific case in the manuals? Many books were never translated in my language, so I don't use them a lot.

[Bronk]

Does this apply to the Flurry of Misses too?
It DOES apply to tripping, sundering and disarming, I assume. Might seem a silly question, but as I explained, I never felt I had to analize this stuff.

This leads me to think... how do you rule if someone wants to pretend to be dead?
That would likely misguide the attacker and give the defender some time... and surprise effect. :smallwink:

Do they ever discuss this specific case in the manuals? Many books were never translated in my language, so I don't use them a lot.

Yup, it applies to all of those things.

For pretending to be dead, and I'm away from books right now so I don't have all the details, there's usually either a bluff check involved or a specific magic item like the Misleading Necklace.

[atemu1234]

agreeing with this.

also if you were in a real combat and you just ran someone through the neck and the lights leave his eyes, it would not be psychic powers telling you he was dead and you could now attack the next guy.

Plus, in combat, there's a certain level of give and take. When someone goes down, they're dead. They stop dodging and trying to dodge.

[Fouredged Sword]

That's.....not metagaming, that's just in character tactical decision.

My group does something interesting with this. You cannot at a glance tell if someone is dead, but you CAN tell if they fall to the ground. Maybe they are dead, maybe they hit -4 HP. Maybe the DM rolled a bluff/sense motive check behind the screen to see if the enemy is JUST PLAYING dead. We have had several enemies pop back up and try to stab us before. Our DM is very careful to state what we see, not what we know. There is a whole range between "You critical hit, the enemies head goes flying" and "Your sword bites flesh and bone, the enemy collapses to the ground with a sick gurgle."

He had enemies get back up after BOTH of those (Dang monster had regeneration and we didn't know it!)

[HammeredWharf]

When you speak about charges, I suppose you assume the character has Pounce, or something else.

Yes, something like Pounce.

[Coidzor]

It's a fine line you cross into metagaming

No, it isn't. You're in combat and running the combat engine.

Attacking someone until they drop and are no longer active so you then attack the nearest foe you can get at if you're still able to attack is just par for the course, not a disruptive and problematic blurring of the line between in-character and out-of-character knowledge.


My group does something interesting with this. You cannot at a glance tell if someone is dead, but you CAN tell if they fall to the ground. Maybe they are dead, maybe they hit -4 HP. Maybe the DM rolled a bluff/sense motive check behind the screen to see if the enemy is JUST PLAYING dead. We have had several enemies pop back up and try to stab us before. Our DM is very careful to state what we see, not what we know. There is a whole range between "You critical hit, the enemies head goes flying" and "Your sword bites flesh and bone, the enemy collapses to the ground with a sick gurgle."

He had enemies get back up after BOTH of those (Dang monster had regeneration and we didn't know it!)

As long as the DM is consistent with either requiring you to roll the sense motive or spot yourselves or handling it for you with the correct modifiers behind the screen and clear about which he's doing when asked, that's perfectly valid. IIRC it's a trivial check to determine if someone is bleeding out or dead, though if no feigning death enters into the scenario.

[VincentTakeda]

I had a game recently where I ran this the opposite way.
The characters were furiously shooting an enemy that had little in the way of visual means to give away the end of its mortality, so I decided not to announce its death as it happened but simply let them keep attacking it until someone had the thought to ask.

By the time someone asked 'is it still alive?' the response was something to the effect of 'you no longer see the enemy, though in its place is an unrecognizable enemy sized molten pile of meat, bones, and slag.

[Hiro Quester]

This leads me to think... how do you rule if someone wants to pretend to be dead?
That would likely misguide the attacker and give the defender some time... and surprise effect. :smallwink:

Do they ever discuss this specific case in the manuals? Many books were never translated in my language, so I don't use them a lot.

the Feat Combat Panache enables you to take advantage of playing dead. one of the three options for tactics is to bluff that you are dead. After taking 10 points of damage you (immediate action) drop to the ground and make a bluff check (opposed by their and other observers' sense motive). Success means they think you are dead.

With the feat you can then rise and attack them without AOO, and deny them their dex to AC for you first attack.

My sense is that without the feat, you can still make the bluff check. But you wouldn't get the tactical advantage of avoiding AOO and denying their Dex to AC if you rise to strike them.

[sideswipe]

the Feat Combat Panache enables you to take advantage of playing dead. one of the three options for tactics is to bluff that you are dead. After taking 10 points of damage you (immediate action) drop to the ground and make a bluff check (opposed by their and other observers' sense motive). Success means they think you are dead.

With the feat you can then rise and attack them without AOO, and deny them their dex to AC for you first attack.

My sense is that without the feat, you can still make the bluff check. But you wouldn't get the tactical advantage of avoiding AOO and denying their Dex to AC if you rise to strike them.

i agree with your last statement, but you would probably have to ready action against the attack to perform the bluff, so you miss a turn and get hit all for another AoO for no benefit (unless its for trying to escape)

[jjcrpntr]

How's it metagaming? Being dead is an in-game thing. Hitting a dead enemy is usually pointless and not something an experienced warrior has to do. It's only metagaming if the player character doesn't know if the thing he hit is dead, but that would be the DM telling unnecessary details to the player and doesn't really have much to do with the subject at hand.

I kind of rule it as if the player has 3 attacks and rolls all three at once, all three hit and the creature dies after the first swing, then the character is sitting there hacking the corpse up as it goes down.

If they say "ok first attack, hit, 20 dmg. Is it dead? Yes, ok next swing on this other guy"

I view it as one is you just unloading on something, the other is you thinking the creature may be close to death and therefor you don't need to go all office space vs the copier on it.

There are a lot of rules that people read/interpret and use wrong. I get caught on them all the time. Part of is it because when I started I was taught something that I later learned was wrong. I have a player in my group that has played/dm'd for a long time and he just realized a couple months ago that he was doing ready actions wrong. It's just part of the game when there are as many rules and such as Pathfinder/dnd have.

[Psyren]

It's a fine line you cross into metagaming

"Man, I totally chopped off his head with that third attack, but I don't want to metagame; better whack the corpse fountaining blood with my last swing just to be safe."

[sideswipe]

"Man, I totally chopped off his head with that third attack, but I don't want to metagame; better whack the corpse fountaining blood with my last swing just to be safe."

OH FUDGE!! i forgot it was a HYDRA!!!!!!!

[ZamielVanWeber]

I kind of rule it as if the player has 3 attacks and rolls all three at once, all three hit and the creature dies after the first swing, then the character is sitting there hacking the corpse up as it goes down.

That seems like an odd rule. Am I missing something here, because as is it seems to punish anyone trying to speed up combat (which can take forever if something prevents a quick victory by either side).

[Flickerdart]

I kind of rule it as if the player has 3 attacks and rolls all three at once, all three hit and the creature dies after the first swing, then the character is sitting there hacking the corpse up as it goes down.
Grr, a time-saving measure, let's punish the player!

[sideswipe]

Grr, a time-saving measure, let's punish the player!

if i had a DM like that i would forever play a malconvoker with leadership and undead leadership with dragon cohort, extra cohort, wild cohort and improved familiar.

[jjcrpntr]

That seems like an odd rule. Am I missing something here, because as is it seems to punish anyone trying to speed up combat (which can take forever if something prevents a quick victory by either side).

It probably seems odd because you don't know my players. It's not punishing them because they always will say "i'm going to swing at him and if he dies go on to the next guy". My original post was poorly worded

[Shining Wrath]

Furthermore, there are Tome of Battle maneuvers from Iron Heart that attack everyone next to you - which would be even more OP than they already are if normally you had to make your full attacks on a single target.

[jaydubs]

It's also a very useful rule to know as a DM. Gives you a very good reason not to kill downed PCs if another party member is within reach. You usually want to try to take out the enemy still in the fight rather than to execute his downed buddy. Which creates a very nice intersection between "NPCs behave intelligently" and "don't gratuitously kill PCs."

[Flickerdart]

which would be even more OP than they already are
>attacking everyone next to you once
>in a game where focus fire is king
>overpowered