Iterative attacks / multiple targets

[schreier]

Are there issues with targeting multiple opponents with iterative attacks?

If I have 3 attacks while TWF, and am surrounded by 3 guys - can I attack each once without penalty or issue?

What if I am fighting 3 opponents, but one is 20 feet away and my second weapon is a dagger - can I attack the two near me each once, and then throw my dagger at the third?

We play you have to declare before rolling anything, but no penalty otherwise - is that supported by RAW anywhere?

[Buufreak]

Yes. Extracharacters

[Khedrac]

Actual RAW is that you make each of your multiple attacks in sequence from highest (base) attack bonus to lowest, and for each attack you declare your target, roll your attack and determine the results before moving on to the next attack.
There and no penalties for switching targets between attacks, nor for switching from melee to range (though usually you need something like the feat 'quickdraw' to ready the throwing weapon in the middle of a full attack).
Also, if you hold weapons in both hands, but do not intend to use two weapon fighting you can actually choose which weapon to attack with for each attack without incurring penalties (so with 3 attacks from an 11+ BAB or 6+ and haste you can do sword, dagger, sword for your three attacks).

Forcing you to declare the targets for all three attacks before rolling any of them is not an uncommon houserule, but is the an unnecessary nerf to the physical combat types (I have mainly seen it enfored for archers using rapid shot). I suspect most of the DMs using it don't realise that it is a houserule, but it is.

With two-weapon fighting the maths of working out which order the attacks should be made in is slightly more complex, but once done, the same rules apply - determine each attack individually before declaring the next.

The only real rules disfunction is when the making of a full attack applies a penalty to the attack (rapid-shot or two-weapon fighting) - if the first attack ends the attack sequence (either by downing the only opponent in reach or by revealing it to be illusory) then the attack penalty should not have been applied as the full-round attack has not been taken!

Probably the most common mistake is for an animal with claw/claw/bite and grapple on claw hit to have the bite attack rolled before the grapple is resolved - it matters because the bite will be at -5 if made in the grapple!

[upho]

The only real rules disfunction is when the making of a full attack applies a penalty to the attack (rapid-shot or two-weapon fighting) - if the first attack ends the attack sequence (either by downing the only opponent in reach or by revealing it to be illusory) then the attack penalty should not have been applied as the full-round attack has not been taken!I don't remember whether this was ever clarified in 3.5, but in PF you don't have to declare that you're taking a full attack before making the first attack, and it's up to you whether you apply any penalties to that first attack which normally only affects a full attack (TWF, Rapid Shot etc). If you apply such penalties, you're essentially trading some of your first attack's effectiveness for a stronger potential full attack. And if you don't, you're conversely trading some of your potential full attack's effectiveness for a stronger first attack.

I think this is perfectly reasonable and it also works just fine in practice IME, in terms of mechanics as well as verisimilitude.


Probably the most common mistake is for an animal with claw/claw/bite and grapple on claw hit to have the bite attack rolled before the grapple is resolved - it matters because the bite will be at -5 if made in the grapple!Right. Although whether it actually matters also depends on the target's Dex and dodge bonuses to AC, since grappling creatures lose those. Also, though I can't really trust my poor old brain these days, it seems to be absolutely certain that the penalty to attacks while grappling is -4, not -5.

[HouseRules]

Besides cleave (and great cleave) which prevents a 5-foot step between the bonus attack action, you may take your 5-foot step in between any of those iterative attacks.

[Khedrac]

I don't remember whether this was ever clarified in 3.5, but in PF you don't have to declare that you're taking a full attack before making the first attack, and it's up to you whether you apply any penalties to that first attack which normally only affects a full attack (TWF, Rapid Shot etc). If you apply such penalties, you're essentially trading some of your first attack's effectiveness for a stronger potential full attack. And if you don't, you're conversely trading some of your potential full attack's effectiveness for a stronger first attack.

I think this is perfectly reasonable and it also works just fine in practice IME, in terms of mechanics as well as verisimilitude.
I was talking 3.5 and that's absolutely the point - you can end up short-changed, but it is a very minor thing.
Basically if the first attack of a flurry of blows misses by the penalty to attack and would have downed the opponent, the attack has lost their chance to move after the attack that technically they could have done had they not taken the penalty they would not have needed to apply.
It's a niche case and I don't see a way out of it, but it exists.


Right. Although whether it actually matters also depends on the target's Dex and dodge bonuses to AC, since grappling creatures lose those. Also, though I can't really trust my poor old brain these days, it seems to be absolutely certain that the penalty to attacks while grappling is -4, not -5.Wrong. One retains one's dex etc. bonuses to armor class against the opponent that is grappling you, you only lose them against characters not in the grapple, thus they always count in the described circumstance.
(Another common point of confusion, but then, that's grappling all over.)