Combat rule clarification required [3.5]

[Pencil]

Because flurry of blows is a feat.

 

btw.: this thread is so much fun 

[Demelain]

You are correct that I only included one of the things in the list. But it is important that the things it lists use the conjunction or.

If x or y, then z.

This means that for z to occur (in this case, you get to designate separate targets) x or y needs to be true, but not necessarily both.
If it is true that a character has multiple attacks from base attack bonus, it is also true that the attacks from base attack bonus can have more than one target.

If it doesn't apply to BAB simply because "there are a number of thing [on the list]", then why does the rule work foranything on the list?

[phaedrusxy]

@phaedrusxy: No. I saw it. The thing is, moving or deciding targets ahead of time is not in contest here. So I dismissed it.

WHAT?! It specifically addresses what you're talking about: You can change your target in the middle of a full attack, after having made some of your attacks. You can even take a 5' step between attacks in a full attack. There is no disclaimer that this only applies if you have multiple weapons, etc. So it applies for every attack in a full attack. Read it again, especially the sentences emphasized below:

My DM thinks that if you have four attacks in a round,
and you’re using the full attack action, you have to
designate all your targets at the beginning of the round, and
that you can’t switch your targets once you start rolling
your attacks. I think you choose the target for any attack
after you have seen the effect of your last attack. Please
help us.

Well, your DM is always right, but the rules are on your
side. You pick a target for each of your attacks as you make the
attacks, not at the beginning of your turn; see the description of
the full attack action in Chapter 8 of the PH.

The red part of the first (bolded) section is exactly what you are saying: You can't change the target of your attacks once you start rolling your attack rolls. The reply says that this is incorrect. You can change your targets for your attacks anytime you like, even in the middle of a full attack, after having made some of your attacks. You can even make a 5' step between attacks in a full attack. How is this not addressing your question?

[Eagle of Fire]

You are correct that I only included one of the things in the list. But it is important that the things it lists use the conjunction or.

If x or y, then z.

This means that for z to occur (in this case, you get to designate separate targets) x or y needs to be true, but not necessarily both.
If it is true that a character has multiple attacks from base attack bonus, it is also true that the attacks from base attack bonus can have more than one target.

If it doesn't apply to BAB simply because "there are a number of thing [on the list]", then why does the rule work foranything on the list?

Simply for consistency.

But you know, I don't understand your logic. If Z is to be true but that X or Y don't need to both be true at the same time then you are pretty much telling me that I'm right not to take for granted that they absolutely can have more than one target either.

That or, like I said, I simply don't understand what you are trying to tell me. Why would it be mutually exclusive? As far as I'm concerned, if there is doubt for one thing then there is doubt for all of them. In the case of the other items I can readily find a reference somewhere in the book as confirmation. Not for the question I asked for. That's my whole problem.

@phaedrusxy: you posted while I was writing. I'm sorry but I won't be able to reply until I get home, and probably not before late this evening.

[Jackinthegreen]

Eagle, are you translating from English into your native language?  If so, there are a lot of places where things can get lost in translation.  For example, one of the posters on these boards thought Improved Unarmed Strike (core) and Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle) were the same thing because Improved and Superior were translated to the same word in his primary language.

Firs thing's first though, Flurry of Blows is -not- a feat.  It is a Monk class feature.  No offense, but if you're going to go into semantics about English I'd recommend you improve your mastery of it.  The rules are quite clear on this now that the Frequently Asked Questions answers have been posted.  Every attack can have a, target, and unless it says multiple hits must be against the same target like Multishot, each attack can have a different target.

Like I said, if you expect WotC to explicitly put all the rules such that there can be no other way to interpret it, you give them far more credit than they deserve.  Hell, not even laws are regularly explicit.

[Demelain]

Okay, so we have a clause. This clause includes a list of conditions, using the conjuntion or. Because we are using 'or', only one of the conditions needs to be true for the clause to be true.
Example :
If I am walking or running, then I am moving.
'If I am walking or running' is our clause. 'Walking' or 'running' are our conditions. If one of them is true, then the entire clause is true.
If the clause is true, I am moving. Both conditions do not need to be true at the same time. And, in fact, in this example it is impossible for them to be true at the same time (you cannot both be walking and running).
So, because one condition of our statement is true (you have multiple attacks from a high attack bonus), our clause is true, and you have targets.

[veekie]

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 (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item) 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

Ok, here it is broken down into logical propositions
A - Get more than one attack per round because BAB is high enough
B - Get more than one attack per round with two weapons
C - Get more than one attack per round with a double weapon
D - Get more than one attack per round for some special reason

E - Must use a full round action to get additional attacks

F - Do not need to specify targets of additional attacks ahead of time.
G - Can resolve earlier attacks before assigning later attacks.

So its:
(A or B or C or D) => E => (F and G)
Therefore
A => E => F (If you get more than one attack per round because BAB is high enough, you must use a full round action to get additional attacks, which do not need to be specified ahead of time.)
A => E => G  (If you get more than one attack per round because BAB is high enough, you must use a full round action to get additional attacks, where you can resolve earlier attacks before later attacks)

[phaedrusxy]

Okay, so we have a clause. This clause includes a list of conditions, using the conjuntion or. Because we are using 'or', only one of the conditions needs to be true for the clause to be true.
Example :
If I am walking or running, then I am moving.
'If I am walking or running' is our clause. 'Walking' or 'running' are our conditions. If one of them is true, then the entire clause is true.
If the clause is true, I am moving. Both conditions do not need to be true at the same time. And, in fact, in this example it is impossible for them to be true at the same time (you cannot both be walking and running).
So, because one condition of our statement is true (you have multiple attacks from a high attack bonus), our clause is true, and you have targets.

Exactly. And the FAQ clarifies this.

[sirpercival]

@phaedrusxy: No. I saw it. The thing is, moving or deciding targets ahead of time is not in contest here. So I dismissed it.

However, it is important for me to point out that this is the exact kind of thing I am looking for. This sounds like a FAQ or an errata and I assumed there would be one somewhere about this.

Sorry Eagle, but this is wrong.  The second FAQ entry is extremely relevant.  What your ruling says is that by attacking a particular enemy with a weapon, the PC must choose to target that enemy with all further attacks with that weapon, wasting such attacks if the PC kills the target before the end of the sequence.  The FAQ entry and the PHB/SRD entries about full attacks explicitly state that you don't have to do that -- you can pick a new target after each attack.

[whitetyger009]

Eagle you are wrong here.  the rule says that you do not need to specify what targets you are hitting before each attack is made.  so if you have several attacks as 1 full attack action, then each of those attacks is seperate from each previous attack. 

this is stated by
From the PHB, page 143:
"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 (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item) 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."
this doesn't say if your target dies you lose the rest of your attacks, it says that each attack is seperate from previous and later attacks even though they all happen during the same action.

your argument has no basis in any rules.  the only place where number of targets for a melee attack are limited are spelled out.  such as AoO.  there are no feats that give you the ability to target additional enemies because there is no limitation beyone the number of attacks you have each round.  some feats (cleave, greater cleave) allow you an EXTRA attack for killing an opponent but this extra attack is added into the rest and the feat states the limitations.  other feats (whirlwind attack) allow you to affect multipal opponents instead of getting your normal number of attacks and again the feats state the limitations. 

on a personal note i am supprised your group didn't walk out on you for making this ruling i know i would have. 

[Zionpopsickle]

Frankly Eagle I think you are being a stubborn asshole but instead I am going to focus on a more general philosophical problem that you are having and which many DMs also have which tends to have a very detrimental effect on gameplay.

This problem is that you are attempting to apply 'real world' common sense to D&D.  Simply put this is wrong.  Instead you should be applying D&D common sense to D&D.  A lot of bad rulings and mundanes can't have nice things rulings are based upon this faulty premise.  If we look at D&D we see that many things that we take for granted in the real world and that color our common sense are not applicable to the world of D&D.  A very powerful example of this is that D&D has a much more flexible system of causality than the real world.  Besides the fact that arcane casters can start breaking down causality at first level with spells like benign transposition and abrupt jaunt (by allowing FTL movement within a causally connected system) there is also the interactions of readied actions which allow for causal paradoxes such as blocking charge movement, thereby rendering the charge illegal, thereby not allowing the charge, thereby not causing the readied action to trigger, which then allows the charge which triggers the readied action which then renders the charge illegal and causes baby jesus to cry. 

As such you cannot say I don't think that this makes sense from the real world.  Instead you have to ask if it makes sense in a world were giant flying lizards horde treasure in underground strongholds and the gods are pissy little ingrates who get mad if you don't do their sacred hula dance correctly.  So can a sixth plus level fighter (who is basically Rambo, Conan and Jean-Claude Van Dame rolled into one person) attack a bunch of dudes with a single sword?  Within the D&D paradigm common sense has to say yes, otherwise the system is going to start to fall apart because 20th level characters taking on armies of dudes (a common staple) becomes impossible to justify.

On a related note, as the DM you are given the role as adjudicator of the rules.  However, there is an unspoken implication that you will be adjudicating the rules that have been given and that if you are going to change this that you will inform the players.  If you think of this from the referee analogy, referees are given final say on rulings but they have a very clear rule book that they are deriving these rulings from.  A referee can't give a red card for improper use of the color teal because that is not mentioned in the rule book (at least I hope not otherwise FIFA might be in on the whole cyan conspiracy ).  Since the rules on this matter are quite clear (abundantly so despite your stubborn protestations) failure to uphold these rules is tantamount to failure at your job as DM.  As such I have to agree with tyger that if you pulled this kind of shit at a table I was playing at I would either leave or purposely kill my dude so I could play a caster because you are allowing your personal (and flawed) interpretations to override clearly written rules.   

[veekie]

As such you cannot say I don't think that this makes sense from the real world. 

I have to object to this. Each combat round is a six second interval. You have more than enough time for an experienced fighter to attack enemies on any side of him with a single weapon, preferably as part of the same motion(easier with slashing weapons, harder with piercing, while length of weapon determines the effectiveness of your arc). Heck, any combat training which considers potentially taking on multiple opponents does that.

Please don't mistake a misconception of RL limitations with actual RL limitations.

[SneeR]

Half of my last post was about how this rule defies real-world logic.

Also, that samurai stabs 2 people with his dagger, then throws the same dagger at a third. Your rule does not allow such a thing, Eagle.

[Eagle of Fire]

Ugh. Took me way too long to get back. Replying to everybody would be a pain.

@Zionpopsickle: I said in my opening post that I wasn't interested in people opinion, only about the rules themselves. I've read it but I'm still going to completely ignore your post since what you are talking about is about tenfold more suggestive that the subject at hand. We really don't need to take that road. I'm not interested to take it in any case.

Ok guys. I still disagree with your explanations but it is true that we all play in French here. We have French 3.5 books but it is a reality that there might have a translation or language barrier here. I'm convinced that the way it is worded I'm not wrong when I brought the argument here but then again it is also true that that particular paragraph and the whole block of text about the full attacks is written quite strangely as far as French is concerned. A normal translation in French usually involve way more word count for the exact same thing in English and when I compare them it is about the same. I'm very good at the French language, but taking into consideration it might be badly or not correctly translated it stand to reason that what I'm looking for might simply not exist in the book I'm perusing.

So, like I said I'm still not completely convinced but I'm still going to allow my players to attack multiple enemies in the same turn like you all pointed out.

Now... I really played all those monsters with the rule I mentioned before. Being able to attack more than one target with a single attack will undoubtedly advantage the stronger solo monsters more than the PCs. I hope they won't have casualties coming out from this simply because of the shock of realizing the bigger monsters are in fact stronger than what they used to see.

I clearly remember one instance in which they purposely faced a dragon when they were not strong enough to do so. They got away but if the dragon could have been played out this way at least half of them would have died right there.

Also, that samurai stabs 2 people with his dagger, then throws the same dagger at a third. Your rule does not allow such a thing, Eagle.

No, I already went over this. Combat turns are all back to back. It take some time to stab two people in a turn, even if with an extra attack with cleave. I say it was done in two turns, that's all.

The thing is that real life is not separated in blocks of 6 seconds. If you play out your D&D games and make a video of it you would see the same thing.

[darqueseid]

Can I ask that you show me in the rules where it says you CAN'T attack more than one target in a round with the same weapon?  I don't see that rule explicitly stated anywhere. 

certain, specific feats do have the requirement that you must attack the same target, but those are "exceptions" not a rule. 

People have pointed out several places where the implied rule is that you can target multiple foes, circumstantial evidence that supports the claim and even a spelled out quote from the FAQ.   And let me further add that in all other versions of D&D that I have played over 20 years of playing, when you had multiple attacks you could target different enemies in reach.  And by the way, in turn-based video games that have been based on 3.5 D&D rules like the psp d&d game you could target different enemies with multiple attacks in the same turn. 

Further to use your crazy logic, nowhere in the rules does it state that you can't attack more than one target, per round and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you have stubbornly clinged to your argument without any evidence or reason why whatsoever.  You need to provide us something, ANYTHING that supports your position.  Or maybe you really are a troll. 

If you can't provide any proof then I think your question has been answered. 

If you can't find any proof of your side and you still cling to your position, then I'm sorry, but you sir are an idiot.

 

[kitep]

Maybe it's just another translation thing, but the above makes me think that I might not have understood you.

Being able to attack more than one target with a single attack

You can only attack one target with a single attack.  But if you have multiple attacks in the same round, then you can attack multiple targets, even with the same weapon.  Your first attack would be against your first target, then your second attack could be against the same target or a different target.

I clearly remember one instance in which they purposely faced a dragon when they were not strong enough to do so. They got away but if the dragon could have been played out this way at least half of them would have died right there.

I thought under your old way, the dragon would still be able to attack multiple targets, since he was using multiple "weapons".  That claw, claw, bite, wing, wing, tail, would count as 6 different weapons so the dragon could attack 6 different targets.  How would this change?  Or were you also playing that all natural attacks have to be against the same target.

Good luck!

[darqueseid]

I don't say that to be mean by the way, rather the opposite, I think what everyone here is trying to get across to you is that you are going to seem like an idiot when you say "well I'll just houserule it that way over my objection." 

No, the rules are quite clear, and when you say that, it makes it seem like your just trying to save face by stubbornly saying, "well it isn't EXPLICITLY stated so thus I'm not wrong-but I guess I'll let you do it."

To anyone who knows the rules at all, it makes you sound stupid because you can't admit you made a mistake.  And thats the dumbest kind of idiot, because they still don't know why they're wrong.

Please don't be stupid, we don't want you to look stupid to your fellow gamers, review the(mountains of) evidence and come to the correct conclusion.

[whitetyger009]

this is either a troll, or a total dumbass.  at every turn he has totally ignored all evidence pointing to the fact that he is wrong.  especially with the eratta which specificly stated you could attack different opponents in the same round even after one died.  he said it doesn't count because it refrences a 5 foot step.   

this is just a troll or the case of a DM who is wrong but doesn't want to have to admit it because he thinks he is so smart about the rules.  all i can say is be a man and admit to your players you made a mistake and appologize.  they will respect you more for it in the end.  however, if you stick to this i hope every one of them walks out on you.  players do not need to be abused by a DM like this when there are so many legal ways a DM can abuse them.

[Agita]

this is either a troll, or a total dumbass.  at every turn he has totally ignored all evidence pointing to the fact that he is wrong.  especially with the eratta which specificly stated you could attack different opponents in the same round even after one died.  he said it doesn't count because it refrences a 5 foot step.   

this is just a troll or the case of a DM who is wrong but doesn't want to have to admit it because he thinks he is so smart about the rules.  all i can say is be a man and admit to your players you made a mistake and appologize.  they will respect you more for it in the end.  however, if you stick to this i hope every one of them walks out on you.  players do not need to be abused by a DM like this when there are so many legal ways a DM can abuse them.

This is uncalled for. As veekie said, someone being wrong on the internet is no reason to be a jerk to them.

[whitetyger009]

Agita if i was being this much of a dumbass i would expect and hope that someone would point it out to me.  this is not being a jerk this is totally calling the situation what it is.  the more this person goes on about how he is right about this when the RAW and RAI show in many places where he is wronge makes me belive more and more that we are dealing with a troll.  in fact i actually would prefer to find out this was a troll.  this is total abuse of the players plain and simple.