Combat rule clarification required [3.5]

[Eagle of Fire]

It is kind of ironic for me that someone start a flame fest thread about call ruling and players arguing over them since it just happened to me this session.

So first of all, I'd like to point out that I'm not interested at all at people telling me this and that because they think it is more fair, or because this class need more help than another, etc. I don't actually care about "mundanes get nothing" or some such, I'm only interested in the truth about the rules in question, as simple as possible.

So, this argument started up because one of the fighters in the group suddenly went from two attacks per round with two weapon fighting to 4 attacks per round because of +6 BAB and taking a feat allowing her to attack a second time with her offhand weapon too. Also, it just happened out of a pure coincidence that they purposely went after really weak but extremely numerous opponents which has beaten them down. Without killing them, fortunately.

Situational explanation time: when you have a single attack, it counts as a standard action. Thus far, no problems. When you can do a second attack, you absolutely need to do a full attack to add more than the first attack to the target, which is a complex action. So far, no problems. If you have many targets in front of you, with low HP... You attack and simply kill the monster in one shot. If you don't do a full attack then you've used up your standard action and you can't attack again in the round. If you had announced a full attack on the monster the rules state that you can even retract yourself about the full attack and get back your move action. No problem here either.

The problem started, I think, when the player in question realized that I would not allow her to do more than 2 (or 3) attacks per round if she kills the first target in one shot (because she have two weapons) even though in reality she has the potential to do 4 per round. Basically, because she could deliver a max of 4 attacks total in a turn she wanted to be able to kill 4 enemies per round as long as damage and tohit was sufficient. To which I replied, you can't usually actually attack more than one target per turn. Unless you possess a feat which allow you to do so, like cleave or better yet greater cleave which, I believe, was created exactly for this exact kind of situation.

So, in the end I simply told the group that I didn't actually cared to be right or wrong and that I'd check for the next session simply to know the truth. But they didn't want to let go and it ended up in a 30 minutes debate because one player was away at the time and it fueled up the discussion up to a heated debate simply because there was nothing more to do. In which they kept throwing at me the full attack mechanics, which I know by heart, and me telling them that what they were telling me wasn't enough to convince me in the least. Fun stuff.

I tried to explain to them that I was fine by checking it for next session and that it was simply normal that I step back to the rule I have been using for about 30 to 40 sessions already when in serious doubt. I wish they could have understood that.

So anyways... Here is the question the simplest way I can formulate it: can you actually attack a second target in the same round with the same weapon, using a full attack with enough BAB, if the first attack was strong enough to kill the first target? Without using a feat.

My own opinion is no, because in the rules when you declare your attack you actually choose a single target. Also, logically, why would there be a feat made up exactly to be able to hit more than one target in the same round if the mechanics allowed you to do so in the first place? Moreover, in all my D&D experience (which is not that extended but still) I've never actually seen someone (fighter would be likely) declare to be able to attack two different targets at once in the same round without the use of a feat. There always been at the very least a single fighter in every single group I ever seen as a player or a DM and it it was something possible I'm sure I would have heard about it at least once?

Also, in the end the rules are extremely vague on this. Nowhere, in the 30 minutes of debate in which I was frantically trying to find a reference somewhere in the player handbook which could end the debate in a way or another, have I found a clear reference to being able to attack more than one target in the same round. Nor did I find a reference somewhere restricting a melee character to an attack on a single target per round.

What says you?

[Unbeliever]

So anyways... Here is the question the simplest way I can formulate it: can you actually attack a second target in the same round with the same weapon, using a full attack with enough BAB, if the first attack was strong enough to kill the first target? Without using a feat.

Yes, you can.

The feat that you think needs to exist does not exist.  There is no feat that says "you can choose to change your declared attacks to someone else" or whatever.  Furthermore, there is no declaring actions or targets phase in 3.5 D&D -- you do it individually for each attack, so you can split them up however you want.  Contrast this with old-school Battletech or Old World of Darkness.  Furthermore, the few instances where changing targets imposes a penalty, such as the Stay the Hand spell (PHB II) the penalties are specifically called out in the rules.  If there was a general rule about switching targets or having to split one's concentration or whatever, these specific exceptions would not be necessary. 

Think about it this way:  can a dragon who has a number of attacks (typically, bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail, add in rapidstrike if you like) only attack a single party member?  The same rules would apply, and I've never heard anyone contend that said dragon would have to focus all its ire on a single PC. 

My own opinion is no, because in the rules when you declare your attack you actually choose a single target. Also, logically, why would there be a feat made up exactly to be able to hit more than one target in the same round if the mechanics allowed you to do so in the first place? Moreover, in all my D&D experience (which is not that extended but still) I've never actually seen someone (fighter would be likely) declare to be able to attack two different targets at once in the same round without the use of a feat. There always been at the very least a single fighter in every single group I ever seen as a player or a DM and it it was something possible I'm sure I would have heard about it at least once?

I think you're confusing a lot of things.  First off, each attack does need to have a single target, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Warmind PrC has an ability).  But, a full attack action is a series of attacks.  So, each individual attack needs a (legal) target.  But, the whole full attack doesn't need one.  In the context of D&D rules the previous sentence isn't even well-formed. 

You also seem to be eliding between Cleave's bonus free attack and the idea of making multiple attacks against various targets in a single round. 

[Halinn]

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."

(emphasis mine)

[Unbeliever]

Halinn is much better at this thread than I am ...

[Eagle of Fire]

@Unbeliever:

Yes, you can.

I appreciate your reply but do you know where exactly in any book it would be described this way? That's what I am really looking for.

The feat that you think needs to exist does not exist.  There is no feat that says "you can choose to change your declared attacks to someone else" or whatever.  Furthermore, there is no declaring actions or targets phase in 3.5 D&D -- you do it individually for each attack, so you can split them up however you want.  Contrast this with old-school Battletech or Old World of Darkness.  Furthermore, the few instances where changing targets imposes a penalty, such as the Stay the Hand spell (PHB II) the penalties are specifically called out in the rules.  If there was a general rule about switching targets or having to split one's concentration or whatever, these specific exceptions would not be necessary.

First, I'm not looking for a feat in particular. This is really beside the point. I mentioned feats simply because I know for a fact that some feat allow you to attack more than once on different target in a round. It was only for completeness.

Also, I forgot to mention it but I'm currently restricting my players to core books and PHB II is not part of them. If it is mentioned explicitly somewhere as part of an errata or whatever which is not included in the PHB  I'd be very happy to know about it, but again I want the exact rule to be able to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

I also have no knowledge or experience with Battletech or World of Darkness, nor do I wish to compare anything between different system. I'm talking about D&D 3.5 here, plain and simple here.

Think about it this way:  can a dragon who has a number of attacks (typically, bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail, add in rapidstrike if you like) only attack a single party member?  The same rules would apply, and I've never heard anyone contend that said dragon would have to focus all its ire on a single PC.

I think your example with the dragon do not really apply because they use natural weapons. "Normal" PCs don't. Monsters also have special rules and special feats the PCs don't have access to because... Well, because they're monsters. This change the deal.

The way I always made my monsters attack is use the primary attack described in the MM (and sometimes they have more than one attack with the same weapon, it is specifically mentioned) and if they have a secondary attack then I use it too when I make them full attack. If there is a strategical reason I can use the secondary attack instead of the primary for the same purpose but it end up the same thing really. But even with them I would not make them attack the same PC twice with the same attack if it was enough to down him or her. I would use the same logic for canceling out the full attack and move instead or whatever. Otherwise it would be too easy to kill them in a single attack.

So you say, would a dragon be forced to attack a single PC with all those attacks? To which I reply of course not, and to which I reply that I already make my players be able to attack two targets with two different, distinct weapons. Because those are different weapons, just like a bite and claws are different weapons for the dragon.

My question relate to a single weapon, not to multiple weapons. Not the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

@Halinn: thank you for your answer but this is exactly the kind of argument the players brought to me, and that's exactly what made me say that it doesn't convince me in the least because nowhere it is explicitly stated that you can actually attack two targets in the same attack. Like I just said in the first post and here right above, I already allow my PCs to do two attacks on different targets if they fight with two weapons.

Stating that you don't have to call the shots first really mean nothing here, especially since I can make this sentence directly apply to the fact that in the paragraph just above it says that if you fight with two weapons you can choose to attack with the offhand weapon first instead of being forced to fight with the firsthand weapon. Plus the mention to feats like cleave: you don't have to mention ahead of time every time you strike that if you kill it you'll want to hit the guy right there next. It would really be bothersome in the long run don't you think?

[phaedrusxy]

I'm kind of amazed that you think you can't attack multple targets with a full attack, but it's definitely not the weirdest rules interpretation I've ever seen either.

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.

The green text tells us that you can get multiple attacks for several reasons:
1) Your BAB is high enough
2) You fight with two weapons (or a double weapon)
3) Something else (natural attacks, etc)

After that, it treats all of those "extra attacks" as functionally equivalent. It doesn't matter where they come from, becaused the rest of this block of rules text applies to them all, equally.

Now, notice the large, bolded S. That means you can select multiple targets for your multiple attacks, and you don't even have to select them before hand. You can attack target A with your first attack, and if it drops, you can move on to target B with your second, ad infinitum. And it doesn't matter how you got those extra attacks, because they're all lumped together and covered by the same rules text, at least here. Yes, TWF has its own rules, but that really doesn't change what's spelled out here.

This was probably covered in an ancient FAQ or Sage Advice column somewhere, also, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go look for it...

And if it matters... I've been playing (and DMing) D&D for almost 30 years, with at least a couple hundred different people, dozens of different DMs, and in at least 5 states at actual tabletop games, and across 3 or 4 different websites that host PbP games, and I've never seen anyone interpret it the way you are.

[Arturick]

Eagle, if you did this to one of my characters, I would up and leave your game.

You are pulling a rule out of your ass to screw your player.  That is shitty.  Don't be shitty.

Player declares that he is making a standard attack:  He now has one attack to assign to a nearby enemy.

Player declares that he is making a full attack:  He now has X attacks to assign to enemies in his reach.

Player with cleave kills an enemy:  He gets one extra attack on top of his one (standard) or X (full) attacks.

[Eagle of Fire]

@phaedrusxy: You are serving me exactly the same thing than Halinn. Which really don't help me further and to which I have nothing more to say than what I already said.

@Arturick:

You are pulling a rule out of your ass to screw your player.  That is shitty.  Don't be shitty.

I didn't pull any rule out of my ass. I actually DMed all those games with this particular rule the way I described it. It is only because it occurred that it could potentially be of importance that my players argued over this minor problem this time. In the end everything my players can do the monsters can do too, and vice-versa. I really fail to understand what would be the difference to play with both option except of course for the fact that everybody need to agree to the rules so everybody play the same game.

What I'm asking, again, is someone to show me where exactly it is specifically stated that you can or cannot do something. So far I have nothing to help me. And of course if I could have found it myself I would not be asking to waste everyone time. Also, I find the fact that you consider me shitty or whatever other kind of detrimental status without even having a shred of information on what is going on kind of offensive.

I kind of expect it. That there is a real good chance nobody will be able to bring the rule up, I mean. The plan I have right now if it fails is to take all those information you guys graciously offer and decide what to do with it next session. I'll probably rule in the favor of my players in the end because it seemed to really tick them off but without a clear identification of the rules I'm still going to think that I'll simply decree a house rule simply because they want to be more powerful. Which really doesn't sit well with me.

[SneeR]

Is the feat to attack multiple enemies in a round which you refer to Whirlwind Atack?

[SneeR]

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.

"You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning later ones."
For instance, you can assign later attacks to another target if you kill the old one so you don't flail in mid-air like a video game character finishing his combo animation.

How would attacks of opportunity work if you could only attack one target for the entire round?

[ImperatorK]

(click to show/hide)

[Eagle of Fire]

*sigh*

Is the feat to attack multiple enemies in a round which you refer to Whirlwind Atack?

I'm not referring to a feat and it is completely irrelevant.

"You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning later ones."

Exactly the same thing than earlier again. I already allow my PCs to give more than one attack per round with two weapons fighting. You can already do more attack per round with the same weapons with Cleave, for example. This doesn't specify you can actually attack two times with the same weapon in the same round and thus is no proof in itself.

If I could not find any good relevance to other things in the same block of text, or if it was explicitly mentioned then I would not have a problem with this. It is however not the case. I can think of two specific options in which this text can apply and that's only out of my head without looking further and I just mentioned them too.

How would attacks of opportunity work if you could only attack one target for the entire round?

It is already stated in the rules that you can only have one attack of opportunity per turn unless you have feats to help you further. Also, irrelevant to the question. We're not even discussing the same mechanics anymore.

Not to say I never said you can only attack one target per round nor hint at it. I even explicitly said that I allow my PCs to attack two targets per turn with two weapons fighting...

[Jackinthegreen]

It is possible, or even likely, that the designers didn't add in text stating explicitly "Each of your attacks during a full attack action can have a different target" because most will assume the designers wouldn't screw over martial characters like that.  If the creature kills a target on one of its hits, it should be entirely natural to simply change targets to another one it can hit and then finish its attack sequence.

Still, here's a section from the Rules Compendium about it, page 17.

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 other reason, you must use a full-round action to be able to make your additional attacks. As you make your attacks, you specify your targets. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

Emphasis mine of course.  The fact that they said targets should be good enough to say they want the characters to be able to attack multiple targets during a full attack.  If they only wanted a full attack to effect one target they would have said "You may only attack one target with a full attack."

Cleave and Great Cleave have their own paragraph too.

The extra attacks granted by the Cleave feat or the Great Cleave feat can be taken whenever they apply. This is an exception to the normal limit on the number of attacks you can make when not making a full attack.

Which means that (Great) Cleave works on standard action attacks and also on AoOs and is simply an extra attack or more because you killed something.  Their existence has nothing to do with a target limit on full attacks.

[Solo]

The fact that this thread not only exists, but has gone on for so long, makes me a sad panda.

[Eagle of Fire]

@Jackinthegreen: I actually agree with all you said. But that doesn't make me think differently.

Because I can use the same rules and apply them the way I said, without actually breaking them in any way.

[ImperatorK]

(click to show/hide)

[Solo]

Ok, I've had just about enough of the facepalms. They are trite and overdone. I shall now end the need to post pictures of facepalms by posting the facepalm to end all facepalms so that we may get back to business.

(click to show/hide)

You are all welcome.

[Jackinthegreen]

@Jackinthegreen: I actually agree with all you said. But that doesn't make me think differently.

Because I can use the same rules and apply them the way I said, without actually breaking them in any way.

One clarification perhaps: That line I emphasized only exists because they want creatures able to hit more than one target if they so choose.  If it was assumed only one target could be hit then the text would not be there.

The rules can be applied to only one target and not be broken (I assume you mean broken as breaking the rules, not broken as overpowered) because one target is a valid form of targets unless something says you absolutely must choose more than one target.

But let's go on a bit.  "My own opinion is no, because in the rules when you declare your attack you actually choose a single target."  It has been shown that the character chooses a target as it makes an attack.  Thus, a second target may be chosen for a second attack, and so forth.

As for making note of how the rules are vague, I mentioned the assumption bit.  WotC makes a lot of assumptions in its texts, and you'd best be ready to encounter poorly-worded rules and figure out something that works for a given interpretation.  I hate to beat a dead horse, but forcing a creature to make its full attack against a single target is a major dick move, even if the rules "support it."  Some restrictions are good for the game.  Others hinder it.

Because it's apparently too ambiguous to make a concrete decision, it essentially boils down to whether it would actually be a problem to allow multiple targets on a full attack.  Or perhaps switch it up and ask whether restricting a full attack to a single target can cause problems.  On the first one, a problem might come up when the DM uses a bunch of weak creatures in an attempt to crowd the players.  As mentioned in the DMG, that probably won't turn out too well in the first place and is hard to judge the difficulty of.  Also, if the character is one-shotting them, their use can be seen as hindering the game rather than building on it, and might be better not being used at all.  If the players have damaged a couple of stronger creatures that are now low enough to be killed in a couple of hits, chances are the encounter is in its mop-up phase and keeping the character from taking out both at once is mostly just delaying the inevitable.

On the second, restricting them to having to target a single opponent means wasted attacks if they kill something and another viable target is in range.  As you've already learned, this can cause quite a ruckus.

It's likely the reason you've never had this come up before is because the players didn't really think about it.  It might never have come up or they were content with "well, I killed my main target, so I guess it's the next guy's turn."  Now that it is being thought of though, it should be pretty plain that allowing them to have multiple targets on a full attack won't be as much of a problem as restricting them from it.

[sirpercival]

From the FAQ:

If you have more than one attack, can you attack one
foe, take a 5-foot step, and make another attack against a
different foe (assuming of course, that you didn’t otherwise
move during your turn)?

Yes, you can take a 5-foot step before, after, or during your
full attack action (provided that you don’t take any other
movement during the round).


EDIT: and...

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.

[kitep]

I'll join the chorus and say you can attack more than 1 target in a round.  That's the way we've always played.

You can even take one 5' step between attacks.  (But that is one 5' step per turn, not a 5' step between every attack)