Combat rule clarification required [3.5]

[Eagle of Fire]

Thanks  Jackinthegreen. You've been the most helpful so far.

I take that you think there would not be any other mention of the base rule anywhere then? One which specifically state if you can or cannot attack two targets with the same weapon?

There is one thing which kind of tick me off in this thread though... When or where did I say I want to restrict my PCs from attacking multiple targets? This is not true. All I said is that if one attack a target and it dies, they should lose the rest of their attacks with this weapon. The main focus on my reasoning is the fact that a full attack is a complex action, which by description mean that they use all the concentration and focus on a single task. As we all know, combat is not static: PCs move around, maveuver and the like and the monsters do the same, trying not to get hit. You only have 6 seconds in a round after all, and I'm already all open to the fact that someone with two weapons can still hit a second target with his/her offhand weapon. I consider that a "pass by" hit in the battle, the PC running around and hitting left and right. Basically integrating all the mechanic into a fluid 6 second turn which the PCs simply decide how to turn out in their turn.

In the example I gave out in the first post, I said that my PC is still able to do 3 attacks per turn after kiling the first target. Only the second attack with the same weapon, because of BAB, would be lost.

All in all, if there wasn't really weak targets in front of them this issue would never have come up. Because against a bigger, larger or more buffed up foe they would simply use all their attack on the same enemy and would not see the difference. Even in that whole battle session, allowing the fighter with 4 attacks to kill 4 monsters a turn would have resulted in what... One or max two turns saving before turning on the bigger threat, a troll who was blocking off the path to the other adventurers. The difference is tiny, almost irrelevant.

[littha]

You want to nerf melee?

[Eagle of Fire]

As far as I am concerned, I DMed roughly 30-40 sessions with the rule I mentioned. In this case it is not nerfing, but boosting.

[Pencil]

Sirpercival cleared everything so...

you still won`t believe?

[Arturick]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.  My gut instinct is that, with your excessively verbose posts, infuriatingly circular logic, and utter obliviousness to any real implication of anything that anyone says, then you've gotta be troll.  It strains credibility to assume that you're a brain-damaged ape relentlessly pounding on a keyboard, since your grammar and spelling have been fairly perfect, even if everything you say is false or meaningless.

If there is any chance that you are not trolling, and you have been doing this sort of thing to actual players, then you are an ass hat.

Eagle:  "Okay, so casting haste ages you one year according to the rules."

Everyone:  "No, it totally doesn't."

Eagle:  "Really?  Can anyone show me a rule that says Haste does NOT cause you to age a year?  I bet you can't find text specifically proving a negative based on my utterly baseless assumption about the rules.  Also, I see that the sky is considered to be blue.  Because I cannot find a document specifically stating that the sky does not have wide swaths of plaid, then the sky must also have wide swaths of plaid."

As far as I am concerned, I DMed roughly 30-40 sessions with the rule I mentioned. In this case it is not nerfing, but boosting

 

[RedWarlock]

I don't intend to be crass or offensive in any way (unlike some here.. jeeze, guys show a little class whydoncha?), but you're being extremely stubborn, and the way you play does, in fact, take something from melee characters. You might have been playing that way for many sessions/years, but just because you've been doing something for a long time, doesn't make it right. Everyone else has been speaking plainly, they're correct in their insistence.

Nothing says a full attack sequence has to target only one opponent, and I know a few cases where players have deliberately split their iterative attacks to different targets, even when they don't drop (mainly as a form of aggro control), and nobody has ever questioned it. A full attack is simply a combination of attacks, not a single-focus action, and the target for each of the attacks can be selected at the time the attack is made, meaning they could attack anyone.

(As another rule, there is the case of the Swordbow, from the Magic Item Compendium. You can switch this item from sword to bow, or bow to sword, as a free action, and specifically, the text of the item says you can do so in the middle of a full attack, allowing you to mix melee and ranged attacks. If you were forced to only make full attacks against single targets, how would this at all be relevant?)

[Halinn]

The rules on this are very clear, and they say that you can attack different targets with extra attacks from whatever source. Supporting text from rules compendium and the FAQ also state this unequivocally. You are not, per se, doing anything wrong in ignoring the rules, but you should be completely aware that it would be a houserule, and not the actual rules for how to handle the situation.

[Arturick]

I'll just take the initiative and answer this one for Eagle.

I don't intend to be crass or offensive in any way (unlike some here.. jeeze, guys show a little class whydoncha?)

Can you mathematically prove that someone here has lacked class?  If not, then you're not being very helpful

, but you're being extremely stubborn, and the way you play does, in fact, take something from melee characters. You might have been playing that way for many sessions/years, but just because you've been doing something for a long time, doesn't make it right. Everyone else has been speaking plainly, they're correct in their insistence.

This "being correct" thing is exactly what I've gotten from my players, the other posters, and all English speakers native to Earth, but it isn't helpful because it doesn't site text that specifically contradicts my baseless assumption.  If the rules don't specifically contradict every possible baseless assumption tangentially related to the rules, then baseless assumptions are the rules.

(As another rule, there is the case of the Swordbow, from the Magic Item Compendium. You can switch this item from sword to bow, or bow to sword, as a free action, and specifically, the text of the item says you can do so in the middle of a full attack, allowing you to mix melee and ranged attacks. If you were forced to only make full attacks against single targets, how would this at all be relevant?)

You can build a character designed to use normally ranged attacks against an adjacent enemy.  Therefore, the Swordbow allows you make multiple ranged and melee attacks against the same foe.

All of the above is 100% certified Eagle logic.

[littha]

There is really no need to be a total douche you know?

[veekie]

Stick to the rules in question here guys.

There is no reason to be an ass just because someone is wrong on the internet.

[Unbeliever]

I think the OP is being stubborn.  The rules seem quite clear.  Furthermore, I think it's one of the main elements of 3.5 D&D that monsters do not have special rules, such as for their multiple attacks.  Everyone's full attack action functions the same. 

In addition, Eagle, you seem really hung up on the ramifications of using the same weapon.  A character with high BAB is free to use whatever weapons he has handy.  He can make his first attack with his longsword, his second with his shield, and his third with his armor spikes.  You're also relying on this term, "complex action:" 

...
The main focus on my reasoning is the fact that a full attack is a complex action, which by description mean that they use all the concentration and focus on a single task.

To my knowledge -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- "complex action" is not a term that exists in 3.5 D&D. 

tl;dr:  the OP came here asking for a rules question.  There has been a number of responses all going the same way and sources and reasoning cited.  I'd consider the question answered.  As others note, if you want to play the game differently, that's certainly your prerogative.  But, we've done our best to answer the question you asked.

[Eagle of Fire]

Beside, this is exactly the kind of answer I thought I would get in a 'normal' board. I thought people here would actually be a little more intelligent about the question at hand because when you min/max you usually need a very extensive understanding of the rules.

I'm not trying to be an ass unlike a big portion of what we've seen so far. I'm acting like a moderator on the question and beside everything which been said already I'm still at the same point: no real argument in favor and no real argument against. All I'm asking is the place in the rules it is stated specifically that you can do such or such and not something which is totally subjective. You don't know about it? Why post meaninglessly, accusing me to troll when in fact that's exacly what you are doing in the end?

Anyways, from the amount of people who actually reply to me that I try to prevent my PCs to do multiple attacks a round, I realize that only a very select few so far even understood my question right to begin with.

[SneeR]

I will admit that I misunderstood what you were asking.

Can you attack multiple targets with the same weapon in the same round?

I say yes. There are things that say you can attack multiple targets which have been cited previously by me and others. I understand, though, that you are waiting for the thing which says that the same weapon may be used in reassigning attacks to multiple targets. I don't believe that that rule exists. However, nothing contradicts the notion that you can in Rules as Written, either.

In fact, common sense supports the notion. Let's look at an example
Here. (Watch the whole thing). Could this fight scene work under your ruling? In under six seconds at a time, he attacks multiple targets with only one sword.

This fight scene would be impossible to replicate in D&D with your ruling. However, to me, the scene actually feels a little slow and uninspiring. How much worse would it be if he took one of them down and then stood there for six seconds while the others took chunks out of him?

Your ruling in this sense defies logic. Real-life logic does not always apply to D&D, but mundane combat is reflected fairly closely in D&D.

If the appeal to logic does not work, what about the monk? The monk has only unarmed strikes. Can he flurry? The wording is:

When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round.

Monks "may make one extra attack in a round," but are not explicitly stated to be allowed to use the same weapon for that extra attack. This means, by your ruling, that a monk needs to use a new weapon for each strike in a flurry.

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

While being able to use "fists, elbows, knees, and feet," these are not explicitly different weapons. They are all "unarmed strikes" as listed in the PHB weapons section. As such, all types of unarmed strikes are just the one weapon "unarmed strike." Any creature that gets multiple types of natural attacks has a different name for each, such as slam, horns, claw, wing attack, etc.

By your ruling, the monk's flurry of blows does not work, the intention by the designers is opposite your ruling. Otherwise, their class would be flat unplayable mechanically, not just realistically. Say what you want about WotC, but most of their individual class features work well in a vacuum, but your ruling makes the monk not work as intended (like this).


It's okay to admit you were wrong. In my gaming group, we played for five years under the assumption that you can only make one sneak attack per round. Upon looking it up, though, we found out that that was just a really sucky house rule. I admitted it and DMed according to the actual rules. Sometimes, an assumption you made long ago makes you think it was actually the rules, but isn't!

[veekie]

Alright, first, this much quoted section

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.

Establishes that additional attacks from high BAB, two weapon fighting, double weapons, and any other sources are equivalent for the purpose of performing full attacks, unless the attack source specifically generates an exception(e.g. Cleave, AoOs and Snap Kick acting outside of full attacks, or Manyshot, AoOs and Improved Trip restricting your targeting for their additional attacks). Another exception is that lower bonus attacks must go after high.
At no point in the rules do anything define that sources of additional attacks are treated differently.

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 in turn indicates that attacks are resolved in the order of:
1) Target first attack
2) Resolve first attack
3) Choose between 'upgrading' to full attacks(continue) or being satisfied with your single attack(break)
4) Target next remaining attack
5) Resolve next remaining attack
6) Go to 4 until no attacks or legal targets remaining, then end.

With a melee weapon, a natural weapon, or even a bare fist,
you can strike any opponent within reach, which is normally
5 feet for Small and Medium creatures. Opponents within
5 feet are considered adjacent to you. Some weapons and
creatures have longer reach

With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target
that is within the weapon’s maximum range (see Range
Penalty).

No restrictions on targeting is specified for either forms of attack in general.

Additional material compatible with this argument:
Rapid Shot, Haste, Flurry of Blows, Flashing Sun, Snap Kick, and Speed weapons do not specify limitations on the targeting of additional attacks despite using the same weapon being necessary for a number of them. In fact, when additional attacks are restricted in targeting, it is always explicit from the source of the attacks.

Manyshot explicitly requires that the extra attacks must target the same opponent. This generates the implicit clause that a ranged attack by default can target different opponents, particularly when contrasted with the above extra attack sources.

Attacks of opportunity do not restrict your targeting, whether or not you use one weapon. Otherwise abilities such as combat reflexes are useless, as creatures only provoke once for movement in a turn, after which they are usually out of reach and further AoOs do not matter.

The Sun School tactical feat specifies that you must strike the same foe with your first two unarmed attacks in a flurry of blows to trigger. This is again, implicit that you can attack different targets with your first two unarmed attacks.

The Swordbow allows interchanging melee and ranged attacks, using explicitly the same weapon. This would not be practical unless different targets are possible, as switching to ranged attacks only means getting hit with AoOs.

Exit Wound weapons allow targeting additional targets in a line beyond the original target. Does the weapon then become unable to complete its attack sequence if one of the original targets die in the process?

[Eagle of Fire]

In fact, common sense supports the notion. Let's look at an example
Here. (Watch the whole thing). Could this fight scene work under your ruling? In under six seconds at a time, he attacks multiple targets with only one sword.

This fight scene would be impossible to replicate in D&D with your ruling.

Sorry, but I can. I can't spot a scene in this fight which lead me to think the guy is attaking more than his fair share within D&D and my own suggested rule.

Here how I see the fight so I can prove it to you: the first two guys charge the samurai. Obviously, charging require that they do it on their own turn and not the samurai turn. So he's simply using his attack of opportunity here and kill them on the spot. The fact that he attacked twice mean that he have some mean to do at least two attacks of opportunity in the same round (or maybe cleave can work in the opponent turn? I never checked that to be frank) which can be easily achieved with a specific feat. Next, the samurai move and hit a guy, killing him. Again, cleave: he kills the other guy in range, getting a free attack on him. Then the scene breaks and when it focus back to the samurai we see him again in his turn killing a single badguy. Then one of them attack him and the samurai block, which can easily be seen as the badguy moving in range and attacking, failing to hit. Once there, he graple the badguy, throw him down and coup de grace-ing him. I can easily see that in D&D as happening in two turns of 6 seconds back to back. The next guy, who jumps into the scene very fast, hold his saber over his head. Again we can assume he was charging and the samurai win the attack of oppurtunity, killing him on the spot. Then yet again someone charging by the samurai and dying...

The next scene is complicated to explain in D&D term. The scene take place in slow motion though, and watching it again I notice that the second guy is not actually in range of the samurai while he's somehow preventing the first guy the use of his weapon. At first I thought he threw his own saber in the badguy foot but watching closely I think he simply bury both weapons together in the ground. So again, two turns here: he prevent the use of the weapon of the bad guy (probably a feat here, I don't think it could be explained with basic rules at all as far as D&D is concerned.) and then dodge the attack of the second guy in the second guy turn. Then he proceed to kill the first guy with quickdraw (or even normal draw if you want, using his move action), use cleave again, and kill the second one.

The next guy die because the samurai use his dagger as a throwing weapon and kill him. No issue here?

Then, next guy. And yet, another charge. The charging bad guy not only can't overcome the samurai AC but I'd be inclined to say that he even critically failed because he loses his weapon. However, the samurai miss his attack of oportinity this time as he don't kill him outright. The charging badguy get his weapon back for dramatic effect, maybe a feat could do that or maybe the samurai simply wait for him to take it back for honor sake or whatnot... The samurai immediatly one shot him again. It's getting old as far as I'm concerned, I feel like I'm describing a very high level fighting a bunch of thugs level 1. (Actually that's probably it!)

Then, the last guy. This one I thought was way higher level than the others but... He might be, but still so low in level in comparison to the first one that it doesn't matter. Maybe a matching CR rating, which usually result in an easy to moderatly victory in normal encounters? Anyways, this is slightly tricky because both fighters seem to contest in some kind of strenght or grapple action. I don't think you can actually grapple holding a two hand weapon at the same time so I'd be inclined to say that it is simply the bad guy attack round which is blocked by the samurai (failed to win tohit versus AC). The the samurai one shot again the guy. Surprising at this point (sarcasm). And the combat scene end up with the samurai coup de gracing the guy who don't defend himself. I'm at work right now and I don't use sound but I'm guessing he his another bad guy or his old master or whatever? Not really important to be frank.

So there. This is how I describe it. Rather easily, using very simple and basic combat mechanism too, rather low level feats even. In fact, I didn't even notice if there was some part relevant to my question inside the video...

I assume you think there is though otherwise you would not have mentioned it to me in the first place. I'm not sure where you wish to go from here then? As far as I'm concerned were in the same deadlock than before.

If the appeal to logic does not work, what about the monk? The monk has only unarmed strikes. Can he flurry? The wording is:

Quote from: SRD

    When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round.

Monks "may make one extra attack in a round," but are not explicitly stated to be allowed to use the same weapon for that extra attack.

All I see here is a mechanic extremely similar to the one which give an extra attack to the fighter at level 6. One extra attack with a weapon, except that it is a class feature (feat) which grant it.

Second, this is a flurry of blows. The monk is a martial artist, it is more than fair to assume it is either a fist or feet attack or any other kind of unarmed strike I guess. This is using a natural weapon and thus is not the same thing: it relate to monster weapons more than 'normal' weapons. The fact that it is a class feature even more accentuate the fact that it might not fall within normal combat mechanisms too.

This means, by your ruling, that a monk needs to use a new weapon for each strike in a flurry.

No, it doesn't even apply to this situation. Because flurry of blows is a feat. I is not part of the normal basic combat mechanism, which is what is really discussed by my ruling.

Anybody can do a cleave, for example. Why can't everybody do it in normal combat without possessing the feat? Because the fighter specifically trained for that, to recognize the events leading to the use of this feat and using it every single time it is possible or convenient to do so. This doesn't cancel what I just said though: everybody can do it. It is simply that Mr. NextDoorJoe will only use an attack similar to Cleave once in a blue moon with most of his occasions lost because he don't capitalize on them or even realize they are there. So the basic mechanics of combat simply take that for a normal attack and ignore it.

Flurry of blows is exactly the same thing. Everybody can move their arms very, very fast. But if you don't do it right it won't work, or you'll hurt yourself, your opponent will take advantage, etc.

To be frank, I think taking examples here and there lead us nowhere. We probably both agree without an iota of difference what Flurry of Blows does and how it works in D&D, while the real issue I am bringing is not there. Like I said, the real issue is in the basic combat mechnics rules. Which are way too vage and easily misinterpreted. We could talk all day long running in circle without being able to prove or disprove eachother without a shadow of a doubt. That's basically why I'm, again, looking at the rule which specifically state what I'm looking for.

If there is simply none I think it is really an omission of incredible scale in the part of the writters.

It's okay to admit you were wrong. In my gaming group, we played for five years under the assumption that you can only make one sneak attack per round. Upon looking it up, though, we found out that that was just a really sucky house rule. I admitted it and DMed according to the actual rules. Sometimes, an assumption you made long ago makes you think it was actually the rules, but isn't!

Yeah, I hear you. I completely agree. But in this case it is not even a case in which I absolutely want to be right. I said it in one of my first post, my plan is to gather all the info I can on this and hope to find the small tidbit of info which I'm looking for so I can agree or deny my current dillemna. If I can't I still plan to agree to it and give it to my players anyways because they were pretty ticked off.

This whole argument between me and my players should never have escalated to the level it was either. I'm expecting one of my players simply wanted to achieve something out of game with it and used it as a scapegoat. This is really what bother me the most about the whole thing. To be right or wrong? I don't really care.

[skipping the rest of your post because I already answered it above]

@Veekie: I won't answer to your post right away because I'm at work and thus don't have much time. Also, you are mentioning a lot of sources at the end of yoru post which are completely new to me. As I said before I currently restrict my players to core and I never actually perused those feats or skills in particular so I'd have a hard time studying what you want to say without taking my time finding and understanding it.

That or I don't recognize the feats because they are in English. Are all of those core?

So, just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring you after this long post.

[Unbeliever]

@Veekie: I won't answer to your post right away because I'm at work and thus don't have much time. Also, you are mentioning a lot of sources at the end of yoru post which are completely new to me. As I said before I currently restrict my players to core and I never actually perused those feats or skills in particular so I'd have a hard time studying what you want to say without taking my time finding and understanding it.

That or I don't recognize the feats because they are in English. Are all of those core?

So, just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring you after this long post.

Rapid Shot, Haste, Flurry of Blows, Speed Weapons -- Core/SRD
Flashing Sun -- don't know
Snap Kick -- Tome of Battle
Attacks of Opportunity -- Core
Manyshot -- Core/SRD
Exit Wound -- Complete Warrior
Swordbow -- Races of the Wild and/or Magic Item Compendium, I believe

Really, though, the examples are merely illustrative of the overarching general rule, which others have excerpted. 

[veekie]

Flashing Sun is also Tome of Battle, its a Desert Wind maneuver that lets you perform a full attack and add an extra attack at your highest bonus.

[phaedrusxy]

Did you miss SirPercival's FAQ quote?

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.

This is from one of the D&D FAQs, which are "official" clarifications to the D&D rules.

[Demelain]

Stop.
I am about to make a statement and reference rules you have seen before. Please do me the courtesy of reading my post and considering it, before discarding it on the basis that "I've seen that rule already".

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, ... 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.

Target: The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect.

-s: makes a word plural (cat becomes cats, meaning two or more cats; target becomes targets, meaning more than a single target).

Together, it seems to me that if it isn't directly stated, it is at least heavily implied that your base attack bonus alone, if it allows you to make more than one attack, also allows those attacks to target multiple targets.
Answer this if you take issue with using the same weapon, specifically: if I had +6 BAB, and therefore two attacks, would you allow me to use my first attack role to target one creature with my sword, and then use my second attack from BAB to target a separate creature using my spiked shield or a gauntlet?

[Eagle of Fire]

@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.

@Demelain: No worries. I always read what everybody says here.

About that sentence in the full attack description, we already got over it in this thread. I completely agree to what you say except that the whole block of text relating to full attack list a number of different things at the same time. So it is not explicitely mentioned that it apply the way you highlighted the words. It could apply to any other situation where you do more than one attack on different targets per round, like for example with cleave and two weapons fighting. Two situations which are specified in the same bock of text.

When I saw that I thought to myself that this is a complex action. It is an advanced rule. There must be somewhere in the book where the most basic mechanics are plainly explained so there is no misunderstanding. Somewhere where it is written that you can or not attack more than one target using the same attack or not... But when I went to the start of the chapter, the very small part which described an attack to the most basic level were so vague they were not helpful at all either.

Now, I know the text imply that it is the case. But implying is not the same than being correct or direct. I could say that I have blue eyes and blond hair, implying that I am Scandinavian... And not be. I could imply about anything really and still not have a shred of truth in all my dialogue. That's pretty much politics for ya, btw.

Answer this if you take issue with using the same weapon, specifically: if I had +6 BAB, and therefore two attacks, would you allow me to use my first attack role to target one creature with my sword, and then use my second attack from BAB to target a separate creature using my spiked shield or a gauntlet?

No. My reasoning is that your second attack based on BAB specifically apply to the same weapon you started your attack with. I actually doublecheck on SRD whenever I can as we discuss here and strangely I can't find reference to it in English though I know I've read it in French. I need to check my French books when I get home, you might be getting on something here.

Edit: Damn, I must be getting tired. I just realized that what I would do in your example is take the weapon + shield as two weapons fighting then and allow it like normal for two weapons fighting.

Edit2: @Unbeliever:

Really, though, the examples are merely illustrative of the overarching general rule, which others have excerpted.

Thanks for clearing this up. If it is the case though it doesn't help much more than the other previous examples.