Combat rule clarification required [3.5]

[veekie]

Red text is when a mod speaking as a moderator, rather than a regular poster. Direct all responses to red text at the Forum Staff account or the Board Business subforum.

Being right or wrong does not justify name-calling or insulting any other posters. Debate the point, not the person. If the point cannot be debated, don't.

[ImperatorK]

Red text is when a mod speaking as a moderator, rather than a regular poster. Direct all responses to red text at the Forum Staff account or the Board Business subforum.

Being right or wrong does not justify name-calling or insulting any other posters. Debate the point, not the person. If the point cannot be debated, don't.

Then lock the thread, because it was answered and the OP is either trolling or too stupid to admit a mistake. You Mods clearly see what is going on and yet you leave this flame-bait open. It's silly.

[Eagle of Fire]

Geez guys. You really think I'm a troll? I'm purposely avoiding reply and confrontation to those who don't seem to understand the question. If I'm a troll I'm actively doing the opposite of the job description. Way to go?

Beside, I'm ruling in your favor... And that just then that you get convinced I'm a troll? I'm not sure I'd want to know your opinion if I were to rule against what you think... Especially since we've come to a point that the most likely culprit in all this would be language translation problems. If my book is badly translated and I genuinely understand something different than what is obvious to you because you're English native is it so hard for you to understand I might think or understand differently?

Anyways... I already lost too much time on this senseless "is this guy a troll" debate.

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

Quote

    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.

Simple misunderstanding here. I was in a rush and I typed this fast. What I meant here was, thinking about my rule, that a single weapon would not have been able to attack two different targets at the same time. So the monsters were not able to distribute attacks around and always focused on the same target. This in turn helped them "force" enemies to attack the fighter with highest AC, helping them tremendously. (continued on next quote)

Also, since the half sentence you quoted was alone and pointing out I was agreeing to do like everybody else said so far I didn't think I'd need to specify.

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.

Not exactly. They did attack a lot but slightly differently. Dragons are a whole different kind of monster all by itself when you consider their amount of attacks and amount of natural weapons at the disposition... But what I did in that specific encounter was basically grouping the same kind of weapons under the same listing you find for other monsters. This was more for simplicity sake for me as the encounter itself wasn't really planned at the time, but I ended up with:

Claw (2), Bite, Wing (2), tail.

That's only 4 different attacks and under my ruling if one of the PCs would have dropped then the dragon stopped at the first attack, losing the second. Dropping the number of attacks further.

In the end it didn't mattered much in that specific case because my intention wasn't to kill my PCs. Because at their level, especially if I had followed the normal rule instead of the one I was following, I am having a very hard time to understand how one of them could have stood against the dragon in melee without getting killed in a single round.

Dropping the rule I was using, strong monsters with many attacks in a single round just got much more powerful against my PCs.

[Demelain]

Your PCs are going to need to fight more intelligently, then. Good luck, and have fun!

[whitetyger009]

i am going to agree with ImperatorK  at this point and say the thread should be locked. 

here is what it comes too eagle and this is the last i will be posting in here because this is an obvious troll thread by now.

a full attack action is made up of several attacks which happen one at a time.  none of these attacks are affected by any other attack that is made during that single action.  your players are right and you are wrong.  what makes you look like a troll is the fact that even though you have been shown rules repeatedly on this you refuse to admit you are wrong.  conversely you have not produced any rule to back up your side.  you say you are 'rulling in favor of what we have told you' yet you continue to argue that you are right and we are wrong.  also its not like this is an actual debate.  you have no supporters because everyone sees the mistake made here.  if this was a mistake then you should have seen by now where you were wrong and just admited it.

so looking at the effect this will have on game play for your players, yes i would be much happier knowing you were a troll and that a DM was not abusing his players this way.

[Eagle of Fire]

whitetyger009, my PCs didn't get affected by this at all. They just got to level 6 and it was a complete non-issue since right now. And my first reflex was to say that I'd check it before the next session, not to hammer them with it.

All what I just said was already mentioned in this thread.

More over, I played all the monsters who did have more than one attack per round with the rule I mentioned, giving them the advantage all along.

I really think you didn't actually understand the real question being discussed in this thread. And knowing that, I find having you telling me I'm either retarded or abusing quite offensive to me.

Your PCs are going to need to fight more intelligently, then. Good luck, and have fun!

Thanks. I'm sure we will like we always do.

And I think I'll ask the more experienced player to coach the others OOC so they can keep up tactical wise. Hopefully it will be enough.

[whitetyger009]

whitetyger009, my PCs didn't get affected by this at all. They just got to level 6 and it was a complete non-issue since right now. And my first reflex was to say that I'd check it before the next session, not to hammer them with it.

All what I just said was already mentioned in this thread.

More over, I played all the monsters who did have more than one attack per round with the rule I mentioned, giving them the advantage all along.

I really think you didn't actually understand the real question being discussed in this thread. And knowing that, I find having you telling me I'm either retarded or abusing quite offensive to me.

Your PCs are going to need to fight more intelligently, then. Good luck, and have fun!

Thanks. I'm sure we will like we always do.

And I think I'll ask the more experienced player to coach the others OOC so they can keep up tactical wise. Hopefully it will be enough.

yea i know but i couldn't let this lie.

you have made it perfectly clear that you think that if a character kills a creature that he loses the rest of his attacks with that weapon, and that the player in question had 2 weapons at the time (having 2 weapons has no bearing on this at all because the full attack option doesn't care where the attacks come from they are all lumped together as 1 series of attacks taken during the action).  you have also hinted though not out right stated that a player can only attack one monster with his full attack option at a time.  i could go back and post the quotes but why bother.  i am fully aware of what you have said your idea is.

you also said that you already imposed this limitation on the players at the last game.  which means you made a mistake.  that is fine every one does it.  the problem is when you come here and have REFUSED to back up anything you have said with any wording from the PHB or DMG. 

you made the statement in your opening post that there was a feat that allowed players to attack multipal opponents.  when you were asked what feat you were talking about you again REFUSED to talk about it saying that the feats were not relevant to the disicussion.

all you have done is sit there and say you are right and everyone else is wrong, and say that none of the eratta, rules, other situations that demonstrate the point will convince you otherwise.

now to be clear i never once called you retarded.  i said you were being a dumbass about this.  as in being willfully ignorant of how the system worked.  the other option is that you are only doing this for attention.  as in being a troll.  and yes any DM who would cripple his players in this regard is abusing his players.  it is going to increase the difficulty they have in dealing with challenges for no reason.  you fowled up and your players deserve enough respect from you that you admit it to them. 

maybe we are just explaining it wrong?  how about this.  attacks are like bullets in a gun.  (the gun being the full attack) just because you killed your enemy with the first bullet (attack) doesn't mean the rest go away. 

you don't have anyone here agreeing with you.  though most of them have been much nicer about it than i have.  everyone has told you that you are wrong, and many of these people have YEARS of experience more than you.  a person who was serious about expanding their knowledge of game rules would take that as a sign that maybe they made a mistake.  yet you have argued that they are wrong, or atleast can't convince you that they are right. 

[darqueseid]

Eagle, most of us are trying to help and it only tends to infuriate people when a person doesn't listen to reason.  Those who genuinely answered your question, myself included, honestly just don't want you to make yourself look like a fool to your players, and continue to look like one on the forum -in the hopes of saving your game, and our sanity. 

That being said, If you are a troll well, bravo to you.  If not, I hope you got the answer your looking for, despite the browbeating. 

In any event, I'm afraid this is going to degenerate into a flame war, and as much as I hate to say it, locking the thread is probably best so I'd like to add my vote to that option.

[Jackinthegreen]

Eagle, could you post those rules in French please?  I don't remember quite where I saw it on here, but the D&D French translation has come up as being woefully inadequate.  I admit my French is fairly rusty, but it should still be fairly easy to spot translation errors.

Also, are you using a translation program to look through this, or are you reading this fully in English?  When I say reading this fully in English, are you translating a bit in your head?  I have to make sure because it really does seem like the translation is causing problems.  The way it is worded in English, and how native English speakers understand it, is enough to leave no doubt about the fact that each attack in a full attack can target a different opponent.  The rules SirPercival quoted from the FAQ are quite clear on this.

Let's face it, people who speak different languages think a bit differently.  After all, we tend to think in our native language.  It seems like this is an exercise that needs to be thought of entirely in English to get the real meaning behind because that's how the original document was created.  Some ideas can't be fully expressed between languages.

If it's any laugh, I hope I never have to translate laws between languages in depth.  If they're anywhere near as complicated and ambiguous as I know the US laws to be... Yeah, I have a headache just thinking about it.

[Unbeliever]

Tangent: 

If they're anywhere near as complicated and ambiguous as I know the US laws to be...

most RAW discussions about D&D rules tend to be far more literal-minded than any (U.S.) courtroom is about interpreting the law. 

On topic:  is there still an open question here?  The rules have been laid out as clearly as can be hoped for.  If one wants to debate the merits of a particular house rule, then maybe that's a topic for another thread.

[RobbyPants]

Red text is when a mod speaking as a moderator, rather than a regular poster. Direct all responses to red text at the Forum Staff account or the Board Business subforum.

Being right or wrong does not justify name-calling or insulting any other posters. Debate the point, not the person. If the point cannot be debated, don't.

Then lock the thread, because it was answered and the OP is either trolling or too stupid to admit a mistake. You Mods clearly see what is going on and yet you leave this flame-bait open. It's silly.

The appropriate place to complain about that is here.

[Eagle of Fire]

@whitetyger009: I feel like replying to you is a complete waste of time. You keep assuming things which are very, very far from reality.

Just this, for example:

you have also hinted though not out right stated that a player can only attack one monster with his full attack option at a time.

No, I never did that. Or maybe I did it unwillingly, but you are simply latching on it and take it for granted. Which, I may add, is exactly what this argument is all about? I.e. something which is not explicit but which everybody take for granted because it's only hinted at.

With my rule, someone with two weapons could attack two different targets in the same round. I said it outright and have said it again what? At least half a dozen times in all my replies?

Again, I feel like we're not even discussing the same thing here. Thus why I think I'm wasting my time replying to you. No offense intended but I really have better use of my time than entering a real flame fest.

@Jackinthegreen:

Eagle, could you post those rules in French please?  I don't remember quite where I saw it on here, but the D&D French translation has come up as being woefully inadequate.  I admit my French is fairly rusty, but it should still be fairly easy to spot translation errors.

Sure, no problem. I happen to have the book right here since I'm at home right now.

Les Actions Complexes
Une action complexe occupe le personnage pendant l'intégralité de son tour de jeu. Elle ne peut donc être combinée à une action simple ou de mouvement. Une action complexe qui ne comprend aucun déplacement autorise cependant un pas de placement de 1,50 mètre.

L'attaque à outrance
Si le personnage a droit à plusieurs attaques par action parce qu'il possède un bonus de base à l'attaque suffisament élevé, parce qu'il combat à l'aide de deux armes ou d'une arme double (voir Combat à deux armes, dans la section Attaques spéciales, page 155) ou pour une autre raison (comme un don ou un objet magique), il ne peut en bénéficier que s'il attaque à outrance. Il n'a pas besoin d'indiquer à l'avance comment il compte répartir ses attaques; il peut décider au fur et à mesure, en fonction du résultat des précédentes.
Lors d'une attaque à outrance, l'aventurier ne peut pas se déplacer autrement qu'en faisant un pas de placement de 1,50 mètre, avant, après ou entre les attaques.
Dans le cas où le personnage bénéficie de plusieurs attaques en raison de son bonus de base à l'attaque élevé, il est obligé de les délivrer dans l'ordre, en commençant par celle qui s'accompagne du meilleur bonus. Par contre, s'il combat avec deux armes, il choisit laquelle frappe en premier. De même, s'il utilise une arme double, il décide quelle tête frappe d'abord.
Conversion d'attaque à outrance en attaque normale. Après sa première attaque, un personnage peut changer d'avis et décider d'effectuer une action de mouvement au lieu de porter sa ou ses attaques restantes. S'il a déjà effectué son pas de placement, il ne peut utiliser cette action pour se déplacer mais peut entreprendre un autre type d'action de mouvement.
Combat sur la défensive. Bien que ces deux options puissent ne pas sembler compatibles, il est possible de combattre sur la défensive en choisissant d'attaquer à outrance. Dans ce cas, le personnage bénéficie d'un bonus d'esquive de +2 à la CA pendant un round mais, dans le même temps, toutes ses attaques se font avec un malus de -4.
Enchainement. L'attaque d'enchaînement offerte par les donc Enchaînement (page 95) et Succession d'enchaînement (page 102) peut être portée dès qu'elle s'applique. C'est une exception à la règle générale qui limite le nombre d'attaque à une en dehors d'une attaque à outrance.

I typed it all exactly like it appears in the PHB. Bold text included.

All in all I think the translation is fine. Word for word, I mean. Which in itself is a problem because you can't really take an English sentence and translate it directly to French or vice-versa. Half the time the sentence won't keep cohesion and will mean nothing much on the other side.

Also, are you using a translation program to look through this, or are you reading this fully in English?  When I say reading this fully in English, are you translating a bit in your head?  I have to make sure because it really does seem like the translation is causing problems.  The way it is worded in English, and how native English speakers understand it, is enough to leave no doubt about the fact that each attack in a full attack can target a different opponent.  The rules SirPercival quoted from the FAQ are quite clear on this.

Let's face it, people who speak different languages think a bit differently.  After all, we tend to think in our native language.  It seems like this is an exercise that needs to be thought of entirely in English to get the real meaning behind because that's how the original document was created.  Some ideas can't be fully expressed between languages.

Yes, you pretty much read my mind here. And that's exactly what made me decide to switch to the ruling of everybody else in this thread after someone mentioned the translation mistake theory.

I'm pretty good with English. I work in sales and I need to use it practically everyday. I'm certainly not English native though and I'd have no problem, like I already said, to admit that I might not understand the English text like it is supposed to be or like an English native would understand readily. And yes, most of the time (and especially in the case I'm reading something in English but referencing to or talking in French around me at the same time) I read the text in English and translate it in real time in my head. Which sometimes can be quite tiring in the long run because, again, you need to turn the sentences around so often between English and French. All our gaming sessions happen in French here so of course I'm going to reference to that if I read the PHB in English. Because of course,  it is (or should be) supposedly the exact same, right? At least that's what I thought.

If it's any laugh, I hope I never have to translate laws between languages in depth.  If they're anywhere near as complicated and ambiguous as I know the US laws to be... Yeah, I have a headache just thinking about it.

Heh. Well, I don't find this so funny because here in Québec we speak in French and the rest of the country speak in English. Just thinking there might be similar language problems make me a little worried. :/

@Unbeliever:

On topic:  is there still an open question here?  The rules have been laid out as clearly as can be hoped for.  If one wants to debate the merits of a particular house rule, then maybe that's a topic for another thread.

Not anymore but I'm interested to hear what Jackinthegreen have to say about what he just asked me. I seem to remember the thread starter can close the thread once it is answered in this forum and I plan to do just that. My next gaming session will be Tuesday so I plan to close this thread at the latest at that time if it is not already.

[whitetyger009]

i LOVE how one line of my post, about something which i said you have not out right stated, is fixated on and the rest of my post is ignored.  thus lending more to the TROLL statement. 

how about the rest of what i had to say in that post which applies directly to this?  your right this is a waste of time, because you are simply not willing to admit you were wrong. 

[Pencil]

Dude... stay classy...

Just ignore him if he annoys you.You have no obligation to help...

[Demelain]

I suspect that it has lost a bit of meaning in translation. A lot of the grief in this thread could have been avoided if we'd considered the language barrier earlier, and it would be a good idea to indicate that one might exist in the future.

(click to show/hide)

Hey, I get that you're plain spoken and call-it-as-you-see-it. And I appreciate that attitude, and that you cut to the point without dancing around in bullshit. But, damn, dude.
You DON'T actually have a free license to post whatever you want, you know? Posting on a board like this is a privilege, and they ask that we observe some rules and guidelines in our posts, and you're blatantly ignoring that request.

Be better than them. Don't troll back or flame back. Stick to the topic like the offensive post never existed. Why waste time on trolls(unless you're bored and have nothing better to do, then I rest my case).

1. Moderate yourself. Be professional. Be mature. Would you say this at the gaming table? Are you being a decent human being?

To avoid unnecessary words, you seem like you're capable of rational thought. Ask yourself if you're really respecting the people who are paying to give you a place to converse, or your fellow posters, and if it's really too difficult to mind the very short set of rules they ask of us. I'd rather not see you dig yourself waist deep in shit over nothing.

[whitetyger009]

maybe i should clarify that you feel that a player using 1 weapon can only attack 1 opponent.  you haven't come right out and said this, though you have hinted about it.  you have said you feel that the death of an enemy loses the rest of the attacks with that weapon.

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.

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?

What says you?

 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.

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...

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.

these are the most relevent posts you have made on this that i am willing to dig up an throw at you.  the rules have been pointed out to you several times which says that you get to see what affect an attack has before you make your next attack.  also that the rules state clearly that all attacks are grouped together into 1 full attack action.  you have chosen to ignore all of this and continue to state that you are right.

language barrier?  to start with maybe.  maybe his book is printed in a way that led him to think that he was right, and if so then it was an honest mistake.  we have gotten past that now, and have been for some time.  if it were the case where is his citing of the rules from his book which bolster his initial ruling?  others have posted quotes with page refrence so that their point could be more clearly made.  and yet eagle does not and has not. 

in the end i am done with this thread.  it is clear that eagle will not, maybe can not, admit he made a mistake.  it has gone far beyond a 'reasonable' mistake.  by out right ignoring or dismissing anything that has been said to counter him and yet not provide anything to support himself he shows he doesn't care about knowing how the rules actually work.

[Solo]

Eagle, I don't know what the PHB says in French, but we English-speaking natives see the (original) English PHB and interpret the rules differently. Make of that what you will.

[Halinn]

All our gaming sessions happen in French here so of course I'm going to reference to that if I read the PHB in English. Because of course,  it is (or should be) supposedly the exact same, right? At least that's what I thought.

Mistranslations in RPG books are very common, and the language it was originally published in (which is usually English) is generally taken to be the definitive version if a contradiction exists between translations.

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm a bit busy with other stuff to fully read through the French rules at the moment, but with some skimming I can see how they've changed some things from the English meaning.  For example, in English it's a full-round action, but in French it's Les Actions Complexes, which is translated into English as a complex action of course.  That might be the best they could have come up with given the constraints, or maybe they felt it was enough to get the point across, but the meaning of complex action versus full-round action is quite different.  Considering there's a discrepancy in the first line of all places, I'd say there will be more problems within the rest of the document.

As for those saying Eagle is an idiot or troll, back off.  This problem has almost certainly arisen from a language barrier.  Unless you have experience with more than one language and can understand the differences between how those who speak different languages think, you probably wouldn't know where to begin with this.  Just because a person isn't familiar enough with a language to fully communicate with it or get certain nuances of it does not make them any less intelligent.  If you cannot post constructively, and by its definition insulting someone is destructive, please leave this thread and do not post, including to make any apologies or clarifications for yourself.  I realize I'm no mod of course and might be overstepping my bounds with that request, but I feel it's an entirely reasonable request given what has gone on here.

This thread seems to have run its course.  The creator can mark it as answered but it can still be posted in.  Unless someone who is more fluent in French than I has constructive feedback on this, I'll probably go to PMs with Eagle and see if we can't nail down the wording that is causing confusion here.

[veekie]

Do put up the findings from the language analysis, it'd be interesting.