Combat rule clarification required [3.5]

[Agita]

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.

If anyone can put up the French text, I can try helping as well. My French is rudimentary conversation level at best, but I'll give it a shot.

[Halinn]

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.

If anyone can put up the French text, I can try helping as well. My French is rudimentary conversation level at best, but I'll give it a shot.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5833.60;msg=86433

[Harald]

It is true, sometime the french translation is bad, as a french myself, I've seen it. THOUGH, in this case, there is nothing wrong.

Here is the text  in the french SRD, right here.

L’attaque à outrance [full attack]
Si le personnage a droit à plusieurs attaques par action parce qu’il possède un bonus de base à l’attaque suffisamment élevé, parce qu’il combat à l’aide de deux armes ou d’une arme double ou pour une autre raison, 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 1 round mais, dans le même temps, toutes ses attaques se font avec un malus de –4.
Enchaînement. L’attaque d’enchaînement offerte par les dons Enchaînement et Succession d’enchaînements peut être portée dès qu’elle s’applique. C’est une exception à la règle générale qui limite le nombre d’attaques à une en dehors d’une attaque à outrance.

The bolded section means "The character does not need to declare how he wants to allocate his attacks beforehand ; he can do so each one after the after according to their results."

If you need a translate from french to english from others parts, I can provide.

[Arturick]

Four years of French in high school and two in elementary.  I can still struggle through reading it with a few trips to the dictionary.

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.

Eagle:  Vous n'avez pas besoin d'indiquer à l’avance comment il compte répartir ses attaques.

So, you do not have to indicate in advance how these attacks will be assigned.

If you lose attacks with the weapon you are attacking with after the enemy has been killed, then the DM has forced you to assign your attacks in advance to the enemy without regard to how the earlier attacks resolve.

Thus, Eagle is in direct contradiction of the rules by forcing his players to assign secondary attacks with each weapon to the same target as the primary attack with that weapon.

C'est fin.

[Eagle of Fire]

Guys, do you really want to get back into that argument? With my ruling what you just said were not proving anything. I said it I don't know how many times in this thread before.

In French, all those sentences together does not hint at all to the certainty you seem to have in English. It merely state a bunch of things which can easily be taken alone in their own context.

There is also the matter of the complex action which don't really exist in English. In English, you have "full round actions" while in French it is stated that you really need all your concentration to be able to pull out those "complex actions". That too is different. Since I lean more heavily on the reality factor than most of you guys it is not wonder we end up not talking about the same thing. In effect, if I was to apply the French rules exactly as I understand them (as a French Native) we would effectively not play the same game.

[Arturick]

    

I lean more heavily on the reality factor than most of you guys

A loooooooong time ago, I took everything unrealistic out of D&D.  I called it "Four Guys Beating Each Other With Sticks in the Backyard."

That said, you are in direct contradiction of the rules as written.  The rules plainly state that each attack does not have to be assigned before it's turn.  You are stating that a player must assign all attacks with a single weapon to single target.  This is a plain contradiction.

[SneeR]

Guys, do you really want to get back into that argument? With my ruling what you just said were not proving anything. I said it I don't know how many times in this thread before.

In French, all those sentences together does not hint at all to the certainty you seem to have in English. It merely state a bunch of things which can easily be taken alone in their own context.

There is also the matter of the complex action which don't really exist in English. In English, you have "full round actions" while in French it is stated that you really need all your concentration to be able to pull out those "complex actions". That too is different. Since I lean more heavily on the reality factor than most of you guys it is not wonder we end up not talking about the same thing. In effect, if I was to apply the French rules exactly as I understand them (as a French Native) we would effectively not play the same game.

What is realistic about being surrounded by kobolds, killing one with your mighty longsword, then waiting for six seconds to attack the ones right next to you?

[ImperatorK]

I cant believe you guys are still falling for this.

[Arturick]

I cant believe you guys are still falling for this.

When the potential language barrier issue was brought up, I decided that I might have been too harsh in my earlier posts and wanted to see if I could actually help.

Obviously, I was wrong.  I will now resume thinking that Eagle is a troll.

[Eagle of Fire]

You guys really like to create your own problems.

All those "issue" you again bring up were already assessed in the first pages of this thread. And yet, you bring them again and assume I'll change what I said already only to give you right even though this is not a contest of who's right or wrong.

I'm getting fed up being served stupidities.

[SneeR]

You guys really like to create your own problems.

All those "issue" you again bring up were already assessed in the first pages of this thread. And yet, you bring them again and assume I'll change what I said already only to give you right even though this is not a contest of who's right or wrong.

I'm getting fed up being served stupidities.

You really should answer my question, bro.

[Jackinthegreen]

The English rules are the definitive rules.  Trust us, even if it says something different in French than English, the English version is the correct one because that's the original language and some things may get lost in translation.  As I mentioned, try not to think in terms of the French language because there are a lot of grammar and semantic differences from English.

Toss reality out the window with D&D, even for "mundane" characters.  It is a fantasy game where our notions of what is real don't really apply even if there are similarities.  What is improbable and even physically impossible in our real world is common in D&D.  Any expectations of what can and cannot be done in D&D are based on the rules, not real world physics.  Trying to base D&D on real world stuff will only result in even more frustrations.

As SirPercival quoted:

From the FAQ:

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.

In English logic, that sentence quite clearly states you choose a target as you attack it.  Extrapolating from that, you can change the target for any of your attacks during a full attack, which means you may attack more than one target.  I am not sure how to word it in French to that effect other than explicitly saying you can have multiple targets on a full attack and do not have to target the first creature you attacked for any of your subsequent attacks.

How, exactly, are you coming to the conclusion that all attacks must be made against the same target during a full attack?

You guys really like to create your own problems.

All those "issue" you again bring up were already assessed in the first pages of this thread. And yet, you bring them again and assume I'll change what I said already only to give you right even though this is not a contest of who's right or wrong.

I'm getting fed up being served stupidities.

Then what, exactly, are we arguing about?  I believe all of us are still under the impression that you believe, based on your own reading of the French rules, that a character using a full attack must only target one single creature for all of the attacks.  Is that the case, or is it not?

[whitetyger009]

Sneer (this is not in any way a negative directed at you) havent you noticed that anytime eagle is asked to back his statement up he does not?  have you not noticed that every time he is asked a specific question he dismisses the question out of hand and implies that the asker was to stupid to understand what the thread is about?

Jackinthegreen i aplaud you.  you have given eagle every chance in the world to save face in this.  and even after eagle has no intention of changing his mind. 

i think its time to request this thread locked by the moderators and go on with our lives.  given enough time and enough abuse like this his players will eventually walk out on him (or all change to casters).  i am all for a DM having the last say but this goes too far.   eagle has out right stated that nothing other than eratta stating simply and in no other terms 'characters may make attacks against multipal opponents even if the target dies.' 

in additon eagle has stated he has very little experience with the system.  those of us who have played this game for years know how this works because we have seen it in action.  we all made mistakes when we started playing and i am sure we still make mistakes some times.  the mistake is not what is important, its how you handle it.  do you admit you made a mistake and appologize for it and learn from it and move on?  or do you cling to your preconcived notions and refuse to take any form of advice from people who know more than you do?  in the end we can't force someone who has made a mistake be an adult about it. 

[Solo]

Hear here! When did we become buddy-buddy with the French anyways? We hate those condescending, cheese eating snobs! We fight wars against them! Did all those men die in vain on the field of Agincourt? Was the man who burnt Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?

[whitetyger009]

Hear here! When did we become buddy-buddy with the French anyways? We hate those condescending, cheese eating snobs! We fight wars against them! Did all those men die in vain on the field of Agincourt? Was the man who burnt Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?

ummm what about WW2 when we saved the french?  and i don't think they had matches for Joan of Arc. 

[darqueseid]

That's why their freedom fries now... ;-p

[Harald]

allow me, Eagle, as a french native myself, to say that the rules in this case is THE FUCKING SAME in English and french. Your "complex action" justification is bullshit.

Oh, and before anyone bring Cheese-surrending monkey bollocks in this potential troll thread. Allow me to ask you a simple question.
Imagine right now that your country has been invaded in a total war right now. For four years. In an endless meat-grinder where the lifes of your compatriots are spent like they were worthless, in desesperation, and incompetence, as warfare was supposed to be fought that way damnit. In an hellish battlefield were the very air can kill you, death rains from above, even from your own camp to push you to go forward, in the mud and the damp, and it is forbidden for you to dig proper trench like the guys in front of you because, eh, if that's confy, you won't be motivated enough to run through the no man's land. A nightmare were almost every single man between 18 and 35 was sent there. And were more 1 in 5 of the whole population died, and around same came back mutilated. Imagine that.
Imagine that you are 20 years just after that. Every single familly you know, and your own, have lost someone dear in this bloodshed, at least once. Or they came back, without a limb, or their eyes burned forever. "Gueules cassées" they were called, "Broken faces." In your village, you just have seen the construction of a monument to give the list of those who died their. Where the battles happened, there are still ruins, shell impacts, destroyed villages, who have not still been repaired.
AND IT BEGINS AGAIN.
And you have the same nitwits in command in your army, who have been traumatized too by the bloodshed. They were gung ho then, now they are all in a "defense is all" mode. And the ennemy, the very same ennemy as last time, come again. You were bleeded dry, you had far less men able to that then the first time than them, and now it is far worse.
You have still not recovered from a fight from your very survival, and IT BEGINS AGAIN.
So, you broke. You collapse, hard.

I've had three greats-grand fathers who died in WW1. One in Chemin des Dames, one in Verdun, the last one in the second Marne battle. I've lost an other one in Dunkerk in 1940, he was defending the city to allow the British to evacuate, in the rear guard. I've had a great-great uncle who was executed for resistance action in 41. In the fields near where I lived, we still find shells, and explosives, from WW1. Sometimes the remains of a poor chap who died there.
So sure, it is easy, sixty years later, when you are not from here, to mock us.
But allow me to ask a simple question, knowing all that.
If you were at our place, with the same wounds, the very same situation, do you think you would have hold ? Really ?

[Sinfire Titan]

Hear here! When did we become buddy-buddy with the French anyways? We hate those condescending, cheese eating snobs! We fight wars against them! Did all those men die in vain on the field of Agincourt? Was the man who burnt Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?

If this is what this thread is coming down to, then it really does not deserve to stay open. Even if in sarcasm, it's baiting the OP using racism.

This thread has been reported several times, but this is the nail in the coffin.