Does one attack roll = one attack?

[Kahuna Burger]

A followup of sorts to my poll on if hit point loss means physical damage. I guess I'm just curious about how many people of internalized some of the underlying ideas, and if not if it matters so much to gameplay.

 

[Pseudonym]

I think of one attack as a series of pokes and jabs, acompanied with fancy footwork or other repositioning to gain advantage. I think I remember reading back in the old days that an attack roll was shorthand for much more action than a single swing; but it's been so long ago I may have just made that up on my own.

 

[Uder]

I voted one roll = one swing, mainly because at lower levels it's harder to justify why none of those other swings ever hit, why poison is always the same potency regardless of how many times you hit, energy weapons hurt the same regardless of how many times they hit, etcetera... unless you likewise say that higher damage rolls = multiple telling blows.

 

[Uder]

I think of one attack as a series of pokes and jabs, acompanied with fancy footwork or other repositioning to gain advantage. I think I remember reading back in the old days that an attack roll was shorthand for much more action than a single swing; but it's been so long ago I may have just made that up on my own.

That's a holdover from AD&D's minute-long combat rounds.

Man, I hated those. They just crumpled up and threw away my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Pseudonym]

That's a holdover from AD&D's minute-long combat rounds.

Ah yes, now I remember, which also brought up such questions as how long a segment was. Joys.

 

[Corinth]

Yes, it does. One roll equals one attack, be it melee or ranged.

 

[Imret]

One melee attack with feeling behind it, anyway. You might bat aside a parry or throw a quick feint, at least in the description of it, but it's one serious swing at your foe. When it comes to unarmed combat I'm willing to say it's anywhere from one to three attacks, description-wise, depending on the flow of combat and the characters involved. But it's all just campaign fluff, really.

With ranged weapons, one attack roll is always one attack.

 

[Henrix]

One attack roll is absolutely not one blow, in my book.

And most important, a failed attack may be something entirely different than a miss or deflected blow. It is often a failure to find the right opportunity. Two fighters missing each other for a few rounds can be because they are circling each other looking for an opening in the opponents guard.

 

[Altalazar]

I said in theory no, though in practice, pretty much it is. Missile - definitely. Melee - most likely - with six second rounds, it really could go either way. Perhaps a few fients can fit in there. But in practice, it is always described by me as a single swing and we all tend to think of it that way.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I picture a single attack as being a series of strikes to create an opening for one strike that really matters - the others are to draw the opponent's weapon out of position, misposition his shield, etc. (This is also why a shield only grants 1 or 2 to AC - this is the shot that has a chance of getting past the shield.)

As for 'justifying why none of those blows hits' - what do you think iterative attacks are at higher levels? You aren't moving that much faster, but more of your blows have a chance to make it past his defenses.

The Auld Grump