Does one attack roll = one attack?

[Testament]

+20/+15/+10/+5. That's the skill needed to get off four effective attacks a round in melee. That's how I've always envisaged it.

 

[dcollins]

I voted "yes" -- although in melee I assume there are other semi-attacks occuring that don't get rolls to simulate them.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Most of the time I do describe each attack as a single swing, but we sometimes remember that it really doesn't matter.

It should matter more for ranged attacks, a thrown weapon is thrown only once, and in theory projectiles should be kept track of (but at least for non-magical projectiles, we occasionally forget to keep track exactly).

Generally speaking, I support full freedom when it comes to descriptions. For instance, I suggested since early 3.0 that an archer firing more than once per round, such as with Rapid Shot, might be also described as shooting two arrows at the same time (like Legolas in LoTR movies).

 

[Morrus]

Generally speaking, I support full freedom when it comes to descriptions. For instance, I suggested since early 3.0 that an archer firing more than once per round, such as with Rapid Shot, might be also described as shooting two arrows at the same time (like Legolas in LoTR movies).

I agree with that. The description doesn't actually matter - describe it any way you like.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

I dunno... I find it pretty easy to justify why none of those swings ever hit. Of course, you have to realize that the characters don't percieve time in "rounds", which is relatively difficult to do, since you play them in rounds.

At least, as long as I'm justifying that at lower levels you can only potentially hit someone once a round, and at higher levels you can only potentially hit them X times a round, where X is always exactly the same number at each level ... it seems like the same justification to me either way.

In eariler editions, no. But now, where a round is 6 seconds, yeah, thats the way I see it. At low levels most of your effort is going into lining up a swing and trying to keep yourself from getting hit, the better you get the more youre able to go on the offensive.

If you're using a greatsword, maybe. But the dagger fighter or the rapier fighter?

Of course, "trying to keep yourself from getting hit" is actually a good way of describing parry and feint, which is acutally NOT one attack per roll.

Those extra swings are AoOs that hit.

Ah HA! Good use of justification. Bonus XP for you!

Spoken like someone with no conception of how long six seconds is in a fight...

There's just no way one roll is one swing. Ever.

Yea. I've watched some sword fighting... with a greatsword I could buy one swing per six seconds. With smaller blades there will be several. In fencing I can visualize up to 25 swings in six seconds without too much difficulty, for a particularly talented pair. Of course, not in every six seconds, there are flurries of activity... but I can see it happening.

Given six seconds in a round, and (at higher levels) 4 attacks per round, I can't imagine an attack being anything other than a single swing. It's too hard for me to believe that someone can feint, poke, jab and jostle before getting a telling swing in four times in one round.

Of course, in fencing I can imagine not a single one of those 25 swings connecting.

 

[Warbringer]

It's the telling attack. The round is sure to be filled with fients, jabs and even swings not meant to hit but simply change an oppoents balance.

When the telling attack comes its one attack.

 

[Janx]

So I see the basis for interesting rules out of this.

For a DM, it's probably easiest to describe 1 attack roll as 1 swing.

There's a few things that get muddled, namely, the timing (6 seconds may be too long for some things, but as PCs get higher levels, it evens out).

I'd suggest that lighter weapons would be able to attack more often, and that heavier weapons attack less often. I could argue that with 3 weapons classes (Light, Medium, and Heavy) that Light gives 2 extra attacks (-5, -10), and Medium gives 1 extra attack (-5). You might get some interesting effects out of this, and it might level out the playing field for damage with light weapons versus heavy weapons.

For example: 1st level Bob needs a 9 to-hit (He's got +1 to-hit, versus a 10 AC enemy).
With a dagger (3 attacks, +1, -4, -9) he'd need 9, 14, 19 (% chance = 55%, 30%, 5%)
Based on that, his total averag damage (2.5 times %) would be 1.375 + .75 + .125 = 2.25

Wheras, with a Greatsword, he's just got 6.5 * 55% = 3.575

How's that interesting? Well, giving the smaller weapon guys will give them a slight increase in average damage, bringing them more in line with reality. In theory, they should do less damage, but attack more often, and have a comparable chance of hitting.

(side note, one could argue that if your bonus attacks are negative, nat 20's don't auto-hit, and therefore negate the bonus attack, which would basically put you back in the camp of you get 1 roll, but you swung your sword a whole bunch of times before that).

To further model reality, in theory, having a big weapon would make you harder to hit, when attacked by a smaller weapon. Namely, dagger versus longsword, bigger weapon should win (not just for damage, but the sword guy has an easier time hitting, and avoiding being hit by using his sword to block).

Additionally, there's a slew of other effects attack rolls can model (go see the Book of Iron Might) that can simulate shifting an opponent's position, or sword out of the way.

So the real question of all this is, does it add any extra fun? Does it make things more complicated? Adding an AC bonus per the weapon you are using isn't too hard. Rolling extra attacks might slow up the game, or become ridiculous at high levels.

Janx

 

[Vanye]

Excellent reading, and I agree it fits for AD&D. For D&D3.X, I would still love to see a source that suggests firing 150 arrows a minute is possible.

36 a minute is the best I can come up with:

20th level fighter.
Rapid Shot
Weapon of Speed or Haste spell.

But that's just going off the top of my head.

 

[ARandomGod]

36 a minute is the best I can come up with:

20th level fighter.
Rapid Shot
Weapon of Speed or Haste spell.

But that's just going off the top of my head.

Even better. 20 level mage. Telekenisis. Wagonload of arrows. Cheesy, but it will work... and it can do considerably more than 150 arrows in a single round! Not from a bow, I admit. But that wasn't one of the required details!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, in 3E, it was unambiguous.

Attack roll: An attack roll represents your attemtps to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply represents whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly.

In the definition of 'attack roll', it stated that an attack roll is not a single swing.

Now, in 3.5, the wording has changed; it just states that an attack roll represents your attempt to strike an opponent in a round.

-Hyp.