Does one attack roll = one attack?

[Ferret]

I've never though of it... I answered how I've played it until now.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Which may or may not have any bearing on how people described and/or envisioned attacks rolls in either edition. Which is what I'm more interested in.

Also, as with hit points, the implementation of combat in some ways contridicts their descriptive statement on attacks. Stunning fist uses are wasted if you don't connect on the attack you use it on, even if a later iterative attack hits. Yet they are claiming that you may have already missed prior to hitting with your declared attack. Or look at how the rules efect and enchanted double weapon and which attack roll = which head struck. Can combat be both micromanaged and abstract?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which may or may not have any bearing on how people described and/or envisioned attacks rolls in either edition.

Well, your Poll question was "Does a given attack roll represent a single discrete attack", and the answer in 3E was "No".

The Poll question and what you're interested in appear to be different

In 3.5, it's not specified in the same way, but for your interest, the way I describe and/or envision them is the way it was specified in 3E, since the mechanics didn't change sufficiently to warrant revising my mental images

-Hyp.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, your Poll question was "Does a given attack roll represent a single discrete attack", and the answer in 3E was "No".

The Poll question and what you're interested in appear to be different

-Hyp.

except that the placement in General rather than Rules and such terms as "describe" and "envision" in the answers give clear hints to the context of the question...

 

[Hypersmurf]

except that the placement in General rather than Rules and such terms as "describe" and "envision" in the answers give clear hints to the context of the question...

Well, if a thread in General asked me to describe how I envisioned the damage die of a Medium longsword, I'd vote 1d8, since there's an unambiguous rule in the book

-Hyp.

 

[Sejs]

One attack roll = one opening, as I see it. In melee this is going back and forth, feints, draws, parries, footwork, etc. With ranged weapons it's holding your shot and looking for a clear lane of fire, conditions to be right, and so on before you release.

In GURPS, with its 1 second long combat turns, I could see one attack roll = one swing, but for systems with longer rounds that breaks down pretty quickly.

 

[The_Universe]

I theory, an attack roll can represent multiple swings. At lower levels, I tend to describe attacks in exactly that way. At higher levels, I tend to gravitate back to "one roll, one swing," as high level characters tend to do enough in a round to fill 5 seconds of action. At lower levels, the number of swings may be the same, but fewer will be effective since the character in question is not as experienced as a warrior, mage, or whatever.

 

[ARandomGod]

Can combat be both micromanaged and abstract?

Apparently!!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, if a thread in General asked me to describe how I envisioned the damage die of a Medium longsword, I'd vote 1d8, since there's an unambiguous rule in the book

-Hyp.

You seriously spend too much time in the rules forum.