Does one attack roll = one attack?
- Thread starter Kahuna Burger
- Start date
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.
Zappo
Explorer
I reason that one attack is one attack. That is, one swing dealt with the intent to hurt. The combat round, however, may involve many more swings that are dealt with the intent of feinting, displacing the opponent's weapon or shield, etcetera, not to mention parries.
Attacks of opportunity make a lot of sense in this context, because they are moments when the opponent is unusually open to a damaging strike. The character making an AoO isn't somehow moving faster; simply, he has found an opportunity to turn a feint into a serious threat.
Higher level characters can make more attacks because they are faster, but also because they are better able to find, create and exploit openings.
Attacks of opportunity make a lot of sense in this context, because they are moments when the opponent is unusually open to a damaging strike. The character making an AoO isn't somehow moving faster; simply, he has found an opportunity to turn a feint into a serious threat.
Higher level characters can make more attacks because they are faster, but also because they are better able to find, create and exploit openings.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
For missle attacks, I can see it as one roll=one attempt to hit. Aiming is harder, plus then there would be the question of arrow expenditure otherwise. For melee, no way. Six seconds is a frickin' eternity in a real fight, be it with fists, swords, or anything else. If we were talking one attack per roll, then we should be talking about .5 second combat rounds or smaller.
Generally I look at melee combat the way I see martial arts combat (the only combat I've ever seen, really); you have lots of blows happening every second but most are countered or are just tests to feel out your opponent's speed and power while simultaneously protecting yourself as much as possible. That attack roll represents your attempt to do some real damage and push past his defences or take advantage of a perceived lull. You miss, or hit but do little damage.. you mistimed it. That's why touch attacks are so easy to do: you're not worrying about pushing past or seeking out holes in defences with enough power to do some real physical hurt instead of scratches and jabs - you just need to encounter the body.
Most of the inconsistancies with that view vs how combat actually works in D&D fall into 'what makes good game play' vs 'what would be a real simulation of combat'. If we were really concerned about the latter, some attacks would be almost trivial to perform and affect character way out of proportion to how the game should be played. Many, many more combats would end with character death. I'm more concerned about what makes a game fun and fast than I am with strict simulation. D&D combat doesn't break my suspencion of disbelief enough for me to put up with the hassle of a more 'realistic' combat system. I've played enough games where such attempts were made to know it's generally not to my taste.
Generally I look at melee combat the way I see martial arts combat (the only combat I've ever seen, really); you have lots of blows happening every second but most are countered or are just tests to feel out your opponent's speed and power while simultaneously protecting yourself as much as possible. That attack roll represents your attempt to do some real damage and push past his defences or take advantage of a perceived lull. You miss, or hit but do little damage.. you mistimed it. That's why touch attacks are so easy to do: you're not worrying about pushing past or seeking out holes in defences with enough power to do some real physical hurt instead of scratches and jabs - you just need to encounter the body.
Most of the inconsistancies with that view vs how combat actually works in D&D fall into 'what makes good game play' vs 'what would be a real simulation of combat'. If we were really concerned about the latter, some attacks would be almost trivial to perform and affect character way out of proportion to how the game should be played. Many, many more combats would end with character death. I'm more concerned about what makes a game fun and fast than I am with strict simulation. D&D combat doesn't break my suspencion of disbelief enough for me to put up with the hassle of a more 'realistic' combat system. I've played enough games where such attempts were made to know it's generally not to my taste.
Watch people actually spar with these weapons, then. A second and a half between shots? You've got to be kidding. That's forever.Morrus said:
Granted, there is also a lot of circling each other looking for openings. Like another poster, I figure that's several rounds of misses. But once they actually start swinging, anyone as slow as you make even high-level fighters out to be would be Darwinized out before you could blink, quite possibly literally.
davidschwartznz
First Post
Uder said:
Oops, I misread round as mintute (I would blame it on earlier editions - but, dammit, I'm too young to be this old).
My counter question is, how the hell do you get 15 attacks per round? A core fighter at 16th level can fire 5 arrows in 6 seconds, which is pretty insane, but everything at that level is cinematic. What broken prestige class are you using to get off three times as many shots?
Kahuna Burger
First Post
The only thing is, in the current edition, there are specific combat manuvers, feats, etc that represtent feinting, parrying, circling around or throwing out multiple attacks only one or two of which manage to hit... so I save that sort of imagry for when it fits those deliberate mechanics. I can see the argument that those feats/tactics just make you particularly good at such a manuver, and you are still always doing it, but it doesn't work for me.
I think if I wanted to consider combat that abstract, I would rather go all the way and make it a more Feng Shui like system where your damage is determined by your character and you just define your shtick for style purposes. If a hit with a greatsword does more damage than a dagger and more strength bonus because you're holding it two handed, I might as well see the hit as one hit. If they could be doing multiple light taps or circling arond for one big swing no matter how many times you roll, why not give the greatsword guy and the twin dagger guy the same class/level based damage progression and let weapon choice and fighting style be flavor?
I think if I wanted to consider combat that abstract, I would rather go all the way and make it a more Feng Shui like system where your damage is determined by your character and you just define your shtick for style purposes. If a hit with a greatsword does more damage than a dagger and more strength bonus because you're holding it two handed, I might as well see the hit as one hit. If they could be doing multiple light taps or circling arond for one big swing no matter how many times you roll, why not give the greatsword guy and the twin dagger guy the same class/level based damage progression and let weapon choice and fighting style be flavor?
Kahuna Burger said:
Which is, in fact, a really good idea. Someone had a very popular set of house rules for that very thing on these boards at one time; I believe a .doc or .pdf of the rules can be found on the net somewhere, though now that I think of it I lost my own copies in a recent hard drive crash (which means I can neither post it here nor tell you the file name - hmm, maybe I should go through the archives of the house rules board, or get myself search access again...)
