Full round attacks and delaying an action.

[hong]

Ummm... since when can you use your multiple attacks to target different opponents?

Since the game was released, I'd say.

If you get more than one attack per action ... you must use the full attack action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. -- PHB p.124

Note "targets" plural, and the mentioning of assigning individual attacks.

 

[Murrdox]

Wow. Our whole group is going to have a big uproar over this one. Well, we played flanking rules wrong for over a year before we got THAT straight, so I suppose this isn't a big deal.

Thanks everyone for clarifying that for me!

 

[Dimwhit]

Wow. Our whole group is going to have a big uproar over this one. Well, we played flanking rules wrong for over a year before we got THAT straight, so I suppose this isn't a big deal.

We've been playing over two years, and we still find things we've been playing wrong! We played flanking wrong for over a year as well. We allowed a Rogue with a bow to flank from a distance (within 30' of course) and get his sneak damage. Sure did make him nasty tough when we allowed that one!

But in this case, Whirlwind Attack probably messed you up. That feat allows you to take one attack against EVERY opponent within reach, even it that number is greater than your total number of attacks. But your regular attacks can be split up as you like.

 

[melkoriii]

Sounds like a dumb rule. It is time for a house rule.

A fighter with multiple attacks doesnt have to aim that all at the same person so there is no reason why he cannot make a full round attack and set one of them as a ready action.

Not a dumb rule.

If you think this way then ask your self why a Caster with multiple attacks cant cast extra 1 action spells?

Its there for ballence and it works well.

Attacking once is a standard action.
Attcking multiple times is a Full-attack action.

You can only do one or the other unless your hasted (till 3.5 that is)

 

[Murrdox]

We've been playing over two years, and we still find things we've been playing wrong! We played flanking wrong for over a year as well. We allowed a Rogue with a bow to flank from a distance (within 30' of course) and get his sneak damage. Sure did make him nasty tough when we allowed that one!

But in this case, Whirlwind Attack probably messed you up. That feat allows you to take one attack against EVERY opponent within reach, even it that number is greater than your total number of attacks. But your regular attacks can be split up as you like.

The dumbest consequence of our method of doing things was that a character with multiple attacks who finished off an opponent with his first attack basically LOST his extra attacks, unless he had cleave.

 

[Quidam]

aborted full attack

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this and I don't have a ref for it, but I remember reading that if a full attack is used and only the first attack goes off, the attacker can then choose a MEA instead of completing the full attack.

Anyone confirm me on this?

 

[Zenon]

Re: aborted full attack

Anyone confirm me on this?

Yes, you are correct. Per the SRD (and it's in the PHB too ) under Combat Action, under the Full Attack Action:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack Action: After a character's first attack, if the character has not yet taken a 5-foot step, a character can decide to move instead of making a character's remaining attacks.

 

[Skinwalker]

Re: aborted full attack

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this and I don't have a ref for it, but I remember reading that if a full attack is used and only the first attack goes off, the attacker can then choose a MEA instead of completing the full attack.

Anyone confirm me on this?

According to the Sword and Fist supplement, you don't have to specify whether you are doing a Full Attack until after you have made your first attack.