Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multiple attacks and their consequences
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6806417" data-attributes="member: 6701872"><p>1) 5th edition suggests handling ties in the initiative order by having monsters/NPCs always lose ties to PCs, and any monster-to-monster or PC-to-PC ties being handled by decision of the person(s) in control of the tied creatures. I go with that.</p><p></p><p>For simplicity sake, I have a creature's turn resolve in its entirety before letting any other creature act unless they have reactions that apply to the situation at hand - so whichever creature won the tie would make all their attacks before the creature that lost the tie.</p><p></p><p>2) Attacks are made in series and are each entirely resolved before the next resolves, so yes a creature with multiple attacks can choose a different target based on the results of their earlier resolved attacks.</p><p></p><p>I also happen to use the cleave rules, but they don't apply all that often (and especially not against PCs) because they only come into play when a creature is reduced from maximum hit points to 0 hit points in a single attack.</p><p></p><p>3) Single source.</p><p></p><p>4) That's not a good rule at all, will always bog down combat, and anything gained from this method is entirely outweighed by the added complication of having to remember which one of those multiple initiatives is the one that any "your next turn" effects trigger off of, reactions and movement are replenished, and then track how much movement has been used and which attacks of a multi-attack have already been done. It adds complexity where complexity is of no meaningful benefit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6806417, member: 6701872"] 1) 5th edition suggests handling ties in the initiative order by having monsters/NPCs always lose ties to PCs, and any monster-to-monster or PC-to-PC ties being handled by decision of the person(s) in control of the tied creatures. I go with that. For simplicity sake, I have a creature's turn resolve in its entirety before letting any other creature act unless they have reactions that apply to the situation at hand - so whichever creature won the tie would make all their attacks before the creature that lost the tie. 2) Attacks are made in series and are each entirely resolved before the next resolves, so yes a creature with multiple attacks can choose a different target based on the results of their earlier resolved attacks. I also happen to use the cleave rules, but they don't apply all that often (and especially not against PCs) because they only come into play when a creature is reduced from maximum hit points to 0 hit points in a single attack. 3) Single source. 4) That's not a good rule at all, will always bog down combat, and anything gained from this method is entirely outweighed by the added complication of having to remember which one of those multiple initiatives is the one that any "your next turn" effects trigger off of, reactions and movement are replenished, and then track how much movement has been used and which attacks of a multi-attack have already been done. It adds complexity where complexity is of no meaningful benefit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multiple attacks and their consequences
Top