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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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="empireofchaos" data-source="post: 6806476" data-attributes="member: 6800918"><p>Ah, I see it actually is made explicit, but in the MM, p. 11 ("A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability"). Durn tricephalous core rules!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The other respondents here are suggesting (and it seems to be RAW) that whatever system of tie-breaks you are using, all the multiattacks take place before another creature can act. I do tend to use simultaneous resolution if there is a tie in the initiative order (so that two creatures can kill one another - happens sometimes).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, it's related, in the sense that if a creature with two attacks cleaves through an opponent with the first attack and is already doing damage to another creature, it would make no logical sense to prohibit the second attack from doing damage against that creature as well. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The impact of massive damage/attacks that cause instant death was the main thing I was interested in in this thread (I figured I would throw in the other questions, though they did seem more clear-cut). And I wasn't questioning whether the attack has to come from a single source or creature, I was asking whether it had to be a single <em>attack</em>, or, conversely, the entirety of a <em>multiattack sequence</em>. </p><p></p><p>I agree with the linguistic distinction you are drawing at the end here. But one's reading is pretty significant, since if the answer is multiattack sequence, character death would be significantly more common. If it's a single attack, then it would be as rare as people aver in other threads here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I'm toying with this idea, too, but I'll have to think more about how much doing this will bog things down, viz.:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, as I was saying, I would consider this as an exceptional rule in cases where there is only a single opponent. The benefit would be to give creatures with fewer attacks a greater chance to react/slay the opponent that has multiple attacks before it has a chance to just mow through you with all of its attacks simultaneously. Remembering triggers would be a complication, it's true, but not so bad if you're dealing with a single creature.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="empireofchaos, post: 6806476, member: 6800918"] Ah, I see it actually is made explicit, but in the MM, p. 11 ("A creature that can make multiple attacks on its turn has the Multiattack ability"). Durn tricephalous core rules! Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The other respondents here are suggesting (and it seems to be RAW) that whatever system of tie-breaks you are using, all the multiattacks take place before another creature can act. I do tend to use simultaneous resolution if there is a tie in the initiative order (so that two creatures can kill one another - happens sometimes). Well, it's related, in the sense that if a creature with two attacks cleaves through an opponent with the first attack and is already doing damage to another creature, it would make no logical sense to prohibit the second attack from doing damage against that creature as well. The impact of massive damage/attacks that cause instant death was the main thing I was interested in in this thread (I figured I would throw in the other questions, though they did seem more clear-cut). And I wasn't questioning whether the attack has to come from a single source or creature, I was asking whether it had to be a single [I]attack[/I], or, conversely, the entirety of a [I]multiattack sequence[/I]. I agree with the linguistic distinction you are drawing at the end here. But one's reading is pretty significant, since if the answer is multiattack sequence, character death would be significantly more common. If it's a single attack, then it would be as rare as people aver in other threads here. Yeah, I'm toying with this idea, too, but I'll have to think more about how much doing this will bog things down, viz.: Well, as I was saying, I would consider this as an exceptional rule in cases where there is only a single opponent. The benefit would be to give creatures with fewer attacks a greater chance to react/slay the opponent that has multiple attacks before it has a chance to just mow through you with all of its attacks simultaneously. Remembering triggers would be a complication, it's true, but not so bad if you're dealing with a single creature. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multiple attacks and their consequences
Top