Better to try and acheive full attacks as much as possible, or... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Better to try and acheive full attacks as much as possible, or... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Azar_of_Faerun
03-01-07, 08:07 PM make each single attack count the most?
ShinAkuma2
03-01-07, 10:21 PM That depends on many variables.

What's the AC you're trying to hit? What's your attack bonus?

What does "count the most" mean? Are you referring to damage dealt, or likelihood to hit?

If we're talking about, say, spending a move action to allow you to hit a guy you may normally need a 20 to hit, then it's worth it to deny a full attack.

If taking a single attack would double (or more) your damage from a single attack, then it's probably worth it.

What's your circumstance? There's no concrete answer for all situations.
Alcalientre
03-01-07, 11:20 PM It depends largely on the type of combat you're frequently in - do you generally move around a lot getting to mobile foes, or does your DM (or you, if you are the DM), simply put an ogre in the middle of the room?
It also depends on your personal combat style - for instance, if you are a Paladin charging people with a lance, you're only going to get one attack most rounds. However, if you are an archer, you can probably get off a full attack almost every round, making, say, the haste weapon enchantment really useful.
More information about the character and the DM's style would be very useful.
Nom
03-02-07, 01:35 AM Depends on your tactics.

For a skirmisher using Spring Attack or similar, you want to maximise your one attack. Some people are surprised to learn that Spring Attack and Power Attack synergise rather well; if you're always attacking at full BAB then a moderate PA is often good.

In contrast, a direct archer or melee character with good defense gets more out of full attack. Barring wierdness like smite, a full attack should out-damage a single attack at mid to high levels.
Azar_of_Faerun
03-02-07, 01:56 AM I was speaking in the broadest terms possible. That, and if the poster reading this prefers full attacks or hit and run tactics on the whole
Empiro
03-02-07, 03:40 AM I was speaking in the broadest terms possible. That, and if the poster reading this prefers full attacks or hit and run tactics on the whole

Generally, if you can maintain mobility, and you have tumble, then making a single powerful attack is better because it overcomes DR better, it lets you react more quickly if something unexpected happens (someone jumps your wizard in the back), and because lots of monsters have very powerful full attacks.
Chimaera2000
03-02-07, 04:01 AM It depends on the character type, of course. When I employ the awesomeness that is Tome of Battle and play a martial adept, I'm all about the single attacks (strike maneuvers are usually standard actions). On the other hand, I wet myself a little every time I get of a two-weapon fighting flanking full attack as a rogue.
Vaelan
03-02-07, 08:35 AM This, like pretty much every aspect of the game, is too caught up in circumstance to make such broad statements meaningful.

It all comes down to weighing the benefit a full attack presents against the benefit a full attack presents your opponent.

There are a lot of monsters in the Monster Manual that are physically unimpressive. Full attack them to your heart's content, since your main concern will be putting them down before they manage to put one of their special abilities into play and make the fight an actual challenge. If you are fighting a dragon, you may wish to deny it four of its natural attacks. Of course, you may also wish to present a tempting opportunity in the form of a full attack in the hopes that your opponent will take it rather than another option, such as flying away or going after another member of your party.

As a note, I am currently playing a character that tries to make full attacks as often as possible in order to make single attacks count for as much as possible. That particular character has skirted the issue quite gracefully.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Azar_of_Faerun 03-01-07, 08:07 PM	make each single attack count the most?
ShinAkuma2 03-01-07, 10:21 PM	That depends on many variables. What's the AC you're trying to hit? What's your attack bonus? What does "count the most" mean? Are you referring to damage dealt, or likelihood to hit? If we're talking about, say, spending a move action to allow you to hit a guy you may normally need a 20 to hit, then it's worth it to deny a full attack. If taking a single attack would double (or more) your damage from a single attack, then it's probably worth it. What's your circumstance? There's no concrete answer for all situations.
Alcalientre 03-01-07, 11:20 PM	It depends largely on the type of combat you're frequently in - do you generally move around a lot getting to mobile foes, or does your DM (or you, if you are the DM), simply put an ogre in the middle of the room? It also depends on your personal combat style - for instance, if you are a Paladin charging people with a lance, you're only going to get one attack most rounds. However, if you are an archer, you can probably get off a full attack almost every round, making, say, the haste weapon enchantment really useful. More information about the character and the DM's style would be very useful.
Nom 03-02-07, 01:35 AM	Depends on your tactics. For a skirmisher using Spring Attack or similar, you want to maximise your one attack. Some people are surprised to learn that Spring Attack and Power Attack synergise rather well; if you're always attacking at full BAB then a moderate PA is often good. In contrast, a direct archer or melee character with good defense gets more out of full attack. Barring wierdness like smite, a full attack should out-damage a single attack at mid to high levels.
Azar_of_Faerun 03-02-07, 01:56 AM	I was speaking in the broadest terms possible. That, and if the poster reading this prefers full attacks or hit and run tactics on the whole
Empiro 03-02-07, 03:40 AM	I was speaking in the broadest terms possible. That, and if the poster reading this prefers full attacks or hit and run tactics on the whole Generally, if you can maintain mobility, and you have tumble, then making a single powerful attack is better because it overcomes DR better, it lets you react more quickly if something unexpected happens (someone jumps your wizard in the back), and because lots of monsters have very powerful full attacks.
Chimaera2000 03-02-07, 04:01 AM	It depends on the character type, of course. When I employ the awesomeness that is Tome of Battle and play a martial adept, I'm all about the single attacks (strike maneuvers are usually standard actions). On the other hand, I wet myself a little every time I get of a two-weapon fighting flanking full attack as a rogue.
Vaelan 03-02-07, 08:35 AM	This, like pretty much every aspect of the game, is too caught up in circumstance to make such broad statements meaningful. It all comes down to weighing the benefit a full attack presents against the benefit a full attack presents your opponent. There are a lot of monsters in the Monster Manual that are physically unimpressive. Full attack them to your heart's content, since your main concern will be putting them down before they manage to put one of their special abilities into play and make the fight an actual challenge. If you are fighting a dragon, you may wish to deny it four of its natural attacks. Of course, you may also wish to present a tempting opportunity in the form of a full attack in the hopes that your opponent will take it rather than another option, such as flying away or going after another member of your party. As a note, I am currently playing a character that tries to make full attacks as often as possible in order to make single attacks count for as much as possible. That particular character has skirted the issue quite gracefully.