Iterative attack order
Moderator: Moderators
Iterative attack order
When you do a full-attack and have an iterative, are you required to make the attacks in descending order, or can you mix them up? For example, a horrifically cursed 16th level fighter with a sword attacks someone; his first swing is at a +1 attack, his second is +11, his third is +16, and his final attack is at +6.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
It's hard to see a reason to do so, however, outside of rigging the system to take advantage of True Strike or similar effects.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
From page 143 of the 3.5e PHB:
Seems clear enough by RAW.Player's Handbook wrote:If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
Good to know. What about natural attacks; do primary attacks have to come first, or can secondary attacks be made first?Archmage wrote:From page 143 of the 3.5e PHB:
Seems clear enough by RAW.Player's Handbook wrote:If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.
In an odd twist of fate, I don't have a 3.5e MM, so I can't cite from there.
I'm going to go out on a limb and extrapolate, since I can't find an answer one way or the other in the SRD. I would assume that because primary attacks have a higher attack bonus that they have to be used first. When a character wielding a manufacturered weapon uses both it and a natural weapon, the natural weapon is considered a secondary attack, and therefore it has a lower attack bonus as well, though you could get around that in some really contrived situations. I think you're supposed to determine the order of attacks based on BAB minus penalties for iterative/secondary without applying any bonuses.
But I can't find a written rule, and since natural weapons don't use the manufactured weapon iterative attack rules, it's unclear. RAI, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to do primary first and then secondary, but RAW seems to make no judgment.
I'm going to go out on a limb and extrapolate, since I can't find an answer one way or the other in the SRD. I would assume that because primary attacks have a higher attack bonus that they have to be used first. When a character wielding a manufacturered weapon uses both it and a natural weapon, the natural weapon is considered a secondary attack, and therefore it has a lower attack bonus as well, though you could get around that in some really contrived situations. I think you're supposed to determine the order of attacks based on BAB minus penalties for iterative/secondary without applying any bonuses.
But I can't find a written rule, and since natural weapons don't use the manufactured weapon iterative attack rules, it's unclear. RAI, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to do primary first and then secondary, but RAW seems to make no judgment.
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
- CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
So what happens when your secondary natural attacks do not have an attack penalty (Improved Multiattack)?
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.