empireofchaos said:
If a creature (or character) has the multiple attacks feature, it seems (though it is not explicitly specified) that all of the attacks take place at nearly the same time, i.e. on that creature's turn in the initiative order.
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!
Hriston said:
You could also resolve all turns on the same initiative count simultaneously, or (and I think this is where you're going with your question) have the creature with two attacks go first and last and have the creature with one attack go in the middle.
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).
Jediking said:
The Cleave-Through rule applies to a single attack to an adjacent creature within 5 ft of the target, which is a separate thing from your intended question.
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.
Illithidbix said:
It is a bit ambiguous, but personally I'm pretty sure it's meant to be read as a single attack is a single source, multiple attacks from one character is still multiple sources.
Otherwise I'd expect the language to be about the total damage you take in a turn.
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 attack, or, conversely, the entirety of a multiattack sequence.
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.
Hriston said:
4. I do this in two places. I have fighters take the second action of an Action Surge at iniative minus ten, and I use a house rule whereby archers can take a second shot at their initiative minus ten if they don't move on their turn.
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.:
AaronOfBarbaria said:
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.
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.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHyuwcutoKmklWKutcDAnKKsZZGjsW7Ax56gq2WTpLu0sdCunKeblah7dYOUcm9yZw%3D%3D