Does PF assume or not assume more actual attacks than attack rolls?

[Carpjay]

I have seen it mentioned in a few different threads that the PF handbook describes that the number of attack rolls made for a round of combat is not actually representative of the true number of attacks. In other words, that the attack roll is only representative of effectiveness, and in combat, lots of little parries and thrusts are happening all the time, many not landing or doing anything worth tracking individually by dice. I remember this being very sensical in a one-minute combat round, but since 3.0 and the 6-second round, I have thought this less than sensical.

This is mostly trivial, but there were some rule discussions where it became important. I never saw the claim backed up with a quote, however, directing readers to the actual language...just assertions and reassertions that it was there. Can someone please point me to that actual page? I would not only like to see proof that it exists, but also to read whatever nuggets may be found in such a discussion.

Maybe it is in a really obvious place and I've just been blind...please direct me. If no one can send me to the actual language, I would assume it was never really there.

Thanks.

[James Jacobs]

Combat in Pathfinder isn't meant to be an accurate portrayal of what really would go on in a fight. It's a game first and a reality simulation later.

As a result, it's probably best to assume that the number of attacks you make is just that... the number of attacks you make in a round. Keeps it nice and simple and obvious.

[Senevri]

Agreed with above - seeing as how various special and carrier effects happen as many times as you hit someone.

Or rather, the number of actual HITS you manage is the number of actual hits you manage - the number of hit _attempts_ in a 6-second round is probably unknowable. This keeps things logical.

I should note I am, like most people, somewhere around level 2-4, if put to game stats, and I can punch maybe 30 times in 6 seconds. Even in actual combat, I can attempt 3-5 strikes per 6-second round, and this is with a BAB around +2.

[Lord Zordran]

I normally run it as one attack per attack roll when it comes to describing combat. This has never caused any issues and makes gaining extra attacks (through increased BAB, the Haste spell, flurry of blows, etc.) more special. At least for my current players.

[mdt]

James Jacobs wrote:

Combat in Pathfinder isn't meant to be an accurate portrayal of what really would go on in a fight. It's a game first and a reality simulation later.

As a result, it's probably best to assume that the number of attacks you make is just that... the number of attacks you make in a round. Keeps it nice and simple and obvious.

Thank you! That argument comes up in every thread about combat, and it's annoying. It leads to arguments that you can do weird things like slap someone 5 times in a round while your hands on fire and do fire damage 5 times at 1st level since you're not trying to do damage just touch them and let the fire do the damage.

I always hated that in 3.5 and house-ruled it was one attack per attack roll.

[cwslyclgh]

uh... you couldn't do that in 3.5 either... because that would have counted as a touch attack and gone off your normal base attack bonus.

[Caineach]

Senevri wrote:

Agreed with above - seeing as how various special and carrier effects happen as many times as you hit someone.

Or rather, the number of actual HITS you manage is the number of actual hits you manage - the number of hit _attempts_ in a 6-second round is probably unknowable. This keeps things logical.

I should note I am, like most people, somewhere around level 2-4, if put to game stats, and I can punch maybe 30 times in 6 seconds. Even in actual combat, I can attempt 3-5 strikes per 6-second round, and this is with a BAB around +2.

This is how I have always seen it. People spend 2/3rds of the round testing guards, shallow feignts, dodging other attacks. Then for 1/2-2 seconds they close, make a bunch of attacks, and break away before they give their opponent time to get their bearings and strike back. Any real life combat I have seen has generally been like this as well.

[Twowlves]

It's been a holdover concept since 1st ed, if not before. In 1st ed, rounds were 1 minute long, and the idea was there were lots of feints and wild swings, but only one "opening" where an attack actually had a chance of doing real damage, and that was reflected in the attack roll. IIRC, it was that way in 3.X as well, but I could be wrong. The idea is "attack roll = real chance of connecting", not "attack roll = every single swing".