I don't know if it was ever explained in D&D, but in AD&D it was explained that you don't get a number of hits per se.  How it was explained is that during a round, which was a full 60 seconds back then, a lot of things were happening during the combat round.  When you roll to hit, you are actually in the middle of attacking, defending feinting etc. So the roll is ONLY to see if you managed to hit anything. 

If you are a fighter then you get to check multiple times to see if you hit something.  It doesn't mean you get multiple attacks. This is not a video game, and the writers shouldn't lead players into believing that it is similar to one, in things more than just combat. 

Hit points being yet another really under understood mechanic.  But that is something for another time. 

Quote from MPA >>

I don't know if it was ever explained in D&D, but in AD&D it was explained that you don't get a number of hits per se.  How it was explained is that during a round, which was a full 60 seconds back then, a lot of things were happening during the combat round.  When you roll to hit, you are actually in the middle of attacking, defending feinting etc. So the roll is ONLY to see if you managed to hit anything. 

If you are a fighter then you get to check multiple times to see if you hit something.  It doesn't mean you get multiple attacks. This is not a video game, and the writers shouldn't lead players into believing that it is similar to one, in things more than just combat. 

Hit points being yet another really under understood mechanic.  But that is something for another time. 

You apparently haven't really read the rules very well, have you?

"The clatter of a sword striking against a shield. The terrible rending sound as monstrous claws tear through armor. A brilliant flash of light as a ball of flame blossoms from a wizard’s spell. The sharp tang of blood in the air, cutting through the stench of vile monsters. Roars of fury, shouts of triumph, cries of pain. Combat in D&D can be chaotic, deadly, and thrilling."

First words in the segment on combat.

"A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. " The first segment in the section before it starts detailing how the Combat Order works.

And then it explains how the Attack action works, where you (gasp) attempt to hit a target by striking with whatever weapon you are choosing to use. And if you have a feature, like say Extra Attack, that grants you multiple attacks to use in that same Action.

Attacks have a *mechanical* definition, and in fact, many abilities key off Attacks. So, you're just... outright wrong.

Quote from MPA >>

I don't know if it was ever explained in D&D, but in AD&D it was explained that you don't get a number of hits per se.  How it was explained is that during a round, which was a full 60 seconds back then, a lot of things were happening during the combat round.  When you roll to hit, you are actually in the middle of attacking, defending feinting etc. So the roll is ONLY to see if you managed to hit anything. 

If you are a fighter then you get to check multiple times to see if you hit something.  It doesn't mean you get multiple attacks. This is not a video game, and the writers shouldn't lead players into believing that it is similar to one, in things more than just combat. 

Hit points being yet another really under understood mechanic.  But that is something for another time. 

 A turn was 10 rounds. 1 Round was 10 segments of 6 seconds, so a turn was 10 x (1x)6. But you can't compare the two as everything had an attack speed you had to add to your initiative score to determine your place in a round. This varied every round, depending on your initiative plus your attack speed or your spell casting time. 

Quote from MPA>>

I don't know if it was ever explained in D&D, but in AD&D it was explained that you don't get a number of hits per se.  How it was explained is that during a round, which was a full 60 seconds back then, a lot of things were happening during the combat round.  When you roll to hit, you are actually in the middle of attacking, defending feinting etc. So the roll is ONLY to see if you managed to hit anything. 

If you are a fighter then you get to check multiple times to see if you hit something.  It doesn't mean you get multiple attacks. This is not a video game, and the writers shouldn't lead players into believing that it is similar to one, in things more than just combat. 

Hit points being yet another really under understood mechanic.  But that is something for another time. 

 A turn was 10 rounds. 1 Round was 10 segments of 6 seconds, so a turn was 10 x (1x)6. 

Read what I said again. I said a round was 60 seconds.

I have not played AD&D but this forum is all about 5e.

In 5e a round is 6 seconds although what each character does in that 6 seconds is described and adjudicated sequentially. At the rule on extra attack does very much describe attacking multiple times in that time.

Yes, no matter the rules system I tend to describe to my players that "one attack does not equal one punch" but rather an attempt to actually hurt your opponent. If that is a few jabs to break someone's guard followed up by a hard left hook or a Zornhau that displaces your opponent's weapon before you thrust them in the face, it doesn't really matter. Ruleswise they're both "an attack".

I don't really understand what you are objecting to. The term "attack" making players at your table think that each attack roll is one swing of a weapon?

Characters don't fill a 5 x 5 cube either.

Quote from Sanvael >>

I don't really understand what you are objecting to. The term "attack" making players at your table think that each attack roll is one swing of a weapon?

Characters don't fill a 5 x 5 cube either.

 I imagine it's quite a common thing for someone to imagine "I made an attack, it hit, did damage" to represent "I swung the sword, the sword hit, it did damage".

It takes a moment of abstraction to turn "I did attack, attack worked" into "I kicked them twice to get their guard where I wanted it, then directed a roundhouse kick to their face". Most people would, simply because they've never imagined it otherwise, need to have made 2 failed attacks then a successful one in order to imagine that event.

What is the functional difference between the two? “I stab at him twice with my sword and manage to penetrate his guard only once, piercing his side for minimal damage on the deflected blow” is no better or worse than “With swords clashing amid flourishes and ripostes, I manage to penetrate his guard and smirk knowingly as I observe his resolve fading whilst mine burns hotter yet” or “I rolled an 8 and 14 to hit the guy whose AC is 13 for one success causing 7HP of damage.”

People don’t misunderstand the rules, they just play they way they want to play. It’s all correct as long as everyone is having fun. No one needs to be schooled by you on how to do these things properly. Who even says you’re the one doing it “properly”? Furthermore, in what way is your post constructive, helpful or a positive contribution to the gaming community? You’re entitled to an opinion but there’s nothing gained by telling others they are doing it wrong other than your misplaced smug. Declarations of badwrongfun are highly frowned upon, much more highly than those who relate attacks and HP’s to video games in any way. 

I played AD&D and this is 100% wrong. The books never said you had multiple chances to hit with the same attack and a combat round was 1 minute, but broken up into 6 second segments 

Quote from Born_of_fire74 >>

What is the functional difference between the two? “I stab at him twice with my sword and manage to penetrate his guard only once, piercing his side for minimal damage on the deflected blow” is no better or worse than “With swords clashing amid flourishes and ripostes, I manage to penetrate his guard and smirk knowingly as I observe his resolve fading whilst mine burns hotter yet” or “I rolled an 8 and 14 to hit the guy whose AC is 13 for one success causing 7HP of damage.”

People don’t misunderstand the rules, they just play they way they want to play. It’s all correct as long as everyone is having fun. No one needs to be schooled by you on how to do these things properly. Who even says you’re the one doing it “properly”? Furthermore, in what way is your post constructive, helpful or a positive contribution to the gaming community? You’re entitled to an opinion but there’s nothing gained by telling others they are doing it wrong other than your misplaced smug. Declarations of badwrongfun are highly frowned upon, much more highly than those who relate attacks and HP’s to video games in any way. 

There's no difference in what you've said no, but we are referring to a single attack being considered a single swing, rather than an effort to injure the enemy. So the consideration is whether you would imagine a single attack made (ignore multiattack for now, you're level 1 in this imagined scenario) like in a video game where your character makes one swipe and then either hits or misses, or if you imagine your character exchanging 2-3 blows with the target and either getting one hit through or not getting any through.

I'd honestly never thought of it as anything but a blow-by-blow account, IE a single attack is a single swing. Now i'm going to be reconsidering that in favour of more in-depth imagined combats!