Replace Martial Damage Bonus with Extra Attacks

I really hate to say this, as I hated the iterative attacks of 3.x, but I'd much rather see extra attacks than this martial bonus damage stuff. It accomplishes the same thing (higher level fighters doing more damage) but without the problems of martial damage dice and bonuses. Unlike damage bonuses, extra attacks don't make strength or weapon choice obselete, since they multiply along with it. It also makes the game less swingy since critical hits are only maximizing a ([W] + Str mod.) attack, not ([W] + Str mod. +6d6 +20). It's also, IMO, more believable. It makes sense to me a more skilled warrior could get in more hits on an enemy, as opposed to increasing in damage to the point of becoming Hercules. It also balances better against objects. Extra attacks don't let you get around Hardness the way a single, massive attack does.

You can still use the same kind of maneuver system with extra attacks. Instead of giving up a martial die to parry, a character could give up an attack. Instead of using a martial die to trip, the character can just make a trip attack. And the biggest complaint going against extra attacks (all that extra die rolling) is not really an issue here, since martial damage dice involve extra dice rolling as well. Of course, they need to carefully balance this. I don't ever want to see a TWF character with 8 attacks ever again. But that is easy enough to accomplish. Just don't let the extra attacks get out of hand. Let TWF only grant you one extra attack, ever. It's still very valuable that way, but it doesn't get ridiculous as it did in 3.x.
Extra attacks could probably replace the MDB.  I'd say add 1 attack at the +10 level, and 1 more at the +20 level (just off the top of my head).  You could even keep MDD that way, which is good because if they're going to offer us good options later one, we'll need some kind of resource in the base fighter class to trade for them.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Multiple attacks by themselves are not such of a big deal. 3.5 iterative attacks were a bit meh even if you liked that system. Probably don't want to go to the extreme of 3.5 7/8 attacks a round dual wielding.

 Extra attack level 7 and 14, dua wielding gives you another one but costs resources to do and you are giving up a shield or extra damage with a THW. Sga you had to spent feats to get the extra atttacks and prestige class if you wanted to minimise the penalties, 2nd ed you just got them.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Extra attacks really pall with large groups.    They are useful as an easy mechanism to handle lots of minion grade monsters.   But I seem to have missed the analysis about just scaling mutlple [W] damage as you go up levels.  Can someone point me at wherever it was discussed?
Extra attacks really pall with large groups.    They are useful as an easy mechanism to handle lots of minion grade monsters.   But I seem to have missed the analysis about just scaling mutlple [W] damage as you go up levels.  Can someone point me at wherever it was discussed?


Multiplying weapon damage makes weapon choice too important.  It incentivizes the use of high damage weapons and punishes those who choose low damage weapons because they fit their character concept.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I really don't like multiple attacks as a general rule, just because of how much extra table time all the attack rolls and HP subtractions take.  I do think that str/dex and 1H vs. 2H not mattering for damage at high levels is weird and would like that to change somehow, but I really don't want multiple attacks as a default at-will thing to be the way that it gets fixed.
Not if damage was scaled appropriately and benefits were given as trade offs.

If 2H weapons did 20% more damage than one handed weapons than shields should provide a 20% reduction in damage taken.

Coincidentally that is roughly what you have with d8 one handers, d10 two handers, and +2 AC heavy shields.

Going to d6 damage for a light one handed weapon trades damage for finesse. Considering how much more beneficial dexterity is than strength it ends up working out quite nicely.

I think damage from weapons should be d6/d8/d10 only.

Class features can bump damage up one step. Fighters for all weapons, rogues for light weapons maybe.

Then all bonuses could be expressed by [W] and weapons would be fairly well balanced.
Multiple attacks present their own world of problems. 

- as mentioned by Mechapilot - it makes weapon choice super important.  This is also do to crit range making multiple attack rolls really important.  I think this stands to harm roleplaying rather than help it (or, best case scenario, create a nightmare of weapon balancing, that is impossible to achieve). 

- when discussing damage of martial dice, people seem to complely ignore the trade off with maneuvers and parry.  It makes perfect sense to me that a fight who doesn't do anything fancy and doesn't spend time defending himself can deal a large amount of damage. AND that this amount would increase as the fighter became better trained.

- it does make sense that a fighter may be able to land additional blows as they get better trained, but it would depend on the training.  And it seems that such perceptions of combat ability are best done through maneuver choice (such as iwth flurry of blows). 

- this seems to me like a far more interesting power attack.  Rather than getting better and better at hitting things, and training to turn this hitting ability to hurting ability, martial classes get better and better at hurting things and can trade this hurting ability to do a multitude of things (including getting better at hitting things). 

- I think the high damage is far more cinematic.  The powerful Hero slays the goblin in a single blow.  He doesn't slice him up into a pile of cuts.  A larger foe must be sliced several times before he falls, not dozens upon dozens. 

I think we perceive extra attacks as 'normal' because that was built into past editions.  I am running DDN with people new to D&D, and when I say 'when you level up you will deal more damage' they respond with basically 'ok, that makes sense.'  They do not say "what? why don't I attack more frequently, that would make sense."  Becuase Gimli slays an orc with one blow, he doesn't whirl through the battle like the tazmanian devil. 

THAT SAID, I can't endorse the math of the current packet form top to bottom.  They clearly need to fix things (especially monsters), but I hope they don't pile on attacks as the main mechanism of martial power growth. 
Multiple attacks present their own world of problems. 

- as mentioned by Mechapilot - it makes weapon choice super important.  This is also do to crit range making multiple attack rolls really important.  I think this stands to harm roleplaying rather than help it (or, best case scenario, create a nightmare of weapon balancing, that is impossible to achieve).


I think multiple attacks fails to make it as important as simply multiplying weapon damage.  I say this because of the to-hit roll required for each attack.  I haven't run any numbers, but I think we end up with less average damage with multiple attacks than we do with one attack at Y x [W].  Even with the increased chance to land a crit, you also have more chances to miss.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Rolling extra attacks takes far more time than rolling extra damage dice. For that alone I prefer MDD.
My two copper.
Is there any reason why "Extra Attack" can't be a two-dice maneuver?
To quote my recent blog post (towards the end of the post just before the summary)...


I will start by saying I don't really like the MDB. It just kinda seems tacked on. Now it's purpose might be to increase damage even if you use up all your MDD on maneuvers, but it just kinda seems wonky, and I feel it should probably be done away with.


However, if it is to be kept, I wonder if we couldn't change it to a ability modifier multiplier. For example, a cleric would just use his STR or DEX to add to damage for the first 17 levels, but for levels 18 through 20 they would use twice their STR or DEX bonus to damage. A fighter and rogue would use their normal STR or DEX modifier until level 7 to 10 where they would get double, 11 through 13 it would triple, 14 thorough 16 it would quadruple, and from 17 to 20 it would quintuple the ability bonus damage. One of the reasons I like this idea is that it still make ability modifiers mean something to damage. So your high STR (20) medium DEX (15) fighter would do 1d8 + 6d6 + 25 with his longsword, and 1d8 + 6d6 + 10 with his longbow.


Is there any reason why "Extra Attack" can't be a two-dice maneuver?



If all it does is give you an extra attack, then it will most likely be a damage loss for any weapon except a 1d12 favored weapon (2d6). However, if it is something you can choose to use later, say, after a miss, then it would probably be better to take the second swing with only 4d6 MDD then to do no damage whatsoever.

Which actually might not be a bad place for it, it won't be used if your initial attack hits, but if it misses, then it's better than nothing. Almost like a second chance maneuver. If you miss twice, you can spend another 2d6. That might not be so bad after all.
However, if it is something you can choose to use later, say, after a miss, then it would probably be better to take the second swing with only 4d6 MDD then to do no damage whatsoever.

Considering other manuevers which don't need a pre-declaration, sure, why not?

To quote my recent blog post (towards the end of the post just before the summary)...


I will start by saying I don't really like the MDB. It just kinda seems tacked on. Now it's purpose might be to increase damage even if you use up all your MDD on maneuvers, but it just kinda seems wonky, and I feel it should probably be done away with.


However, if it is to be kept, I wonder if we couldn't change it to a ability modifier multiplier. For example, a cleric would just use his STR or DEX to add to damage for the first 17 levels, but for levels 18 through 20 they would use twice their STR or DEX bonus to damage. A fighter and rogue would use their normal STR or DEX modifier until level 7 to 10 where they would get double, 11 through 13 it would triple, 14 thorough 16 it would quadruple, and from 17 to 20 it would quintuple the ability bonus damage. One of the reasons I like this idea is that it still make ability modifiers mean something to damage. So your high STR (20) medium DEX (15) fighter would do 1d8 + 6d6 + 25 with his longsword, and 1d8 + 6d6 + 10 with his longbow.



It would make 2 ability scores more important, dex and str. The other 4 are completely unchanged. All I can see is an increased pressure to optimize str and dex. Whereas the current system may feel like dex and str matter less, but the player feels less pressured to optimize those stats and that makes it easier for rogues who want a high Int or Cha. Same for a fighter or monk. 
My two copper.
It would make 2 ability scores more important, dex and str. The other 4 are completely unchanged. All I can see is an increased pressure to optimize str and dex. Whereas the current system may feel like dex and str matter less, but the player feels less pressured to optimize those stats and that makes it easier for rogues who want a high Int or Cha. Same for a fighter or monk. 



While true, this doesn't take into account any future classes (remember we are basically still in the core four land) that happen to use intelligence, charisma, or wisdom for attacks.

People will optimize no matter what. Even if it didn't affect damage in any way, it still affects attacks, and therefore will still be optimized by those that wish to do such things.

Honestly though, I think that static bonus should just go way completely, but if it will not, I like this better.

- as mentioned by Mechapilot - it makes weapon choice super important.  This is also do to crit range making multiple attack rolls really important.  I think this stands to harm roleplaying rather than help it (or, best case scenario, create a nightmare of weapon balancing, that is impossible to achieve).



Multiple attacks don't make weapon choice as important as some people think. For each die increase in damage (i.e. d6 to d8, d8 to d10, etc.) your average damage increases by 1, the same as having a Str score 2 points higher. So if a 20th level fighter had, say, 4 attacks, having a one die type better weapon would make 4 points of difference in damage for him on average. IMO, that is just about right. The weapon choice matters enough to be important, but it also doesn't make such a huge difference that people are ineffective if they choose to use a lighter weapon. MWD, on the other hand, make choice of weapon almost totally irrelevant. That is not acceptable.
The martial damage dice already make weapon choice unimportant. As long as the percentage increase in damage between a 1 hander and a 2 hander stays the same, which is should by adding extra attacks, it will be fine. It's a choice you make: damage vs. defense (with a shield).

I like this idea somewhat. I think it could be better handled with maneuvers, but I also think that martial damage dice should use the weapon's damage dice to begin with. Also, I think all classes should get them, and get them earlier, to help with multiclassing. Then make sure gishes can use them on rounds they use their spells and BAM. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

Is there any reason why "Extra Attack" can't be a two-dice maneuver?


I'd put it at at least a three-dice maneuver if it was going to be another attack roll with idepenent chance of critical and dealing weapon die + strength modifier damage, just to keep the competetion pretty close as far as damage output potential

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I'd rather not have to deal with multiple attacks per round, and I don't really mind weapon choice being more a matter of preference (and maybe a matter of weapon properties, which are sorely lacking).  That said, I don't really like Martial Damage Bonus either.  It just feels kind of lame.  I think the extra [W] solution could be a suitable alternative, as long as there was some way to make sure weapon choice didn't make or break a character -- well-balanced weapons might do the trick.

Not if damage was scaled appropriately and benefits were given as trade offs. If 2H weapons did 20% more damage than one handed weapons than shields should provide a 20% reduction in damage taken. Coincidentally that is roughly what you have with d8 one handers, d10 two handers, and +2 AC heavy shields. Going to d6 damage for a light one handed weapon trades damage for finesse. Considering how much more beneficial dexterity is than strength it ends up working out quite nicely. I think damage from weapons should be d6/d8/d10 only. Class features can bump damage up one step. Fighters for all weapons, rogues for light weapons maybe. Then all bonuses could be expressed by [W] and weapons would be fairly well balanced.

That sound quite reasonable.  I especially like the idea of fighters increasing the damage die of all weapons and rogues increasing the damage die of light (or finesse?) weapons.

But what do we do about reach weapons, or weapons with other special properties?  What damage die do those get?  While a more uniform weapon damage scale is appealing from a balance perspective, without accounting for more variables than just light/1h/2h, I'd be worried it could leave weapons even more bland and undifferentiated than they currently are.

Now, if every martial weapon had some additional property, there'd be nothing to worry about, e.g. a greatsword could be balanced against a glaive because it has a high crit property rather than a larger damage die.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

To make weapon choice more important adding the weapon dice as extra damage at higher levels looks like the best option to me.






































































































It's a good idea. But I would still have a damage bonus that looks like this.
1[w]+ability mod+level mod+feat+magic.

If we were to have multiple attacks, we could have a progression table like this.
Note that "power" here refers to a spell, prayer, maneuver, feat or class only skill.

Level-Up Advancement Table
lvl 2skill+1
lvl 3ability+1
lvl 41 additional power
lvl 51 additional skill or skill+1
lvl 6ability+1
lvl 71 additional power
lvl 81 additional main action
lvl 9skill+1
lvl 10ability+1
lvl 111 additional power
lvl 121 additional skill or skill+1
lvl 13ability+1
lvl 141 additional power
lvl 151 additional off-hand action
lvl 16skill+1
lvl 17ability+1
lvl 181 additional power
lvl 191 additional skill or skill+1
lvl 20ability+1
lvl 211 additional power
lvl 221 additional reaction
lvl 23skill+1
lvl 24ability+1
lvl 251 additional power
Perhaps there could be different maneuvers allowable on a weapon-by weapon basis. Maybe using a shield allows you to keep more parry dice, great sword ups the MDD die type, TWF doubles the dice you can use for damage, but drops them a die-type and imposes penalties to attacking.

Or just make your MDD type the same as your weapon die type.

I'd be more for this to make weapon choice matter. It makes each weapon different mechanically as opposed to just having differing damage.

What types of maneuvers would be attached to which weapon though?
Extra attacks really pall with large groups.    They are useful as an easy mechanism to handle lots of minion grade monsters.   But I seem to have missed the analysis about just scaling mutlple [W] damage as you go up levels.  Can someone point me at wherever it was discussed?


Multiplying weapon damage makes weapon choice too important.  It incentivizes the use of high damage weapons and punishes those who choose low damage weapons because they fit their character concept.



Then combine 2e weapon speed with multiple attacks so multiple attacks measure speed. A dagger would come close to giving a 1st level character multiple attacks. At 2nd level character might have multiple attacks with a dagger while not having multiple attacks with a greatsword until later depending on how the character boost their attack speed. Basically attack speed + weapon speed gives you a multiple attack every ten points.
Nope, I don't want that mess called multiple attacks anymore, ever. I say balance weapons first, add secondary properties to weapons. Then we can tie [W] to high level damage as it should be. IMO the weapon damages should only be 1d6 (light), 1d8 (normal) and 1d10 (heavy). It is too broad a range from d4 to d12 and it apparently causes problems about weapon choice because of the lack of sufficient additional weapon properties.
Multiple attacks don't take that long to do. Just don't go crazy with status effects or sheer numbers (5/6/7). 2 or 3 would be the most you really get maybe 4 at high level and if you are a dual wielder.

1 at 1,2 at 7, 3 at 14 and an extra one if you dual wield.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

What I don't like about the current implementation of Martial Damage Dice, is it does not distinguish weapon types and you start to see the mechanism bleed into other classes like the cleric. In theory, MDD is just a substituion for a point system, similar to a monk using ki.

Just like a caster has certain spells that create a unique niche, weapons and armor should do the same thing for fighters. Therefore, I would prefer a multiple attack system, where depending on the weapon used, you can trade out different attacks for different maneuvers. So you would have two-handed weapon maneuvers, single-weapons maneuvers, and even shield maneuvers. If critical hits become a problem, then you can limit them to the primary weapon, or only once per round. I do not believe the extra attacks will slow combat down more than MDD, because whenever you add a choice it will slow down a players actions as they decide what to do on their turn.


Just watch any combat expert fight, be it an army soldier, a martial artist, a swordsman or whatever.

They don't "charge-up" a mighty blow and unleash it with the fury of Hercules.
They move fast, with precision and are able to deliver several good blows where an amateur would fumble with his own blows trying to react so quickly.

RPG rules need not be realistic, but they should give you at least a general feel of what's happening so as to attune with your own imagination of the scene being played.


One could argue that a single big damage could represent several placed blows, since damage and HP are abstractions.
But that doesn't cut for me.
It takes away too much immersion. When I see a hihgly skilled warrior rolling several attacks, maybe missing some and hiting some, it feels much more real to me as I imagine the scene than one big blow that is a complete miss to no damage or a hit with huge damage.
That inevitably leads me to imagine the Hulk unleashing a tremendous, inhuman blow or something like that and I would have to force myself to imagine the scene otherwise.
So from an immersion perspective, the MDD system is terrible.


Besides...
From my own years-long experience with AD&D, 3ed and Pathfinder, I have never seen the problems described here with wepons such as "everyone choosing the same weapon" or "when multiple-attacks factor in one weapon gives enourmous advantage over the other for rolling a d8 instead of d6."

Sure there were some neglected weapons, but do tweak them, then.
Sure there were flaws in the multiple-attacks system (like TWF being overpowered in high levels), but do adjust that.

Do not throw away an entire set of rules that was working pretty well and trade it for one that is weird, hard to picture in your imagination, breaks immersion, and causes several "side-effect" problems in the general rules such as Ability damage modifiers and weapon damage dice becoming irrelevant.

Just watch any combat expert fight, be it an army soldier, a martial artist, a swordsman or whatever.

They don't "charge-up" a mighty blow and unleash it with the fury of Hercules. 


Rolling a die for every beat/parry/stroke/feint etc is heavy handed rediculous D&D has always simplified putting too much rolling every to hit would be on the order of 18 rolls per player for a 6 second turn.
 
They also dont throw that huge haymaker from the floor (movie scene finale) every round after round randomly hoping that it works... they keep their eyes open looking for an opening... but tying it only to critical hit dashes tactics/strategy in the dirt.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Just watch any combat expert fight, be it an army soldier, a martial artist, a swordsman or whatever.

They don't "charge-up" a mighty blow and unleash it with the fury of Hercules. 


Rolling a die for every beat/parry/stroke/feint etc is heavy handed rediculous D&D has always simplified putting too much rolling every to hit would be on the order of 18 rolls per player for a 6 second turn.
 
They also dont throw that huge haymaker from the floor (movie scene finale) every round after round randomly hoping that it works... they keep their eyes open looking for an opening... but tying it only to critical hit dashes tactics/strategy in the dirt.




Sorry but your description does not match any D&D gameplay I know, since I have never seen a player roll 18 dice in a turn (unless it's a high-level spell which is not what's being discussed).

Suppose a 3ed fighter at level 11 with 3 attacks per round.
That's 3 d20 rolled for hit, and 3 damage dice rolled if all attacks do hit, going for a total of 6 rolls maximum.

I even had a house-rule for parry, where you could "spend" one attack to roll a To Hit for parrying an attack as a reaction.
Even then there's no added roll, since you were forfeiting one of your attacks (and that's even one less damage roll).

TWF with its many extra attacks did lead to excessive rolls and unbalanced damage. But that was a problem with 3.5's TWF, not with the multi-attack system itself.


Besides, rolling dice is fun, it's part of the game, as long as you're not casting 30-dice spells every round, but that's far from the reality of average gameplay (and if some rule is leading to that you adjust that detail in the rules).

Have 3 attacks per round?
Sure, grab those 3 d20 in your hand and throw them at the table.
And if that makes each player's turn last 10 or 15 more seconds to be resolve so what?
I'm not in a hurry to "get things done with." This feels like MMO mentality to me.
All that is part of the fun to me.


And if anything, 5ed as it is now is adding even more dice rolls, with all those MDD dice, the Skill dice, the extra die for advantage/disadvantage...
Even so it does not bother me, cause rolling dice (to a certain ammount), as I said, to me is fun.

What is bothering me is the MDD system itself and the removal of multiple attacks, despite whatever number of dice rolled.

Just watch any combat expert fight, be it an army soldier, a martial artist, a swordsman or whatever.

They don't "charge-up" a mighty blow and unleash it with the fury of Hercules. 


Rolling a die for every beat/parry/stroke/feint etc is heavy handed rediculous D&D has always simplified putting too much rolling every to hit would be on the order of 18 rolls per player for a 6 second turn.
 
They also dont throw that huge haymaker from the floor (movie scene finale) every round after round randomly hoping that it works... they keep their eyes open looking for an opening... but tying it only to critical hit dashes tactics/strategy in the dirt.




Sorry but your description does not match any D&D gameplay I know, since I have never seen a player roll 18 dice in a turn.


Thats the point.. if they were trying to simulate all those actions to massage your versimilitude with die rolls for each ... it would be rolling 18 dice or more since you then have to roll damage dice and if you do anything but damage then expect saves further every defense should technically be active die rolls and so on and so forth.

MMO hurray now fast combat is MMO mentality ...see getting it done fast so you can roleplay and treating it like a craps game where the dice do it all... ( and pretend all those people making choices in a fight are just war gamers ) is the part of the current  schpiel. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



Sorry but your description does not match any D&D gameplay I know, since I have never seen a player roll 18 dice in a turn (unless it's a high-level spell which is not what's being discussed).




I have...  I made a 3.0 Fang of Lolth (eventually leads to having six arms and a bite attack) with Multiattack and a Kukri in each.  With a +18 BAB that meant his full attack was 19 attacks.  Oh... and his original class was Rouge, so they could potentially all be sneaks...

And that was just the attacks rolls... after potential damage rolls, I have no idea how many dice I rolled.

Yes.  It was ridiculous.

(I had intended to add in Tempest levels to be able to move during a full attack, but the campaign ended...)


You have to agree, though, that your 6-armed whirlwind-man of blades is not your average description of a D&D character.
:P

It was not the multi-attack system based on level that led to that absurdity.

Imagine a 5ed version of that character where each of these arms and bites added, say, +2d6 to the MDD pool instead of giving more attacks.
There would also be a lot more dice involved every round.

You have to agree, though, that your 6-armed whirlwind-man of blades is not your average description of a D&D character.
:P

It was not the multi-attack system based on level that led to that absurdity.

Imagine a 5ed version of that character where each of these arms and bites added, say, +2d6 to the MDD pool instead of giving more attacks.
There would also be a lot more dice involved every round.

Oh you're absolutely right.  I just brought it up because... well I like bringing it up.

Of course, I had the idea for the character because of the system cheese.  But it turned out that role-playing all the stuff happening to him as each level transformed him was fun as hell.

I actually only wound up using the blender-kill a handful of times.  It happened so late in the campaign, we were done before I could make a habit of it.

Still one of my favorite characters, though.


I'm not sure where I actually stand on the debate between extra attacks vs. more MDD vs. Bonus damage, other than that a flat level based damage bonus feels really stale to me.  There's gotta be a better way.
Extra attacks really pall with large groups.    They are useful as an easy mechanism to handle lots of minion grade monsters.   But I seem to have missed the analysis about just scaling mutlple [W] damage as you go up levels.  Can someone point me at wherever it was discussed?


Multiplying weapon damage makes weapon choice too important.  It incentivizes the use of high damage weapons and punishes those who choose low damage weapons because they fit their character concept.



and whats wrong with that?

only point is what benefits lower damage weapon has?

I liked proficiency bonus from 4E.

If fighter at lvl20 has, lets say 6W damage then longsword with +1 higher attack bonus, higher crit chance and 6d8 could be even with battleaxe with 6d10.

There would also be a lot more dice involved every round.


If then clauses.. if this die is above this number analyse then roll more damage die and do any additional effects associated with an attack and so on and so forth.

To me it seems like busy work... I would rather be spending that on the more interesting choices.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the OP began by saying this:
"I really hate to say this, as I hated the iterative attacks of 3.x"

I really like the current system because it is very simple and quick to use.  It also allows for multiple attacks through maneuvers (currently Flurry of Blows, Rapid Shot, Volley, and Whirlwind Attack).

I also like the fact that weapon choice becomes less important for very skilled fighters.  For a novice, the base damage of the weapon is the most important.  But as the fighter (I use "fighter" to refer to any class that gains a good progression of martial damage dice and damage bonus) increases in skill, he becomes equally deadly with any weapon.  Greatsword or dagger, he can still kill anything.
Extra attacks really pall with large groups.    They are useful as an easy mechanism to handle lots of minion grade monsters.   But I seem to have missed the analysis about just scaling mutlple [W] damage as you go up levels.  Can someone point me at wherever it was discussed?


Multiplying weapon damage makes weapon choice too important.  It incentivizes the use of high damage weapons and punishes those who choose low damage weapons because they fit their character concept.



and whats wrong with that?


Well for me I want disarm be suitably meh when used against heroics (those with MDD), instead of an awesome over powered choice.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Jan 2, 2013 -- 7:05PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 2, 2013 -- 7:03PM, StephenT wrote:

Extra attacks really pall with large groups.    They are useful as an easy mechanism to handle lots of minion grade monsters.   But I seem to have missed the analysis about just scaling mutlple [W] damage as you go up levels.  Can someone point me at wherever it was discussed?



Multiplying weapon damage makes weapon choice too important.  It incentivizes the use of high damage weapons and punishes those who choose low damage weapons because they fit their character concept.




and whats wrong with that?

only point is what benefits lower damage weapon has?

I liked proficiency bonus from 4E.

If fighter at lvl20 has, lets say 6W damage then longsword with +1 higher attack bonus, higher crit chance and 6d8 could be even with battleaxe with 6d10.


4e have scaling [W] and I like it, because the other properties of the weapon (accuracy and cool things) are always important, but the damage scales, so the difference needs to scale too. Otherwise we end with a game that is 100% biased toward low damage, high properties weapon. 4e have a near perfect weapon balance. Low damage weapons have things to keep up, like proficiency.
I don't want extra attacks in the game because they take more time to resolve and they inflate the value of anything that adds a flat bonus to damage rolls.  I'll take weapons all being effectively the same at higher levels over weapon differentiation rules that make specific, optimal weapons the default choice for certain classes and builds.  Let the player who imagines his hero swinging an axe do so without falling behind the optimizer who knows enough about the system to take a spiked chain.

MDD also add something to the game that I think would be lost with extra attacks: they move some of the decision making out of character generation and back into combat.  In 4e you pick your role when you build the character - you build your fighter to be a tank or a damage dealer, for instance.  Martial damage dice let a player build a fighter, and decide whether he's going to be a tank or a damage dealer every round, as the situation demands.  Instead of having to decide how your character is going to work when you build it, you decide what it's going to do as you play it, and I'm enjoying that about the system.  

There might be some merit in having two-handed weapons modify the size of the MDD.  Using a bigger damage die and adding 1 to the average damage of each MDD (and making critical hits fairly devastating) seems, at least on paper, to be a good way to make 2h weapons compelling and the mechanics in keeping with the physics.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider

I don't want extra attacks in the game because they take more time to resolve and they inflate the value of anything that adds a flat bonus to damage rolls.  I'll take weapons all being effectively the same at higher levels over weapon differentiation rules that make specific, optimal weapons the default choice for certain classes and builds.  Let the player who imagines his hero swinging an axe do so without falling behind the optimizer who knows enough about the system to take a spiked chain.

MDD also add something to the game that I think would be lost with extra attacks: they move some of the decision making out of character generation and back into combat.  In 4e you pick your role when you build the character - you build your fighter to be a tank or a damage dealer, for instance.  Martial damage dice let a player build a fighter, and decide whether he's going to be a tank or a damage dealer every round, as the situation demands.  Instead of having to decide how your character is going to work when you build it, you decide what it's going to do as you play it, and I'm enjoying that about the system.  

There might be some merit in having two-handed weapons modify the size of the MDD.  Using a bigger damage die and adding 1 to the average damage of each MDD (and making critical hits fairly devastating) seems, at least on paper, to be a good way to make 2h weapons compelling and the mechanics in keeping with the physics.

Damage it's not the only thing that weapons can have, Look at all these properties and proficiency bonus.
Right now, there is default optimal choices: weapons that have properties, since the weapon's damage is near insignificant.
Scaling [W] works fine as long as weapon damage is slightly modified to:

Light: d6
One Handed: d8
Two Handed Light: d8
Two Handed: d10

Remember, the trade off for a two handed weapon is either an off handed one or a shield. Easily worth a +1 damage per [W]. The trade off for a light weapon is the ability to use dexterity in place of strength. Also easily worth +1 damage per [W]. In fact, unless riposte gets fixed a dagger rogue out damages a fighter easily.

To keep the d12 alive, some classes should receive a weapon talent that increases damage one step.