Two Weapon Fighting == Multiple Attack

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stop arguing for a single attack per turn unless you also reject the idea of

two weapon fighting with a main and off-hand attack
any combination maneuver such as flurry, whirlwind, glancing, cleave, etc.
any 4th edition style maneuver where an opponent is both struck and pushed
npc monsters with multi-attacks such as two claws

I'm just pushing for 1 more main attack, 1 more off-hand attack and 1 more reaction at the highest levels of play.

assuming a 5v5 fight between monsters and PCs, your idea would add 30 more actions per round.


also, your post makes no sense, and is outright illogical.
assuming a 5v5 fight between monsters and PCs, your idea would add 30 more actions per round.


also, your post makes no sense, and is outright illogical.



+1
assuming a 5v5 fight between monsters and PCs, your idea would add 30 more actions per round.


also, your post makes no sense, and is outright illogical.



O.k., then you need to play a game where the DM only allows one action per turn. No minor actions, no off-hand attacks. No monster multi-attacks.
assuming a 5v5 fight between monsters and PCs, your idea would add 30 more actions per round.


also, your post makes no sense, and is outright illogical.



+1



Yes? And how is that any different than the current DECEMBER play-test material where every character gets an additional attack at 5th level and many monsters have multi-attacks?


Please learn about "action economy", what it means, and why it's a good thing before you start making posts like these.

Otherwise you look silly.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Stop arguing for a single attack per turn unless you also reject the idea of

two weapon fighting with a main and off-hand attack
any combination maneuver such as flurry, whirlwind, glancing, cleave, etc.
any 4th edition style maneuver where an opponent is both struck and pushed
npc monsters with multi-attacks such as two claws

I'm just pushing for 1 more main attack, 1 more off-hand attack and 1 more reaction at the highest levels of play.




Do you really not see the difference between arguing against multiple attacks from a specific source versus multiple attacks from any source?
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.


Considering how abstract D&D combat is, it is absurd to believe that a single d20 roll represents a single attack over the course of 6 seconds.  A d20 roll represents multiple thrusts, swings, and parries so multiple attacks never really made sense to me in D&D combat as a whole.     
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.


Considering how abstract D&D combat is, it is absurd to believe that a single d20 roll represents a single attack over the course of 6 seconds.  A d20 roll represents multiple thrusts, swings, and parries so multiple attacks never really made sense to me in D&D combat as a whole.     




This was the point I was trying to make (though far less clearly) in the other thread about multiple attacks.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

 



I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

 



I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.




I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

If someone wants to have their role in combat specialized in crit fishing or bonus stacking, why should their type of play be marginalized?
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

If someone wants to have their role in combat specialized in crit fishing or bonus stacking, why should their type of play be marginalized?

I believe you saw the answer to the question when you quoted my opinion. 

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

If someone wants to have their role in combat specialized in crit fishing or bonus stacking, why should their type of play be marginalized?

I believe you saw the answer to the question when you quoted my opinion.

Not really.  You say you don't like it, and that it is simulationist.  You don't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices in stating your dislike.  I know you dislike it, and I have a small indication why.  But there is still no explanation for why you want to force your opinion on thousands if not millions of other players.
Notice that the way I suggested still allows for a higher chance of critical hits.  It also is still a damage increase.  The difference is that the damage increase is not to the extremes that "normal" multiattacking tends to be.  In every addition of D&D multiple attacks + stacking bonuses was the way to be king of the hill damage wise.  They also make for the slowest character turns.

For a game that wants to have quick combats, multiple attacks is not the answer.


Also "roll in combat" is not make a bunch of attacks a turn to abuse the game system and deal 1337 damage.


You can just as easily make a character who makes many attacks a round utilizing only a single d20 attack roll.  I know because I did so in the 4e based gamma world. I had a character who was a plant that shot razor sharp leaves at his foes.  Each leaf was an attack, but in total they were simply a single d20 roll and a single damage roll.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.




In AD&D they had 1 minute melee rounds.. it wasnt that cool to me because it took me outside the action to think interms of all that action going on where I had just one choice and opportunity to respond to it.

In Fencing they have a 2 second rule... where it is generally considered to take 2 seconds for a person of average reflexes to compose and implement an action sequence... a single sequence might still entail parry, beat, strike... or or whatever... do I roll for every single element or not?

Different people like differing measures of detail but even so...

Resolving a bunch of actions on your turn... why? ... if you dont mechanically merge them why arent you just doing 1 and passing the ball? then they do 1 and pass the ball.


  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."

 

Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.


Concur.  "One Attack Roll (Regardless of Number of Attacks, Just Potentially Using Multiple d20s)" is by far my preferred method of handling it.


Hell, it shouldn't even be too hard to let them split it up how they so choose between targets.  It might be potent (and maybe hard to predict the potency of), but it would be pretty quick and straightforward.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

If someone wants to have their role in combat specialized in crit fishing or bonus stacking, why should their type of play be marginalized?

I believe you saw the answer to the question when you quoted my opinion.

Not really.  You say you don't like it, and that it is simulationist.  You don't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices in stating your dislike.  I know you dislike it, and I have a small indication why.  But there is still no explanation for why you want to force your opinion on thousands if not millions of other players.

Yes exactly. I didn't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices, I also didn't say to do it either. "I would rather not have those things" does not equate to "there should not be those things" so I feel no reason to justify a stance I don't hold.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

If someone wants to have their role in combat specialized in crit fishing or bonus stacking, why should their type of play be marginalized?

I believe you saw the answer to the question when you quoted my opinion.

Not really.  You say you don't like it, and that it is simulationist.  You don't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices in stating your dislike.  I know you dislike it, and I have a small indication why.  But there is still no explanation for why you want to force your opinion on thousands if not millions of other players.

Yes exactly. I didn't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices, I also didn't say to do it either. "I would rather not have those things" does not equate to "there should not be those things" so I feel no reason to justify a stance I don't hold.

So when you say "I would rather not have those things", you are not advocating for their lack of presence in DDN?  If that is the case, why state your preference, especially without any caveat that you are not advocating your preference for/in DDN?
Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.



Sorry but that's the worst argument ever.

Quite on the contrary, actually, if your whole damage is diluted in several smaller damages (for each attack), the chance of you landing ALL of them as critical, therefore applying massive amounts of critical damage, is really lessened.

If you have one big attack, the chance of criting for monstrous amounts of damage is much more likely to happen frequently.

Say, if you deal an average 50 damage per round spread throughout 4 attacks, you would need 4 crit rolls on d20s on the same round to make all your damage that round be raised to criticals.
On the other hand, if you do that average 50 damage in one attack only, you only need 1 crit roll to make your total damage that round turn into critical damage.

It's not hard to do the math here and see what I mean.
With multiple attacks your summed damage each round is much more likely to stay in an average margin than spiking to huge amounts.



Besides, I've never seen a player in one of my games "exploit" criticals through multi-attacks.
If you disagree with too many criticals in a game (due to too many feats, class abilities or whatever, that give more chance to crit) than that's got nothing to do with the multi-attack rule.

And likely you were allowing the use of too many suplement books which were not well-balanced like the Core Books.


Then there's the matter of small bonuses stacking with each attack.
That's a good thing.
It means those feats you spend and class abilities you gain that give +1 dmg here, +2 dmg there, are really meaningful.
In a system where you have a base +40 or more on average on your attacks, why bother with those +1 or +2?
What difference does it make, for example, if your Str gives you +1 or +4 dmg bonus? Or if your weapon roll is a d6 or d10?


What you can't have is an average character dealing 1d8+2 damage per attack, and a specialized character 1d8+20 on each attack.
Cause then you create an abyss so great from average to specialized that either you are specialized or just don't even bother trying that action.

But just the same... when you use a single, big attack per round, you can't have the specialized character dealing an average 50+ damage while the average character deals 5 or 10, because his class didn't give him all those MDB and MDD while leveling.



Lastly, there's immersion.
Tabletop RPG is about imagination.

Rules don't need to be realistic, but they need to make sense, and give you at least a faint representation of what your character is doing.

Example 1:
You roll 3 attacks, miss one, roll 15 of damage for each attack you hit.
DM describes the scene: "Well, you miss the first attack but your two consecutive ones strike marvelously and take a big toll on your opponent."

Example 2:
You roll 1 attack, and roll a total of 30 damage out of a possible 45 max.
DM: "Well, due to the damage you rolled it means you striked several blows but only part of them hit and your opponent feels that much damage."

Both are acceptable since HP and Damage are abstract concepts.
But the first is much more attuned to what is being described by the DM and imagined by the player.


Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.

I disagree. I would rather roll for every attack and resolve each one individually. If I am using a long sword and have three attacks I should roll three times for 1d8+mods. Each attack having a chance to be either a critical hit or fumble.

I would rather not have those things, because the exact reason you sighted. Its a simulationist mechanic that exist only to crit fish and abuse stacking bonuses.

If someone wants to have their role in combat specialized in crit fishing or bonus stacking, why should their type of play be marginalized?

I believe you saw the answer to the question when you quoted my opinion.

Not really.  You say you don't like it, and that it is simulationist.  You don't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices in stating your dislike.  I know you dislike it, and I have a small indication why.  But there is still no explanation for why you want to force your opinion on thousands if not millions of other players.

Yes exactly. I didn't give a rationale for marginalizing player choices, I also didn't say to do it either. "I would rather not have those things" does not equate to "there should not be those things" so I feel no reason to justify a stance I don't hold.

So when you say "I would rather not have those things", you are not advocating for their lack of presence in DDN?  If that is the case, why state your preference, especially without any caveat that you are not advocating your preference for/in DDN?



I made my post in response to the poster , draegn, who I quoted, who had made the opposite statement in response to Lawolf, who draegn quoted, that presenting a second way to handle dual wield attacks. Neither Lawolf, draegn or myself said anything about marginalizing someone style so the first question isn't relevent. Since I was responding to a ongoing conversation (a thread) I posted to piggy back on the conversation that was already going on (a reply). So the caveat is what was in the quotes before my response. But, to make it clearer I like Lawolf's idea for the same reason that draegn does not like Lawolf's idea. 

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Considering how abstract D&D combat is, it is absurd to believe that a single d20 roll represents a single attack over the course of 6 seconds.  A d20 roll represents multiple thrusts, swings, and parries so multiple attacks never really made sense to me in D&D combat as a whole.     


each attack roll represent your attempting at a striking hit during the back and forth. more attack rolls = more attempts during the 6 seconds
Here is something to consider.

Having 2 or more attacks per turn doesn't slow down combat because damage is compounded.

This is all I'm asking for. Maximum 2 main attacks or standard actions, 2 off-hand attacks or minor actions per turn, 2 reactions out of turn at the highest level of play.
assuming a 5v5 fight between monsters and PCs, your idea would add 30 more actions per round.


also, your post makes no sense, and is outright illogical.



+1



Yes? And how is that any different than the current DECEMBER play-test material where every character gets an additional attack at 5th level and many monsters have multi-attacks?






Sorry, but where do you see players all getting an additional attack at 5th level in the last play test packet. 


It is very simple, really. I don't mind an extra attack from the odd source. Too many of them, however, and the game slows down way too much. Being ok with the odd extra attack from one source does not equate to needing to be ok with extra attacks from any source. Hence, I don't agree with your opinion. I would rather the game do something like try and keep the maximum number of multiattacks that any one character can make to 2-3 attacks MAXIMUM. 


 

IMO only martial classes should have multiple attacks. Why? Because the sneaky classes are too busy creeping about to get their sneak/backstab/assassination attack and the caster classes are too busy casting spells.

Of course not all martial classes are equal in fighting ability. The "pure" martial classes  should have more multiple attacks and/or get the earlier than other (gish/hybrid) classes.  
If you have one big attack, the chance of criting for monstrous amounts of damage is much more likely to happen frequently.

Say, if you deal an average 50 damage per round spread throughout 4 attacks, you would need 4 crit rolls on d20s on the same round to make all your damage that round be raised to criticals.
On the other hand, if you do that average 50 damage in one attack only, you only need 1 crit roll to make your total damage that round turn into critical damage.

It's not hard to do the math here and see what I mean.

With multiple attacks your summed damage each round is much more likely to stay in an average margin than spiking to huge amounts.



I'm sorry, but this is completely inaccurate. The math was plainly laid out on the 4e CharOP boards previously, clearly showing that the average DPR generated by someone dealing an average of X damage in 1 attack is lower that someone dealing an average of X damage in > 1 attack when both parties are assumed to hit at the same rate. The person with a 50% chance to hit with one attack misses 50% of the time on his turn. the person hitting 50% of the time with 4 attacks, misses 50% with his first attack but then gets 3 more attempts beyond what the single attacker does. The multiattacker also mathimatically generates greater DPR by critting 4 times as often, even when each crit deals less damage.

In summary, its been shown in black and white that attacking multiple times for X damage generates greater DPR than attacking once for X damage, except for cases where DR comes into play.

... suplement books which were not well-balanced like the Core Books.



Literally lol'ed ;)


Then there's the matter of small bonuses stacking with each attack.
That's a good thing.



Not if you want something resembling any attempt at balanced damage across the system. THe most heinous direct damage exploits in 3e, 4e, and SWSE all came from gaining bonuses to damage and them multiplying them to ridiculous amounts by using multiattacking.

Bonuses to damage + multiple, discreat attacks = a completely DPR mess in any recent version of DnD. 
I'm sorry, but this is completely inaccurate. The math was plainly laid out on the 4e CharOP boards previously, clearly showing that the average DPR generated by someone dealing an average of X damage in 1 attack is lower that someone dealing an average of X damage in > 1 attack when both parties are assumed to hit at the same rate. The person with a 50% chance to hit with one attack misses 50% of the time on his turn. the person hitting 50% of the time with 4 attacks, misses 50% with his first attack but then gets 3 more attempts beyond what the single attacker does. The multiattacker also mathimatically generates greater DPR by critting 4 times as often, even when each crit deals less damage.

In summary, its been shown in black and white that attacking multiple times for X damage generates greater DPR than attacking once for X damage, except for cases where DR comes into play.



That's not what he's saying though.  In rough terms, he's talking about the average difference between your damage on a given round and your DPR, not how high your DPR will be. 


I'm sorry, but this is completely inaccurate. The math was plainly laid out on the 4e CharOP boards previously, clearly showing that the average DPR generated by someone dealing an average of X damage in 1 attack is lower that someone dealing an average of X damage in > 1 attack when both parties are assumed to hit at the same rate. The person with a 50% chance to hit with one attack misses 50% of the time on his turn. the person hitting 50% of the time with 4 attacks, misses 50% with his first attack but then gets 3 more attempts beyond what the single attacker does. The multiattacker also mathimatically generates greater DPR by critting 4 times as often, even when each crit deals less damage.

In summary, its been shown in black and white that attacking multiple times for X damage generates greater DPR than attacking once for X damage, except for cases where DR comes into play.

Not if you want something resembling any attempt at balanced damage across the system. THe most heinous direct damage exploits in 3e, 4e, and SWSE all came from gaining bonuses to damage and them multiplying them to ridiculous amounts by using multiattacking.

Bonuses to damage + multiple, discreat attacks = a completely DPR mess in any recent version of DnD. 



Using your example: The person making 4 attacks also has 4 times the chance of making a critical fumble as opposed to the person making a single attack. 

Why does everyone ignore that? Making multiple attacks is not without consequences should you roll a fumble or fumbles. 




Because fumbles in game systems make supposedly competant characters look idiotic.
  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."

 


Using your example: The person making 4 attacks also has 4 times the chance of making a critical fumble as opposed to the person making a single attack. 

Why does everyone ignore that? Making multiple attacks is not without consequences should you roll a fumble or fumbles. 






Fumbles weren't a core assumption in 3e, 4e or SWSE, merely an alternate option, so most people probably ignore it because its not a core part of the systems they're refering to.
In all fairness, if a group is not going to use critical fumbles, then they should not cherry pick critical hits. 

It appears that most posts and threads on this forum complaining about an aspect of the game being broken are a  result of the poster ignoring rules and/or making up a house rule which broke  which ever aspect they happen to be crying about being broken.  
In all fairness, if a group is not going to use critical fumbles, then they should not cherry pick critical hits. 

It appears that most posts and threads on this forum complaining about an aspect of the game being broken are a  result of the poster ignoring rules and/or making up a house rule which broke  which ever aspect they happen to be crying about being broken.  



This is completely backwards since critical hits were a core part of the game and critical fumbles (in 3, 4 and SWSA) were optional houserules. You are, in fact, the one holding up a houserule in order to spin a view on something that is core RAW.
Ghoststepper, I take it that you have not played anything that came before 3, 4 or SWSE? 

However, if a person or group is going to cherry pick out all the things they like, while disregarding what they dislike, they really have no reason to complain about things being broken if they end up being broken.  
Ghoststepper, I take it that you have not played anything that came before 3, 4 or SWSE?



I've played 2e, HERO, MSH and others but not to extreme extent as 3e or 4e. He was responding to crit fishing builds and mentioned feats so it seemed like a pretty clear implication was that he was refering to 3.0 and after (where people actually made crit fisher builds...).

However, if a person or group is going to cherry pick out all the things they like, while disregarding what they dislike, they really have no reason to complain about things being broken if they end up being broken.  



Critical fumbles do not exist without a houserule in DnDN so no one is "cherry picking" anything.

Critical fumbles are also a houserule in 3e, 4e, d20 Modern, SWSA, the new Gamma World and every other d20 system WotC has put out. People are complaing about broken stuff because it was BROKEN. You can't come here and add your houserules and tell people they are wrong for not using your houserules.


Because fumbles in game systems make supposedly competant characters look idiotic.




That's lessened if you use the Confirmation roll optional rule.
If you need, say, a 3 or 4 to hit and roll a fumble, you still have to roll again under 3 or 4 to make that fumble happen.

And well, even an experienced warrior could slip in the mud in a rainy battlefield and fall for his doom.

Without the optional rule, though, I agree that it would happen just too often (5% of all rolls on a single d20 are a 1 in average), and things start to become a little ridiculous. 

Without the optional rule, though, I agree that it would happen just too often (5% of all rolls on a single d20 are a 1 in average), and things start to become a little ridiculous. 



And then it becomes even more crazy riduculous when you look at someone with 7 attacks, each of which has a 5% chance of fumbling. You end up with bizarre situations where the super-extra-skilled guy who is so good that he gets a lot of attacks is somehow also many more times likely to fumble like a buffoon when he acts as the 1st level farmer's son, straight from the fields. It a poor combination of needlessly frustrating AND immersion-breaking at the same time, which is pretty much the worst sort of mechanic possible.
^ That's your opinion. However, you have to admit that the reverse is true as well. Your guy with 7 attacks if he did not take those special feats or uses a weapon to reduce his critical threat level, can do the impossible like one shot Asmodeus. 

There are threads of of how at the moment in DnDN you can one shot a god, one shot a dragon, etc etc etc... If you're going to have the ability to one shot who or what ever, shouldn't there also be a small price/risk to pay for doing that?  
^ That's your opinion. However, you have to admit that the reverse is true as well. Your guy with 7 attacks if he did not take those special feats or uses a weapon to reduce his critical threat level, can do the impossible like one shot Asmodeus.



Right. And thats bad. Especially bad because fumbles haven't been core in any iteration of DnD WotC has put out.

There are threads of of how at the moment in DnDN you can one shot a god, one shot a dragon, etc etc etc... If you're going to have the ability to one shot who or what ever, shouldn't there also be a small price/risk to pay for doing that?  



Or they could do something reasonable like not letting characters one-shot God in the first place and not worry about adding a clunky mechanic that makes skilled characters fumble more often than unskilled characters.

Because fumbles in game systems make supposedly competant characters look idiotic.




That's lessened if you use the Confirmation roll optional rule.
If you need, say, a 3 or 4 to hit and roll a fumble, you still have to roll again under 3 or 4 to make that fumble happen.

And well, even an experienced warrior could slip in the mud in a rainy battlefield and fall for his doom.

Without the optional rule, though, I agree that it would happen just too often (5% of all rolls on a single d20 are a 1 in average), and things start to become a little ridiculous. 



The chance of me winning the new york state lottery is less than being hit by a lightning bolt in my own living room... I still dont want to game it - and still dont want to game out dying by slipping in the mud l... its never the targetted experience.
  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."

 



Right. And thats bad. Especially bad because fumbles haven't been core in any iteration of DnD WotC has put out.




See the 3.5 DMG pg 28.

 
Personally I believe multiple attacks should be treated how they were in late 4e.


Roll Xd20.  If you score any hits deal 1[W] + 1(mods) damage.  For each additional hit deal an additional +1[W] damage.  It makes multiple attacks go faster and keeps them from becoming too potent by stacking mods.


Considering how abstract D&D combat is, it is absurd to believe that a single d20 roll represents a single attack over the course of 6 seconds.  A d20 roll represents multiple thrusts, swings, and parries so multiple attacks never really made sense to me in D&D combat as a whole.     


I generally don't like dice pools, but since that's just a personal preference I will set it aside in favor of my more significant objection: that it makes weapon damage too important.  It punishes the users of lighter weapons, and incentivizes the use of big two-handers.
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.