Why does Deadly Strike only work on the first attack?

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Why in the world are the Deadly Strike rules wrapped in a complicated one attack per round rule?

It seems to be there for balance reasons, but the spells and abilities that grant extra attacks are rare enough that it seems redundent and over complicates the would be simple rule.


The thee things that would grant extra attacks are:

1) Haste.   This grants a limited extra action,  currently casters with cantrips get the most benefit from this spell since their cantrips get full damage.  Warrior classes would only get their weapon damage.    Allowing deadly strike would encourage casters to boost other party members.

2) Combat Surge.   Once per day a fighter can take an additional attack.  Currently this attack only does base damage, making it very underwhelming.  Allowing it to work with deadly strike gives it some real meat and would allow the fighter to cut something up once per day.  Otherwise it's nothing more than a weak deadly strike that requires and additional roll.

3) Druid shap shifting:  for  Druids to get extra attacks they have to perform special maneuvers like pounce or trample.  trying to perform them often would result in attacks of opportunity, but pulling them off once or twice a battle seems likely.  Looking at the damage output when including deadly strike would still put the animal forms lower than other classes, but it gives the attacks some teeth(pun intended).  Currently the additional a attacks are underwhelming.

Edit to include more attacks:

4) Attacks of opportunity:  Deadly Stike is currently allowed to be used once per turn, so AoO do get the benefit.   This is another way that the current rule is confusing. 

5) Cleave:  This is extremely situational, it requires a feat, it requires two enemies within reach, and it requires you to kill one.  I think this is situational enough that it isn't going to boost the power of warrior classes.

6) Two Weapon fighting:  This is the only problem that I can see with giving too much damage.  Allowing deadly strike to only work with your primary weapon fixes this issue and its easier to understand.   The second attack would be similar to how volley and whirlwind work.  It only requires a single line of text in the Deadly strike description, "If deadly strike is used with two weapon fighting you must pick the weapon that will recieve the extra damage or spread it across both weapons."


so why is deadly strike so limited?  I don't think the math supports the complication.
Rule & Faction Designer on Warlord 2nd Edition & Savage North Game Designer & Programmer for Embalmit Games
Untrue, any attack using two-weapon fighting, Cleave, attacks of opportunity, and yet more things can afford extra attacks, and deadly strike would be completely overpowered if it wasn't limited to one attack per round.
attacks of opportunity wouldn't cause issues, it would make disengaging a more important action.

cleave is extremely situational, requires a feat, two enemies within reach, and for you to kill one.  


Two Weapon fighting is the only problem that I can see.   Allowing deadly strike to only work with your primary weapon fixes this issue though, and its easier to understand.   The second attack would be similar to how volley and whirlwind work.
Rule & Faction Designer on Warlord 2nd Edition & Savage North Game Designer & Programmer for Embalmit Games
I don't know if this still counts in Next. But deadly strike is once per turn, not per round. If you make sure you use your reaction for an attack in one way or the other.

Is turn and round still different? 
Yeah I think the limit is intended to be per turn so that you can't inflict 10+ dice from multiple attacks but you get 5 dice of an opportunity attack crops up.
I think that Deadly strike is not to very underpowered if you compare them with spells and the rest of the game. Yes the DPS of an "auto-attacker" is lower. But as a DM be sure you use enough combats, that a caster actually has to manage their spells. The less combats the more this thread is true, in the case that if Wizards is pointing towards 3 combats a day deadly strike should be usable more often in a turn to keep up with spell casters. If you have around 6 combats or more per day, the dps for a deadly-strike ones per turn is quite balanced (I think spellcaster are still a bit stronger).

What I just said was all a conclusion from a "vacuum", so I'm still not very sure.
I'm not even really worried about the power of melee units.  I don't think removing the limit really increases the power of warriors very much.  It allows some extra damage in certain situations and gets rid of a confusing rule.    It allows warriors and casters to be treated the same under the effects of haste,  it removes all that confusion about things like attacks of multi-attacks in Druid forms, and other cases.  It also throws a bone to the fighters to help balance damage better.
Rule & Faction Designer on Warlord 2nd Edition & Savage North Game Designer & Programmer for Embalmit Games
I'm not even really worried about the power of melee units.  I don't think removing the limit really increases the power of warriors very much.  It allows some extra damage in certain situations and gets rid of a confusing rule.    It allows warriors and casters to be treated the same under the effects of haste,  it removes all that confusion about things like attacks of multi-attacks in Druid forms, and other cases.  It also throws a bone to the fighters to help balance damage better.



Sorry, I misunderstood your point.
as it stands combat surge has some amazing synergy with multiattack and wide arc, for each enemy hit you can hit a different target for 2d6+str, since i can't find anything that says i can't wide arc up to 5 time with a single multiattack.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

also, did they really change Deadly strike from once per turn to once per round?

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

No, Deadly Strike is still 1/turn.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

1/Turn

You can only commit one attack hit to Deadly Strike per turn. This way opportunity attacks matter a higher levels matter.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

It's good to know that Two- Weapon fighting was the primary reason for limiting Deadly Strike.  

I would prefer the player be able to choose which weapon his Deadly Strike dice go towards if they are fighting with Two-Weapons.   This seems much cleaner, and it fixes the problem directly instead of a blanket fix that causes other small issues and more confusion.


Side Note:
I think Sneak Attack should have the same rewording as Deadly Strike.   Currently Sneak attack also suffers from the limitation of 1/turn,  and their opportunities for extra attacks are even fewer.
Rule & Faction Designer on Warlord 2nd Edition & Savage North Game Designer & Programmer for Embalmit Games
It's good to know that Two- Weapon fighting was the primary reason for limiting Deadly Strike.  

I would prefer the player be able to choose which weapon his Deadly Strike dice go towards if they are fighting with Two-Weapons.   This seems much cleaner, and it fixes the problem directly instead of a blanket fix that causes other small issues and more confusion.


Side Note:
I think Sneak Attack should have the same rewording as Deadly Strike.   Currently Sneak attack also suffers from the limitation of 1/turn,  and their opportunities for extra attacks are even fewer.



I don't think you should be able to sneak attack twice in one turn under any circumstances. Rogues get multiattack so arguably their potential for multiple attacks is greather than most classes besides Fighter.


I don't think you should be able to sneak attack twice in one turn under any circumstances. Rogues get multiattack so arguably their potential for multiple attacks is greather than most classes besides Fighter.



The Barrage and Skirmish abilities already call out that they don't benefit from Deadly Strike, just like the Fighters Volley and Whirlwind.   Sneak attack is another ability that is already limited by the player needing certain situations to perform sneak attack, why continue limiting it when it's not something non-melee classes have to do.

The limitations are just silly, a rogue moving into the thick of the enemies to get that bonus damage and those extra attacks is making himself vulnerable and the enemies still need to be in certain situations for them to get sneak attack.

It's just more confusing limitations.  

Casters get a huge list of spells to maximize their Utility.  
Melee classes get a small set of abilities that they have to use together to create Utility.  So let the player actually use them, instead of limiting them to once per turn and flat out not letting them use them together.  Finding ways to use the abilities together should be a strong benefit of playing these classes.

Also the idea of a high level rogue dancing between enemies, giving up accuracy to slash throats is something that sounds incredibly awesome.  All we need to do to make it happen is stop stacking limitations on the cool abilities.
Rule & Faction Designer on Warlord 2nd Edition & Savage North Game Designer & Programmer for Embalmit Games
I don't think you should be able to sneak attack twice in one turn under any circumstances. Rogues get multiattack so arguably their potential for multiple attacks is greather than most classes besides Fighter.


You do realize that, at the level you actually receive Multiattack, it's going to hit like a wet noodle since you can't use Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack with it, right?
I don't know if this still counts in Next. But deadly strike is once per turn, not per round. If you make sure you use your reaction for an attack in one way or the other.

This is overly complicated, and not at all what I'm looking for in a game. To me, it's just one short step from this to a lot of the inane Pathfinder conditional abilities.

The metagame is not the game.
The way our DM read it, 'once per turn' means anyones turn - on my turn, I use it. Then a monster walks past me on his turn, so I can use it again. Then another monster walks past me on their turn, so I can use it again.

Thus making it a fairly redundant wording, doesn't it?

I'd actually read it as just once per each of MY turns. But it'd be better phrased as once per round, in that case.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

In the playtest I'm running, I treat Deadly Strike as an increase to your base weapon damage instead of a once/turn (or round, whatever) thing. So when a Figher reaches 5th-level and gets Deadly Strike, a Long Sword is suddenly a 2d8 weapon. Kind of like in 4e, some powers were 2[W] or 3[W]. To me it makes sense. Your skill with weapons has gone up and you're much more deadly with them. It doesn't matter if you're holding a broken chair leg or a greatsword...a higher level fighter is gonna be skilled enough to make his weapon hurt more than the average opponent.

Is it more powerful? Yeah, it is...player damage goes up a bit. Do I, as a DM, care? Not particularly. For me, it was 1000 times easier to make Deadly Strike an easier rule and then just bump up monster HP on the other side for balance. The players are rolling attacks every round. Why not make it easier for them? As a DM, I frequently use a fuzzy HP system for monsters anyway. Say the orc had 13 hp left and the player dealt 12 hp. I call it a kill. I find it a waste of time to squabble over a few hps here and there. This mostly applies to trash mobs, and is a way to effectively turn some monsters into minions. I can also easily do the opposite. If the BBEG is going down too fast, I can fudge his HP in the other direction to make him last longer. It's all about having fun, exciting, and smooth combats.

Yes, it means that a 10th-level fighter with a Whirlwind is making two attacks at 3[W] each. Everyone seems to complain about how Wizards >> Fighters...well here's at least one easy fix. Don't bring Wizards down, bring Fighters up.

Rules for martial and magical duels: I challenge you to a duel!

Ideas for Improving Druid Wildshape

Embracing the D&DNext saving throw system: Why 6 Saves are better than 3

Ideas for Fighting Styles!

Improving Armor with Ramzour's Armor Table

Improving the skill system with Ramzour's Character Skill System

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

Convert your Wizard to Mana Points with Ramzour's Mage Mana Point System.

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

The way our DM read it, 'once per turn' means anyones turn - on my turn, I use it. Then a monster walks past me on his turn, so I can use it again. Then another monster walks past me on their turn, so I can use it again.

Thus making it a fairly redundant wording, doesn't it?

I'd actually read it as just once per each of MY turns. But it'd be better phrased as once per round, in that case.



This is exactly the intention behind the words "once per turn', since turn is the appelation of each separate turn of each participants and round is the name of the whole loop from the begining of one's turn to the begining of his next.

Beside, the attack of opportunity would be meaningless past a certain level if it wasn't for this intention, since after a while (after level 9 mainly) one die of damage is pretty weak as a threat.
I would prefer the player be able to choose which weapon his Deadly Strike dice go towards if they are fighting with Two-Weapons.   This seems much cleaner, and it fixes the problem directly instead of a blanket fix that causes other small issues and more confusion.


That's exactly how it works.  Once per turn when you roll weapon damage you can add another die to the damage.  It doesn't specify which attack, so you're free to pick which one.  You can also pick after finding out if the attack hits or misses.  That's one of the few benefits of TWF in this playtest.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider