## Single Attack at level 16+?

13 posts / 0 new
mshea_dup
Joined Dec 2006
207 Posts
I like the idea that any action in combat comes down to a single d20 roll but how would this work for high-level melee folks who count on multiple attacks to break through AC and do consistent damage?

What do we think the math might look like for a 16th level fighter with a single powerful attack?

Here are some examples. A hasted 16th level dwarf fighter would have the following normal 3.5 attacks:

+30/+30/+25/+20/+15 for 1d10 + 13 damage.

Using saga-like rules this might turn into:

+30/+30/+30 for 1d10 + 21

What would a single attack look like? Something like this perhaps?

+35 (2d10 + 42)

I'm not sure how the math would work but I like the idea anyway.
komi
Joined Apr 2004
45 Posts
From a statistical point of view for maximizing expected damage, it's better to get more hits in if you're attacking a low AC, and it's better to get a bonus to hit and damage if you're attacking a high AC. Consider the cases you mentioned, labeling each with a letter:

(A) +30/+30/+25/+20/+15 for 1d10 + 13 damage.
(B) +30/+30/+30 for 1d10 + 21
(C) +35 (2d10 + 42)

A & B yield even average damage around AC 26 with B being preferable for higher ACs.

A & C yield even average damage around AC 34 with C being preferable for higher ACs.

From a practical point of view, I would like a system where you roll less dice. I know players that have 7 attacks, with two different weapons, and with different bonuses and damage for the same weapon because of smiting and swift spells. They have to immediately start rolling their next full attack right after their turn or we'll be waiting on them.

This would be a nice issue to fix. It doesn't even have to be statistically equivalent (in terms of average damage or any other way) since the game is changing so much anyways.
nobodyremembersthis
Joined Feb 2006
1123 Posts
Also note that in saga, tehre are feats or talents to increase the number of attacks. And, sicne ToB9S was another playtest/preview of 4e's direction, there will be plenty you can do that are swift, immediate, standard and move equivelant that will still be powerful.

Lots of variety, not just, "I attack".
khamya
Joined Aug 2007
28 Posts
Their second impression came squarely from the three arrows with which Heron skewered the hapless goblin sharpshooter in the loft. That poor goblin fired on Heron, missing but triggering an immediate counterattack from the ranger, who followed up with two more arrows on his turn. The sharpshooter was dead before the third arrow struck home.

From aplaytest report.

So, I'm assuming that high-level characters can manage to hit more than once.
nobodyremembersthis
Joined Feb 2006
1123 Posts
From aplaytest report.

So, I'm assuming that high-level characters can manage to hit more than once.

those were not high level characters. ;)
ranger9
Joined Aug 2007
197 Posts
Those weren't actually multi-attacks. It's a fudge. Star wars has that: Rapid fire allows you to fire "two" shots, but what it really is is a single attack roll with an extra die of damage to simulate the second shot.

In Saga, as a base you gain +1 to damage every two levels, so a 16th level fighter has +8 just from levels. Heck, a 16th level wizard would gain +8 damage just from levels.

There's also something called "mighty swing" allowing an extra die of damage for a hard swing. Perhaps at higher levels fighters can make the "mighty swing" their *standard* swing, and their new "mighty swing" would add another die of damage on to that. So a two handed sword would start out 1d12, 2d12 for a mighty swing, but at some point would become 2d12 and 3d12 for a mighty swing. Plus the per-level bonus.
wolf_boy
Joined Dec 2005
245 Posts
Those weren't actually multi-attacks. It's a fudge. Star wars has that: Rapid fire allows you to fire "two" shots, but what it really is is a single attack roll with an extra die of damage to simulate the second shot.

In Saga, as a base you gain +1 to damage every two levels, so a 16th level fighter has +8 just from levels. Heck, a 16th level wizard would gain +8 damage just from levels.

There's also something called "mighty swing" allowing an extra die of damage for a hard swing. Perhaps at higher levels fighters can make the "mighty swing" their *standard* swing, and their new "mighty swing" would add another die of damage on to that. So a two handed sword would start out 1d12, 2d12 for a mighty swing, but at some point would become 2d12 and 3d12 for a mighty swing. Plus the per-level bonus.

Wait, both fighters and wizards would get the same bonus damage to attacks? That's just stupid.
zyrusticae
Joined Apr 2006
468 Posts
No, nobles and soldiers get the same bonus damage to attacks.

Do you honestly think they're just gonna straight port over all Saga Edition mechanics? Geesh.
Beyond that, even if they did, only warrior-types would get the big damage bonuses, and wizards would still be reliant on their spells; the only difference is that the wizard would actually be able to still kick ass if he ever ran out of spells (though obviously, not as much as the fighter). Kinda like Gandalf, actually.

Also, multi-attacks do exist in Saga. It's called Double Attack/Triple Attack/Dual Weapon Mastery. Actual seperate attacks. Really!
icefractal
Joined Aug 2003
134 Posts
Ideally, the bonus to attack/damage that you got would be such that it gives you the same average damage as iterative attacks would against the average monster AC for that level.

However, this doesn't lend itself to simple formulas like "+1/level", so they may instead start with the formula and change monster HP to match it.

And I could see Fighters and Wizards getting the same bonus to damage, assuming that the Wizard's was counted when using "at-will" spells - as those are basically the equivalent of the Fighter's attacks. Presumably, the Wizard would get a larger bonus when using 1/day spells, and a smaller bonus when using normal weaponry.
nobodyremembersthis
Joined Feb 2006
1123 Posts
I could see the martial types adding 3/4 their levels to damage and nonmartial clases adding 1/2(Fighter, Barbarian, ranger, Paladin as martial). Casters I could also see haveing a 3/4 and 1/2 the other way (wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid as casters), with your "middle ground" characters (3.x = monk, rogue, bard) getting 1/2 to each.

It would also explain why multiclassing can work - it would add together much like BAB.

If that's how they handle power sources, it could also be a requirement for certain abilities/talents (3rd tier spells requiring a Magic Bonus of +4, as an example). So if the actual damage/qualification is based off of Power source bonus, it would explain why said bonuses keep increasing no matter which classes you select. It could be like so:

Something like this could work, me thinks. If the martial, arcane, and divine powers you could access are based off of this type of a setup, multiclassing would be a synch, and power levels would scale relatively evenly.
ranger9
Joined Aug 2007
197 Posts
No, nobles and soldiers get the same bonus damage to attacks.

Do you honestly think they're just gonna straight port over all Saga Edition mechanics? Geesh.

Well, no, and in fact I thought it would make more sense in SAGA to have the damage bonus equal half of BAB.

I was just tossing out a fer instance, not guessing the exact way they'll do it. I just mean they already have mechanics that boost damage inflicted (in SAGA) so that it's not necessary to roll four or five times in one round to get the level-appropriate amount of damage.
Talaeden_Denthiir
Joined Jun 2003
436 Posts
How about using the Existing System for Extra Damage?

For Example, a 20th Level Fighter under 3.5 would have BAB=
+20/+15/+10/+5, so how about making that +15 damage at 20th level? In other words, subtract 5 from your base attack to get the extra damage. So a Wizard could still hit like Gandalf, but not like a Fighter :D

llamaface_dup
Joined Aug 2007
36 Posts
From what I've been reading, it sounds like a characters attack rate will be determined by things other that BaB. Personally, I don't see reducing the baseline number of attacks each character makes per round a bad thing. At higher levels it can really bog down game play waiting for the rouge to roll half a dozen attacks with all his sneak attack dice. This would also make character options that grant extra attacks,such ad two weapon fighting or flurry of blows, more meaningful.