|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 6:42AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I understand there's a certain amount of dpr control with extra attacks, but if someone makes an attack roll, I want them to make a proper damage roll. I'd be willing to rebalance damage to allow for that. The bulk of my objection to the current treatment of extra attacks (roll an unmodified die) is emotional. I just don't think it feels right; I'm not excited about it. I want my extra attacks to all deal the same damage formula (weapon die + ability) because that way I feel like I'm actually attacking. Some people might think I'm being stupid or whatever, and you're entitled to your opinion if you feel that way but what I want to explore here is how we can rejig things to allow extra attacks to just deal your attack damage. So here's the deal: Currently there are three ways of getting extra attacks:
- Two weapon fighting - can of worms, I know, but it's a way to get an extra attack. Big issues here for me, disadvantage makes me feel like it's not worth the bother (hopefully a feat will fix it) in the first place but I want to focus on the damage. Frankly, two weapon damage rolls without abilities is not two attacks worth of damage.
- Expertise maneuvers - mostly flurry. Actually, just flurry? I don't like it. It's balanced and it works. I'm aware of that, but I don't like how it's balanced or how it works.
- Be a fighter - Yup, they get that extra attack and it actually works like a proper extra attack. Good. Let's model everything else after this, but let's not let maneuvers and two weapon fighting outshine the fighter's extra attack - basically leave the fighter alone and keep this class feature free and clear of any balancing acts applied to other ways of getting extra attacks.
So basically what I'm proposing is that all means of getting extra attacks roll the same damage of weapon die + attribute bonus for every attack. What I'm asking is what's the best way to balance that? Should we modify the weapon die to reflect extra attacks? Should we apply a flat damage penalty for attacking multiple times within a single attack? If neither of those, what else could we do?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 6:51AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
TWF: Not worth discussing too much in detail. The current packet has only the untrained rules. That means they're not ready to actually release the full TWF structures yet, which means that trying to analyze it is a waste of time since when they do release it it will undoubtedly be different. The alternative to releasing just the untrained TWF rules is releasing no TWF rules. Would anyone really have wanted that?
FOB: The reason they're unmodified is that they want the same damage as Deadly Strike. How would you suggest they maintain that, yet not have the parts you don't like?
Fighter: Yes, the fighter extra attack is an extra attack. But the purpose of the extra attack is to be a full-damage extra attack.
The "unmodified die" is performing the same roll as things like 4e's Cleave power, which is a normal attack against one target, and Str mod damage to another one. But instead of just a fixed modifier of damage, they give you a die, because rolling dice is fun and the core mechanic of the game.
The problem you're facing is one of perception on your end. The unmodified die is doing something different than a standard attack. That difference is explicitly intentional, and if you want to get rid of it the burden is on you to come up with something that still meets their goals.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 6:51AM
#3
|
|
|
- I don't mind two weapon fighting being less damage with the off-hand attack. Most people aren't as strong/dexterous on one side as the other. Totally okay with reduced damage bonus or no damge bonus on the off-hand.
- Balanced flurry? Not a problem for me then either way. Keep it, change it I don't care.
- Giving fighters an extra attack can help balance the linear fighter/quadratic wizard equation. I don't have a problem with it, but I think if different martial classes are going to feel different, then they need to have different mechanics. So I am not in favor of allowing this across the board for martial classes. Want to help other martial classes keep up with quadratics? Try something else.
I guess it all boils down to me not having a problem with any of this.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:01AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I all ready admitted my problem is mostly my own; I'm not interested in being told that because I all ready know. I'm interested in ideas for how one might modify the rolls such that a damage roll is a damage roll. I hated the 4e cleave too for the same reasons. I don't mind if people disagree; that's not really the point. What I would do is just roll weapon die + modifier and impose a -2 damage penalty to all attacks gained through two weapon fighting or maneuvers. Like I said in the OP, I'd leave the fighter's extra attack alone 'cause that's the whole point of that attack being there.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Nov 14, 2012 - 07:32AM
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:02AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
You can't, not and accomplish the goals of the mechanic. Argue for changing the goals if you want, but you'd have to do a crazy amount of pluses and minuses to force that square math into a round hole.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:09AM
#6
|
|
|
The problem with just rolling damage and imposing a penalty is that it is exactly the same as imposing the penalty before the expression is created...only more complicated. Simple is what they are going for in the core, and I think what most people want. Although the math is just simple artithmatic, I don't want to have to add this, subtract that, add this other thing and substract something else. All of that kind of arithmatic is often done by players each time they attack slowing things down. Just give me a simple expression I can roll.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Nov 14, 2012 - 07:32AM
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:10AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
You can't, not and accomplish the goals of the mechanic. Argue for changing the goals if you want, but you'd have to do a crazy amount of pluses and minuses to force that square math into a round hole.
Thank you for your input; I will take it into due consideration. If anyone has anything useful to say, I'd really like some analysis on this.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:12AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I responded to each one of your points, explained how it would require fundamental design changes and not simple adjustments, and asked you how you thought your new goal could interact with their existing goals. If you have an actual suggestion, then you should put that up. But right now it seems as if you want someone else to mathcraft something for you, rather than participating in a discussion among peers.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Nov 14, 2012 - 07:28AM
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:24AM
#9
|
|
|
I agree the multiple attacks should do full damage (except TWF).
Basically, it's emotional - not rational.
If your first attack roll hits, you do full damage. Exciting! Subsequent attack rolls do less damage. That's less rewarding.
It's like getting paid in decreasing amounts for the same activity. The drop off is considerably less satisfying.
So, yeah, maybe we've got to look at the monster HP math here, but I believe this is an important change.
If the extra attack maneuvers are to feel awesome, they need to produce satisfying returns.
Right now, they're cool activities with meh-level results.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 7:30AM
#10
|
|
|
If the extra attack maneuvers are to feel awesome, they need to produce satisfying returns. Right now, they're cool activities with meh-level results.
This is something I've never understood, and I think a reason why the designers will never be able to please everyone. Why does everything have to be awesome all the time? Isn't it okay to contribute in a non-awesome, but relevant way most of the time, and have moments of awesomeness?
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
