Community

I prefer the new system with damage dice because they can be used for maneuvers and other creative devices.  Multiple attacks was time consuming and more easily manipulated.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Monsieur_Moustache wrote:

I'm in the against extra attack camp.
two or three attacks with two-handed weapons within a turn, including bows and crossbows, and with normal accuracy is far too much for me.
And during this time, the foe's turn has not even started, which is also not very logic, even from rpg standards. 

Which is why in 2e you got those extra attacks at the end of the round - in turn.   

IMO, extra attacks must return to the game in one way or another.  It keeps the fighter simple and allows us old school gamers to enjoy improvised actions once again.

I don't agree that rolling for multiple attacks takes much time.    Even if you have 4 attacks all you need do is roll 4d20 and start by calling out the lowest AC you hit with.    Why does that take so long?  

I think what really sucks about not having extra attacks is that  without a feat you can't ever kill more than one goblin per round.  In some cases that extra damage dice is meaningless.  

Multiple attacks per round also causes problems when interacting with dis/advantage. It is much harder to roll the attacks simultaneously when you have to keep track of the extra die required by D/A.

This discussion is a perfect example of how the feedback and iteration process of the playtest should work. The problem isn't the MDD themselves or the lack of extra attacks. Most of the people who have issues or have proposed alternate approaches are looking at weapons. In this case, the designers should look at this and say "there is not enough differentiation of weapons, particularly at high levels; the damage die difference between weapons is almost completely lost against the MDD and MDB." The question is should this be addressed in core, or through rules modules that offer extra complexity for weapons.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 9:06AM, Kaganfindel wrote:

The number of dice rolled is the same; the number of dice rolls is different.  Edward the Third will make between four and eight dice rolls; Edward the Fifth will make one or two.  Add target declaration, hit confirmation, crit confirmation, hit resolution and a little time to jiggle the dice between throws, and there's a measurable difference in the length of every turn.

I don't know what you mean by rolling hit confirmation and hit resolution.
There's the To Hit rolls and the damage rolls (and maybe the Crit confirmation if there's a crit, and if you use that rule).

In my experience combat turns have always been a fluid thing. Never felt them to be slow.
It doesn't matter if rolling 6d6 is only one roll in theory, because the time you use to roll a die and add values is the same, be you rolling 4 dice for 4 different attacks or 4 dice to calculate a single one.
What you actually save in time is... what? 5 seconds of a turn for a DM to tell you "yeah you hit this and that attack, missed the rest", instead of just "yeah you hit, or you miss."

Nor do I want combat turns to be rushed, like: "Go, go go... roll your thing and be done with it and let's get to the next player already."
Combat is fun, rolling dice is fun, watching the outcome of a roll is fun, be that roll yours or from another player.
It builds tension during gameplay, in a good way, expectation.

Rolling a 20d6 spell always took more time than resolving 3 or 4 attacks, and add to that rolling each target's save and determining who gets full damage or half.
Never, though, did that feel boring to me.
On the contrary, that's that moment during combat where everyone stops wide-eyed with expectation to see what destruction the great spell will cause. Rushing that too much would cut the drama of the moment drastically.

What is not cool is having to stop and read over and over certain rules before actually making your rolls because they are too complex, but that's got nothing to do with making more than one attack of just one.

Simplifying the rules that lead you to a certain roll is a good thing, but that is not measured by how fast you pass the ball (or the die) to the next player.
 

I see these as high priority requirements:

1. Quick and easy (few dice rolls, simple math)
2. Maintain importance of STR/DEX and weapon dice for high level attacks
3. Balance
4. Verisimilitude

I highly doubt high numbers in Martial Damage Bonus will be kept as it ruins #2 at high levels. Martial Damage Dice and Multiple attacks step on #1. Combat Surge addresses more than 2 attacjks per turn and allows martial characters to attack multiple targets but not every turn. I like Combat Surge as is.

Keeping all 3 systems, a possibly solution could be:

• Martial Damage Dice: MDD could be almost exactly like 4e's x[W] rolls. Reduce the current packet's quantity of MDDice. Fixes the problem of rolling tons of dice and keeps the importance of weapon die at high levels. Verisimilitude maintained. I would also like to see more usefulness for shields, givng more incentive to use a shield over always using the biggest weapon available.

• Martial Damage Bonus: I would like this to replace the STR/DEX bonus to weapon attacks. Instead of just adding the bonus, martial classes add a multiple of their STR/DEX bonus as levels increase, or zero, whichever is higher. Numbers shouldn't be as high as what we've seen in the latest packet (+20 at L20). Keeps stats bonus important.

• Combat Surge: Leave as is. Keeps number of attacks to 1-3 per turn which is okay and won't happen every round.