|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 12:50PM
#21
|
|
|
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.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
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
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 10:44PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
..."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
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 3:33AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 8:35AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 11:08AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 11:49AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 11:52AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
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.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 12:30PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 12:46PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Because fumbles in game systems make supposedly competant characters look idiotic.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:00PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
