I'm fine with a 2 second combat round. But tell me, can a monster claw and bite in 2 seconds?
And wouldn't I just use my main weapon again on my next turn and just drop my off-hand weapon?
1 attack per turn does not allow for two weapon attacks or monster multi-attacks. To say that characters can't attack twice but monsters can attack 3 times (because they have to have something) is just a weak arguement.
Can animals claw and bite in two seconds?
Just like humans can, actually.
Frankly though, I'd rather that the "claw and bite" combo maneuver be separated as well, since even if an animal can claw and bite in two seconds (just like how a person can swing two weapons in two seconds [see: Eskrima/Arnis], or stab with a gladius at least two times in two seconds), a lot can happen in that two seconds.
And in that split second you'd probably not be fast enough to pull off more than one or two attacks at most.
Am I to seriously expect that within the span of 6-60 seconds, each combatant will just stand there just passively blocking 3+ attacks from at least one attacker?
EDIT: While I do understand that it's fantasy -- hence the ability to utilize out-of-turn actions like crazy, as well as magic -- what worries me more is turn resolution, or as one poster mentioned, the player spotlight. Should a player have to "earn" the ability to have more spotlight time on himself from being high level, or from picking the "right" stuff?
Can animals claw and bite in two seconds?Just like humans can, actually.Frankly though, I'd rather that the "claw and bite" combo maneuver be separated as well, since even if an animal can claw and bite in two seconds (just like how a person can swin
My idea is as follows. You swing a two-handed weapon, that counts as a main and off-hand attack and does 3d6. You swing a main weapon and do 1d10 and an off-hand weapon and do 1d8.
Are you a cleric? Fine, you heal someone as a minor(0ff-Hand like prayer) then you swing your mace as a main attack.
Because of trade off.My idea is as follows.You swing a two-handed weapon, that counts as a main and off-hand attack and does 3d6.You swing a main weapon and do 1d10 and an off-hand weapon and do 1d8.Are you a cleric? Fine, you heal someone as a minor
My idea is as follows. You swing a two-handed weapon, that counts as a main and off-hand attack and does 3d6. You swing a main weapon and do 1d10 and an off-hand weapon and do 1d8.
Are you a cleric? Fine, you heal someone as a minor(0ff-Hand like prayer) then you swing your mace as a main attack.
3d6 = 10.5 average damage, in one attack 1d10 + 1d8 = 5.5 + 4.5 = 10 average damage, in two attacks
Assuming 50% chance to hit per attack, that's 3d6 = 5.25 average damage 1d10 + 1d8 = 2.75 + 2.25 = 5 average damage
That is, of course, if only damage rolls is taken into consideration. Let's say you have a bonus to your damage rolls equal to +2, and we assume that each swing is a separate attack, both of which benefit from it:
3d6+2 = 6.25 average damage 1d10+2 + 1d8+2 = 3.75 + 3.25 = 7 average damage
As far as I can tell, there is no trade-off so long as there are static bonuses to the damage roll.
Also, take note of the number of simultaneous rolls you can do:
3d6 + 1d20 = 1 combined roll (assuming four all four dice are available) 1d10 + 1d20 + 1d8 + 1d20 = 2 combined rolls (assuming all four dice are available), although it could be 1 combined roll if the d20s are of different color and contrives a table-specific rule that would allow you to roll all of them simultaneously with minimal hassle
So for dual wielding adding to attacks we have
twice as much math being done
twice as many rolls unless the system is somehow designed to accommodate them
static bonuses being twice as effective
twice the chance to hit, activating effects far more likely
an overall increase in turn length, without the same impact on the game as magic (larger increase in complexity than in depth)
EDIT: Attacks by themselves might not be that problematic, but when we are talking about an entire system, then what you might consider as trade-offs, might not actually be trade-offs.
Now if only there were more explicit benefits for going single weapon only, dual wielding, and two-handed weapons that are actually incomparable -- perhaps require grabs, pushes, throws and other stunts to have a hand free, then dual wielding allows extra attacks [allowing for greater versatility and more frequent weapon-based effects], then two-handed weaponry having threatening reach, cleave and maybe collosal damage on top of that -- then we can have multiple attacks around, since we can debate about their effectiveness all day long and we'd still not come to a conclusion. However, the way D&D has been designed through the years, multi-attacks have always been the loophole most exploited by min/maxers by virtue of static damage and overall improved performance. The only other exploits as far as I know involve charging, and the equivalent of save-or-die (super-deadly one shot attack, see: Quivering Palm and builds that effectively kill most opponents in just one strike).
3d6 = 10.5 average damage, in one attack1d10 + 1d8 = 5.5 + 4.5 = 10 average damage, in two attacksAssuming 50% chance to hit per attack, that's3d6 = 5.25 average damage1d10 + 1d8 = 2.75 + 2.25 = 5 average damageThat is, of course, if only damage rol
On the forums here I have seen a few claims that multiple attacks are bad mostly due to being time consuming. The other day in D&DN the Fighter and Rogue were using up a fair amount of time adding up damage from martial dice and martial bonus to damage.
Adding up 4W or whatever in 4th ed did not seem to be that much quicker than rolling 2-3 attacks and we have recently started playing 2nd ed and the dager specialist was rolling 5 atacks a round and combat there was quicker than anything in 3rd and 4th ed. Is it an edition war thing? I can understand people preferring one attack or whatever for various reasons but it takes to long doesn't seem to stack up as one of them.
*
Depends. If you have players that roll smart, like, me, it isn't a big deal, time wise. Multiple attacks remain problematic because they promote the assumption that hitting things enough times can magically be equal to a Wish, but if a player rolls color-coded d20's and damage dice, like I am wont to do, the time spent drops to nearly nothing. The problem, of course, is that there's always that one guy who rolls the d20, adds it, then rolls the damage die, adds it, then rolls the second d20, etc, thus making his turn extra long.
* I didn't read the thread. Seriously, not even post #2. This all me and Zard, from my perspective.
*Depends. If you have players that roll smart, like, me, it isn't a big deal, time wise. Multiple attacks remain problematic because they promote the assumption that hitting things enough times can magically be equal to a Wish, but if a player roll
I agree. AC in D&D has always been occupying the same design space as dodge, which is also why DEX is such a powerful stat, as it gives the same amount of protection as armor with equivalent AC value, but without the cost constraints (and high AC value armor is usually considered a compensation for those who lack DEX).
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging". You have a very different definition of the word than the rest of us.
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging". You have a very different definition of the word than the rest of us.
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
Except in D&D Next's current playtest, parry is not part of your AC, and is explicitly a Fighter maneuver.
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
In ddn, the fighter's parry is just what anyone else can do, only better. Just like how anyone can attempt to disarm, but fighters can do it better.
So... a rogue's parry doesn't reduce damage and turn it into a miss, while a fighter's parry does? A paladin's disarm requires a special sort of check as determined by the DM, whereas the fighter's disarm automatically works?
So... a rogue's parry doesn't reduce damage and turn it into a miss, while a fighter's parry does? A paladin's disarm requires a special sort of check as determined by the DM, whereas the fighter's disarm automatically works?
No. A rogue's parry only ever results in a miss as part of the narrative of combat.
A paladin can make the same roll to disarm that every other character can as per the rules to do such. The fighter can simply do it as part of an attack.
To say that other people can't do these things just because the fighter has named abilities with those names is akin to saying that rogues can't "light" a torch because wizards have a spell with that name.
No. A rogue's parry only ever results in a miss as part of the narrative of combat.A paladin can make the same roll to disarm that every other character can as per the rules to do such. The fighter can simply do it as part of an attack.To say that ot
In ddn, the fighter's parry is just what anyone else can do, only better. Just like how anyone can attempt to disarm, but fighters can do it better.
So... a rogue's parry doesn't reduce damage and turn it into a miss, while a fighter's parry does? A paladin's disarm requires a special sort of check as determined by the DM, whereas the fighter's disarm automatically works?
The Fighter's Parry is on top of the Base Parry included on the AC
So... a rogue's parry doesn't reduce damage and turn it into a miss, while a fighter's parry does? A paladin's disarm requires a special sort of check as determined by the DM, whereas the fighter's disarm automatically works? [/quote]The Fighter's Pa
No. A rogue's parry only ever results in a miss as part of the narrative of combat. A paladin can make the same roll to disarm that every other character can as per the rules to do such. The fighter can simply do it as part of an attack. To say that other people can't do these things just because the fighter has named abilities with those names is akin to saying that rogues can't "light" a torch because wizards have a spell with that name.
The act of lighting a torch is completely different from the act of casting the spell Light. In addition, both a lit torch and a Light spell provide the same relative benefit, but with the torch granting light so long as there's fuel and heat, while the spell grants light so long as there's fuel (magic).
Considering the mechanical difference between a normal miss, a narrative-based parry and a mechanical-based parry -- that is, normally missing and a narrative parry are one and the same mechanically, whereas the mechanical parry actually hits you *unless* the damage of the attack is reduced to 0 by parry (does that mean that attacks that don't do damage in the first place still hit since the attack wasn't reduced to 0 in the first place? and does that mean that parry only actually parries the attack when the attack's damage is reduced to 0, considering how parrying does in fact involve deflecting an attack using a weapon [as opposed to the shield's block]?) -- the analogy fails to compare properly.
The act of lighting a torch is completely different from the act of casting the spell Light. In addition, both a lit torch and a Light spell provide the same relative benefit, but with the torch granting light so long as there's fuel and heat, while
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
Except in D&D Next's current playtest, parry is not part of your AC, and is explicitly a Fighter maneuver.
False. The fighter merely has the ability to do it as a class. His ability does not preclude parry being included as armor class.
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
Except in D&D Next's current playtest, parry is not part of your AC, and is explicitly a Fighter maneuver.
False. The fighter merely has the ability to do it as a class. His ability does not preclude parry being included as armor class.
Being able to do it as a class should be mechanically different being able to do it as part of a narrative, why? Please explain.
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
Except in D&D Next's current playtest, parry is not part of your AC, and is explicitly a Fighter maneuver.
False. The fighter merely has the ability to do it as a class. His ability does not preclude parry being included as armor class.
Being able to do it as a class should be mechanically different being able to do it as part of a narrative, why? Please explain.
It is mechanically different. The fighter gets to choose when to use his parry, and AC parry is just a narrative aspect of armor class. They are totally different and the existence of one does not preclude the other.
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
Being able to do it as a class should be mechanically different being able to do it as part of a narrative, why? Please explain.
I am strongly opposed to turning things that anyone can do into class-exclusive mechanics, because a consistent narrative is something I care about in a game. If a rogue can parry as a manner of Dex-to-AC, then someone who can parry better should have a larger bonus from Dex-to-AC. If the fighter parries by rolling a die, then we've set up the correlation that rolling a die to reduce damage is how to represent a parry, and anoyone who doesn't roll a die isn't parrying.
I honestly don't care so much about what the mechanic is, as long as it's consistent between everyone who can do it.
I am strongly opposed to turning things that anyone can do into class-exclusive mechanics, because a consistent narrative is something I care about in a game. If a rogue can parry as a manner of Dex-to-AC, then someone who can parry better should ha
I have a guess as to why Parry was designed the way it was designed: the devs probably wanted to design a way for a fighter to show his mechanical superiority in combat by being able to both attack better and defend himself better than anyone else in the team. The attack part was easy (martial damage dice), but when it came to defense, the problem was that because of the limitations on out-of-turn actions (namely, just reaction) they had to find a mechanic that allowed fighters to turn hits into misses without having to rely on adding an additional rule ("interrupt"). The most elegant solution they came up with was apparently to just accept the attack entirely but as a reaction to the attack, Parry would reduce whatever damage the attack inflicted, and if the attack's damage was negated, it'd be a miss instead of just 0 damage.
Questions though: * what if the attack never dealt damage in the first place, like a disarm maneuver or just being shoved over a cliff? Would Parry allow these attacks to auto-miss, or would Parry be useless against them? * what if the attack was not reduced to 0 by Parry? Would the attack have been parried at all? Would it have been a parry that wasn't successful? And if it is an unsuccessful parry, is a Fighter's combat superiority enough to justify the ability to take less damage, as opposed to a Rogue or a Cleric who says they are parrying the attack but in fact don't by virtue of taking a hit when they attempt to parry? * what would happen if a non-Fighter character says he'll parry an attack? would he gain the same benefits as that of the Fighter, and if yes what sort of trade-off would he get that a Fighter doesn't have to worry about due to the fact that he has the Parry maneuver? Or would the DM simply remove any form of mechanical benefits for that attempt to parry the attack and just say that the parry is ineffective? * if an attack that wasn't reduced to 0 by Parry never did actually parry the attack, what is the justification for the reduced damage as opposed to fully taking the damage of the attack? * placed within the context of the rest of the system, how can the devs design monsters, traps, and other threats to the party in such a way that the Fighter gets to stay threatened but not to the point where the rest of the party would be too easy to kill off? Because as it stands, with a 1/round attack negating ability, for him to threaten the Fighter he either has to design monsters that would deal more damage than the Fighter can absorb, or he has to design encounters that involve lots of swarming. With the former, the non-Fighters would likely get killed by the same attacks, while with the latter the Fighter's shtick is rendered ineffective (perhaps giving the Wizard a chance to shine, but given Whirlwind Strike there's a possibility that even the Wizard would have to be rendered ineffective in spite of the swarms).
I have a guess as to why Parry was designed the way it was designed: the devs probably wanted to design a way for a fighter to show his mechanical superiority in combat by being able to both attack better and defend himself better than anyone else in
Being able to do it as a class should be mechanically different being able to do it as part of a narrative, why? Please explain.
It is mechanically different. The fighter gets to choose when to use his parry, and AC parry is just a narrative aspect of armor class. They are totally different and the existence of one does not preclude the other.
Saelorn actually explained my reaction to this much better than I would:
I am strongly opposed to turning things that anyone can do into class-exclusive mechanics, because a consistent narrative is something I care about in a game. If a rogue can parry as a manner of Dex-to-AC, then someone who can parry better should have a larger bonus from Dex-to-AC. If the fighter parries by rolling a die, then we've set up the correlation that rolling a die to reduce damage is how to represent a parry, and anoyone who doesn't roll a die isn't parrying.
I honestly don't care so much about what the mechanic is, as long as it's consistent between everyone who can do it.
I wouldn't mind so much if the mechanic was called "Unbreakable" to maintain consistency between Fighter parry and Rogue parry. But as it stands, Parry the maneuver is attacking Parry the narrative in such a way that you effectively split the narrative into two different forms of Parry: parry-as-AC, and parry-as-DR.
Which for me makes no sense at all.
It is mechanically different. The fighter gets to choose when to use his parry, and AC parry is just a narrative aspect of armor class. They are totally different and the existence of one does not preclude the other.[/quote]Saelorn actually explain
Chaos. Some of the questions you ask should be clarified. After all, I'd rule that a non damage attack can be parried (since its hard to push someone attempting to parry you with a sword) The rest of your questions seem easy in comparison. If a fighter attempts to parry but doesn reduce to zero, its a glancing blow. Sometimes parry isnt perfect. If a player wants to parry, they can take a full defense. They get a bonus to AC, but lose their attack. Done. I don't have any problem with parry reducing damage - "my name is Inigo Montoya" as example.
As for balance, I'd rather balance by making the fighter better out of combat and worse in. But, they don't seem to be listening to me, so I guess the answer is "Wotc wants the fighter to one-man encounters that'd flatten others. It's his schtick"
Chaos. Some of the questions you ask should be clarified. After all, I'd rule that a non damage attack can be parried (since its hard to push someone attempting to parry you with a sword) The rest of your questions seem easy in comparison. If a fi
Historically... easy parries were in armor class and hard parries in hit point loss.
That is to say a desparate defense has a cost... The fightingmans parry shows he can defend easily against attacks that would press others in to desparate defense.
Historically... easy parries were in armor class and hard parries in hit point loss. That is to say a desparate defense has a cost... The fightingmans parry shows he can defend easily against attacks that would press others in to desparate defense.
Being able to do it as a class should be mechanically different being able to do it as part of a narrative, why? Please explain.
I am strongly opposed to turning things that anyone can do into class-exclusive mechanics, because a consistent narrative is something I care about in a game. If a rogue can parry as a manner of Dex-to-AC, then someone who can parry better should have a larger bonus from Dex-to-AC. If the fighter parries by rolling a die, then we've set up the correlation that rolling a die to reduce damage is how to represent a parry, and anoyone who doesn't roll a die isn't parrying.
I disagree. It IS parrying. In fact, it's a parry without having to roll a die at all. Rolling the die is only one way to represent the parry. It's existence does not invalidate the other ways.
I am strongly opposed to turning things that anyone can do into class-exclusive mechanics, because a consistent narrative is something I care about in a game. If a rogue can parry as a manner of Dex-to-AC, then someone who can parry better should ha
I disagree. It IS parrying. In fact, it's a parry without having to roll a die at all. Rolling the die is only one way to represent the parry. It's existence does not invalidate the other ways.
Yeah, I know, and I'm fine with abstracting parry into Dex-to-AC. If fighters also have a thing called parry, which works by different mechanics, then I'm saying that it's inconsistent for a single in-game-fluff to have multiple game-mechanic representations.
In my opinion - the reason I play this kind of game in the first place - a ruleset exists to give a consistent interpretation for how to convert fluff into mechanics. If you have one fluff, and split it into two mechanics depending on who is doing it, then it fails at everything I want out of the game.
Yeah, I know, and I'm fine with abstracting parry into Dex-to-AC. If fighters also have a thing called parry, which works by different mechanics, then I'm saying that it's inconsistent for a single in-game-fluff to have multiple game-mechanic represe
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
This excuse is IRRELEVANT. This an 'excuse' as to what they game wants you to believe what AC it does.
But in reality is a BINARY effect. On/off. Hit/Miss. 1/0. That's it.
You either take damage, or don't at it's most BASIC. There are special rules that change that a bit (mostly Magic), but at it's core is hit or miss. And that's a dodge effect.
How you want to dress it up is all nice and dandy, but the pure mechanical effect is not anything other than a dodge.
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
I didn't realize that getting hit, but not getting hurt was "dodging".
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).
It occupies the same design space - the DC against which attacks are made - as armor and natural armor. Since we no longer have touch attacks, we don't have any mechanical way to distinguish between a hit that doesn't hurt (because it was stopped by armor) and an attack that misses outright (because you dodged).
AC is a combination of the posibility of the attack being Dodge, Block, Parry and/or the attacker not be able to get thru your armor
This excuse is IRRELEVANT. This an 'excuse' as to what they game wants you to believe what AC it does.
But in reality is a BINARY effect. On/off. Hit/Miss. 1/0. That's it.
You either take damage, or don't at it's most BASIC. There are special rules that change that a bit (mostly Magic), but at it's core is hit or miss. And that's a dodge effect.
How you want to dress it up is all nice and dandy, but the pure mechanical effect is not anything other than a dodge.
And until that binary effect is changed -- wherein to-hit is dodge-based and block/parry (with shield, weapon or armor) is damage reduction-based -- armor, dodge, block, parry, and other ways to fluff up the attacker missing you, they all occupy the same design space: attack vs. AC, success you hit, fail you miss.
Not every miss is a dodge; I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that, if you want to represent someone dodging, you do that with Dex bonus to AC (or, in 3E, the dodge bonus to AC).It occupies the same design space - the DC against which at
1: They allow the abuse of stackable bonuses to damage into exploding capability.
2: They slow gameplay.
However as long as STRICT rules are written into the game preventing bonus stacking of ANY KIND EVER (ie. the rules specifically say that you can NEVER have more than one bonus source to ANY dice roll of ANY kind EVER in D&D) AND the number of attacks is strictly limited (the suggested Fighter from the last playtest who still only had 3 attacks at 20th level was ok) then they are one possible mechanic which might have something to offer.
But ONLY if those criteria are met.
If bonuses are stackable then NO to multiple attacks.
If attack numbers are not kept low (3 would be my max) then NO to multiple attacks.
Multiple attacks are bad.1: They allow the abuse of stackable bonuses to damage into exploding capability.2: They slow gameplay.However as long as STRICT rules are written into the game preventing bonus stacking of ANY KIND EVER (ie. the rules specif
1: They allow the abuse of stackable bonuses to damage into exploding capability.
2: They slow gameplay.
Number one is subjective. It's only abuse if you subjectively feel like it's abuse. Some people like doing lots of damage.
Number 2 has been shown to be false. If I get 2 attacks in 1 round, I take no more time than if I got 1 attack for 2 rounds. All multiple attacks do is shorten the number of rounds a fight takes.
Number one is subjective. It's only abuse if you subjectively feel like it's abuse. Some people like doing lots of damage. Number 2 has been shown to be false. If I get 2 attacks in 1 round, I take no more time than if I got 1 attack for 2 rounds
I can't remember reading, but does the fighter give something up (that combat round) to parry or does he give something up by having to choose this maneuver?
I only ask because I would like to know the origin for this seperate mechanic. I remember MERP or Rolemaster having your attack, but you could use a portion of that attack (up to 50%?) to parry instead.
I think Saelorn hit the nail on the head - why use a seperate mechanic (parry) to demonstrate something that is done via another mechanic (AC) for one class only. That doesn't seem right, unless of course, you are on the side that each class is offered more distinction by utilizing class-based mechanics. Other editions have certainly used this approach.
I can't remember reading, but does the fighter give something up (that combat round) to parry or does he give something up by having to choose this maneuver? I only ask because I would like to know the origin for this seperate mechanic. I remember
So are we looking at d6 martial damage dice being replaced by more weapon damage dice, and being able to trade those for extra attacks?
So, let's say you have a fighter who wields a longsword, and he has 2 Martial damage/weapon dice (2d8), he can attack once for 3d8, once for 2d8 and once of 1d8, or thrice for 1d8 each?
But cannot attack the same creature more than once a turn?
So are we looking at d6 martial damage dice being replaced by more weapon damage dice, and being able to trade those for extra attacks?So, let's say you have a fighter who wields a longsword, and he has 2 Martial damage/weapon dice (2d8), he can atta
1: They allow the abuse of stackable bonuses to damage into exploding capability.
2: They slow gameplay.
Number one is subjective. It's only abuse if you subjectively feel like it's abuse. Some people like doing lots of damage.
Number 2 has been shown to be false. If I get 2 attacks in 1 round, I take no more time than if I got 1 attack for 2 rounds. All multiple attacks do is shorten the number of rounds a fight takes.
However as long as STRICT rules are written into the game preventing bonus stacking of ANY KIND EVER (ie. the rules specifically say that you can NEVER have more than one bonus source to ANY dice roll of ANY kind EVER in D&D) AND the number of attacks is strictly limited (the suggested Fighter from the last playtest who still only had 3 attacks at 20th level was ok) then they are one possible mechanic which might have something to offer.
But ONLY if those criteria are met.
Or not. Your opinion is not fact.
1. Just because some people want to deal lots of damage doesn't mean that they should be getting greater exposure time than those who don't. In fact, if those attacks are just attacks that deal damage, and nothing more (much like pre-4E multi-attacks, as well as 4E's Twin Strike and similar damage-only mechanics), you add complexity to what is effectively the same thing: pump out damage, and damage alone (your "depth" is limited to only "who gets how much damage").
2. Two attacks in one round may lessen the number of rounds, but at the same time you actually lengthen the duration of each round. D&D 4E was designed for 4-5 rounds per combat encounter, but with optimization a combat encounter can end in 2-3 rounds. But that still didn't make fights end in 15-30 minutes. Anecdotal evidence on my part, but I've had an epic tier fight last only 2 rounds, yet the fight itself took over an hour to resolve, purely from the number of attacks pulled off on each round by each player.
In terms of player-level perception, just because you finish a fight in 2 rounds with multi-attacks doesn't mean that it feels shorter. And as far as I can tell, the longer one player's turn is, the slower fights would feel.
I can't remember reading, but does the fighter give something up (that combat round) to parry or does he give something up by having to choose this maneuver?
I only ask because I would like to know the origin for this seperate mechanic. I remember MERP or Rolemaster having your attack, but you could use a portion of that attack (up to 50%?) to parry instead.
I think Saelorn hit the nail on the head - why use a seperate mechanic (parry) to demonstrate something that is done via another mechanic (AC) for one class only. That doesn't seem right, unless of course, you are on the side that each class is offered more distinction by utilizing class-based mechanics. Other editions have certainly used this approach.
Parry in the previous playtests used expertise dice, but the latest itineration of the mechanic uses your skill die in addition to your martial damage dice.
And honestly, I can't honestly understand why people would loathe on 4E's Daily mechanics for martial classes -- something pre-4E Barbarians had, by the way -- because of dissonance, but would not even be slightly bothered at the implications of the existence of two different parries that are completely divorced from each other (one being simply a narrative parry, while the other being a parry that requires mechanical resolution and may reduce, not negate, an attack). Because if you ask me, at least Daily and Encounter mechanics have real life origins (fatigue) as well as historical origins (Barbarian Rage), and give cinematic license to classes that never had them... but Parry the mechanic being a class-exclusive thing, which as far as I can tell has no historical origins, no real life origins that require it to be different from Parry the narrative, and whose only real benefit involves giving cinematic license to ONE class?
Number one is subjective. It's only abuse if you subjectively feel like it's abuse. Some people like doing lots of damage. Number 2 has been shown to be false. If I get 2 attacks in 1 round, I take no more time than if I got 1 attack for 2 rounds
1. Just because some people want to deal lots of damage doesn't mean that they should be getting greater exposure time than those who don't. In fact, if those attacks are just attacks that deal damage, and nothing more (much like pre-4E multi-attacks, as well as 4E's Twin Strike and similar damage-only mechanics), you add complexity to what is effectively the same thing: pump out damage, and damage alone (your "depth" is limited to only "who gets how much damage").
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.
2. Two attacks in one round may lessen the number of rounds, but at the same time you actually lengthen the duration of each round.
It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple attacks does not increase the time of combat.
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple at
1. Just because some people want to deal lots of damage doesn't mean that they should be getting greater exposure time than those who don't. In fact, if those attacks are just attacks that deal damage, and nothing more (much like pre-4E multi-attacks, as well as 4E's Twin Strike and similar damage-only mechanics), you add complexity to what is effectively the same thing: pump out damage, and damage alone (your "depth" is limited to only "who gets how much damage").
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.
2. Two attacks in one round may lessen the number of rounds, but at the same time you actually lengthen the duration of each round.
It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple attacks does not increase the time of combat.
That's not what he's saying. He understands the combat may take a half an hour either way. But, if one player's turn is 15 seconds and another's is 4 minutes, there's an issue. I pointed this out earlier. For all the fairness and class love people want on this board, shouldn't time within the combat spotlight be taken into consideration?
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple at
1. Just because some people want to deal lots of damage doesn't mean that they should be getting greater exposure time than those who don't. In fact, if those attacks are just attacks that deal damage, and nothing more (much like pre-4E multi-attacks, as well as 4E's Twin Strike and similar damage-only mechanics), you add complexity to what is effectively the same thing: pump out damage, and damage alone (your "depth" is limited to only "who gets how much damage").
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.
2. Two attacks in one round may lessen the number of rounds, but at the same time you actually lengthen the duration of each round.
It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple attacks does not increase the time of combat.
That's not what he's saying. He understands the combat may take a half an hour either way. But, if one player's turn is 15 seconds and another's is 4 minutes, there's an issue. I pointed this out earlier. For all the fairness and class love people want on this board, shouldn't time within the combat spotlight be taken into consideration?
Multiple attacks adds fairness to turn length. Without it, casters take the longer turns.
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple at
1. Just because some people want to deal lots of damage doesn't mean that they should be getting greater exposure time than those who don't. In fact, if those attacks are just attacks that deal damage, and nothing more (much like pre-4E multi-attacks, as well as 4E's Twin Strike and similar damage-only mechanics), you add complexity to what is effectively the same thing: pump out damage, and damage alone (your "depth" is limited to only "who gets how much damage").
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.
2. Two attacks in one round may lessen the number of rounds, but at the same time you actually lengthen the duration of each round.
It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple attacks does not increase the time of combat.
That's not what he's saying. He understands the combat may take a half an hour either way. But, if one player's turn is 15 seconds and another's is 4 minutes, there's an issue. I pointed this out earlier. For all the fairness and class love people want on this board, shouldn't time within the combat spotlight be taken into consideration?
Multiple attacks adds fairness to turn length. Without it, casters take the longer turns.
Yes, until we consider the other gazillion classes that won't get multiple attacks, yet don't have a spellbook 5 pages long. Rogues, bards, scouts, paladins, anyone in the defender section of 4e, many leaders in 4e, etc.
They aren't. The amount of time a second swing takes is neglible and is probably still less time than the caster took to decide what spell to use and roll of his dice.It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple at
1: They allow the abuse of stackable bonuses to damage into exploding capability.
2: They slow gameplay.
Number one is subjective. It's only abuse if you subjectively feel like it's abuse. Some people like doing lots of damage.
Number 2 has been shown to be false. If I get 2 attacks in 1 round, I take no more time than if I got 1 attack for 2 rounds. All multiple attacks do is shorten the number of rounds a fight takes.
However as long as STRICT rules are written into the game preventing bonus stacking of ANY KIND EVER (ie. the rules specifically say that you can NEVER have more than one bonus source to ANY dice roll of ANY kind EVER in D&D) AND the number of attacks is strictly limited (the suggested Fighter from the last playtest who still only had 3 attacks at 20th level was ok) then they are one possible mechanic which might have something to offer.
But ONLY if those criteria are met.
Or not. Your opinion is not fact.
My first point is not subjective, stacking bonuses has been an issue in previous editions and will continue to be a problem unless effort is made to prevent it happening in Next.
Currently there are no systems to prevent this issue.
The issue of stacking bonuses is made worse by multiple attacks precisely because they allow for repeated uses of sources of bonuses.
Further no-one has actually shown that it takes the same time to do multiple attacks as it does to do a single attack with multiple dice.
In fact it's been demonstrated that the number of steps is higher with multiple attacks and (as there is no reason the individual steps will take any longer in either system) this is therefore strong evidence to the contrary.
Therefore your dismissive reply, typically failing to provide any evidence and simply arrogantly rejecting fact, fails to deal with either of the substantive points.
I will therefore request that you please stop trolling and acting offensively on this forum.
Number one is subjective. It's only abuse if you subjectively feel like it's abuse. Some people like doing lots of damage. Number 2 has been shown to be false. If I get 2 attacks in 1 round, I take no more time than if I got 1 attack for 2 rounds
Multiple attacks adds fairness to turn length. Without it, casters take the longer turns.
So why not tone down the casters then?
EDIT: Star Wars Saga Edition introduced a rule on area attacks that allowed one attack roll vs. the defense of each enemy in the area off effect, which allowed faster turn resolution without having to make multiple attack rolls. Why not use that sort of turn resolution (with spells adjusted to maintain balance) to ensure that the casters don't take longer turns than non-casters?
So why not tone down the casters then?EDIT: Star Wars Saga Edition introduced a rule on area attacks that allowed one attack roll vs. the defense of each enemy in the area off effect, which allowed faster turn resolution without having to make multip
Multiple attacks adds fairness to turn length. Without it, casters take the longer turns.
So why not tone down the casters then?
Exactly.
This is a problem with Casters, particularly Vancian magic users, NOT a reason for unrestricted multiple attacks.
So why not tone down the casters then?[/quote]Exactly.This is a problem with Casters, particularly Vancian magic users, NOT a reason for unrestricted multiple attacks.
It off-sets. That's the point. The time of combat remains the same. Multiple attacks does not increase the time of combat.
Yeah it does. Because the alternative isn't "two attacks spread over multiple rounds", it's "One attack that does the damage of two"
And so you're resolving with one attack and one damage roll what would have taken two attacks and two damage rolls. That's one less comparison of attack roll vs AC, and that's one less step of applying damage resistance/vulnerability, and one less addition/subtraction operation you have to do.
Not to mention it's easier to say "I hit AC 34 for 48 damage" as opposed to "I hit AC 30 for 20 damage and AC 36 for 28 damage."
Even simply announcing the results of your rolls takes longer.
Yeah it does. Because the alternative isn't "two attacks spread over multiple rounds", it's "One attack that does the damage of two" And so you're resolving with one attack and one damage roll what would have taken two attacks and two damage rolls. T
Interesting options are what add to a given turn's length. Multiple attacks aren't going to make a fighter's turn provide as much of a spotlight as a wizard rummaging thru a spell list to pick out the best one for the situation at hand.
A closer balancing factor would be giving the fighter a list of maneuvers every bit as interesting as the wizard's spell list. (And conversely giving both players the option of just hitting the guy with no secondary effects.)
Interesting options are what add to a given turn's length. Multiple attacks aren't going to make a fighter's turn provide as much of a spotlight as a wizard rummaging thru a spell list to pick out the best one for the situation at hand.A closer balan
Interesting options are what add to a given turn's length. Multiple attacks aren't going to make a fighter's turn provide as much of a spotlight as a wizard rummaging thru a spell list to pick out the best one for the situation at hand.
A closer balancing factor would be giving the fighter a list of maneuvers every bit as interesting as the wizard's spell list. (And conversely giving both players the option of just hitting the guy with no secondary effects.)
Give this man a cookie!
Seriously though, this is the exact point.
And why we need simple versions of the casters just as much as complex versions of the non-casters.
Give this man a cookie!Seriously though, this is the exact point.And why we need simple versions of the casters just as much as complex versions of the non-casters.
Interesting options are what add to a given turn's length. Multiple attacks aren't going to make a fighter's turn provide as much of a spotlight as a wizard rummaging thru a spell list to pick out the best one for the situation at hand.
A closer balancing factor would be giving the fighter a list of maneuvers every bit as interesting as the wizard's spell list. (And conversely giving both players the option of just hitting the guy with no secondary effects.)
Exactly.
Trying to compensate for a wizard's options by just giving the fighter an extra dice to roll isn't going to cut it...
Exactly. Trying to compensate for a wizard's options by just giving the fighter an extra dice to roll isn't going to cut it...
Yes, until we consider the other gazillion classes that won't get multiple attacks, yet don't have a spellbook 5 pages long. Rogues, bards, scouts, paladins, anyone in the defender section of 4e, many leaders in 4e, etc.
1. I'm all for other classes getting multiple attacks.
2. Casters are by far the biggest offender with regard to long turns. The minimal increase in time for multiple attacks is not enough in my opinion to warrant their exclusion.
1. I'm all for other classes getting multiple attacks.2. Casters are by far the biggest offender with regard to long turns. The minimal increase in time for multiple attacks is not enough in my opinion to warrant their exclusion.
My first point is not subjective, stacking bonuses has been an issue in previous editions and will continue to be a problem unless effort is made to prevent it happening in Next.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.
Multiple attacks adds fairness to turn length. Without it, casters take the longer turns.
So why not tone down the casters then?
It's not a problem of power, but one of choices. 5e is giving casters lots of choices again.
So why not lessen the number of choices, and increase the value of their choices?
Personally I wouldn't mind spellcasters geting 2-4 spell slots per day over their entire lifetime, but with the trade-off of being able to A) swap out those spells, and B) use those spells 1/scenario. It's not like it takes more than 10 minutes to read 10 pages' worth of anything that's font size 12, which I believe is quite small for most handwritten books, is it?
EDIT: This way, most of the time consumed by the casters would be outside combat, and not inside combat. After all, having to choose between 300+ spells at the start of the day and trying to cram them into no more than 2-4 would mean that they only have to worry about only 2-4 choices during the adventure.
Ironically, speaking of choice, non-casters actually have way too many choices by virtue of martial damage dice/expertise dice/tricks/maneuvers etc. Except in terms of power and value, casters still have a lot more of that than non-casters.
So why not tone down the casters then?[/quote]It's not a problem of power, but one of choices. 5e is giving casters lots of choices again.[/quote]So why not lessen the number of choices, and increase the value of their choices?Personally I wouldn't
My first point is not subjective, stacking bonuses has been an issue in previous editions and will continue to be a problem unless effort is made to prevent it happening in Next.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.
lol
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
In any case, you've just admitted that you are wrong and that stacking bonuses are a problem which makes my point for me.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.[/quote]lolI don't think that word means wha
My first point is not subjective, stacking bonuses has been an issue in previous editions and will continue to be a problem unless effort is made to prevent it happening in Next.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.
lol
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
In any case, you've just admitted that you are wrong and that stacking bonuses are a problem which makes my point for me.
Were they? And it ONLY happened with Multiple Attacks? Cuz in my 27 years I've seen it happen with just about everything. Especially buffing magics or divinations, but I've seen players stack as many bonuses they can scrounge up into a single attack, no matter what that attack is, and it's not just to D&D, as I've run multiple RPGs in my lifetime.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.[/quote]lolI don't think that word means wha
My first point is not subjective, stacking bonuses has been an issue in previous editions and will continue to be a problem unless effort is made to prevent it happening in Next.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.
lol
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
In any case, you've just admitted that you are wrong and that stacking bonuses are a problem which makes my point for me.
Er, no. I've admitted that they stack. Only you are calling it an abusive problem.
It wouldn't have been subjective had you simply left out the word abuse. That single word turned the entire sentence into your INTERPRETATION of damage bonuses. Therefore, number 1 was in fact subjective.[/quote]lolI don't think that word means wha
Bonuses multiplying in effectiveness with multi-attacking have a history of being problematic to the games math. Making for instance... darts in to super weapons!!!!
Bonuses multiplying in effectiveness with multi-attacking have a history of being problematic to the games math. Making for instance... darts in to super weapons!!!!
I find that hilarious that Dart Master being such a 'problem' when Wizards/Magic-Users can often end a fight with but a single (spell) word, especially at the level the Dart Master comes into his own as a battlefield maniac.
And truthfully, it's more of a problem of the Dart being strength based instead of Dexterity based. After all, two weapon fighting and multi-attacks were common in 2e, and yet, only DARTS were the problem...
I find that hilarious that Dart Master being such a 'problem' when Wizards/Magic-Users can often end a fight with but a single (spell) word, especially at the level the Dart Master comes into his own as a battlefield maniac.And truthfully, it's more
But it is a direct example of how that type of mechanic gets out of control quite easily... Spell casting being out of control really is an utterly different topic
But it is a direct example of how that type of mechanic gets out of control quite easily... Spell casting being out of control really is an utterly different topic
After all, two weapon fighting and multi-attacks were common in 2e, and yet, only DARTS were the problem...
The dart problem was a fairly early example of V-Tudes freaking the hell out over cognitive dissonance.
Some beefy guy death-blossoming a handful of darts was out-damaging Mr. Greatsword which "ruined the immersion" of someone else who complained very loudly about it until Zeb was badgered into issuing some half-assed eratta.
The dart problem was a fairly early example of V-Tudes freaking the hell out over cognitive dissonance.Some beefy guy death-blossoming a handful of darts was out-damaging Mr. Greatsword which "ruined the immersion" of someone else who complained very
After all, two weapon fighting and multi-attacks were common in 2e, and yet, only DARTS were the problem...
Well no. two weapon fighting was problematic too, it's just that darts were even more problematic, so you heard about them as the extreme example, because they granted 3-4 attacks compared to 1 extra attack, so obviously the problem compounded even more.
Two weapon fighting was still the king of melee fighting styles in 2E though, and it really shows in 3E with the changes they made. For instance the whole deal with greatsowrds getting 1.5x your strength and offhand weapons being able to use only half your strength. Further in 3E, the TWF penalties were ungodly high and it required more than just a high dexterity to reduce or eliminate them. If you ever wonder why TWF sucks in 3E for fighters, it's because it was the uber style in 2E. 3E reversed it where guy with greatsword became the uber style.
Though naturally multi-attacks being the abuseable mechanics they were, they were still abuseable for rogues in 3E, because you could sneak attack so many extra times. It was so good you'd basically never see a non-TWF rogue in all of 3E.
Well no. two weapon fighting was problematic too, it's just that darts were even more problematic, so you heard about them as the extreme example, because they granted 3-4 attacks compared to 1 extra attack, so obviously the problem compounded even m
But it is a direct example of how that type of mechanic gets out of control quite easily... Spell casting being out of control really is an utterly different topic
If HPs are scaled to damage output the characters can do, outside of what the CharOp folks find, then it's not out of control. I know the concept of HPs is almost taboo at this point though.
If HPs are scaled to damage output the characters can do, outside of what the CharOp folks find, then it's not out of control. I know the concept of HPs is almost taboo at this point though.
But it is a direct example of how that type of mechanic gets out of control quite easily... Spell casting being out of control really is an utterly different topic
If HPs are scaled to damage output the characters can do
I just allowed magic items.. in my D&D and reality exploded.. and only classes with multi attacking are now viable. BAD example but all these modules are going to make it really hard in the first place.
The loss of Viabilty for NON multi attack is the thing I find likely
If HPs are scaled to damage output the characters can do[/quote]I just allowed magic items.. in my D&D and reality exploded.. and only classes with multi attacking are now viable. BAD example but all these modules are going to make it really hard in
After all, two weapon fighting and multi-attacks were common in 2e, and yet, only DARTS were the problem...
Well no. two weapon fighting was problematic too, it's just that darts were even more problematic, so you heard about them as the extreme example, because they granted 3-4 attacks compared to 1 extra attack, so obviously the problem compounded even more.
Two weapon fighting was still the king of melee fighting styles in 2E though, and it really shows in 3E with the changes they made. For instance the whole deal with greatsowrds getting 1.5x your strength and offhand weapons being able to use only half your strength. Further in 3E, the TWF penalties were ungodly high and it required more than just a high dexterity to reduce or eliminate them. If you ever wonder why TWF sucks in 3E for fighters, it's because it was the uber style in 2E. 3E reversed it where guy with greatsword became the uber style.
Though naturally multi-attacks being the abuseable mechanics they were, they were still abuseable for rogues in 3E, because you could sneak attack so many extra times. It was so good you'd basically never see a non-TWF rogue in all of 3E.
From what I've seen most of those who are cheerleading for multiattacks didn't experience this history like we did.
There were GOOD REASONS why TWF got hit with the nerf-hammer in 3.X.
Personally I thought 4th got the balance on this issue pretty much right, a few classes have a few multiattacks but they aren't too common.
They still buggered up the bonus stacking though... which was what made them so mechanically powerful.
Well no. two weapon fighting was problematic too, it's just that darts were even more problematic, so you heard about them as the extreme example, because they granted 3-4 attacks compared to 1 extra attack, so obviously the problem compounded even m
Meh, the less static bonuses, the better I can accept more than one attack per round.
The smaller the gap between the mediocre, optimized, and super-optimized, the better.
If the maximum number of attacks per round in spite of being super-optimized is 3, then I'd be really happy.
If the maximum number of attack rolls casters can or have to make per round is 3, and the design of the game allows casters and non-casters to not usurp each other consistently**, then I'd very likely add D&D Next to my list of things to buy.
** I don't mind a once-in-awhile advantage of one group or another, when stuff are taken into consideration.
Meh, the less static bonuses, the better I can accept more than one attack per round.The smaller the gap between the mediocre, optimized, and super-optimized, the better.If the maximum number of attacks per round in spite of being super-optimized is
Interesting options are what add to a given turn's length. Multiple attacks aren't going to make a fighter's turn provide as much of a spotlight as a wizard rummaging thru a spell list to pick out the best one for the situation at hand. A closer balancing factor would be giving the fighter a list of maneuvers every bit as interesting as the wizard's spell list. (And conversely giving both players the option of just hitting the guy with no secondary effects.)
Seems like a false solution. Extra turns are a means of measuring ability. The options they provide are circumstantial. When you account for ability with options you run the risk of pigeonholing choice. In that model a character that wants to use their speed has to use Rapid Shot, or Flurry instead of using their speed with an option.
Seems like a false solution. Extra turns are a means of measuring ability. The options they provide are circumstantial. When you account for ability with options you run the risk of pigeonholing choice. In that model a character that wants to use the
By what standard, pray tell? Because from what I can tell, it's a combination of levels, ability scores/modifiers, and bonuses that are a means of determining/measuring PC capability. How does extra turns factor into that, and what elements in extra turns/attacks make the game more engaging in the first place, as opposed to just repeating the same action over and over again?
By what standard, pray tell? Because from what I can tell, it's a combination of levels, ability scores/modifiers, and bonuses that are a means of determining/measuring PC capability. How does extra turns factor into that, and what elements in extr
By what standard, pray tell? Because from what I can tell, it's a combination of levels, ability scores/modifiers, and bonuses that are a means of determining/measuring PC capability.
Thats because Next doesnt have extra attacks however if it did you could include extra attacks like you would have with previous editions. They certainly improve a character's ability.
How does extra turns factor into that, and what elements in extra turns/attacks make the game more engaging in the first place, as opposed to just repeating the same action over and over again?
It measures speed without pressing maneuver button. In the past I would say D&D didn’t do a good job of it. Basically the logic was you are now a lord so you get an extra attack, you are surrounded by goblins so you get extra attacks, or you are using a Monk so extra attack right away, or you are using a light weapon or firing a bow in x minutes etc etc.
The problem was everyone got the same bonus. Same issue as MDD.
Since you ask how it could be better and make the game more engaging I’ll start by saying that unless its improved it wont but neither does BA or MDD by the same standard.
To make either more engaging you have to get rid of the uniform scale. As a base speed would be a combination of weapon type and dex score. From level one with certain weapons and as it improves with character choice curved against the value of other choices a character would have two attacks with lighter weapons. With greater improvements it would be two with any weapon and three with lighter. You could add some reactions to the system too. I think uniform casting times are ridiculous so even casters could benefit from speed.
By what standard, pray tell? Because from what I can tell, it's a combination of levels, ability scores/modifiers, and bonuses that are a means of determining/measuring PC capability. [/quote]Thats because Next doesnt have extra attacks however if i
Multi-attacks were problematic because of the way they stacked up static damage bonuses and generally messed with DPR progressions. Yes, examples like the Dart Specialist are extreme cases, but every case of extra attacks suffered from the issue, from 3/2 attacks for the 7th level fighter, to weapon specialization to Haste to Weapons of Speed to TWFing (to all of the above, combined). 3.0 did try to nerf TWFing and itterative attacks pretty hard, but multiple attacks could still be very potent - enough so that they contributed to the 'static combat' complaints.
There are workable solutions. 'D&D' Gamma World inocently hit upon one in consolidating weapon lists down to things like "heavy two-handed melee" and "light one-handed ranged" with the players describing the weapon(s) as they liked. If you wanted to use a pair of nunchucks or barbecue forks or knitting needles as weapons, you'd just take a 'light two-handed weapon' to show that you were using two of 'em, thus needed both hands. Similarly, one origin, Feline, IIRC, had a 'claws' attack that used two attack rolls. One hit did 1d of damage, 2 hits 2d and some added effect - no static bonus stacking.
Though, of course, multi-attacks, weapons, &c are all just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic compared to steaming full speed for the Vancian Casting iceberg. But, if you want to look at weapons and related combat options in a vacuum, the balance can be pretty delicate...
Multi-attacks were problematic because of the way they stacked up static damage bonuses and generally messed with DPR progressions. Yes, examples like the Dart Specialist are extreme cases, but every case of extra attacks suffered from the issue, fr
5th Edition did have an extra attack at 5th level in the last play-test. Two-Weapon Fighting is in the How to Play doc. However, they are saying that you get 2 attack rolls but this somehow constitutes 1 action. Throughout the Bestiary there is something called Multiattack such as the Carnivorous Ape which makes 2 slam attacks. Nevermind that it is almost humanoid like a character.
This is a deal breaker for me. If you say that I roll one attack die and that somehow I hit 3 different adjacent targets with that one attack die, it is going to create arguments at the table.
As others have said on this thread, rolling 2 attack die in 1 turn is no different than rolling 1 attack die 2 turns.
Multi-Attack is a way for us to resolve the imbalance of 2 weapon fighting.
A character could do 1d8 off-hand damage 1d10 main damage
or choose a 2-handed weapon and do 3d6 off-hand + main damage
I have been playtesting this for weeks and the combat is fast and fun and because the characters have a safe level of starting hit points they don't die so quickly.
5th Edition did have an extra attack at 5th level in the last play-test.Two-Weapon Fighting is in the How to Play doc. However, they are saying that you get 2 attack rolls but this somehow constitutes 1 action. Throughout the Bestiary there is someth
Multiattack just needs a way to have balanced application of static mods. DDN kind of does it right now with the off-hand simply not getting any mods, but then it makes it scale badly and creates problems that way. I'll give benefit of the doubt and assume -2 for two attacks is balanced at level 1. At higher levels, taking -2 to your main attack is a big loss, but a second attack for flat weapon damage no mods is trivial advantage.
In 4e, we had a means that we could have balanced out multiple attacks: most static bonuses (feat, enhancement, etc.) could have been set to scale per [W] (or per die on implement attacks) instead of per damage roll. That would let the big [W] encounter/daily powers remain competitive with ranger attack-spamming.
DDN doesn't really have much of an equivalent right now, so it can't be easily addressed in that way.
Multiattack just needs a way to have balanced application of static mods.DDN kind of does it right now with the off-hand simply not getting any mods, but then it makes it scale badly and creates problems that way. I'll give benefit of the doubt and a
If you say that I roll one attack die and that somehow I hit 3 different adjacent targets with that one attack die, it is going to create arguments at the table.
Why? Isn't the point of having static defenses (you know, 10 + AC value + DEX modifier bonus [if applicable]) to passively represent the opponent's attempt to defend against your attack, while the attack roll is supposed to be the ability to effectively execute your action, be it fluffed as one attack or one hundred attacks?
For hyper-realism's sake I'd rather have the whole thing as "you make one attack, while each defender rolls their AC. If you beat their AC roll, you hit. If you roll a 20, or if they roll a 1, the attack is a critical hit. If you roll a 1, the attack is a failed horribly and automatically misses all targets. If they roll a 20 and you rolled a 20, the attack is a normal hit instead."
[ The only problem I see with it is that it adds a lot of rolled dice to the table, but if it's a module I probably wouldn't mind it at all. ]
Alternatively, roll one attack roll against all, and roll separate damage dice for each target.
Regardless, if the point of the whole discussion is to mechanically represent a combatant's skill, be it in tackling multiple opponents or in fighting a single opponent, mechanically rolling each attack roll and damage roll for each target is, as far as I can tell, a very cumbersome method of dealing with the issue. Heck, some games even remove attack rolls entirely, basing combatant skill on damage dealt vs. damage absorbed, while others remove damage rolls entirely, simplifying the turn resolution and making the game faster.
For the sake of D&D as being itself I wouldn't mind having attack rolls and damage rolls at the same time, but multiple attacks have always been a great big min/max loophole, and something that should very well be plugged one way or another.
As others have said on this thread, rolling 2 attack die in 1 turn is no different than rolling 1 attack die 2 turns.
On average maybe it doesn't seem different. On a per-turn basis it is different.
If one player has two attack rolls and has to resolve each attack and damage roll, if it takes players an average 30 seconds to resolve one attack and damage rolls, that's one player having 1 minute to himself for that turn. Meanwhile the guy who has only one attack spends only 30 seconds for that turn.
Now, if those two attacks are limited to a 1/battle or 1/day thing that might not be much, but over the course of 10 fights, each with 2-4 rounds per fight, that's easily 20-40 minutes of exposure for multi-attack player, and only 10-20 minutes of exposure for single attack player.
Now add options that cause players to stop and think of what they can do. With the options opened up by mechanically portraying each attack of a dual wielder, that can likely push each turn of the multi-attacker to 2 minutes per turn, 3-5 minutes if you include in-table discussions on what he should be attacking next. Compare to the single attacker who, due to limited options, would likely end up with only 2 minutes including in-table discussion, and we can easily see each fight with multi-attacker taking 6-20 minutes per fight, as compared to the single attacker taking 4-8 minutes per fight, or an exposure time of 1-3.33 hours for the multi-attacker, while only 0.67-1.33 hours. That's at least 20% more time spent on the multi-attacker.
I do hope the single attacker is given options to justify his not taking of two weapons.
Multi-Attack is a way for us to resolve the imbalance of 2 weapon fighting.
A character could do 1d8 off-hand damage 1d10 main damage
or choose a 2-handed weapon and do 3d6 off-hand + main damage
No. You resolve the imbalances of two-weapon fighting by restricting two-weapon fighting, not empowering it and making the whole game an arms race.
Apparently you've been playtesting multi-attacks in a very isolated environment, one which does, in fact, balance out multi-classing. Ever tried comparing a dual-wielding character who does 1d8+7 and 1d10+7 damage to a character who does 3d6+7 damage, the +7 coming from +4 STR and a +3 magical weapon?
I do recall a rule somewhere in 3.x where you gain 50% more static damage when wielding 2H weapons; maybe you could try comparing the 1d10+7 & 1d8+7 to a 3d6+10? Or how about going for half damage instead, wherein you deal 1d10+3 & 1d8+3 vs. 3d6+7? Maybe both, going for 1d10+3 & 1d8+3 vs. 3d6+10?
Also, as it stands, sword-and-shield is a very unfavorable option, given how shields only give +1 (even though when you look at the Spartan army of old it was the shield that gave the best amount of protection [I'd prolly rule it granted you 3/4ths cover, but then I'd have to introduce facing as well; not a nice proposition mechanically speaking]).
Why? Isn't the point of having static defenses (you know, 10 + AC value + DEX modifier bonus [if applicable]) to passively represent the opponent's attempt to defend against your attack, while the attack roll is supposed to be the ability to effecti
Multiattack just needs a way to have balanced application of static mods.
That's a pretty major "just." Multi-attacking multiple targets once each isn't too overwhelming, though it's still quite potent. The case of TWFing can be handled by just aiming for good balance between THF and TWF (and shield use). Multi-attacks are more problematic when it comes to modeling improved skill with weapons, as they give a very jerky DPR progression. 3e's itterative attacks tried to deal with the issue by making the new attack have a very poor chance of hitting, for instance. 5e's 'bounded accuracy' rubric, though, makes simply improving attack chances a no-no, so extra attacks must seem very tempting...
That's a pretty major "just." Multi-attacking multiple targets once each isn't too overwhelming, though it's still quite potent. The case of TWFing can be handled by just aiming for good balance between THF and TWF (and shield use). Multi-attacks
From what I've seen most of those who are cheerleading for multiattacks didn't experience this history like we did.
There were GOOD REASONS why TWF got hit with the nerf-hammer in 3.X.
Yeah, 'fans' whining. It had nothing to do with actual mechanics. After all Pun-Pun still cropped up, the peasant light speed rail gun. 4e once had a Ranger build that supposedly could have killed Orcus in one round.
Personally I thought 4th got the balance on this issue pretty much right, a few classes have a few multiattacks but they aren't too common.
They still buggered up the bonus stacking though... which was what made them so mechanically powerful.
No, what made Twin Strike so powerful was the fact that you had a flatter curve, and better chance to hit the target over everyone else, or the ability to destroy two targets at once. Because multi attacks were rare (although the Rogue's 3rd level minor off hand attack was pretty powerful) and regulated to mainly one class, they are now the benchmark as to what Damage Dealers are based off of.
Twin Strike is THE benchmark everyone uses to measure how an attack power, whether an At-Will, Encounter or Daily. That's ridiculously overpowered. Now, if MORE classes had multi-attacks? Not as much as an issue anymore. But because one class specializes in it and no one class does, it's now super powerful/broken.
4e didn't fix the 'problem', it just magnified it.
Yeah, 'fans' whining. It had nothing to do with actual mechanics. After all Pun-Pun still cropped up, the peasant light speed rail gun. 4e once had a Ranger build that supposedly could have killed Orcus in one round.No, what made Twin Strike so po
No, what made Twin Strike so powerful was the fact that you had a flatter curve, and better chance to hit the target over everyone else, or the ability to destroy two targets at once.
The first two, yeah, sorta, they boil down to DPR. Two attacks increases your DPR two ways, they do more damage if they /both/ hit, and it's more likely that at least one will hit. The ranger was an excellent striker just being able to attack twice with many of his powers. The avenger was also a pretty good striker, and he just got to roll twice and take the better result. And, of course, Twin Strike only chipped at the issue of stacking static damage bonuses - no STR/DEX bonus, but you could still add enhancement, feat and other bonuses.
But being able to hit two targets? No, not even a little bit of what made Twin Strike a 'benchmark' (or 'broken'). Every controller could beat that with several at-wills. Even the Fighter could hit two enemies at the same time with an at-will. It's a nice thing to be able to do, attacking two targets with one action, but it was far exceeded by many other powers.
The first two, yeah, sorta, they boil down to DPR. Two attacks increases your DPR two ways, they do more damage if they /both/ hit, and it's more likely that at least one will hit. The ranger was an excellent striker just being able to attack twice
Now, if MORE classes had multi-attacks? Not as much as an issue anymore. But because one class specializes in it and no one class does, it's now super powerful/broken.
Only if the mechanics surrounding multi-attacks are themselves not kept in check, because giving PCs multi-attacks requires accommodating for the damage, likely by inflating monster HP or increasing the number of opponents significantly.
Personally I'd find it easier to clamp down on the 4E Ranger's dpr simply by requiring all multi-attacks to target only one enemy per attack, bringing Twin Strike and Dual Strike to roughly the same level. Alternatively, just like how ren1999 proposed, just remove the static bonus from all attacks beyond the first that hits one enemy. That way, the only advantage a five-attack 1[W] attack has over a single-attack 5[W] attack is accuracy and the need to roll multiple times just to get the same number of weapon dice.
It's kinda like the 4E Assassin's approach on multi-attacks, really.
Only if the mechanics surrounding multi-attacks are themselves not kept in check, because giving PCs multi-attacks requires accommodating for the damage, likely by inflating monster HP or increasing the number of opponents significantly.Personally I'
No, what made Twin Strike so powerful was the fact that you had a flatter curve, and better chance to hit the target over everyone else, or the ability to destroy two targets at once.
The first two, yeah, sorta, they boil down to DPR. Two attacks increases your DPR two ways, they do more damage if they /both/ hit, and it's more likely that at least one will hit. The ranger was an excellent striker just being able to attack twice with many of his powers. The avenger was also a pretty good striker, and he just got to roll twice and take the better result. And, of course, Twin Strike only chipped at the issue of stacking static damage bonuses - no STR/DEX bonus, but you could still add enhancement, feat and other bonuses.
But being able to hit two targets? No, not even a little bit of what made Twin Strike a 'benchmark' (or 'broken'). Every controller could beat that with several at-wills. Even the Fighter could hit two enemies at the same time with an at-will. It's a nice thing to be able to do, attacking two targets with one action, but it was far exceeded by many other powers.
yeah...my fighter can hit a target with all mods included for melee attack, then make a rba against a target in range beside the one i first hit without OA also including all the mods as an at-will (Cleave + Deft Hurler Style feat)...being able to hit multiple target is something non-strikers does better.
The first two, yeah, sorta, they boil down to DPR. Two attacks increases your DPR two ways, they do more damage if they /both/ hit, and it's more likely that at least one will hit. The ranger was an excellent striker just being able to attack twice
You answered your own question, they are time consuming. I remeber running 2nd edition games where I had seven or eight players and we would breeze through combat...why? Mostly because when it was their turn they essentially made ONE roll. (sometimes two) D&D Next is compensating for this lack of additional attacks (and wisely) through class bonuses, martial damage dice and other damage bonuses: Let a single attack resolve in less time than what three or four attack rolls would in 3rd ed. Bravo WoTC.
Less rolling means less time spent in combat and more time telling a story and roleplaying
You answered your own question, they are time consuming. I remeber running 2nd edition games where I had seven or eight players and we would breeze through combat...why? Mostly because when it was their turn they essentially made ONE roll. (sometimes
No, what made Twin Strike so powerful was the fact that you had a flatter curve, and better chance to hit the target over everyone else, or the ability to destroy two targets at once. Because multi attacks were rare (although the Rogue's 3rd level minor off hand attack was pretty powerful) and regulated to mainly one class, they are now the benchmark as to what Damage Dealers are based off of.
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful. 4e combats lasted a long time; a flatter curve wasn't a significant advantage. In addition, the ability to attack two targets for the same damage is not overpowered; it helps kill minions faster but generally either there are few enough minions that they get killed off by incidental damage anyway, or there are so many that you would mostly be relying on area-of-effect things rather than a two-target attack.
If you kept all the stuff that you mentioned, but removed the ability to double-stack bonus damage modifiers (either by letting it apply only once, or by removing the modifiers in the first place), Twin Strike would have been a pretty unremarkable at-will and rangers probably would have been on the weaker end of the damage-dealing spectrum.
Twin Strike is THE benchmark everyone uses to measure how an attack power, whether an At-Will, Encounter or Daily. That's ridiculously overpowered. Now, if MORE classes had multi-attacks? Not as much as an issue anymore. But because one class specializes in it and no one class does, it's now super powerful/broken.
The issue is that if you want to make a character that doesn't multi-attack, they end up being weaker in that scenario.
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful. 4e combats lasted a long time; a flatter curve wasn't a significant advantage. In addition, the ability to attack two targets for the same damage is not overpowered; it
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - so it did less damage than the (1[W] + Dex) attack in exchange for its higher accuracy.
Or was this a problem with late-game supplements?
The issue is that if you want to make a character that doesn't multi-attack, they end up being weaker in that scenario.
So is your major issue with disparity between multi-attackers and single-attackers? What about the idea to let all characters progress by multiple attacks in place of increased Martial Damage?
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - s
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - so it did less damage than the (1[W] + Dex) attack in exchange for its higher accuracy.
Or was this a problem with late-game supplements?
Twin Strike specifically didn't add the player's Str or Dex mod. Any and all other modifiers were fair game. Quarry was once-per-turn, aye, but anything else, +x from magic weapons, to weapon focus, to vulnerabilities, was fair game. In the early heroic tier, that didn't much matter, but the later you went, the more that applied to it. It wasn't so much a supplement problem as it was a paragon to epic tier problem.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - s
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So is your major issue with disparity between multi-attackers and single-attackers? What about the idea to let all characters progress by multiple attacks in place of increased Martial Damage?
This arguably works assuming all fighters get the multi-attack at a certain level, and there's no way to get extra attacks. For instance, if you just go with the straight 2E system of 7th level fighters getting a bonus half-attack and 14th level fighters getting a full attack, that works. The problem comes with when you allow any disparity at all. Two weapon fighting, darts, weapon spec, seriously nothing there should ever allow multiattacks.
The other issue is that the levels where you get an extra jump is a huge benefit to your overall damage, which makes it hard to get a good power curve.
And really, you still need to ask why you're doing it.
More attacks make for less exciting combats, because they produce a flatter curve. Having 1 big attack that can either hit or miss is exciting, and when there's a critical someone gets smashed hard. Having 3 attacks for low damage is pretty boring, since chances are 1-2 of them will always hit, producing a fairly consistent damage per round and when someone crits it's not a huge deal since you're critting on a weak attack. To me, that's boring, because the results are predictable and you don't have big swings.
More attacks also take longer to resolve, because it's more dice.
So while it's possible to make multi-attacks work mechanically, why are we bothering with them? Because they don't add a heck of a lot to the game. About the only real advantage I can see is that it makes it harder for fighters to destroy stone walls and such in the dungeon since you can have multiple weak attacks bonce off. Of course, this problem could be solved easier by limiting MDD and fighter bonus damage to creatures only, assuming you wanted to do that.
This arguably works assuming all fighters get the multi-attack at a certain level, and there's no way to get extra attacks. For instance, if you just go with the straight 2E system of 7th level fighters getting a bonus half-attack and 14th level figh
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - so it did less damage than the (1[W] + Dex) attack in exchange for its higher accuracy.
Or was this a problem with late-game supplements?
It added in everything except str/dex. The problem got worse with later supplements, but even with just enhancement and various power bonuses (from warlords, for instance) twin strike did some pretty crazy damage for an at-will.
So is your major issue with disparity between multi-attackers and single-attackers? What about the idea to let all characters progress by multiple attacks in place of increased Martial Damage?
I think for me the main issue is the extra table time they take up if they're at-will. The balance thing is also an issue, but it seems like DDN has a lot fewer +damage mods just laying around (although maybe that will change when we see all the feats and such).
It added in everything except str/dex. The problem got worse with later supplements, but even with just enhancement and various power bonuses (from warlords, for instance) twin strike did some pretty crazy damage for an at-will.I think for me the ma
More attacks make for less exciting combats, because they produce a flatter curve. Having 1 big attack that can either hit or miss is exciting, and when there's a critical someone gets smashed hard. Having 3 attacks for low damage is pretty boring, since chances are 1-2 of them will always hit, producing a fairly consistent damage per round and when someone crits it's not a huge deal since you're critting on a weak attack. To me, that's boring, because the results are predictable and you don't have big swings.
I suppose that is going to vary from player to player. Personally, I think it's really boring to ever just miss completely - it feels like a wasted turn - so getting three or four chances to guarantee some degree of success would do a lot for me. Even if you hit on a 6+, since it's something that you would be doing pretty much every round, there would still be plenty of rounds where you only hit with one or two out of four attacks.
It also sits really, really well with me to sacrifice an entire attack to try and trip someone, rather than sacrificing one damage die from your existing attack.
I actually had a proposal for something like this in another thread, but it didn't generate much response.
I've never noticed that multple attacks take up that much table time, at least as long as you didn't have to choose targets (and/or possibly move) between the attacks. Moving up to the goblin chief and then making four attacks (at the same bonus, for equal damage on each attack) only really eats up a ton of time for a new player who is uncomfortable rolling more than one die at a time, or who needs to stop and calculate the bonus each time - and since multiple attacks don't kick in until later levels, even a new player should be up to the task by the time she is actually tasked with it.
I suppose that is going to vary from player to player. Personally, I think it's really boring to ever just miss completely - it feels like a wasted turn - so getting three or four chances to guarantee some degree of success would do a lot for me. Ev
More attacks make for less exciting combats, because they produce a flatter curve. Having 1 big attack that can either hit or miss is exciting, and when there's a critical someone gets smashed hard. Having 3 attacks for low damage is pretty boring, since chances are 1-2 of them will always hit, producing a fairly consistent damage per round and when someone crits it's not a huge deal since you're critting on a weak attack. To me, that's boring, because the results are predictable and you don't have big swings.
I suppose that is going to vary from player to player. Personally, I think it's really boring to ever just miss completely - it feels like a wasted turn - so getting three or four chances to guarantee some degree of success would do a lot for me. Even if you hit on a 6+, since it's something that you would be doing pretty much every round, there would still be plenty of rounds where you only hit with one or two out of four attacks.
It also sits really, really well with me to sacrifice an entire attack to try and trip someone, rather than sacrificing one damage die from your existing attack.
I actually had a proposal for something like this in another thread, but it didn't generate much response.
I've never noticed that multple attacks take up that much table time, at least as long as you didn't have to choose targets (and/or possibly move) between the attacks. Moving up to the goblin chief and then making four attacks (at the same bonus, for equal damage on each attack) only really eats up a ton of time for a new player who is uncomfortable rolling more than one die at a time, or who needs to stop and calculate the bonus each time - and since multiple attacks don't kick in until later levels, even a new player should be up to the task by the time she is actually tasked with it.
Yes, I'm all for Martial Damage Bonus (boring) being replaced by extra attacks, the problem with 3rd Ed was the iterative action and it being a full round action.
I suppose that is going to vary from player to player. Personally, I think it's really boring to ever just miss completely - it feels like a wasted turn - so getting three or four chances to guarantee some degree of success would do a lot for me. Ev
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - so it did less damage than the (1[W] + Dex) attack in exchange for its higher accuracy.
Or was this a problem with late-game supplements?
As of PHB1 + AV, a level 6ish Ranger could have +2 weapon(s) with bracers of archery or iron armbands of power, and Weapon Focus, possibly with a superior weapon, and d8 quarry. Let's assume 20 Str or Dex, since we're talking maximum optimization. MBA/RBA: 1[W](d10) + 5 (str/dex) + 5 + d8 Twin Strike: 2x(1[W](d10) + 5) + d8 One TS hit is 5 points behind one basic hit, true. But two hits is 1[W] ahead, and you've got two swings to get your quarry die in.
A ranger probably wouldn't reach that point quite by level 6 (after all, that's 2-3 level 6 items, and one is a rather particular one) depending on how the DM controls loot. But generally as you continue into upper levels, the missing Str/Dex is easily made up for by doubling other static mods. And because you will double (or more) your static mods, rangers have more insentive to amass as many as they can. They also multiply up any mods granted by allies' powers, and as a result they tend to be granted more of them. (Why give the rogue +x damage, when you can give the ranger +2x damage?)
The issue is that if you want to make a character that doesn't multi-attack, they end up being weaker in that scenario.
So is your major issue with disparity between multi-attackers and single-attackers? What about the idea to let all characters progress by multiple attacks in place of increased Martial Damage?
Certain character archetypes should attack more often than others. TWF, monk, rapid shot.. these should be attacking more often than THF, sword-n-board, barbarians, rogues, etc. But they shouldn't necessarily be doing more damage. A big-weapon barbarian who focuses on damage should be doing similar damage to a TWF ranger who focuses equally on damage. (Maybe a little more or less, to balance out advantages in other areas.) And there should be an option for the max level big-weapon barbarian to be swinging one attack per turn that hit so incredibly hard that it's balanced with the monk's flurry of blows (even though conceptually that one probably should be doing a ton of attacks at that level).
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - s
Multiattack just needs a way to have balanced application of static mods.
If static mods are the problem, just allow them on only one attack. IDC if it's the first one only, or if you get to choose before you roll to hit, or even after you hit.
If static mods are the problem, just allow them on only one attack. IDC if it's the first one only, or if you get to choose before you roll to hit, or even after you hit.
I don't have a problem with multiple attacks per se. I don't like situations like two weapon fighting weapon when you have two different damage die and one weapon has a better chance to hit then the other and each additonal attack takes an additonal -5 to hit etc. It is not intuitive and can get cumbersome. I like the narrative of duel wielding and attacking with vigor multiple times but try to crunch the excessive variables into fewer rolls.
Give a static penalty to hit and/or damage for all attacks instead of -2 for main hand and -4 for offhand just give a -3 to all attacks?
I don't have a problem with multiple attacks per se. I don't like situations like two weapon fighting weapon when you have two different damage die and one weapon has a better chance to hit then the other and each additonal attack takes an additonal
Multiple attacks are just not fair. Sure, fair for you as a player if you're rolling multiple dice, but how about this; YOU may only roll ONE attack die each round and every single opponent against you gets to roll 20 times.
It's not fun when you're character is taken out before you can get just one attack out.
Multiple attacks are just not fair. Sure, fair for you as a player if you're rolling multiple dice, but how about this; YOU may only roll ONE attack die each round and every single opponent against you gets to roll 20 times. It's not fun when you're
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - so it did less damage than the (1[W] + Dex) attack in exchange for its higher accuracy.
Or was this a problem with late-game supplements?
As of PHB1 + AV, a level 6ish Ranger could have +2 weapon(s) with bracers of archery or iron armbands of power, and Weapon Focus, possibly with a superior weapon, and d8 quarry. Let's assume 20 Str or Dex, since we're talking maximum optimization. MBA/RBA: 1[W](d10) + 5 (str/dex) + 5 + d8 Twin Strike: 2x(1[W](d10) + 5) + d8 One TS hit is 5 points behind one basic hit, true. But two hits is 1[W] ahead, and you've got two swings to get your quarry die in.
A ranger probably wouldn't reach that point quite by level 6 (after all, that's 2-3 level 6 items, and one is a rather particular one) depending on how the DM controls loot. But generally as you continue into upper levels, the missing Str/Dex is easily made up for by doubling other static mods. And because you will double (or more) your static mods, rangers have more insentive to amass as many as they can. They also multiply up any mods granted by allies' powers, and as a result they tend to be granted more of them. (Why give the rogue +x damage, when you can give the ranger +2x damage?)
The issue is that if you want to make a character that doesn't multi-attack, they end up being weaker in that scenario.
So is your major issue with disparity between multi-attackers and single-attackers? What about the idea to let all characters progress by multiple attacks in place of increased Martial Damage?
Certain character archetypes should attack more often than others. TWF, monk, rapid shot.. these should be attacking more often than THF, sword-n-board, barbarians, rogues, etc. But they shouldn't necessarily be doing more damage. A big-weapon barbarian who focuses on damage should be doing similar damage to a TWF ranger who focuses equally on damage. (Maybe a little more or less, to balance out advantages in other areas.) And there should be an option for the max level big-weapon barbarian to be swinging one attack per turn that hit so incredibly hard that it's balanced with the monk's flurry of blows (even though conceptually that one probably should be doing a ton of attacks at that level).
Thats more of a problem with 4th ed design and stacking magic items or the DM not saying no to certain items.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - s
I suppose that is going to vary from player to player. Personally, I think it's really boring to ever just miss completely - it feels like a wasted turn - so getting three or four chances to guarantee some degree of success would do a lot for me. Even if you hit on a 6+, since it's something that you would be doing pretty much every round, there would still be plenty of rounds where you only hit with one or two out of four attacks.
Personally I feel like that just reduces the impact of the attack roll.
But if you really wanted that sort of feel, it'd be easier to just let higher level fighters deal half damage on a miss. That way you always inflict some kind of damage.
Personally I prefer combat that's more swingy and a big issue with high level combat is how boringly predictable it gets with so many dice being tossed. And that's true of fighters and wizards. The wizard with the 20d6 damage fireball was an annoying waste of time, becasue his damage roll was virutally pointless, it almost always came very close to the average, only it wasted a bunch fo time to roll all those dice.
Not to mention multiple attacks typically just seem dumb to me, especially with monsters. I just have trouble seeing this 100 ft long dragon hit a PC with 2 claws, a bite, 2 wing buffets and a tail all in one round. Like you're dealing with this tiny human sized PC getting juggled around and hit by all these draconic attack forms. It's just silly to me. I'd prefer if the dragon just clawed him and threw him against a wall. Way more cinematic if you ask me and it resolves a lot faster, as opposed to death by 1000 minor attacks.
I've never noticed that multple attacks take up that much table time, at least as long as you didn't have to choose targets (and/or possibly move) between the attacks. Moving up to the goblin chief and then making four attacks (at the same bonus, for equal damage on each attack) only really eats up a ton of time for a new player who is uncomfortable rolling more than one die at a time, or who needs to stop and calculate the bonus each time - and since multiple attacks don't kick in until later levels, even a new player should be up to the task by the time she is actually tasked with it.
Depends on the players of course, but I've been at multiple tables with slow players where mutli-attacks was agonizing. Generally it's players who are bad with math so they take forever adding up each attack/damage roll.
Personally I feel like that just reduces the impact of the attack roll. But if you really wanted that sort of feel, it'd be easier to just let higher level fighters deal half damage on a miss. That way you always inflict some kind of damage. Personal
This isn't true. Adding extra modifiers is what made Twin Strike so powerful.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - so it did less damage than the (1[W] + Dex) attack in exchange for its higher accuracy.
Or was this a problem with late-game supplements?
As of PHB1 + AV, a level 6ish Ranger could have +2 weapon(s) with bracers of archery or iron armbands of power, and Weapon Focus, possibly with a superior weapon, and d8 quarry. Let's assume 20 Str or Dex, since we're talking maximum optimization. MBA/RBA: 1[W](d10) + 5 (str/dex) + 5 + d8 Twin Strike: 2x(1[W](d10) + 5) + d8 One TS hit is 5 points behind one basic hit, true. But two hits is 1[W] ahead, and you've got two swings to get your quarry die in.
A ranger probably wouldn't reach that point quite by level 6 (after all, that's 2-3 level 6 items, and one is a rather particular one) depending on how the DM controls loot. But generally as you continue into upper levels, the missing Str/Dex is easily made up for by doubling other static mods. And because you will double (or more) your static mods, rangers have more insentive to amass as many as they can. They also multiply up any mods granted by allies' powers, and as a result they tend to be granted more of them. (Why give the rogue +x damage, when you can give the ranger +2x damage?)
The issue is that if you want to make a character that doesn't multi-attack, they end up being weaker in that scenario.
So is your major issue with disparity between multi-attackers and single-attackers? What about the idea to let all characters progress by multiple attacks in place of increased Martial Damage?
Certain character archetypes should attack more often than others. TWF, monk, rapid shot.. these should be attacking more often than THF, sword-n-board, barbarians, rogues, etc. But they shouldn't necessarily be doing more damage. A big-weapon barbarian who focuses on damage should be doing similar damage to a TWF ranger who focuses equally on damage. (Maybe a little more or less, to balance out advantages in other areas.) And there should be an option for the max level big-weapon barbarian to be swinging one attack per turn that hit so incredibly hard that it's balanced with the monk's flurry of blows (even though conceptually that one probably should be doing a ton of attacks at that level).
Thats more of a problem with 4th ed design and stacking magic items or the DM not saying no to certain items.
Actually a simple rule that would eliminate the different sources of modifiers and just state, "only your highest modifier applies" could fix a lot of stuff, especially if you remove ability modifiers from the damage roll. Less to track, at the very least.
I suppose that is going to vary from player to player. Personally, I think it's really boring to ever just miss completely - it feels like a wasted turn - so getting three or four chances to guarantee some degree of success would do a lot for me. Even if you hit on a 6+, since it's something that you would be doing pretty much every round, there would still be plenty of rounds where you only hit with one or two out of four attacks.
Personally I feel like that just reduces the impact of the attack roll.
But if you really wanted that sort of feel, it'd be easier to just let higher level fighters deal half damage on a miss. That way you always inflict some kind of damage.
Personally I prefer combat that's more swingy and a big issue with high level combat is how boringly predictable it gets with so many dice being tossed. And that's true of fighters and wizards. The wizard with the 20d6 damage fireball was an annoying waste of time, becasue his damage roll was virutally pointless, it almost always came very close to the average, only it wasted a bunch fo time to roll all those dice.
Not to mention multiple attacks typically just seem dumb to me, especially with monsters. I just have trouble seeing this 100 ft long dragon hit a PC with 2 claws, a bite, 2 wing buffets and a tail all in one round. Like you're dealing with this tiny human sized PC getting juggled around and hit by all these draconic attack forms. It's just silly to me. I'd prefer if the dragon just clawed him and threw him against a wall. Way more cinematic if you ask me and it resolves a lot faster, as opposed to death by 1000 minor attacks.
I've never noticed that multple attacks take up that much table time, at least as long as you didn't have to choose targets (and/or possibly move) between the attacks. Moving up to the goblin chief and then making four attacks (at the same bonus, for equal damage on each attack) only really eats up a ton of time for a new player who is uncomfortable rolling more than one die at a time, or who needs to stop and calculate the bonus each time - and since multiple attacks don't kick in until later levels, even a new player should be up to the task by the time she is actually tasked with it.
Depends on the players of course, but I've been at multiple tables with slow players where mutli-attacks was agonizing. Generally it's players who are bad with math so they take forever adding up each attack/damage roll.
Agreed. While I understand that the main reason why monsters would be designed with multi-attacks in mind -- aesthetically monster designers want to present the entire combo in one go, while mechanically it's difficult for monsters to handle multiple opponents without multiple attacks -- honestly it doesn't seem anywhere close to cinematic when an entire turn is dedicated to "this guy kills with a hundred slashed [proceeds to roll 100 attack rolls]"; maybe at first it'd appear cinematic, but after the 4th consecutive attack roll the only tension you'd end up feeling is "why don't this bugger die already?!".
I'd rather see fights where you're trading blows, not waiting for one participant to finish unleashing his blows before another begins to unleash his own blows.
I only used the first books, but didn't Twin Strike specifically not add extra modifiers? I mean, quarry was a once-per-turn thing, so the two attacks did increase the chance of applying that, but each attack was just weapon damage - no Dex bonus - s
The wizard with the 20d6 damage fireball was an annoying waste of time, becasue his damage roll was virutally pointless, it almost always came very close to the average, only it wasted a bunch fo time to roll all those dice.
Definite agreement on that point. Anything more than seven or eight dice, and rolling seems pretty pointless - which is why I would cap it at five (or possibly six) attacks. I've seen plenty of variance in damage from a 5d6 fireball, without the player feeling like their turn was completely wasted.
Definite agreement on that point. Anything more than seven or eight dice, and rolling seems pretty pointless - which is why I would cap it at five (or possibly six) attacks. I've seen plenty of variance in damage from a 5d6 fireball, without the pl
Hackmaster Advanced seems to enjoy the one attack at a time philosophy. Honestly I could take it or leave it.
That is a completely inaccurate and unfair comparison - HackMaster does not use a turn-based initiative system, so the number of attacks made each time a character gets to make 1 or more attacks is completely irrelevant.
To show a more accurate idea of how differing combat styles play out in terms of number of attacks, here is a breakdown of roughly 30 seconds of combat between a guy wielding two short swords and a guy wielding a two-handed sword.
The two close into melee range and both attack; two-handed sword first because of its superior reach, followed by the main hand attack. Then the off-hand, the main hand, and off-hand again before the two-handed sword makes another attack. Then the main hand, the off-hand, the main again and the off again before the two-handed sword makes its third attack.
It should be noted that there is a balance between the two styles though - two-handed swords deal 2d12+3 damage vs. the short sword's 2d6, and reduce any DR of 5 or more by 2 (both benefit from the penetration rule where a die rolling maximum value is re-rolled to potentially add more damage), and also using two weapons offensively like described provides only a d10 defense die while the two-handed sword gets a d20 defense die (both subject to penalties for defending against more than one attack between their attacks).
That is a completely inaccurate and unfair comparison - HackMaster does not use a turn-based initiative system, so the number of attacks made each time a character gets to make 1 or more attacks is completely irrelevant.To show a more accurate idea o
The wizard with the 20d6 damage fireball was an annoying waste of time, becasue his damage roll was virutally pointless, it almost always came very close to the average, only it wasted a bunch fo time to roll all those dice.
Definite agreement on that point. Anything more than seven or eight dice, and rolling seems pretty pointless - which is why I would cap it at five (or possibly six) attacks. I've seen plenty of variance in damage from a 5d6 fireball, without the player feeling like their turn was completely wasted.
There's the fun factor, I had a psion and a spirit shaman player who used to love manifesting a power/casting a spell once in awhile that let them toss 10d6s on the table and count them up.
I do like average damage as an option (as they have done with 5th Ed).
Definite agreement on that point. Anything more than seven or eight dice, and rolling seems pretty pointless - which is why I would cap it at five (or possibly six) attacks. I've seen plenty of variance in damage from a 5d6 fireball, without the pl
All players and monsters get 1 main, 1 off-hand and one reaction at 1st level.
Fighter 1 attacks with his main weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d10+str mod+other mods. Fighter 1 attacks with his off-hand weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d8 damage.
Fighter 2 uses a Parry Reaction. Because Fighter 1 has already hit, there is no roll to reduce damage other than a 1d4 at 1st-5th level, 1d6 at 6th-10th level, etc. Or the 1st-5th level fighter can just reduce damage by 2, 6th-10th level fighter can reduce damage by 3. Fighter 2 uses a two-handed weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 3d6 damage. The maximum damage represents a main+off-hand attack and equals the maximum damage of a main and off-hand attack.
A Cleric would get one main spell such as an assault spell or weapon attack. Then the Cleric would get one off-hand? minor? secondary? prayer such as Cure Light Wounds.
A Caster would get one main spell and could also attack an adjacent enemy with an off-hand dagger. Or a Caster would cast one main assault spell but cast and maintain a, minor? off-hand? movement? spell such as fly.
So who agrees with this?All players and monsters get 1 main, 1 off-hand and one reaction at 1st level.Fighter 1 attacks with his main weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d10+str mod+other mods.Fighter 1 attacks with his off-hand weap
All players and monsters get 1 main, 1 off-hand and one reaction at 1st level.
Fighter 1 attacks with his main weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d10+str mod+other mods. Fighter 1 attacks with his off-hand weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d8 damage.
Fighter 2 uses a Parry Reaction. Because Fighter 1 has already hit, there is no roll to reduce damage other than a 1d4 at 1st-5th level, 1d6 at 6th-10th level, etc. Or the 1st-5th level fighter can just reduce damage by 2, 6th-10th level fighter can reduce damage by 3. Fighter 2 uses a two-handed weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 3d6 damage. The maximum damage represents a main+off-hand attack and equals the maximum damage of a main and off-hand attack.
A Cleric would get one main spell such as an assault spell or weapon attack. Then the Cleric would get one off-hand? minor? secondary? prayer such as Cure Light Wounds.
A Caster would get one main spell and could also attack an adjacent enemy with an off-hand dagger. Or a Caster would cast one main assault spell but cast and maintain a, minor? off-hand? movement? spell such as fly.
All players and monsters get 1 main, 1 off-hand and one reaction at 1st level.
Fighter 1 attacks with his main weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d10+str mod+other mods. Fighter 1 attacks with his off-hand weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 1d8 damage.
Fighter 2 uses a Parry Reaction. Because Fighter 1 has already hit, there is no roll to reduce damage other than a 1d4 at 1st-5th level, 1d6 at 6th-10th level, etc. Or the 1st-5th level fighter can just reduce damage by 2, 6th-10th level fighter can reduce damage by 3. Fighter 2 uses a two-handed weapon and rolls a 1d20+str mod+other mods and does 3d6 damage. The maximum damage represents a main+off-hand attack and equals the maximum damage of a main and off-hand attack.
A Cleric would get one main spell such as an assault spell or weapon attack. Then the Cleric would get one off-hand? minor? secondary? prayer such as Cure Light Wounds.
A Caster would get one main spell and could also attack an adjacent enemy with an off-hand dagger. Or a Caster would cast one main assault spell but cast and maintain a, minor? off-hand? movement? spell such as fly.
I like the idea of distinguishing between main action and off-hand action.
I like the general concept of Parry. Is your parry concept only available to fighters? If not.. is it based on character level? What about a flat damage reduction as opposed to die roll?
I can see the possibility of being able to cast a spell AND attacking as getting out of balance pretty quickly... especially in multi-class type characters.
And the headache of.. which comes first... main or offhand... or simultaneous? Imagine an off-hand stunning stunning fist combined with a spell that requires a reflex save. Order of attacks might become important. Or hold person with right hand, coup-de-grace with the left. It sounds like a meal that's awesome when you're dishing it out, but maybe not so awesome when you eat it. Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess.
I like the idea of distinguishing between main action and off-hand action. I like the general concept of Parry. Is your parry concept only available to fighters? If not.. is it based on character level? What about a flat damage reduction as opposed t
All players and monsters get 1 main, 1 off-hand and one reaction at 1st level.
Not I. I like the limited action economy of Next. i don't want a return of the minor action in the form of "off-hand action".
Agreed. If there's one thing I want to stay as a feature of D&D Next, it's the killing of one of the worst min/max loopholes in D&D history, leaving it as a table houserule or a module at worst. Just limit the game to action, reaction and [as part of an action/free action], and all that's left to worry about involves the actual spells and other features.
If the only valid reason for multi-attacks is limelight parity due to casters, then 1) remove multi-attack (area) spells as at-will options (which they have apparently) 2) restrict caster ability to spam area spells (and spells in general if you ask me) 3) raise the value of single attack spells somehow
Slow turn resolution is what slows down combat in any edition -- pre-4E warriors tended to have faster turns in spite of multi-attacks due to limitations on options [namely, high damage = no brainer], while casters had the longer turns due to the tower of options that they had during an adventure, especially during combat** -- so we must identify the elements that actually slow down combat. And as far as I can tell, those elements are: 1) non-standard actions (free/no actions, minor/quick actions, opportunity actions, immediate actions). The simplification to just three actions is a major appeal IMHO, and the restriction of reactions help hasten round resolution (I do recall opportunity attacks being reintroduced somewhere, not sure which packet or if it's still in the current packet, for the sake of preventing a dozen kobolds just whooshing past the frontliner [might check later, way too early in the morning here right now]). I'm not exactly happy about the prospect of "healbot" returning -- healing in general should be restricted to prevent abuse, and modified so that no one has to be "just" the healer (if you ask me) -- but if turns go by quickly enough I could easily see two turns go by and I can heal someone and not skip a beat or lament at the loss of a turn. Healbot happens in MMORPGs after all. 2) multi-attacks (spells, weapon attacks). Spellcasters are already hampered by less spell slots per day (I believe it was like 14 spell slots+3 cantrips at level 20?), so the only remaining offender is multi-attack stuff like Cleave. 4E Cleave and Flurry of Blows I actually found quite appealing by virtue of their being area attacks that don't require more than one attack roll to resolve (if only the loopholes weren't there).
What I like most about the idea of making rounds and turns really fast is the idea of being able to run a turn-based game as close to a real-time game as possible. Heck, I personally wouldn't mind multi-turn spells myself if the number of opponents it can hit, as well as the power level of the spell and the opportunity cost for casting it, is that big; that way, just like in computer RPGs where spellcasters have these complex, flashy movements and chants (for powerful spells) that take far longer than several weapon swings to execute -- something that, as far as I know, ironically came from D&D -- you'd find it far more practical to utilize single-target cantrips and weapon-swinging, leaving the area spells to major skirmishes involving a lot more creatures than what a few well-placed swings can take down.
** while the good thing about 4E is that they significantly lessened the options each individual had, the entire group still had the same number of options that a pre-4E caster had, when combined with a greater emphasis on team play, resulted in combat being just as long as, if not longer combat than, 3E. However, comparing 20 minutes per round with one player spending 10 minutes on his turn alone, I'd prefer the 20 minutes per round thank you very much.
Not I. I like the limited action economy of Next. i don't want a return of the minor action in the form of "off-hand action".[/quote]Agreed. If there's one thing I want to stay as a feature of D&D Next, it's the killing of one of the worst min/max
