|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:49PM
#161
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
It's just part of the basic abstraction that one attack roll is not one attack. If that doesn't make any sense to you then I'm sorry but I don't know a better way to explain it.
It's stupid. I'm not going to abstract every part of the game that they want to screw with, just so that what they write down works. Hit points are abstract. That's as far as I am willing to go.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:50PM
#162
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
That makes no sense. If I can attack 3 different people for 1w+mods, then I can attack 1 person three times for 1w+mods each attack. Anything else is nonsensical.
It's not based on any reasonable reality, but it can be seen as a necessary break in order to facilitate gameplay. It would certainly address the issue of focused fire being the overwhelmingly dominant strategy.
I don't see it as necessary, though. Focused fire can be solved a different way.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:52PM
#163
|
|
|
And that's one of the things they said they'd like to do with this change over from mdd to [w], isn't it? If you have 3[w] to attack with, you'll either attack one guy at 3[w]+mods, two guys at 2[w]+mods and 1[w]+mods, or three guys at 1[w]+mods each. So basically each [w] is a separate attack but you only roll to hit and add modifiers once per target.
That makes no sense. If I can attack 3 different people for 1w+mods, then I can attack 1 person three times for 1w+mods each attack. Anything else is nonsensical.
Well as each attack roll represents multiple attacks anyway it makes perfect sense.
I always pictured HP loss as the cumulative amount of energy needed to avoid serious injury from your opponents attacks over the course of 6 seconds. A dagger wielder may make 2x as many attacks as a guy with a great axe but they rarely connect well enough to cause much more than a scratch. The greataxe on the other hand doesn't necessarily chop into you but it takes a lot of effort to avoid being cleaved in half. Both of these combatants attack(s) are represented by a single d20 roll, even though each is attacking multiple times over the course of 6 seconds.
Multiple attacks in D&D never made much sense to me because of that, so this new method makes far more sense than the alternative.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:54PM
#164
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I don't see it as necessary, though. Focused fire can be solved a different way.
I agree. There's no need to make anything in the game any more abstract than is strictly necessary. Arbitrarily reducing the damage against a single target makes the game feel really artificial.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:58PM
#165
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
So basically each [w] is a separate attack but you only roll to hit and add modifiers once per target.
Very simple expression of the idea I like it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 3:02PM
#166
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
And that's one of the things they said they'd like to do with this change over from mdd to [w], isn't it? If you have 3[w] to attack with, you'll either attack one guy at 3[w]+mods, two guys at 2[w]+mods and 1[w]+mods, or three guys at 1[w]+mods each. So basically each [w] is a separate attack but you only roll to hit and add modifiers once per target.
That makes no sense. If I can attack 3 different people for 1w+mods, then I can attack 1 person three times for 1w+mods each attack. Anything else is nonsensical.
Well as each attack roll represents multiple attacks anyway it makes perfect sense.
I always pictured HP loss as the cumulative amount of energy needed to avoid serious injury from your opponents attacks over the course of 6 seconds. A dagger wielder may make 2x as many attacks as a guy with a great axe but they rarely connect well enough to cause much more than a scratch. The greataxe on the other hand doesn't necessarily chop into you but it takes a lot of effort to avoid being cleaved in half. Both of these combatants attack(s) are represented by a single d20 roll, even though each is attacking multiple times over the course of 6 seconds.
Multiple attacks in D&D never made much sense to me because of that, so this new method makes far more sense than the alternative.
If attacking 3 people can yield 3w + 3xmods in damage, then attacking one person can yield 3w + 3xmods in damage. If the attack on one person does less damage than attacking three, something is wrong.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 3:13PM
#167
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
It's just part of the basic abstraction that one attack roll is not one attack. If that doesn't make any sense to you then I'm sorry but I don't know a better way to explain it.
It's stupid. I'm not going to abstract every part of the game that they want to screw with, just so that what they write down works. Hit points are abstract. That's as far as I am willing to go.
If you've ever run 2nd edition, you should be used to it, where a round 1 minute, and you only got 1 attack in that time. I really hope in your game it wasn't both parties standing around for 55 seconds staring at each other before one guy actually took a swing.
Not to mention the whole concept of a "hit" is abstract in the first place. Missing doens't actually meant you didn't connect with your target, it only means you didn't damage your target (and with some exception based rules, even that isn't absolute).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 3:20PM
#168
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
It's just part of the basic abstraction that one attack roll is not one attack. If that doesn't make any sense to you then I'm sorry but I don't know a better way to explain it.
It's stupid. I'm not going to abstract every part of the game that they want to screw with, just so that what they write down works. Hit points are abstract. That's as far as I am willing to go.
If you've ever run 2nd edition, you should be used to it, where a round 1 minute, and you only got 1 attack in that time. I really hope in your game it wasn't both parties standing around for 55 seconds staring at each other before one guy actually took a swing.
Unless you got more than one attack, and then you got........more than one attack that applied the equally whether you attacked multiple opponants or a single opponant. Your example doesn't apply.
Not to mention the whole concept of a "hit" is abstract in the first place. Missing doens't actually meant you didn't connect with your target, it only means you didn't damage your target (and with some exception based rules, even that isn't absolute).
Wrong. A hit is always a "hit". The only abstraction involves hit points. While you may not connect physically, it's still a hit.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 3:25PM
#169
|
|
|
Withint the context of 4e style powers multi-attacks slow the game down. Which is why they were avoided in 4e and limited to powers like twin strike. I think this is why many 4e players don't want to see multi-attacks. From their perspective it means multi-"powers" per round and consequently reactions that need tracking.
But multi-attacks in systems like AD&D or D&D Next don't suffer from this issue. You simply roll all your d20s and start by calling out the worst AC you hit. You can even roll your damage at the same time.
This all reminds me of a house rule our AD&D group tried once. We allowed fighters to make an attack roll against every creature within reach. The more creatures he tried to attack the greater his attack penalty. It actually worked out rather well (technically it was a called shot). Fighters didn't need a special feat called whirlwind or power to attack everyone around them. We created this house rule after a fighter in our party wanted to perform an improvised attack against all 8 orcs that had sorrouned him. All he wanted to do was spin around hit some of them with his two handed sword. IMO, this gave him a lot more freedom per round and was far less limiting than a feat. We even allowed him to reduce his attack penalty if he spent one of his extra attacks.
Yes. When multi-attack is one of many viable choices to make on your turn it slows the game down. When multi-attack is your only option it does not.
Except in 4E, multi-attacking in itself tended to be a power, and in spite of the existence of multi-attacks it was still roughly one per round. What really slowed stuff related to multi-attacking was the existence of non-standard action attacks that each had its own effects: minor action, interrupt, reaction and opportunity attacks. Compare: choosing between 5 (at level 1) to 20 (at level 26, with basic attack options [11], theme [1], paragon path [3], epic destiny [1], and utilities [5], excluding items and feats) powers per turn... and having to monitor all 5-20 powers on a per round basis plus Action Points.
Organizing a sort of SOP works a lot in this regard, but when you're stacking up
- Off-Hand Strike (Martial Power)
- Twin Strike (Player's Handbook)
- Disruptive Strike (Player's Handbook)
- Ruffling Sting (Martial Power)
That's 2 minor actions, 1 immediate action and 1 standard action (2 with AP), all for just one character. That's easily 7 attacks at level 7, each with an additional effect (Disruptive Strike lowers the enemy's attack bonus, Ruffling Sting gives you combat advantage for an attack, while the remaining attacks are simply no-brainer attacks unless you take feats that allow you some additional effects [cold vulnerability advantage anyone?]). So it wasn't so much the multi-attacks per se that were problematic, but the added tracking inclusive of those multi-attacks. - - - - - The reason why I dislike the overal design of D&D Next's martial classes is that while I approve of the limiting of actions to just 2 (action, reaction), it seems that the devs failed to truly address what made both 3E and 4E much slower than they should've been: tracking of options. They did notice it sure, but apparently they've stymied the tracking of options not by simplifying the system, but by simply spreading out less options over more levels. Still, at 6d6 martial damage dice, one skill die (reserved for Parry) and 7 maneuvers, each with varying levels of effects depending on the number of martial damage dice you sink in? - - - - - Here's my very simple litmus test for the system: if a DM can run 5 creatures (using PC features) with the same efficiency as a player can run his PC, regardless of whether the creature is a caster or not, that's a good start. If a DM can run 15 creatures (using PC features) with the same efficiency as a player can run his PC, regardless of whether the creature is a caster or not, even better. But if a DM can run 25 creatures (using PC features) with the same efficiency as a player can run his PC, regardless if caster or not, that's the best option for me. But if the company's rep says that they aren't planning on adding martial damage dice to monsters because it's way too complex, it makes me question the design of that feature. [ At least in 4E I can easily take up 25 minions, some casters, some warriors, some half-mix, and resolve their turn(s) much more quickly than most players would resolve their own turn. That's with minionized wizard spells and fighter exploits. At least in 4E I can have 5 or even 15 standard creatures (some with 1 special attack, maybe one or two creatures with 3), and although it'll take longer than just minions if I go for 15 standard monsters, it's still bearable, especially if those special attacks are just 1/battle or 1/day. And I'm pretty sure that the pre-4E monsters who didn't have spells or spell-like abilities had equally fast turn resolution (although caster turns resolved quickly more from rocket tag and eventually becoming minion-like crossbow-men, assuming the DM went the "lazy" route and just filled up a lot of spell slots with the same spells). So why is it that only in D&D Next is there a design that unnecessarily adds so much tracking, especially if the DM tries to houserule it into his soldier army? Why should the player all of a sudden have to face such staggering complexity? ]
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 3:27PM
#170
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Unless you got more than one attack, and then you got........more than one attack that applied the equally whether you attacked multiple opponants or a single opponant. Your example doesn't apply.
I don't see your point. You're talking about abstracting an attack roll to be multiple attacks as though that didn't happen, but in 2E, it very clearly did. in fact the book specifically said it did. Your one attack roll or two attack rolls or whatever didn't represent one swing, but instead represented strikes you made on your foe over the course of your battle.
The idea that one roll = one swing is flat out not true.
Wrong. A hit is always a "hit". The only abstraction involves hit points. While you may not connect physically, it's still a hit.
Then why does your AC improve by getting plate armor? Why does a big iron golem or a dragon have high AC? The assumption of AC has always been that you can "miss" and basically still strike the creature, you just don't damage it. That's why 3E has a specific touch attack mechanic to differentiate a "hit" from a real hit.
|
|
|
