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.
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
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.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
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.
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.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
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.
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).
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
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).
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.
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.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes.
