|
5 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 7:10PM
#151
|
|
|
This seems like something Wotc studies, and I'm willing to believe them if they come out and say multi attacks don't slow the game down. And, if its triggered off of a 2nd mdd, it'll be after people get used to their characters, assuming they start at level 1.
But, I haven't heard Wotc say that multiple attacks don't slow the game down. And, I have heard them say multiple reactions slow the game down, so I'm willing to bet they have reduced the multi attacks because they slow the system down. I know that before our monk got multiple colours dice and got his system, it was very slow.
I don't really mind if fighters have multiple attacks if they roll 1 damage die and they cannot crit when multi attacking, and they must declare their targets at the beginning of the round. By doing that, we reduce the three most common complaints re: multi attacks and time.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 7:58PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
I agree. Multiple reactions slow the game mainly because of compound damage mitigation/reduction. This is why a second reaction is only to be earned at the highest levels of play if at all.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 10:03PM
#153
|
|
|
I agree with you. Multiple attacks doesn't slow the game down.
Characters and monsters who have multiple attacks, do more damage, kill fast, end the encounter fast.
Actually, it takes the same amount of time as giving all characters and monsters a single attack per turn.
2 main attacks or actions, 2 off-hand attacks or minor actions and 2 reactions should be enough. Player-Characters should know what they want to do immediately when their turn begins.
Any more than that and players get impatient because they want to take their turn.
I think they intend to make it as simple as 1 action, 1 reaction. Which, in a combat system where 1 round = 1 or 2 seconds, should be much more in line with more realistic combat. Of course, if only the turn resolution was just as fast, while providing ample depth without drowning players in unnecessary levels of complexity.
And, of course, magic. Especially magic involving preparing 10+ spells per day.
[ Personally I find that the resource management systems currently being employed are just way too complicated. Even the 3d10/round expertise dice seems tame by comparison to the 6d6 martial damage dice. ]
Now if only there were a way to keep everything flowing smoothly, in spite of magic being able to harm multiple creatures ("because magic"), all in a tight core system.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 7:09AM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Within 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 surrounded 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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 7:21AM
#155
|
|
|
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.
 | Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 11:18AM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Being able to attack more than once every 6 seconds is a given, in my book.
And considering that combat in D&D is highly abstract, everybody does.
Being able to attack more than one creature/object in 6 seconds.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:36PM
#157
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:40PM
#158
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:46PM
#159
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:46PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
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.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
