Removing Multiple Attacks: What changes must be done to monsters?

With the new Saga Edition of Star Wars coming out, and various threads of late that speak of streamlining the combat system of D&D to remove multiple attacks in order to speed up play, I have been considering that very thing for my next campaign. However, it leaves me with a significant question as a DM.

How does removing multiple attacks affect monster stats?

Surely, the monsters can be reduced in much the same means. (I've gathered that from a perusal of True20). However, what about hit points? HPs in previous editions were lower for monsters than in 3E and v3.5. If I'm going to implement this feature in my next campaign, what do I need to bare in mind in regards to monsters and their stats?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated,
Flynn

Damage inflicted by characters will go up, however. I don't know if hit points would need to be tweaked, except at low levels (where damage will be higher and PCs will have many more hit points).

Most monsters only have three or fewer attacks and they're not as complicated, either. It's when you start dealing with intelligent classed multi-armed droids that you might need to worry...

I appreciate the input, but maybe I miscommunicated something in my first post. For that, I apologize. I'm actually talking about doing this with my next D&D-esque fantasy campaign, so droids are not actually part of the equation at the moment. I'm talking the usual run of fantasy beasts and baddies, like dragons, grey renders, trolls, aboleths, fiends, and so on and so forth.

The problem I see is that, on the average, characters will inflict less damage per round. So I get faster play in terms of rounds, but somewhat less effective characters overall in terms of standard v3.5 damage dealing. I am wondering what to do in order to compensate for that in terms of monster stats, so that I don't have players coming back and saying that I'm penalizing them, etc., ad nauseum, without making appropriate changes to the monsters to help balance them out.

I mean, back in 1st and 2nd Editions, we didn't add anything to damage as we went up in level, and we had a great amount of fun in our games. D20 monsters are built on different assumptions, though, and I want to make sure that I scale them back appropriately to account for this change in game mechanics.

There may be other issues involved in making this decision, too, and I'm trying to find out what others think those issues might be in regards to monsters with removing iterative attacks from a fantasy campaign.

Thanks for the comment, though. It's good to know that someone has read the thread and felt motivated to respond.

With Much Appreciation,
Flynn

Hey Flynn--

The best way I can help you envision what's going to happen is to imagine a combat with a beholder in the one-attack system!

Play that out in your mind and you'll begin to understand the ramifications of the change.

I would consider adding a damage bonus where the iterative attacks used to be, or increasing the threat range and/or multiplier of melee weapons as BAB goes up. This would give high level fighters an increased chance to do x2, x3, x4 damage, just as if they still had their iterative attacks.

Put the average fighter's iterative attack DPS into a spreadsheet and see what you need to do, mathematically, to make it all work out.

EDIT: Oh, and I definitely advise you to make the changes on the PC side, rather than the monster side. Would you rather rebalance BAB once, or convert thousands of monsters?

A quick analysis of Damage Per Round produced the table of results below. The following assumptions were made in the process:

1. The weapon used inflicted 1d8 damage (4.5 on the average).
2. The weapon had a crit range of 20, and did double damage on a successful crit.
3. The attacker had a BAB advance of +1 per level.
4. The attacker started with a 15 Str, and increased Str at every ability score increase by character level.
5. The attacker had the Weapon Focus feat at 1st level, and the Greater Weapon Focus feat at 8th level.
6. The attacker had the Weapon Specialization feat at 1st level, and the Greater Weapon Specialization feat at 12th level.
7. The attacker does not have any magical bonuses from his weapon at any level. (It's unrealistic, of course, but acquisition of magical weapons can be pretty unpredictable.)
8. The AC is based on the MM's rule of thumb for AC when making your own monsters (pg 298), which is that AC should be at 13+CR. Considering that half of all encounters are against a CR equal to the character's level, this set the baseline against which percentages for damage were calculated.

Here are the results:

If my assumptions are good, and my calculations are valid (two pretty big assumptions there), then this represents a good minimum to look at. There are too many variables to take everything into account (as a wider threat range might increase damage, as will magic weapons, etc, skewing matters generally in the direction of the iterative attacker), but I figure this is a good baseline.

The Saga solution of adding half your level to your damage is works out better for lower levels and somewhat penalizes you after 10th level, but only by 4.85 hitpoints at the greatest difference, that being at 12th and 13th levels. Five hitpoints usually isn't the difference between the life and death of a character, save for first level, of course, so that may be the best way to go.

Thanks for the guidance, Wulf. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

With Regards,
Flynn

With large creatures like dragons, I'd be tempted to say that its breath weapon is one combat option, and its other option is an area of effect damage effect that allows a Reflex save for half damage. (This would work best in a system in which armor provides DR, so that armored people aren't screwed by having the dragon ignore their armor and just automatically hit them. If you're not using a system like that, have the armor bonus add to the Reflex save for attacks of this type.)

In fact, I'd likely say that for all large creatures with large-type attacks. An ogre might be able to choose between one big whomp attack (club straight down), or a weaker attack that effects a 180-degree arc in front of it, out to ten feet (club sweeping wide). The latter hits everyone in those squares, but offers a Reflex save for half damage (and Evasion works normally here).

With a giant, you do the same thing. With a multiheaded creature like a chimera, you make it a 360-degree arc, as for the dragon, to simulate the whirling frenzy of death.

With large creatures like dragons, I'd be tempted to say that its breath weapon is one combat option, and its other option is an area of effect damage effect that allows a Reflex save for half damage. (This would work best in a system in which armor provides DR, so that armored people aren't screwed by having the dragon ignore their armor and just automatically hit them. If you're not using a system like that, have the armor bonus add to the Reflex save for attacks of this type.)

In fact, I'd likely say that for all large creatures with large-type attacks. An ogre might be able to choose between one big whomp attack (club straight down), or a weaker attack that effects a 180-degree arc in front of it, out to ten feet (club sweeping wide). The latter hits everyone in those squares, but offers a Reflex save for half damage (and Evasion works normally here).

With a giant, you do the same thing. With a multiheaded creature like a chimera, you make it a 360-degree arc, as for the dragon, to simulate the whirling frenzy of death.

Click to expand...

Now, that's an interesting proposal you have there...

What would you base the Reflex DCs on?
Or would you rather have individuals in the area of effect make a "defense roll" against an attack roll?

Land Outcast said:

Now, that's an interesting proposal you have there...

What would you base the Reflex DCs on?
Or would you rather have individuals in the area of effect make a "defense roll" against an attack roll?

Click to expand...

Got me. 10+Str+1/2HD, as a Strength-based save-causing effect?

(FWIW, I'd do the same thing with Whirlwind Attack and Flurry of Blows and other abilities that normally give the PCs extra attacks -- turn 'em into area-effects with a save for half.)

Bear in mind that that's off the top of my head. Could be horribly unbalanced, and it really screws over the armor-based fighter, so armor really needs to help on the save or offer DR or something in that game.

While it's a neat idea, I'm not sure how I'd go about implementing it exactly. The DCs would be one issue to address, as pointed out earlier, and with some of the preliminary work I've done on streamlining the combat system, I'd already gotten rid of whirlwind attack and similar things. I guess in theory that you could resolve it somewhat differently, but keep the spirit the same, as in this:

* * * * *

Sweep: Count the number of foes within reach. Each opponent after the first imparts a cumulative -2 penalty (2 targets is -2, 3 targets is -4, 4 targets is -6, and so on). As a full round action, make a single attack roll, modified by the number of foes penalty, and compare it to AC individually to determine if the attack succeeded against that individual.

* * * * *

(This is essentially the Sweep maneuver from the HERO System, with modifications for a single attack roll.)

No weird or added complexities overall, no automatic damage (unless you have Evasion, you'll always take damage on some level under the Reflex route), no unusual calculations for Reflex DCs, no rules changes to armor, and you can use the monster stats as given.

Just a thought,
Flynn

One of the simplest solutions may be the same way True20 handles multiple natural attacks (or even TWF). If multiple attacks are aimed at the same target then make attack rolls for each attack, the meanest attack that hits deals base damage and each extra hit adds a static bonus to the damage.
Targeting multiple foes works as normal.

The only question with this solution is how much to make that static option be. Personally, I'm tempted to go with something like 1/2 strength bonus per successful extra hit.