Are Multiattacks a Problem?

[C4]

One of CharOp's simple formulas is: multiattack power + lots of items like iron armbands = a truckload of damage. It's such a simple formula that you don't need the CharOp hive mind to use; you just need to be a work-at-home optimizer. Hence the infamy and popularity of Twin Strike. But I've never experienced it myself; the only ranger I've seen in play is still lower heroic.

So my questions are, 1) is this a problem? If yes, 2) is there a simple way to fix it other than "don't give rangers iron armbands and such"?

 

[Mirtek]

Big-[W] attacks just need something to make them more comparative, maybe adding all bonuses twice.

At the moment three 1[W]+Mods > one 7[W]+mods makes the big-[W] attacks very lackluster, depending on how many mods one stacks it even two 1[W]+mods can be enough to easily beat the five extra [W] of the big attack.

However if it were one 7[W]+2*mods it would be comparable again.

 

[keterys]

It's slightly deeper...

1) With multiattacks and sizable damage bonuses, specifically including minor action attacks, immediate attacks, and multiple attacks per standard, you can achieve excessive damage such that combats ends in 1-2 rounds instead of a more desirable 2-6.
2) Single target single damage roll attacks scale wholly insufficiently for desired damage levels of the system, such that even moderate levels of optimization result in Twin Strike (level 1 at-will) or any minor or immediate encounter (Low Slash, Disruptive Strike, Vengeance is Mine, Powerful Warning, etc) dealing more damage than 7W L29 dailies (ex: Godstrike). This could be more avoidable if some damage bonuses scaled with the number of dice, level of the power, or in some way did not stack with multiple attacks made.
3) Many characters do insufficient damage without a lot of the damage bonuses, so removing damage bonuses can promote grind, even as you solve the over-optimizable multiattack problem.

 

[BobTheNob]

I would say that WOTC has recognised this. If you look at what they did with the scout, its a multi-attacker, but they have taken far greater care with its design that they did with, say, twin strike.

It pumps out fair striker damage and its very tied down and hard to abuse.

This is a little contrary to the thought that Single attack scale damage should be upped to multi attack scales. Its more that multi attack needs to be scaled down to single attack.

 

[Mentat55]

I think single attacks need to do more damage, and multi-attacks need to do less damage. Generally, I am in favor of high damage attacks, but there is some happy medium that is different than the current situation we have.

 

[Obryn]

One possible solution would have to wait for a new edition. That's making damage expressions more explicit, showing in all cases which group of modifiers affect damage.

Right now it's [W] + misc. modifiers + maybe attribute.

By breaking out the miscellaneous modifiers into, say, Enchantment and Miscellaneous, or whatnot, you can set varying power levels of multiattacks.

-O

 

[Neverfate]

One possible solution would have to wait for a new edition. That's making damage expressions more explicit, showing in all cases which group of modifiers affect damage.

Right now it's [W] + misc. modifiers + maybe attribute.

By breaking out the miscellaneous modifiers into, say, Enchantment and Miscellaneous, or whatnot, you can set varying power levels of multiattacks.

-O

My only issue with that is. 4E was a new edition. Someone forgot to check the math. The Ranger attacks for an entire round is just gonna be more effective than a barbarian attacking maybe twice a round. Oversights are going to happen.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One possible solution would have to wait for a new edition. That's making damage expressions more explicit, showing in all cases which group of modifiers affect damage.

Right now it's [W] + misc. modifiers + maybe attribute.

By breaking out the miscellaneous modifiers into, say, Enchantment and Miscellaneous, or whatnot, you can set varying power levels of multiattacks.

-O

Or just have a much flatter increase in hit points for higher level monsters. I mean in AD&D GODS had 200 hp. There's no reason why 4e monsters have to go all the way up to 1000's of hit points. That strictly drives a need to have at least a 5x increase in damage output over 30 levels.

So for a new edition my solution would be to just reduce the number of damage bonuses that can be stacked onto attacks to a small number, so TS won't really DO a lot more damage at high levels, but then monsters will only require maybe a 2x total damage increase. That much can accumulate even from things that relatively don't stack much, while the higher level powers can simply do something like 4 or 5W damage. The exact numbers would have to be figured out, but you could still HAVE multi-attacks and with the right numbers they can be competitive but not better than the epic powers, and overall damage bonuses can be de-emphasized.

 

[C4]

2) Single target single damage roll attacks scale wholly insufficiently for desired damage levels of the system, such that even moderate levels of optimization result in Twin Strike (level 1 at-will) or any minor or immediate encounter (Low Slash, Disruptive Strike, Vengeance is Mine, Powerful Warning, etc) dealing more damage than 7W L29 dailies (ex: Godstrike). This could be more avoidable if some damage bonuses scaled with the number of dice, level of the power, or in some way did not stack with multiple attacks made.

So something like "This damage bonus can only be applied once to a given target per action/turn/round"?

3) Many characters do insufficient damage without a lot of the damage bonuses, so removing damage bonuses can promote grind, even as you solve the over-optimizable multiattack problem.

Assuming the multiattack issue is dealt with, I think grind is easy to deal with. I've been known to shave HP from monsters of all levels, myself.

I would say that WOTC has recognised this. If you look at what they did with the scout, its a multi-attacker, but they have taken far greater care with its design that they did with, say, twin strike.

This may be true. But other than limiting all multiattack options to 'scout', how would you deal with the issue?

By breaking out the miscellaneous modifiers into, say, Enchantment and Miscellaneous, or whatnot, you can set varying power levels of multiattacks.

Well, we do have a few bonus types that could be used as you say. Maybe leave enhancement bonuses as they are now, but apply a multiattack stipulation to other bonus types.

 

[keterys]

Could also remove stacking of untyped bonuses. And any player means to inflict vulnerability. That'd solve a couple of the problems. But, it gets increasingly complex.

Applying enhancement and feat bonuses to a target once per W, for example, would narrow the gap considerably. Though spells are unfortunately far too messy for something so simple.

Applying vulnerability only once per turn would also help.