Attacks per Round

[Falling Icicle]

Wait - it's fine for a 4e wizard to drop a fireball on a room full of minions and make 20 attack rolls, but it's not fine for a fighter to make a Close burst 1 attack and make up to 8 attack rolls? Or are you fine with these as daily or encounter powers, but not at-will attacks? (And even so, you still have your controller Area burst 1 at-wills.)

When the wizard could only do that once per day? Yes, it's fine. I don't mind people doing complicated things on occasion, I just hate people making several attack rolls every single time they take their turn. That, and when we were playing 4e my group usually used a house rule that you only make one attack roll when doing an area attack and apply the result to every target.

 

[Grazzt]

A max of two attacks per round, for fighter types.

I tend to agree with this one. Fighter 2, everyone else (except monsters of course) 1.

 

[howandwhy99]

My 7 attacks / round with 2-3 rolls for each means your turn comes that much later...

 

[DonAdam]

1/attack per round makes a ton of sense if rounds are short.

4e had, I think, the right idea. But the rounds are so long that if you miss you feel like not much has happened for 10-15 minutes. If rounds were shorter then missing is less big of a deal; it will be your turn again in 3-5 minutes.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I think it should depend on style and not competency. A neophyte could conceivably make as many attacks with a blade as a master swordsman in a given set of time. It's the quality of those attacks which vary greatly. On the other hand, I don't care how good someone is with a 50lb maul, he's not realistically going to be swinging more times than the one wielding a katana. I'm no simulationist, but I like the idea of different weapons having their own feel. There would still be plenty of ways for a warrior to improve their combat prowess with a certain weapon type. Granting bonuses to initiative, attack, damage, critical chance, defense, and special maneuvers are strong examples of how this is possible while still maintaining a certain "sweet spot" for number of attacks.

 

[BobTheNob]

A max of two attacks per round, for fighter types.

Its simple, and dont get me wrong, I think it would work (simple and works is a great sign) but lets hope they dont go for 3e style multiclassing, cause Im not sure what would happen in that case

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My vote is single "attack" for everyone, absolutely no exceptions whatsoever, not with two weapons, not with eight arms, not even hasted, no way, no how, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gold piece, no get out of jail free ... Did I mention that I want only one attack?

Despite that, I don't mind a few extra "attack rolls" where warranted. The 4E change to area affects seems counter-intutive after years of the old way, but is faster in practice, and if you think about, even more reasonable in what it models. (For those that don't know, in 4E, something like a fireball gets one damage roll, but an attack roll for each target in the blast. Or if you prefer an earlier resolution, single damage roll with multiple saving throws--mostly the same thing, mechanically.)

IMHO, multiple attacks are simply not worth all the extra trouble that they cause for what little flavor/simulation they provide. And every thing they do provide can be 90% handled via other, less troublesome means. If a warrior type can "cleave" multiple enemies nearby, make that a single "attack" that targets a nearby, small area, resulting in multiple "attack rolls"--that happen to be identical, with a single damage expression. If a skirmisher character attacks really fast with two short blades in each hand, make that a single "attack" with a better chance to hit but a highly variable damage expression. (You might connect a lot or a little, but you probably won't miss altogether.)

Nothing slows down combat in D&D 3E and later like characters rolling attack, then damage, then repeating against the same and/or other targets--sometimes even waiting for resolution of one attack before doing the next. You can say, "roll attack and damage" at the same time until you are blue in the face, and this will still slow everything down.

Flavor the multiple attacks inside an appropate single "attack", and you get good flow at the table: Announce intended "attack", handle rolls, handle descriptions and resolution. No back and forth.

I'm not usually one for slippery slope arguments, but on this one I'm adamant, and don't care who knows it! When it comes to multiple attacks, the only way to be sure is to nuke it from orbit.

 

[Astrosicebear]

If iterative attacks come back baseline dmg per hit will decrease, but if they stay away, damage increases per hit. A simple 3e vs 4e comparison. Based upon what the designers have said about modifiers staying small, I think we will see something modeled after 4e.

I do, however, think that characters should in certain situations get extra attacks whether by feat, class ability, etc. It is very important to the psychology of a fighter or any melee class to be able to do 'more' in certain situations.

 

[hanez]

I thought MANY fighter attacks was a great way to balance against POWERFUL wizard spells.

For me that system was win win, fighters get to do what they do best (slice and dice), and wizards get to blow things up once a round.

I also thought cleave was waaaaaaaaaaaaay more fun for my players then some mechanical burst thing. My players are excited at an extra attack, but the fluff to hurt an area is just a power that they dont translate into anything real in the game.

I know it takes a lil longer, but dice rolling is part of the fun of the game.

 

[BobTheNob]

I thought MANY fighter attacks was a great way to balance against POWERFUL wizard spells.

For me that system was win win, fighters get to do what they do best (slice and dice), and wizards get to blow things up once a round.

Not an untrue statement. 4e went to SO much trouble to "balance" out everything that they put all classes on the same mechanic. Problem was that by the time there were SO many source books out, well...
- Our fighter felt like a wizard with a sword (and some arbitrary tanking mechanics)
- Our ranger felt like a wizard with a bow
- Our rogue felt like a wizard with a knife

I could never shake the feeling that by having got all classes to the same mechanic they had managed to loose class identity.