Are Multiattacks a Problem?

[erleni]

Multiattacks have been a mistake from the very beginning. If you look at the classes with one action-one attack powers you see that they are fairly comparable but multiattackers are simply overpowered. It was probably difficult to see that in the beginning when static bonuses were less common but I guess WotC should have addressed multi-attacks a long time ago.
The very notion of Alpha Striking comes from the fact that multi-attacks are available (and honestly 1-2 rounds encounters are absolutely boring 'cause they all look the same).
I think that daily multiattacks should be left where they are, but at-will and encounter multi -attacks/minor action attacks should be removed.

Looking at strikers there's also another reason why I think multiattacks should be removed: they overshadow the striker mechanic of some classes (ranger?) and they make a lot of powers obsolete (Storm of Blades or Hurricane of Blades are no-brainers for barbarians).

 

[Riastlin]

Applying vulnerability only once per turn would also help.

This could absolutely help. I know my players love to combine Rain of Blood (Invoker) with Blood Fugue (Minotaur Racial PP) for obscene results. Throw in Wrath of Gods (Paladin Daily) once a day and it really gets nuts.

That being said, it hasn't annoyed me too much. The minotaur ends up stunned after all, and at least as the DM, I can usually handle damage output from the players. Either a) it helps get rid of some of the grind or b) I use more Brutes(more damage) or artillery (spread out to avoid the RoB + BF combo).

So yeah, multiattacks can really create a ton of damage, but also remember that there's nothing preventing the monsters from multiattacking as well. The squishies really hate being caught in bursts/blasts/and multi-attack ranges.

 

[keterys]

Monsters have less ways to amplify their bonuses to damage. (A lot less)

Another viable way... end of the day, no one really cares if multiple targets are being hit for good damage, it's when one target is focused. So make it so that you only apply damage bonuses (all of them) to a particular target once per round. Once per power if you want to just fix stuff like twin strike, once per turn if you also want to fix minor actions... but it actually takes once per _round_ to fix immediates too. Whee.

 

[keterys]

Monsters have less ways to amplify their bonuses to damage. (A lot less)

Another viable way... end of the day, no one really cares if multiple targets are being hit for good damage, it's when one target is focused. So make it so that you only apply damage bonuses (all of them) to a particular target once per round. Once per power if you want to just fix stuff like twin strike, once per turn if you also want to fix minor actions... but it actually takes once per _round_ to fix immediates too. Whee.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Monsters have less ways to amplify their bonuses to damage. (A lot less)

Another viable way... end of the day, no one really cares if multiple targets are being hit for good damage, it's when one target is focused. So make it so that you only apply damage bonuses (all of them) to a particular target once per round. Once per power if you want to just fix stuff like twin strike, once per turn if you also want to fix minor actions... but it actually takes once per _round_ to fix immediates too. Whee.

What I haven't yet heard anyone really consider is how all of this relates to close/area attacks, which would be drastically affected by any kind of change in stacking. The issues here are a lot more variable as some area attacking powers are problems, and others far less so.

I'd also comment that all these complicated rules structures are both highly gamist and highly unintuitive to most players. I think there has to be a better way. Frankly my solution would be to simply eliminate the concept of multi-attacks entirely in some fashion. I don't know how that happens with area attacks but it seems relatively straightforward in the case of melee powers, simply make the multi-attack aspect a matter of fluff and of requirements. Perhaps the rules for close/area powers would simply be 'different'. Maybe in those cases total damage bonus is simply applied across all targets which are actually hit. Still a bit complicated but probably less annoying.

 

[Herschel]

I don't think it's multi-attacks themselves, most every role has some sort of ability to do that (mark enforcement, bursts, etc.) but giving base multi-attackers a lot of off-turn attack capabilities can be an issue.

The other problem is Superior Weapons. It might work "better" if a Bow Ranger was using an Old School Longbow with d6s it would align damage better with the "Superior" option being Sheaf Arrows upping damage to a d8 and/or sack-o-spuds melee rangers using d6 w/ feat upgrade possible to d8 maybe instead of both having d12 options.

 

[Nyronus]

Anyone who thinks Multi-Attacks are overpowered needs to run an assassin in a one on one fight with a Post-MM3 brute five levels higher. Go on. I dare you.

-

I have run 4e from day 2 of the edition. The only reason I didn't run from day 1 is because I spent day 1 reading the books. I have a campaign that just hit level 21 and am in another that just hit 23. The group in the 21 campaign is, in fact, the posterboy for everything wrong with multi-attacks... and why they're needed. We have 4 Strikers. We really have 3, but our fighter is an optimized Tempest/Son of Mercy and he crits ALL THE GODDAMN TIME, that his burst damage is more or less comparable with the strikers. Our Barbarian has nothing BUT multi-attack powers in his arsenal, on top of so many reactions and counter-attacks it isn't even funny. Our only leader is a DMPC Artificer who, while incapable of doing more than 30 damage in a turn, is a buff-master max who can pump out ludicrous bonuses to hit and damage. Most characters in the party can churn out 100+ damage novas every encounter. The Fighter and the Daggermaster can easily hit 200 to 250+ using encounter powers if they get lucky.

Fights rarely last 4 rounds, and do you know what? Despite all that, fights are still deadly and I still often have to pull my punches to avoid killing characters at least once every two or three game sessions. Monsters do so much damage at high levels that its relatively child's play to kill any single character. They also have such massive bags of hit-points that trying to win wars of attrition with them are a good way to bring back the five minute work-day. Furthermore, melee alpha strikes are great... until your DM throws a bunch of flying minion artillery at you. Then your right ed.

Now, I can understand wanting to pull back on nova tactics to make fights more dynamic and dramatic, and wanting to change the way damage works so more powers and strategies are viable at high level, but the fact of the matter is that monster HP has to drop first, and damage probably could use some cutting as well. Any revision to the system at this point to make this all happen would be a huge amount of money and time, and, in all honesty, kind of a waste. Multi-attacking is the king of single target damage, but single target damage is not the be all end all of the game. I know my party groans every time a fight starts with a bunch of minions 10+ squares away. I know controllers that would give them hell if the fighter couldn't also do his job. I know flying monsters and artillery are the banes of their existences. Multi-attacking is the king of single target damage, but it isn't broken. Not in the way CoDzilla was broken, or the Batman Wizard. It is broken if you do nothing but throw the party up against Solo Lurkers in brightly-lit 5x5 rooms.

So, to sum up:
Mutli-attacks are the kings of single target damage.
Their needed at higher levels because monsters do so much damage and are so tough that without them fights get a hell of a lot harder.
Despite this, multi-attacks are not an always winning strategy as certain monster formations and tactics can make them harder to employ effectively.
Therefore, they are not broken.

 

[Riastlin]

Anyone who thinks Multi-Attacks are overpowered needs to run an assassin in a one on one fight with a Post-MM3 brute five levels higher. Go on. I dare you.

The whole point of MM3 monster math is that you don't need to throw monsters of level +5 at the party any more. So yeah, if you're throwing post MM3 brutes of level +5 at the party, sure, the added damage will be necessary.

 

[keterys]

What I haven't yet heard anyone really consider is how all of this relates to close/area attacks

I don't think most people object to them, to be honest. Spreading around damage is just fine.

Making multiattack single action powers work like Shadow Darts (roll your attacks, total up the dice of damage, apply modifiers once) is a popular fix, still intuitive enough without breaking gamist structures, etc.

The problem is that they've made enough minor and immediate powers that it would just nerf some or change some of the powers in question. Ex: It would hurt barbarians for storm and hurricane of blades (because Cascade of Blades needing immediate errata for being overpowered as a high level daily was unnoticed when they made those two encounter powers I guess

Personally, I hope the next edition has a _lot_ less bonuses to damage and has the equivalent of weapon/implement dice for powers, and you just add your (small) bonus to damage on every die. So you want a 2W power or 2 x 1W multiattack? Sure, whatever, same expected damage.

 

[Nyronus]

The whole point of MM3 monster math is that you don't need to throw monsters of level +5 at the party any more. So yeah, if you're throwing post MM3 brutes of level +5 at the party, sure, the added damage will be necessary.

We can do +4. Then you might make it out with a daily left.

The MM3 math made it so that everything BELOW a +5 encounter was no longer an laughable speed-bump. Now Level+2 and 3 no longer "speed bumps" but "legitimate threats that need our attention to beat in a timely fashion." Level+5s go get dragged out for the "Boss Fight" though.