Are Multiattacks a Problem?

[keterys]

And in a world without massive multiattack novas, you can do n+0 to n+3 decently well.

The real proof that it's broken, however, is not in whether the game is playable with them, but how much injury they do to the rest of the powers being worth consideration, and how the same encounters would run for a group that didn't max out on multiattacks.

Fwiw, they've been doing playtests on the CharOp boards where the theory that multiattacks are required at higher levels came up, and it was disproven multiple times by sending slayers, thieves, hunters, etc with single attacks up against stuff and them managing to play the game just fine.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

This is flat out incorrect. Check char-ops tests with non-optimized parties, who still win battles by the 5 round threshhold. Multi-attacks are not required, and ARE currently broken. The insance stacking of huge mods applying multiple times in a round is why fights are over before they begin at upper levels.

My suggested fix is to remove the damage rolls from most MA powers, reducing the mods that can stack on them. Same with many immediate interrupt/reaction powers (aside from mark punishment). If you want to take a power that lets you act more than once, act outside your turn, or attack as a minor action, you should pay a big damage premium compared to the guy taking a big single attack.

Also, kill Iron Armbands (and their kin) entirely. Buff up single damage powers somewhat, and you've restored some balance at upper levels.

 

[bganon]

It sounds like there are multiple levels of "broken" or "problematic" under discussion.

There are a number of possible questions.

1: Are multi-attacks breaking the game overall? It seems that for many people the answer is "not really, they're in fact somewhat necessary given new monster math", but there's still some debate about the extreme ends of optimization.

2: Are the top multi-attack builds clearly superior to the top single-attack builds? The answer here seems to be "not always by much, the new Essentials builds seem to hold their own", but at least to me the picture here isn't as clear.

3: Are multi-attack powers clearly superior to single-attack powers within a given class (or "subclass")? It seems to me that in many cases the answer is "clearly yes, to the extent that hardly anyone builds single-attack rangers (without Essentials)".

IMO, the biggest problem is 3. Basically whole chunks of several of the PH1 classes (and a few of the later ones) are not really that viable in the end. However, I don't really know the best way to address this. It basically means rewriting old powers (extensive errata) or just providing new builds (which is what Essentials is basically doing).

 

[keterys]

1: Are multi-attacks breaking the game overall? It seems that for many people the answer is "not really, they're in fact somewhat necessary given new monster math", but there's still some debate about the extreme ends of optimization.

Yeah, there's a very big difference between one 18th level character who makes two attacks for ~20 damage each and another who makes three every round for 40 damage each... and, of course, the stereotypical CharOp "nova" that one shots almost any solo is never a healthy thing.

2: Are the top multi-attack builds clearly superior to the top single-attack builds? The answer here seems to be "not always by much, the new Essentials builds seem to hold their own", but at least to me the picture here isn't as clear.

Well, it depends - in many cases, they're talking about using a thief or slayer with the kulkor arms build, a feat for rain of blows or low slash, maybe a feat for agile opportunist, maybe a helpful warlord (and the essentials builds work great with warlords) such that they do get several attacks per round.

3: Are multi-attack powers clearly superior to single-attack powers within a given class (or "subclass")? It seems to me that in many cases the answer is "clearly yes, to the extent that hardly anyone builds single-attack rangers (without Essentials)".

The only real competition is charging - and often that competition is to charge in such a way that you get two attacks

 

[keterys]

As an example of an essentials character who isn't so essentials - I DMed for a Thief who had Twin Strike at-will from race, made rbas whenever she crit (more often with twin strike) got an inevitable shot every other encounter, and was in a party with a warlord that would wield her for fairly obscenes rbas.

And if she'd been mixing it up invisibly in melee (cause she was always hidden), she'd have gotten a bunch of opportunity attacks too. Just chose not to, for whatever reason.

So, yeah, not quite the "Essentials" that were being playtested over on CharOp as working just fine Quite a bit more powerful, with better gear, feats, etc.

At epic, it actually can require care to ensure that combat even hits the 2nd round, nevermind 3rd, for a more optimized party. It's... not pretty.

 

[MrMyth]

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"?

In my experience, it is one of the biggest balance issues in the game. Even in a party with characters that weren't explicitly optimized, at high levels, the ranger just outpaced most other strikers in damage due to making so many attacks. The only real optimization at hand consisted of "Choose whatever powers let me make the most attacks."

At the same time, it isn't really an easy problem to address - at least, not without large-scale changes to the system as a whole.

If I was building the game from the ground up, I'd probably have most 'multi-attack' powers work like Shadow Fire - you make multiple attack rolls, and you hit as long as one of them hits, with extra hits just yielding extra damage on the base attack. (Rather than being resolved as multiple damage rolls, with all the bonuses that entails.)

Similarly, minor action / immediate interrupt and similar 'free' attacks would be much more limited in damage - possibly just a static amount of damage. Thus allowing them to still be a benefit, but not necessarily letting characters double their damage output. Combining this with an emphasis on striker features like Hunter's Quarry, it means that such powers would be useful when such characters miss with their normal attack and want a second attack to do nearly full-damage - but can't just instantly nova an enemy with numerous full-damage attacks.

Of course, one can't really make those changes in isolation, and I'm sure other issues would develop that need to be addressed elsewhere in the system. For example, the balance of power with area attacks or attacks that hit multiple enemies, and so forth.

 

[Zaran]

My solution would be as follows:

Only apply modifiers once per attack power. Make them more like Area or Close attacks. You can even do it so the Ranger can distribute the modifiers between targets as they see fit.

 

[Mengu]

The problem is not necessarily multiple attacks, but the varying degrees of optimization.

Looking at two level 6 wardens, the earth warden was dealing 1d10(b2)+18'ish damage and had AC 24'ish, the wild warden was dealing 1d10+7'ish damage, and had AC 21'ish. In the party with the earth warden, there is a halfling ranger that does 1d8+5 damage with her pair of scimitars plus a d8 for quarry, after all the bonuses. She can make better use of leader bonuses and immediate attacks, to compete, but she really needs those two attacks. Alongside the second warden, we have a crazy longtooth shifter hybrid ranger|fighter with a battle axe and hand axe, regularly dishing out 1d10+10 and 1d6+10 and a 1d8 for quarry. Add immediate or minor action attacks, and this ranger is laughing at the wild warden who thinks he is a part time striker. Now switch the pairings around, and you suddenly reduce the disparity.

If degree of optimization could be controlled, I think multi-attack characters are good for the game. They increase tactics, which is always a plus. A leader knows to buff the attacks of the multi-attacker. A controller knows to soften up and debuff the target of the multi-attacker. I like all of that. So the multi-attacker gets a bit more kill glory, doesn't bother me too much.

Maybe one way to go about it is limiting multi/off-turn attacks to encounter powers, rather than at-will, though at high levels, that might not change much. Maybe some powers need to get a gold star (multi-attack, minor action, immediate action), and you can have only one gold star power. For better balance, I think some sort of moderation would be key. Then as a party you try to milk those gold star powers as best you can through good timing and cooperation.

 

[Nyronus]

This is flat out incorrect. Check char-ops tests with non-optimized parties, who still win battles by the 5 round threshhold. Multi-attacks are not required, and ARE currently broken. The insance stacking of huge mods applying multiple times in a round is why fights are over before they begin at upper levels.

Man, this would be a crippling rebuttle of my position if, you know, those weren't five round fights against equal level foes with absolutely no fights before or after, and dailies being burned in each fight. Let's try to keep experiments in context.

Parties will nine times out of ten beat a single fight in a few rounds if they can go all out. Generally with little or no casualties. If they can burn dailies and surges at leisure there's really no risk in a battle at all. Resource management is a huge part of the game, and why the fifteen minute adventure day can be such a problem for encounter challenge. None of the "from the labs" account for this, save for the Death March one which has yet to be completed, so saying that they prove that multi-attacks are pointless and broken is more than a little dishonest.

Also, to those who say that their broken because they're better than 90% of the game material, consider for a second that just because something is in the minority does not make it wrong. It could very well be that the other 90% of stuff is far to weak, not that the top 10% is too strong. Being the best doesn't mean being broken. To conflate the two is a serious fallacy.

 

[Gortle]

1: Are multi-attacks breaking the game overall? It seems that for many people the answer is "not really, they're in fact somewhat necessary given new monster math", but there's still some debate about the extreme ends of optimization.

No. It is very easy for the GM to compensate if the PCs are doing too much damage or too little damage.

There are a lot of other effects and tactics apart from damage. It really only gets to be a problem if you have a player with a poorly designed striker who is being overshadowed by damage from other classes.
No complex system is going to be able to avoid that. Character design is an interesting part of the game.

The solution is to help the player with their design or encourage them to play a PC with a different role.

2: Are the top multi-attack builds clearly superior to the top single-attack builds? The answer here seems to be "not always by much, the new Essentials builds seem to hold their own", but at least to me the picture here isn't as clear.

There are a lot of multiple attacks. It is not just minor action attacks and multiple strike attacks - there are bursts, blasts, areas attacks, zones, granted attacks, interrupts and reactive attacks. Everyone can get in on it. Non ranger strikers get more benefit from granted attacks as they can still rage, oath, sneak attack etc out of turn. The fighter in my current campaign is really a burst 1 specialist.

3: Are multi-attack powers clearly superior to single-attack powers within a given class (or "subclass")? It seems to me that in many cases the answer is "clearly yes, to the extent that hardly anyone builds single-attack rangers (without Essentials)".

IMO, the biggest problem is 3. Basically whole chunks of several of the PH1 classes (and a few of the later ones) are not really that viable in the end. However, I don't really know the best way to address this. It basically means rewriting old powers (extensive errata) or just providing new builds (which is what Essentials is basically doing).

I agree that half the powers, feats and paragon paths are just not viable and removing them from the game would be a net positive. Single target powers need to have extra bite to be worthwhile - and many of them do. I don't really see this as a purely multi atack problem.

WotC has always produced heaps of material that is poorly balanced. Look at all the unused powers in Martial Power 2. It would be nice to see at least 3 good powers at each level for each major build type with a couple of OK powers that work best in specific circumstances. That is hard to do. 4th ed is much better than 3rd where whole classes were crap. But it is what WotC are paid for.