Are Multiattacks a Problem?

[Nyronus]

Focusing particularly on the "they are needed at high levels" followed by "they are not broken"...I just cannot imagine how I could disagree with this more.

What this means is (hyperthetical conversation between two people)
Person 1 : "Design your character however you want...but make sure you stack him with multi attack powers, because they are needed"
Person 2 : "Hang on, you said design however I want...I dont want multi attack powers, they dont suite the character I am trying to put together"
Person 1 : "No-one is forcing you to take them, you just wont be much good later in the game"
Person 2 : "So I have the right to design an in feasible character?"
Person 1 : "Yep, great design huh!"

If it is was the case that you couldnt cope with the game unless you took certain options, that is a 100% guaranteed sign that something is wrong. How is it even possible to say
1 "You must have them"
and then
2 "There is no problem"?

Fair enough, which is why, if you read my first post you noted I suggested that if we wanted to make more options viable MONSTER HP NEEDED TO DROP, THEN MULTI-ATTACKS NERFED. When I say not broken, I mean they aren't over powered within the context of the game. Which is what everyone else is saying. Not that some people might find something wrong with the set-up. I suppose I could have been clearer.

[MENTION=66049]Psikus[/MENTION]: If I am reading your thread correctly, you ran a party against an equal level encounter twice, what should have been a relatively easy fight, and at least one character is down 40% of their surges. Furthermore, those surge percentage numbers are a little misleading. Almost all of these characters had higher than average healing surge numbers. You have three CON heavy characters, and the other two took durable. I understand why: you most likely had no other feats to take given the parameters of the test, but, still, those percentages are somewhat skewed, and despite that, you still showed a non-trivial reasource expediture on two easy encounters, at least for one character. This is why I said the test ignored the full context of the adventuring day. The fact that the party already has someone down to 40% surge lost tells me that this team might have a hard time getting through an additional L+2, L+3, and L+4 fight. Not garrunteed TPK hard time, but I think they'll be on the ropes by the end of it. This set-up is a not unreasonable adventure day. In all honesty it would be an even truer test if you did a level +5 at the end of it, say against Lolth, or Ogermooch with Backup. The system is meant to handle that type of conflict, or else we wouldn't have a whole series of Level 35 Solo-obviously-campaign-final-boss-monsters. Granted, if you did a sixth fight I would give them the resources they lost in the first test back. Five seems like a good number.

 

[keterys]

After the MM3 changes... an at-level encounter can actually be a serious encounter now.

At least, for the assumed power level of the game, even if not the optimized power level of the game.

Personally, I'd prefer to see upgrades on the low end of the spectrum and downgrades on the high end of the spectrum.

Ex:

1) Make all multiattack powers work like Shadow Darts. If you hit the same target more than one time, you simply total the number of dice, but do not add modifiers more than once on that target.
2) For single target single attack standard action encounter and daily attacks (and only when used as a standard action), add a bonus to damage equal to the character level.
3) Whenever you make an attack as anything other than a standard action (ex: free, minor, opportunity, or immediate action), your non-critical damage maximizes at 10 + level.

Which is a heck of a butchery of the system, and obviously not happening, but at least lets you go...

Hmm, at 17th level, do I want a 4W standard action power that does 28 + 7 stat + 4 enh + 4 item + 2 feat + 17 = 62 damage, or a 2 x 3W attack that does 38 to two targets or 59 damage to one target, with a better chance of critting and more reliable chance of doing any damage. Or a 3 x 1W attack that does 24 to 3 targets, or a single for 38 damage with even greater chance for a crit and nearer guarantee to doing at least some damage. Especially if you had another 2-3 extra dice if you hit at all. Or pick up a minor or immediate that does 27 damage, and combine it with an at-will that does 29. A whole lot of pretty valid choices.

 

[Psikus]

[MENTION=66049] (...) this team might have a hard time getting through an additional L+2, L+3, and L+4 fight. (...) This set-up is a not unreasonable adventure day [/B]. In all honesty it would be an even truer test if you did a level +5 at the end of it, say against Lolth, or Ogermooch with Backup. The system is meant to handle that type of conflict, or else we wouldn't have a whole series of Level 35 Solo-obviously-campaign-final-boss-monsters.

It's true that the tested party would sweat to beat those encounters, and might even fail to do so. But that's a pretty tough encounter sequence. I'm not convinced that the system is intended to present that kind of threat, outside of exceptional cases.

[SBLOCK]The DMG describes hard encounters as ranging from lv+1 to lv+3, and recommends using up to one lv+3 encounter per level. lv+4 fights are rarely mentioned, and lv+5 is unheard of, at least in the DM guidelines. There aren't that many Level 35 solos in the game (I count 4, 2 of which are versions of Lolth), though we have a bunch of L34 ones which could be used with support. Also, the DMG is not explicit about the length of an adventuring day, but I have always assumed that you either

My point being: that series of fights is fairly above the game's expectations. Yet I'm sure many parties use that kind of fights, particularly at higher levels. Optimized PCs can handle that, and more. But failing to do so should not be held as proof that a party is not performing well.

Looking at official adventure modules (Keep on the Shadowfell and onwards), most encounters tend to range between level and level+2, with the final boss (one in ~30 fights) being level +3. This is actually less hard fights than suggested in the DMG, but it gives an indication of what is considered 'normal'. I haven't read E3, but I assume they have the final battle with Orcus as level 34-35 because a) it's the climatic end of the whole campaign, and b) it's not all that terrible if you TPK

To sum up, I think some adequate encounter sequences to test a party under average conditions would be:
- Long Adventuring day with five encounters: 2x level+0, 2x level+1, 1x level+2
- Hard Adventuring day with three encounters: level, level+1, level+3

Extremely hard encounters (or series thereof) have their place in tests, but I think that observing more conventional scenarios should go first.[/SBLOCK]

(...) you ran a party against an equal level encounter twice, what should have been a relatively easy fight, and at least one character is down 40% of their surges. Furthermore, those surge percentage numbers are a little misleading. Almost all of these characters had higher than average healing surge numbers. You have three CON heavy characters, and the other two took durable. (...) those percentages are somewhat skewed, and despite that, you still showed a non-trivial reasource expediture on two easy encounters, at least for one character. (...)

On-level encounters are still expected to spend PC resources. Using up to 20% of PC surges per encounter sound pretty reasonable to me, even for a fight of average difficulty. Also, these PCs were very conservative in their use of daily attacks, which was a factor in surge spenditure, but also would help them face tougher encounters at a later point (with both warpriest and mage having 3 remaining dailies each).

As for the test results being skewed because the PCs had lots of surges... [SBLOCK]well, I admit THAT hadn't crossed my mind. When having Durable is cited as an unfair advantage, I know I have made a good job de-optimizing my characters. Take away the 2 extra surges, and one of the Con-dependent PCs, and I guess you cut the adventuring day of the party from 5 fights to 4. That's far from ideal, but still far from "no multiattack = TPK", in my book. Never mind that these guys have a lot of things stacked against them, already: no relevant gear, tons of filler feats, default paragon paths, and mediocre epic destinies.[/SBLOCK]

Again, I agree that longer, more rigurous tests should be taken - and I'll do so. Then again, I'm afraid that what I consider the game's medium difficulty will still be too easy for your tastes.

 

[Destil]

No, they're a symptom.

The problem is bonus stacking. And it's an even bigger one with charging, which limits multi-attacks but still ends up being very broken with enough junk piled on.

When 4E was first previewed one of the biggest things they claimed to fix was stacking (though in 3E it's all but a solution, look at AC), since it was only intended to have 4 bonus types (item, racial, feat, power). But over time enugh untyped bonuses (and enugh options to make sure you can max every typed bonus on every attack) have been introduced to the point that the system strains a bit under their weight if players focus on them to the exclusion of anything else.

If I could do one thing to clean up the rules it would be go through and type about 90% of the bonuses, so only the really narrow ones or the one's that don't scale at all were untyped. And scale down some bonuses pretty strictly (iron armbands would be okay at +1/tier instead of +2, not so much an automatic choice and leaves design space for a rare like Gauntlets of Ogre Power).

Damage isn't the only place this is an issue, Astral Seal abuse only really comes into play with a lot of items that add a bonus to healing (IMHO every bonus to healing needs to be re-written as a bonus to the healing surge value of your target, and only class features should allow this as an untyped bonus).

 

[Gortle]

Yes very much agreed. Give us back the design space for all those items and feats. Make it so Vanguard weapon and Horned helm don't stack, etc, etc.

 

[keterys]

Sure, a character could at the highest level possible get 3d6 from helm, 2d6 from weapon, and say 2d6 from surprising charge, for an extra 7d6 on charges. That should still put charging at best on an even foot with their other encounter powers, and still behind standard action multiattacks.

The trick is that it lets you load up on minors and immediates.

And the more horrible trick is if they exploit Kulkor Arms Master and that charge prones and sets up a free extra attack.

I actually think even just vanguard at 3rd level is a problem for overemphasizing charges, and that's nothing to do with stacking. I do think changing horned helm to +4 item bonus per tier to charge damage, vanguard to +2 * enhancement item bonus to charge damage, and surprising charge to, say, a +2 untyped bonus to damage, or +2/4/6 feat bonus... would remove some of the overemphasis on basics/charges in the system, though.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yes very much agreed. Give us back the design space for all those items and feats. Make it so Vanguard weapon and Horned helm don't stack, etc, etc.

Hey hey hey!! My Mul Barbarian would like to have a word with you.

 

[C4]

No, they're a symptom.

The problem is bonus stacking. And it's an even bigger one with charging, which limits multi-attacks but still ends up being very broken with enough junk piled on.

So maybe the only simple solution for 4e is "Don't give your PCs lots of items that boost the same shtick."

EDIT: I'd like everyone's opinions on what comes next:

But I'm a tinkerer at heart, so I'm considering adding this house rule to my Complete 4th Edition:

• Ability and enhancement bonuses work as per official RAW.
• All other bonus types (including untyped) apply to only a single damage roll per standard action attack. You can choose which damage roll to apply bonuses to after rolling your attack rolls. Extra damage and vulnerabilities are likewise limited to once per standard action attack.
• If an attack is any other kind of action, only ability and enhancement bonuses apply. Attacks that are listed as standard actions get all bonuses, even if they're used as a different action type. (Like making a MBA as an OA.)

This severely limits damage stacking on multi, minor and immediate attacks, but leaves all other attacks unaffected. So the rule won't even effect a lot of players. And as for HP bloat, that's easily solved with a bit of trimming as desired by a DM.

That said, is my house rule worth the text?
Does it do what it's meant to do? (Make sure multi attacks are only a little better than other attacks, damage-wise?)
Does it create new balance issues?
CB concerns aside, would you enforce it as a DM or want to adhere to it as a player?

 

[keterys]

Seems decent. You'll want to think on things that add extra dice, which aren't definitely thought of as a "bonus stacking" (ex: horned helm, vanguard, etc)

And, of course, vulnerability is still a "thing" for multiattacks / offturn attacks. A vulnerability 10 or 20 to radiant isn't hard to arrange at higher level, and stacks up fast.

I can see some people arguing that it limits things like fighter combat challenge too much. But, meh.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Why do people bring up Twin Strike when the Scout's Dual Weapon Attack is just as bad?