D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?

[Fanaelialae]

True, there's a jump in the variance. However, increasing damage increases variance even more.

[sblock=Example math]Suppose attacks are balanced to hit with a natural 8 or higher. Assume e.g. damage 1d8 without bonus (any will do).

To get equivalent average damage with two attacks, you need to apply a -6 penalty. Variance increases about 20% (standard deviation 10%).

To get equivatent average damage with double damage, you still need to apply a -6 penalty. However, variance increases 80% (stddev 35%).[/sblock]
Multiple attacks lead (unsurprisingly) to more consistent combat performance than damage increases.

What's your point? That's never the way the math worked in D&D. Your above example assumes no modifier, and moreover seems more like a mathematical exercise.

A more realistic example would be that you want two fighters to do similar amounts of damage. One dual wields 1d6 swords (2 attacks) while the other two hands a 1d12 sword (1 attack). Both have 18 Str.

[sblock=Example]At first level, assuming 100% accuracy the DW deals:
Min 10
Avg 15 (this doesn't include crits)
Max 20
One Max (Double damage) Crit: 30
Two Crits: 40

TH does:
Min 5
Avg 10.5
Max 16
Crit 32

Clearly the dual wielder outperforms the two hander here, but 100% accuracy is hardly realistic, so let's assume a 50% base accuracy, and adjust the DW's penalty to bring him in line with TH.

DW (50%)
Avg 7.5
Abs Max 40

TH:
Avg 5.25
Absolute Max (Max Crit) 32

The DW deals about 1/3 more damage, so we'll apply a -4 penalty to roughly balance him:
DW (30%)
Avg 4.5
Abs Max 40


Now lets assume that the PCs have gained a few levels, increasing Str to 20. We'll say that DW has two +2 swords while TH has one +3 sword (because he only has to buy one sword, instead of two).

TH (50%)
Avg 7.25
Abs Max 40

DW (25%)
Avg 5.25
Abs Max 52[/sblock]

DW's average damage has fallen behind TH's by 2 DPR (Damage per Round), so clearly the penalty needs to be lessened. If we decrease it by 1, DW's average increases to 6.3, and if we decrease it by 2, the average becomes 7.35. But what happens if, soon after that, DW is able to acquire one (or even two) +3 swords?

Mind you, these are just "back of the envelope" numbers, so to speak. They don't even try to take into account the fact that DW is twice as likely to crit as TH. It's just there to demonstrate that the numbers don't exist in a vacuum.

DW will continue to set the standard for hp numbers. After all, if you don't want a solo creature to be one-shot, his hp have to be higher than DW's absolute maximum value. Because while it won't happen often, double crits do happen. Heck, last game I rolled four natural 1s in a row (0.0006% chance). And (unfortunately) I can't even say that that's the first time I've pulled that unlucky feat off!

My point was that they aren't significantly more difficult to analyze. You can balance the effects on average damage and variance pretty much as easily as with attack bonus or damage increases. I prefer multi-attack because it leads to more consistent performance, which should be the fighter's "thing" IMO.

Sure, you can mitigate jumps by introducing bonus attacks in an iterative fashion (which was basically, each attack after the first has a cumulative -5 penalty) but that's a terrible approach (IME). At higher levels, those attacks are a waste of time.

Analyze may have been a poor choice of words. Is there a term for "examining the average, as well as upper and lower bounds, of the damage of various attacks in order to balance them against each other and the hp system"?

Attack forms should be balanced against each other. TH shouldn't regularly feel like an idiot for choosing his fighting style because DW is dishing out significantly more punishment (nor the other way around). That would be indicative of a poorly designed system (IMO).

Attacks also need to be balanced against hp. If my boss is one shot because DW rolled a lucky pair of crits, I'd be annoyed as DM. I have no problem with lucky crits making a battle shorter or easier than I expected, but two crits shouldn't render the antagonist laughable.

There are other means to achieve more consistent performance. Allowing fighters the ability to reroll a miss x/encounter (or day), for example. Multi attack penalties have significant issues in this respect. Against a high AC, for example, the only consistency you can expect is to miss constantly.

 

[Hassassin]

What's your point? That's never the way the math worked in D&D. Your above example assumes no modifier, and moreover seems more like a mathematical exercise.

The point was to compare the effect of multiple attacks vs. damage increases, without having to know what the progression would look like. It was just to show that multiple attacks result is more consistent damage.

A more realistic example would be that you want two fighters to do similar amounts of damage. One dual wields 1d6 swords (2 attacks) while the other two hands a 1d12 sword (1 attack). Both have 18 Str.

Combat styles have to be balanced with any level increases, but are mostly unrelated to whether the number of attacks or damage dealt should increase.

DW will continue to set the standard for hp numbers. After all, if you don't want a solo creature to be one-shot, his hp have to be higher than DW's absolute maximum value. Because while it won't happen often, double crits do happen. Heck, last game I rolled four natural 1s in a row (0.0006% chance). And (unfortunately) I can't even say that that's the first time I've pulled that unlucky feat off!

If multiple attacks work anything like 3e, you don't usually get the benefit on first round. In any case, double critical is very unlikely (1 in 1600 if chance to hit is 50%). I'm fine with it killing a level appropriate monster in one.

Sure, you can mitigate jumps by introducing bonus attacks in an iterative fashion (which was basically, each attack after the first has a cumulative -5 penalty) but that's a terrible approach (IME). At higher levels, those attacks are a waste of time.

Which is why Trailblazer made them use the same modifier. Also reduces jumps, but without making any of the attacks a waste of time.

There are other means to achieve more consistent performance. Allowing fighters the ability to reroll a miss x/encounter (or day), for example.

I don't like "dice tricks" like rerolling, and encounter/daily abilities are the opposite of consistency. But they could do something like that.

Multi attack penalties have significant issues in this respect. Against a high AC, for example, the only consistency you can expect is to miss constantly.

Yes, multiple attacks are bad if balanced poorly. Balance them so that average damage is reasonable and you will have consistent hits.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The point was to compare the effect of multiple attacks vs. damage increases, without having to know what the progression would look like. It was just to show that multiple attacks result is more consistent damage.



Combat styles have to be balanced with any level increases, but are mostly unrelated to whether the number of attacks or damage dealt should increase.



If multiple attacks work anything like 3e, you don't usually get the benefit on first round. In any case, double critical is very unlikely (1 in 1600 if chance to hit is 50%). I'm fine with it killing a level appropriate monster in one.



Which is why Trailblazer made them use the same modifier. Also reduces jumps, but without making any of the attacks a waste of time.



I don't like "dice tricks" like rerolling, and encounter/daily abilities are the opposite of consistency. But they could do something like that.



Yes, multiple attacks are bad if balanced poorly. Balance them so that average damage is reasonable and you will have consistent hits.

Yes, you are likely to have consistent hits. At the cost of higher burst that the system needs to account for.

Also, if you balance that average damage by using attack penalties as you suggest (and as in Trailblazer), those consistent hits more easily degrade into consistent misses. There's a reason Trailblazer found two attacks at +20/+20 to be better than four attacks at +20/+15/+10/+5 (except against creatures that you can hit on a nat 3 or only hit on nat 18).

 

[Tortoise]

As recently as this week (or was it last?) word from the design group was that fighters were nowhere near settled as far as mechanics go.

I do think that avoiding multiple attacks in most instances would be best, but how to give the fighter some oomph is the question.

The example of increasing damage and letting it potentially be spread out has potential if it is done in a way that makes sense.

Perhaps let the fighter roll once against an enemy and if hits then he could give an adjacent enemy with equal or lower ac of the target a couple points of damage as well.

That might be the type of options available instead of a basic plus 1.

Just had another idea. Perhaps multiple attacks might be left to magic spells and items to grant instead. "Sure that sword is only plus one, but watch how powerful it is when goblins are the enemy!"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Just had another idea. Perhaps multiple attacks might be left to magic spells and items to grant instead. "Sure that sword is only plus one, but watch how powerful it is when goblins are the enemy!"

Situational multiple attacks would be a very nice use of the mechanic. It's special because it is rare, but powerful enough that players would be eager to go after it when it might apply. What a great magic abilty for a [creature type] slayer weapon!

On spreading damage, I'd be fine with letting the fighter do some kind of "sweep" single attack, and then divying the damage up however he wants. That'd be a nice perk.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd rather not make the fighter's ability to conduct multiple attacks be limited to magic items - as long as the wizard has spells such as fireball that can strike multiple foes at once. And I think that's where the biggest problems lies; area of effect spells vs. multiple attacks.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd rather not make the fighter's ability to conduct multiple attacks be limited to magic items - as long as the wizard has spells such as fireball that can strike multiple foes at once. And I think that's where the biggest problems lies; area of effect spells vs. multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks such as whirlwind attack (grants one attack against all nearby targets, and therefore is functionally similar to fireball) are fine. I have no issues with them aside from that I find them silly if used at will. Under the hp system, due to a lack of wound penalties (not that I want wound penalties), area damage tends to be far less valuable than concentrated damage.

Multiple attacks are primarily an issue when you can focus two (or more) attacks against the same target. While attack penalties might bring those attacks in line with the average output of a single attack attacker, the burst tends to be much higher (double chance to crit, and a chance to double crit). IMO, therein lies much of the problem.

I'd have few qualms with an attack style that allows the fighter to make multiple attacks, but limits him to one attack for an individual creature. However, I'm dubious as to whether that would satisfy those who like multiple attacks.

As for making it part of magical items, I'm not especially fond of that idea. I prefer the idea that it's the fighter who defines himself, not his gear. It's not that gear can't be significant, but the blade should never be more acclaimed than the hand that wields it, IMO.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm a fan of one attack per opponent you are fighting.

 

[Janaxstrus]

fractional like 2e or iterative like 3e.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like multiple attacks, but your rate of BAB degredation should be based on how many attacks you do make, not how many attacks you could make.

IE:
1 attack: full bonus.
2 attacks: -2 penalty to each.
3 attacks: -4 penalty to each.
4 attacks: -6 penalty to each.
ect..

There would be feats along the levels that would allow you counter this, weapon focus already gives you +1, so lets give out say, Multi-Attack Focus, +1 to attacks when making more than one attack in a round. Followed by Multi-attack specialization: Fighter 12, Weapon Focus; +2 to all attacks when making multiple, stacks with other attack bonuses.

Ect...

That way we could get some serious variation between players who want to do ten bajillion attacks in a round, and people who want to do 3.