Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 4875020" data-attributes="member: 23619">How's it going, Sylrae? The 3.5 Rev forum seems to be pretty dead, so its good chatting you up out here.I get that the SW Saga rules are designed for everybody to normally have 1 attack, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to change it for D&D either. The game revolves around 1 attack per character doing a baseline of d6 damage plus modifiers. To compensate for wizards and clerics getting "nukes", rogues get sneak attack and fighters get multiple attacks. Yes, rogues and clerics can get multiple attacks, but if a cleric is going melee, he's not making the most of his spells and if a rogue does, his extra attack is offset by his BAB being lower than the fighter. Everything seems pretty fair until you get near epic levels where the fighter can make 4 primary attacks, 4 off hand attacks (with perfect two weapon fighting), get an extra attack from a Haste/Speed effect, and maybe an extra attack from a Frenzy, and then Dervish lets you double all of that--so, 18-20 attacks in a round is pretty damn silly. But at the same time, if you limit extra attacks to one extra at +6 BAB, you leave little to no incentive to continue advancing in the fighting classes unless you are just feat hungry. I say cap the number of attacks at 4--period. No more than that regardless of whatever feat, class ability, spell or whatever is in effect. So, a fighter can get 4 attacks at BAB 16, a rogue won't get up to BAB 16, but with two weapon fighting, he could get two primary and two off hand attacks. And I would treat unarmed attacks in the same manner as armed attacks. For natural weapon attacks, sure, their BAB can go up, but no extra attacks. Instead, damage increases. A 5hd brown bear gets two claw attacks, and a 20hd dire bear gets 2 claw attacks. The difference lies in the damage. The brown bear may get 1d6 for his claw attacks, but the dire bear could get 4d6 (increasing the number of damage die by 1 per extra attack they would have received--at 6th, 11th and 16th). This may seem unfair when you consider that monsters may also get a bite, tail slap or whatever else, and even a Rake attack (2 rear claws). So, yeah, against a single person the damage can be devastating, but PCs rarely fight monsters solo. The monster has some good damage, but a limited number of attacks, and is typically fighting multiple opponents, each as individually tough as the monster itself.And for those with iterative attacks, they could increase damage as well. Lets say a fighter gets 4 attacks, but doesn't want to make four attacks that may or may not hit, he wants one good attack. So, he adds 1d6 damage per extra attack he would have made! You could change this to 1 extra die of the weapons damage or whatever. Or you could limit it to a maximum of 2 attacks per round instead of 4. And limit natural attacks to the same number. Personally, I think its silly that in the span of 5-6 seconds that a dragon is fast and coordinated enough for the claw/claw/bite routine, plus wing buffet plus tail slap. If everyone was limited to 2 attacks per round, I think that would solve the problem quite nicely. Then you could tweak either damage or even AC to balance out the reduced number of attacks.</blockquote>

Verification