Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 9103140" data-attributes="member: 694">1e and 2e did it differently.In both cases, the multiple attacks were supposed to be staggered through the initiative count rather than all happening at once like in BECMI or 3e. I don't remember ever seeing anyone actually follow that rule, so I'm fuzzy on the particulars, but the idea was that on rounds when fighters got 2 attacks, they were supposed to make their first attack when everybody else did, and their second attack came later in the round, possibly after the enemies' initiative and actions. If you were running a monk with 3 or 4 attacks per round or a fighter who got more than 2 attacks thanks to missile rate of fire or weapon specialization, it was incumbent on the DM to figure out how to spread those attacks out over the whole round, and how they intermixed with the multiple attacks of monsters or other high-level fighters.Presumably, if two monks with a similar number of attacks per round were dueling (such as to claim or defend a high experience level), they'd trade back and forth starting with whoever won the initiative. So if a Master of Spring (#AT 4/round) was defending his title from a challenging Master of Summer (#AT 3/round), it's easy to tell what happens when the Spring monk wins the initiative — the Spring monk attacks first, it goes back and forth, and the Spring monk also attacks last. But if the Summer monk wins the initiative, then what? I have no idea where in the sequence the Spring monk's fourth attack would fall, except maybe to have the Spring monk end the sequence with two attacks in a row.When the number of attacks was factional (e.g. 3/2), 1e let you make the extra attack right away (2 – 1 – 2 – 1…), and 2e made you build up to it (1 – 2 – 1 – 2…). So I like to think of the 1e method as an "action surge with an n-round cooldown" and the 2e method as a "limit break sequence with a buildup bar." Imagine for a moment that you have a low-level monk with 5/4 attacks per round. In 1e, it would basically be like an extra attack that you get to make on the first round of melee, but then three rounds of "cooldown" would have to pass where you can only attack once (or take some other, non-melee action) before you could attack twice again. Compare to the 2e method, where you need to spend three rounds on continuous melee to "build up" the right to make two attacks.Both feel quite different when you think of them that way: I prefer the 1e method, because it's much more generous about breaking off melee and doing other things in a combat, which can help encourage players to be more dynamic during encounters. (Minus all the staggering and initiative segments and all that business, of course. I'm playing BECMI, there's just one melee phase and all multiple attacks happen all at once when it comes around.)</blockquote>

Verification