Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pickles JG" data-source="post: 6154241" data-attributes="member: 61501">The Claw Claw Bite thing is a prehistoric issue with D&amp;D - one attack per weapon regardless of the plausibility of being able to direct them all. It applies to two weapon fighting too IMO. I feel there are only a handful of reasons for giving multiple attack abilities. These overlap to some extent.1) Attacking multiple targets at once, usually large attackers eg Giants sweeping their clubs, Triceratops trampling several opponents.2) &quot;Solo&quot; monsters&quot; who need to multiply their actions in a round to keep up with the action economy. Dragons, The Watcher in the Water. 3) Highly skilled individuals who feel wrong doing massive damage in single attacks but need to do lots of damage per round or who feel like they ought to be able to carry out a lot of attacks. Marilliths, Zorro.4) Combo Attacks that need to have several pieces come together to get a big effect ie. lowering the probability for a big effect going off. Bear Hugs or Scorpion Stings. However this really is a clunky slow way of achieving the effect.Ignoring 4 as I think it's a bad reason really the others feel valid with some reservations eg Giving a master swordsman the ability to make 3 normal attacks as an action feels like clean efficient design while giving a giant the same ability feels like lazy design &amp; he should get an attack multiple targets ability. In either case though the fact that an attack represents a flurry of actions means that one attack/dice roll is reasonable. Making it several attacks allows for it to be split across targets if you take down one though so it's worthwhile if it's not on too many villains.Giving a dragon a claw claw bite routine seems OK but not a lion, &amp; even then the dragon can be substantially improved as shown by the legendary templates.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pickles JG, post: 6154241, member: 61501"] The Claw Claw Bite thing is a prehistoric issue with D&D - one attack per weapon regardless of the plausibility of being able to direct them all. It applies to two weapon fighting too IMO. I feel there are only a handful of reasons for giving multiple attack abilities. These overlap to some extent. 1) Attacking multiple targets at once, usually large attackers eg Giants sweeping their clubs, Triceratops trampling several opponents. 2) "Solo" monsters" who need to multiply their actions in a round to keep up with the action economy. Dragons, The Watcher in the Water. 3) Highly skilled individuals who feel wrong doing massive damage in single attacks but need to do lots of damage per round or who feel like they ought to be able to carry out a lot of attacks. Marilliths, Zorro. 4) Combo Attacks that need to have several pieces come together to get a big effect ie. lowering the probability for a big effect going off. Bear Hugs or Scorpion Stings. However this really is a clunky slow way of achieving the effect. Ignoring 4 as I think it's a bad reason really the others feel valid with some reservations eg Giving a master swordsman the ability to make 3 normal attacks as an action feels like clean efficient design while giving a giant the same ability feels like lazy design & he should get an attack multiple targets ability. In either case though the fact that an attack represents a flurry of actions means that one attack/dice roll is reasonable. Making it several attacks allows for it to be split across targets if you take down one though so it's worthwhile if it's not on too many villains. Giving a dragon a claw claw bite routine seems OK but not a lion, & even then the dragon can be substantially improved as shown by the legendary templates. [/QUOTE]

Verification