iterative attacks and TWF

[Baby Samurai]

I'm inclined to think they'll do this via weapon-based maneuvers.

They might also grant a bonus to weapon damage based on CL, like Saga.

 

[Mouseferatu]

They might also grant a bonus to weapon damage based on CL, like Saga.

Oh, I fully expect that, yes.

In fact, I personally think the bonus should be higher than 1/2 level, at least for the martial characters. Maybe make the bonus equal to BAB. But we'll see what happens...

 

[Baby Samurai]

In fact, I personally think the bonus should be higher than 1/2 level, at least for the martial characters. Maybe make the bonus equal to BAB. But we'll see what happens...

Funny, I was just mumbling about that the other day with a buddy of mine.

I also have a feeling they will drop 1/2 BAB and Touch AC.

 

[Aloïsius]

Light weapons should be easier to use in narrow tunnels. I think a fighter with two short swords should have the advantage vs a greatsword in a 5ft wide stairway.

 

[Nebulous]

i.e. in Saga all the 'multiple attack' options Baby Samurai has mentioned are mostly for the purpose of clearing mooks below your level quickly. They are not good tactics to use against people of the same level as you.

Cheers

and i recall reading somewhere that 4e is going to introduce larger fights with more enemies, because it's more "fun". and yeah, it can be. it ALSO pushes the sales of miniatures. Anyway, i think an integrated system in D&D for plowing through goblin mooks is a good idea. Easy enough to houserule anyway, but 3.x edition got into very, very sticky situations with large battles and AoO. I wonder if they'll be using that "half your level in damage" rule...

Was it 1st or 2nd edition that let you make 1 attack/level against enemies with very low Hit Dice?

 

[Nebulous]

Light weapons should be easier to use in narrow tunnels. I think a fighter with two short swords should have the advantage vs a greatsword in a 5ft wide stairway.

I agree, there should be definite advantages to using smaller, lighter weapons over heavy, damage dishing weapons. 3rd edition never had a good way to simulate this (in fact, i don't think any edition did).

One thing that i've thought about in the past is this, but it might add too much complexity to the game: in the real world, heavy armor, large metal shields and weaponry could only be used by very, very strong people. Maybe a character's Strength would be a factor in whether he can effectively wield a greatsword or not? So that fighter with only a 13 strength wouldn't go for the great axe, even though it does the most damage, but because he just can't swing it and recover like the barbarian with the 18 Strength.

 

[RFisher]

But the mace and the short sword, to use your examples, will provide a different array of maneuvers (more finesse-based, I'd imagine), making them equally, but differently, effective.

It'd be nice if the mace were--rather than finesse--about bashing, denting plate armor, & rattling skulls despite great helms.

Was it 1st or 2nd edition that let you make 1 attack/level against enemies with very low Hit Dice?

That was definitely a first edition rule. I don't remember if it survived into second edition.

 

[Christian]

Especially given that combat is "abstracted" (thus the rationale for no facing, HP vs. wounds, etc.) but iterative attacks break this down. If you spend the round dancing around, dodging, parrying, and striking, what do extra attacks represent? The one attack roll identifies whether your various strikes struck true and you dealt damage.

Multiple attacks can be split between opponents. Which, again, can be very handy versus mooks. A Tempest can mow down goblin Warrior 1's at a ludicrous rate ...

 

[RFisher]

Incidentally, despite my normal stance against multiple attacks in D&D, I actually thought the 3e iterative attacks were a good idea. I intend to use adapt it to classic D&D should I even manage to get a group of PCs to high enough level.

 

[Kaffis]

I'm inclined to think they'll do this via weapon-based maneuvers. The greatsword and greataxe will (I expect) still be the weapon of choice for people whose objective is simply to dish out the damage. But the mace and the short sword, to use your examples, will provide a different array of maneuvers (more finesse-based, I'd imagine), making them equally, but differently, effective.

I hope to see sword and board and dual wielding fitted into their proper role -- as more defensive options vs. the damage-heavy two-hander.

Shields in 3.x have never felt quite defensive enough for me. And dual wielding has never been presented as the compromise between the two that it has (to my understanding, at least) historically represented. Instead, dual wielding as "more defensive than two-handed, more aggressive than a shield" gets undermined by spinning two weapon defense off as an additional feat on the already feat-heavy build, and undermined by feats like duelist, which offer the same defensive benefit without the parrying weapon offhand while bypassing a good chunk of the feat investment.