No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[Flynn]

1.) So you think we should keep the full attack action, and that you should still multiply the damage (by number of attacks) when attacking as a standard action? For a greatsword wielding fighter, that would make no difference if he chose a standard attack of a full attack (he would get the same damage).

If you have more than one source of attack (i.e. two weapons or more than one natural attack), then in my game, it takes a full-attack action. (i.e. if you are making more than one attack roll in the round, it takes a full-attack action.) If you only make one attack using one weapon (or natural attack), it only takes a standard action.

For the sake of simplicity and avoiding having to track two different sets of weapon damage, I'm perfectly okay with allowing the multiple for the single attack.

2.) So do you think it is a good idea to multiple the static bonus as well as the base weapon damage as in my variant II, or to just multiply the base weapon damage as we discussed last Friday?

My calculations worked because the multiple static bonus was NOT multiplied. My apologies for any confusion. I was just clarifying my opinion on those two variants being so similar to me. My actual and true position is to support Variant I. Again, my apologies for the confusion.

In Service,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

The other solution is to let the critters' primary attack get multiplication as a standard attack and then let it have the option of additional (normal) attacks, as I suggested.

In a standard game, the PCs get iterative attacks, and the monsters get single attacks per natural attack.

In this variant, we suggest replacing iterative attacks with multipliers. The results, then, are:
PCs get multipliers, and the monsters get single attacks per natural attack.

If you multiply those single attacks, you are saying that those were iterative attacks, and thus changing the way monsters work. You can do that in your game if you like, but realize that what you are suggesting is not how monster attacks worked before.

Next question: Damage Reduction (difficult one )

You probably have only three options here:

1. Keep it the same and just apply the damage against it, which means that higher level characters bypass DR more easily. (My preference, because it's simple.)

2. Multiply the DR by the multiplier, too, which actually reduces the overall amount of damage that gets through, and means that higher level characters have a harder time bypassing DR. (Not my preference, but some people may feel that this is somehow closer "mathematically" to reflecting the effects of DR over multiple iterative attacks. They would be wrong, though, because the math is deceptive.)

3. Multiply the DR by the average percentage by which iterative attacks are successful. This means something akin to weapon damage X2 means DR X1.5, X3 means DR X1.8, X4 means DR X2.1. (This is mathematically the most accurate, but it leads to required number crunching in game, and I don't really want to do that.)

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) For the sake of simplicity and avoiding having to track two different sets of weapon damage, I'm perfectly okay with allowing the multiple for the single attack.



2.) My calculations worked because the multiple static bonus was NOT multiplied. My apologies for any confusion. I was just clarifying my opinion on those two variants being so similar to me. My actual and true position is to support Variant I. Again, my apologies for the confusion.

1.) That would greatly improve a single attack action, and would favour Power Attacking fighters over dual wielding rogues (who would now have to take a full attack action to still do less damage than the fighter does with a standard) etc.
You could always write it like this (second set of damage is for full attack):

Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+7 or 6d6+7/19-20)



2.) No problem, so we're back to just multiplying the base weapon's damage?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Again – good question…thinking…thinking…

A possible solution:
The base damage die or dice has a recognizable colour. When you roll damage against DR, you sum up the damage rolled on the base die (dice) and add static bonus. If this exceeds DR, you multiply remainder by the number of extra damage dice. Of course, you don't have to roll the other dice at all, but doing it lets you keep the fact a critter has DR from the players.

Workable, maybe. Satisfactory, more doubtful.

P.S.; There are other options like fx increasing DR based on the changes WotC made when energy resistance was changed between 3.0 and 3.5, but that requires handling all critters on a case basis - thousands of cases
We have to make sure our solution doesn't require calculations for every single critter.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

In a standard game, the PCs get iterative attacks, and the monsters get single attacks per natural attack.

In this variant, we suggest replacing iterative attacks with multipliers. The results, then, are:
PCs get multipliers, and the monsters get single attacks per natural attack.

If you multiply those single attacks, you are saying that those were iterative attacks, and thus changing the way monsters work. You can do that in your game if you like, but realize that what you are suggesting is not how monster attacks worked before.

Well, if we allow PCs to get multipliers with standard actions, we're changing how they worked before as well.

What I'm saying is, *if* PCs get multiplied damage on standard attacks, monsters should do as well (but on their primary attack only).
Do you agree with this?

 

[Baby Samurai]

Well, if we allow PCs to get multipliers with standard actions, we're changing how they worked before as well.

Exactly, which is why I only think you should multiply the base weapon damage on a full attack, ala (second set of damage is for a full attack):

Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+7 or 6d6+7/19-20)

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Exactly, which is why I only think you should multiply the base weapon damage on a full attack, ala (second set of damage is for a full attack):

Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+7 or 6d6+7/19-20)

Yessir but that leads us back to whether we want the fighters to just stand there hacking away, or we want more mobility and options to be a part of combat.
(Which I think was part of the reason for this discussion?)

 

[Flynn]

What I'm saying is, *if* PCs get multiplied damage on standard attacks, monsters should do as well (but on their primary attack only).
Do you agree with this?

No, but I do not agree while knowing that I'm going against the grain and against the standard rules. (i.e. I know it's not correct from the perspective of a true standard rules translation, but it's my game, so I'll do what I want. )

That being said, in terms of a more direct translation of iterative attacks, the true solution in this case is to only grant the multiplier if the PC takes a full-attack action to gain the multiplier. Your point is addressed, you don't have to change the monsters, and you maintain consistency with the standard rules.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Yessir but that leads us back to whether we want the fighters to just stand there hacking away, or we want more mobility and options to be a part of combat.
(Which I think was part of the reason for this discussion?)

My reasons for doing this is simple:

* I want faster combat, and I don't want to have to change the monsters as they are written (except for changing the iterative attacks of weapon-yielding monsters, of course.)

* I want a game that is easier for my nine-year-old son to learn and play.

* I want a game with some sense of nostalgia associated with it, as I am an aging gamer in my late 30s with a yearning for some of the flavor of yesteryear's gaming.

Mobility is not nor has ever been part of my particular equation, but is merely a byproduct of my decisions to make these three reasons come into being.

As always, YMMV, and definitely should.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

Yessir but that leads us back to whether we want the fighters to just stand there hacking away, or we want more mobility and options to be a part of combat.
(Which I think was part of the reason for this discussion?)

Okay, so we could remove the full attack action, so you have a Move, Standard and Swift action only every round.

So in my example it would simply look like this (attack/standard action):

Melee +1 greatsword +16 (6d6+7/19-20)

Bu this brings up the problem of a roper getting to make 10 strand attacks as a standard action, or a mindflayer attacking with all 4 tentacles as a standard action etc.

It might be cool, and give everything more mobility and add a better sense of movement in combat.