No More Multiple Attacks?

[Zaukrie]

I disagree. The only thing that keeps many monsters alive against 4-6 PCs is that they get plenty of attacks on the way back.

I also disagree with the general concept. If you roll a 1 on your 1 attack, you are in trouble, but if you have multiple attacks, you can still make another.

This is not all that complicated, frankly, nor does it slow the game down, at least not in my experience.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

In the new Star Wars RPG (the prototype for 4e) multiple attacks are removed. It works great and it speeds things up A LOT. PCs can take a feat where they may make 2 attacks at -5/-5, and later, a feat that allows for 3 attacks at -10/-10/-10. It's cool because multiple attacks becomes a tactical choice, where the fighter must weigh his options, and it doesn't force the guy to have to choose between moving or attacking.

I was skeptical at first, but now I'm a believer.

QFMFT!

It's awesome.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In the new Star Wars RPG (the prototype for 4e) multiple attacks are removed. It works great and it speeds things up A LOT. PCs can take a feat where they may make 2 attacks at -5/-5, and later, a feat that allows for 3 attacks at -10/-10/-10. It's cool because multiple attacks becomes a tactical choice, where the fighter must weigh his options, and it doesn't force the guy to have to choose between moving or attacking.

I was skeptical at first, but now I'm a believer.

I like how Star Wars did it. Additional useless rolls just waste time at the game table. Even at three attacks at -10, the math is a lot easier (so less wasted time). Also, at -10, players are far less likely to take that feat.

 

[Cadfan]

Hopefully they will reign in a lot of the "and then" monsters as well.

Amen. Most of them don't even make sense. An octopus doesn't hunt its prey by hitting it eight times with its tentacles. It just grabs it and bites.

Go ahead and give Hydras multiple attacks. That's their whole schtick. And give enormous monsters multiple attacks so that someone hiding near its back leg can get kicked while someone in front of it gets bitten. But for your average, run of the mill monsters, tone it down a bit.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Whatever the logic of how many attacks a monster gets, they shouldn't be making monsters weaker!

Currently, there are plenty of low power monsters, and quite a few ultra-high power monsters. . . but the monster bracket in the middle just isn't very competitive with the players!

 

[AffableVagrant]

So besides losing multiple attacks the game has lost it's identity, it's heart and it's soul.

That is so dramatic! I'm just giving WotC props because they fixed the time consuming buckets-of-dice problem. The more math I have to do, the less hacking I can get done in a single session.

It's not like Jawas are killing Gnomes and taking their stuff.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think monsters in general need to get their attacks reduced. Just because a lion has claws on each foot doesn't mean it should get multiple attacks. I'd say it gets one attack...a maul. Sure it's attacking with multiple limbs, but overall it should be treated as a single attack.

Oh, so completely true. Even as a kid reading the 1e Monster Manual for the first time, I thought it was kind of amazing how these monsters seemed to be able to use every freaking limb in combat at the same time. (Tangent: Humanoids with bite attacks. WTF. I don't care how sharp your teeth are; if you're reasonably human-shaped, they're in a really crappy place for use in combat. Unless maybe you're grappling.)

Anyway, it seems pretty likely we'll see less claw/claw/bite/gore/tail absurdity in 4e, particularly because, this time around, monsters are being balanced as one-per-PC challenges, instead of one-per-party-of-four. The one-attack-per-natural-weapon paradigm would be both unnecessary and a huge hassle.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Seems there's no need for 4e you can just buy starwars and pretend it's D&D. Hey all the monsters are going to be strykers brutes leaders or some silly role name. Besides 4e is not D&D it's a pastiche of starwars, re: the combat and skills system. there's an orc kingdom (FR), how ebberon and lots of talk of silos, pick two colors red/white. black/green... how mtg. So besides losing multiple attacks the game has lost it's identity, it's heart and it's soul.

...Wow. So much anger, so much misinformation, and so much bad typing all once, it's hard to respond without laughing. I'll give it a shot.

I dont know about you, but I plan to make my monsters all Abrahms rather then Strykers. Better AC.

Considering that Star Wars was itself derived from DnD, I'm not sure you could accurately consider 4th ed to be largely derived from SWSE by itself. Never mind that it seems unlikely they're copying it exactly.

Er, last I looked, Eberron WAS DnD. I'm sure FR had Orc kingdoms/hordes LONG before Eberron showed up too, but as I'm not a FR fan, I'll let one of them confirm it.

You're not SERIOUSLY comparing the siloing of spells (Which has DnD Roots, I might add) with picking the resource symbols in a card game deck are you?

What, may I ask, IS your definition of the 'Heart and soul' of DnD? Because so far, it seems to be anything that's changed for 4th. This especially seems true when some of the things you've complained about originated in 3rd to begin with.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I also disagree with the general concept. If you roll a 1 on your 1 attack, you are in trouble, but if you have multiple attacks, you can still make another.

I like this aspect of removing multiple attacks. It makes that critical miss all the more dramatic, rather than "oh, darn a 1. Well, I hit with my other two attacks." Likewise, it will probably make the critical strike even more devastating.

 

[Zaukrie]

How would a high level monster possibly survive against 4-6 PCs if it got 1 attack per round (substitute NPC for monster, if you want)?