No More Multiple Attacks?

[FadedC]

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!

I have not had much trouble finding middle bracket monsters that are competitive. Any of the big bruiser monsters tend to be quite scary at that level, such as giants, melee demons, etc. As always not all monsters with the same CR are equally threatening so eyeball the creature before you use him.

 

[D.Shaffer]

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)?

How is it surviving WITH multiple attacks per round? Multiple attacks arent getting rid of the damage being inflicted on it, which is what's killing it.

Again, remember that they arent removing multiple attacks. Look at the Spine Demon. What they're doing is getting rid of the interative attacks gained from a high bonus AND giving a damage bonus if it hits. A monster with multiple attacks is either spreading the damage, which isnt helping it survive, or concentrating on one guy, which gets us back to the damage bonus. Giving it one attack that is easier to hit with is better for long term survival then lots of little attacks that dont have much of a chance in themselves unless you cheese it up with touch attacks.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You're that kid who wants us to leave Britney alone, right?

 

[Zaukrie]

I know they aren't getting rid of muliple attacks, but some are arguing they should. Those are the people I need answers from.

I'm not sure the one attack thing is better: with a 5% chance of a miss, and 3-4 5% chances of taking a critical, I bet the math changes dramatically if you eliminate multiple attacks.

 

[Nifft]

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

Whoever they bring in, I just hope they do a thorough job.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

It bites you, then claws you, then claws you again, and then it does a tail whip, and then a head butt, and then....

No and then!

 

[Fifth Element]

I thought I read somewhere that the multiple attacks per round by PCs is going the way of the dodo bird.

Is this the case? If so, doesn't that imbalance things? (i.e., taking away a lot from fighter-types)

It might, if you assume that nothing else is changing. By focusing on a single change in isolation, your perspective is skewed. Yes, if they strip away some of a fighter's combat ability without replacing it with something else, things would be unbalanced. But there's been no indication that's the case here.

 

[GreatLemur]

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

Not even Jawas want the Gnomes' stuff.

 

[Stormtalon]

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.

This won't really affect my games that much; we've always played such that the penalty for a fumble (aka, Nat 1) included losing any subsequent iterative attacks that round, usually due to dropping the weapon/breaking a bowstring or what have you. You not only missed, you missed badly enough that you're unable to recover for the rest of the round (and may need to spend the next round reclaiming a dropped weapon or restringing your bow, or some other penalty).

 

[A'koss]

How is it surviving WITH multiple attacks per round? Multiple attacks arent getting rid of the damage being inflicted on it, which is what's killing it.

Again, remember that they arent removing multiple attacks. Look at the Spine Demon. What they're doing is getting rid of the interative attacks gained from a high bonus AND giving a damage bonus if it hits. A monster with multiple attacks is either spreading the damage, which isnt helping it survive, or concentrating on one guy, which gets us back to the damage bonus. Giving it one attack that is easier to hit with is better for long term survival then lots of little attacks that dont have much of a chance in themselves unless you cheese it up with touch attacks.

Also keep in mind the new 4e philosophy of combats of 1 monster per PC. For the "Elties" and Boss monsters which are encountered in fewer numbers, they might be compensated by having broader avenues of attack - more area-based attacks and so on.