No More Multiple Attacks?

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

We cannot say fer certain until we see how they implement the damage bonuses, but the math will change. I think the total amount of damage will change very little over the course of an encounter (more rounds doing no damage, but higher average damage when you hit). If it takes fewer rolls and therefore speeds up play, then it is an improvement in my mind.

 

[Scribble]

...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.

Fear is the path to the grognard. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to posting rants on a message board. I sense much fear in you.

Beware the path of the grognard.

 

[tenkar]

Gwathlas has threadcrapping down to a science... it's cut and paste even

I think I have to actually read my SW Saga rules and get a better idea of what the future holds

 

[Fifth Element]

(note: octopi is not the plural. If you want a Latinate plural of octopus, it is octopodes which sounds totally whack).

Actually, many dictionaries list "octopi" as an acceptable plural form for octopus, along with octopuses.

 

[GreatLemur]

Gwathlas has threadcrapping down to a science... it's cut and paste even

Gwathlas is hilarious and I hope he never stops posting.

Actually, many dictionaries list "octopi" as an acceptable plural form for octopus, along with octopuses.

Enough people make a grammatical error, and it becomes a grammatical rule.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

...Wow. So much anger, so much misinformation, and so much bad typing all once

His hat of 4E know no limit.

 

[lukelightning]

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.

In 4e it seems that encounters will typically include more monsters, so that problem is solved. Instead of ganging up on one orc you are fighting 6 of 'em. Plus I am not saying that monsters may only have one attack, I'm saying that they should be reasonable.

Sure, go ahead and give a 4-armed ogre extra attacks, that's it's special thing. Same with (as mentioned above), hydras. But giving gargoyles claw-claw-bite and then gore with horns seems over-the-top to me. Plus biting and goring with the horns is just crazy.

Actually, many dictionaries list "octopi" as an acceptable plural form for octopus, along with octopuses.

Yeah, mostly in American dictionaries; I still think we should use "octopuses." To me "octopi" just sounds wrong and kind of goofy, like something from an Ogden Nash poem.

The Latin plural is octopodes, which is acceptable in English, but octopuses (or even octopus) seems more at home in English. The form octopi is quite common in English, but it is pseudo-Latin. It is based on the mistaken belief that octopus was a second-declension noun like fungus. It has made its way into many English dictionaries, but I would not recommend getting tangled up with octopi. It is true that many standard English words have entered the language through mistakes (an apron from a napron, pea from pease, etc.), so octopi may not be totally indefensible. But people who know Latin, admittedly not a large group, will think less of you for using it.

 

[Fifth Element]

Enough people make a grammatical error, and it becomes a grammatical rule.

English is a living language. If a significant number of native English speakers use a word to mean something, then it means that thing. Language is about communication, not about grammar.

[/end derailment]

 

[Vrecknidj]

I see it as a matter of averages. If the game presupposes that a certain amount of damage will come from a character in a round, and that a group of characters will, therefore, be able to produce X damage in a round, and that a monster will die in Y rounds as a result, then the number of attacks and all that should allow for that same average to be produced.

So, whether it's one attack at +A for B damage, or two attacks at +(A-5) for C damage each, or three attacks at +(A-10) for D damage each, doesn't matter so long as the average damage in those three cases works out about the same.

And, if the design philosophy is to speed up play, then a single attack makes the most sense. (Though, as has been pointed out, this affects the import of a 1 and so might require a tweak to the "1 always misses" rule.)

Dave

 

[GreatLemur]

English is a living language. If a significant number of native English speakers use a word to mean something, then it means that thing. Language is about communication, not about grammar.

That's what I said.