No More Multiple Attacks?

[Fifth Element]

That's what I said.

Mostly, but you said it was a grammatical error, which from my perspective makes no sense when discussing a living language (outside of a classroom). You could say it was a change based on an erroneous assumption, but the change itself is not an error.

 

[lukelightning]

On the topic of giant octopuses octopodes octopi squids, I think that if they get to kraken-esque proportions they probably should get multiple attacks... it is their schtick as well. Some way of treating each arm as a separate monster might even be in order.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Gwathlas is hilarious and I hope he never stops posting.

Apparently, the mods have decided he doesnt have a choice in the matter. Heh.

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.

Exactly. I'm not gonna say make it so everything is narrowed down to 1 attack, but anything more then 3 at once and you're likely pushing it for a mook.

A 'Boss' monster? Well, that's a different kettle of Kraken.

 

[Nifft]

I've been thinking about "fractal feature sizes" for a while, but now I see it could apply to critters too.

For terrain, you would vary the terrain's properties based on the size of the critter crossing it. So a field of six-foot boulders could be normal terrain for a Gargantuan giant, Difficult terrain for everything Huge and Large, and a bunch of hiding places / Climb checks for everyone Medium and smaller.

Applied to critters, the kraken becomes a "cone of tentacles" (like a Swarm) for everyone Medium or smaller, with a body that's got a Climb DC in place of a Grapple check for those Medium or smaller, and a regular critter for everyone at least Large.

Running between the feet of a Huge Giant might be a Reflex mechanic for small critters, instead of a Tumble check.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AffableVagrant]

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

 

[mmu1]

I think that getting rid of multiple attacks is a terrible idea - at least if you follow the SWSE model.

(I think it's an awful idea, period - there's something a lot more satisfying about actually being able to roll multiple attacks and allocate them as I like, then just getting a damage bonus equal to 1/2 character level, and it's a huge milestone in character advancement when you get that additional attack, but that's neither here nor there.)

You see, if they actually stuck to "only one attack per round, unless you take the special feats that let you make two at -5 or three at -10 - no exceptions" and had various other feats simply modify what you can do with your attack, how much damage you can do, what your threat range and reach are, etc., then it could have been fine.

What they did instead is create exceptions right from the start - specifically, a TWF feat tree that lets you attack twice at -2 at level 6 and at no penalty at level 11. In a system in which everyone eventually gets multiple attacks anyway, off-hand weapons do low damage and always have at least a -2 penalty to hit, TWF is not an issue.

In a system in which everyone is normally limited to one full-BAB attack per round (which makes an extra attack at or close to your full to hit bonus vastly more valuable) and already has feats like "Rapid Strike" which abstract taking an extra swing as -2 to hit and +1 die of damage, it's an idiotic and inconsistent design choice.

Anyway, if they do something similar for D&D, you can bet your ass that it won't take them long to start putting out supplements that will give you new feats, powers, PrCs, racial abilities (or whatever else they come up with to sell splatbooks) designed to get around the limitations placed on how many attacks you can make - and you'll just end up with a huge power disparity between people who are optimised for multiple attacks and those who aren't. (Anyone around here play the KotOR games? Perfect examples of what happens in a d20-like system when you make one attack per round the default and then introduce feat trees which eventually let you make multiple attacks at little or no penalty. People with double the attacks end up - surprise, surprise! - vastly more powerful.)

 

[HeinorNY]

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.

And the Drama Awards 2007 goes to...

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Hmm. I kinda like the idea of multiple attacks all at the same penalty. Simplifies and speeds things up.

I've really noticed how iterative attacks slow down our game (especially amongst the mathematically challenged ).

 

[AffableVagrant]

Anyway, if they do something similar for D&D, you can bet your ass that it won't take them long to start putting out supplements that will give you new feats, powers, PrCs, racial abilities (or whatever else they come up with to sell splatbooks) designed to get around the limitations placed on how many attacks you can make - and you'll just end up with a huge power disparity between people who are optimised for multiple attacks and those who aren't.

You are 100% right on this. Unfortunately, it's pretty much inevitable, if 3e has taught us anything. More books = more optimization = more min/maxing. *sigh*

 

[Gloombunny]

Remember that example combat with the four PCs and a dragon? The dragon didn't walk up to a PC and run down a list of attacks all in one go, but it had a number of ways to get extra attacks as various things happened. That's a much better answer to the many-PCs-one-monster problem than a big full-attack routine, if you ask me.