D&D 4E Number of attacks and 4E

[Kunimatyu]

I think 20 dice is a bit on the high side for anyone, but you are right about basic math. It can only be done so fast, and some people though they usually hate it when it is pointed out to them are not good at basic math. These people should probably not be playing characters that require so many dice rolls and need to add things fast since the player cannot do it. Not all character typeos are for all players.

I'm still failing to see why capping the number of attacks is such a bad idea, provided there's still a good mechanical distinction between two-weapon fighters and single-weapon fighters. It certainly sounds better than preventing people who can't do speed math from playing certain archetypes.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Mechanics-wise, I agree entirely. Realism-wise - which I'm usually not a stickler for, since I play to HAVE FUN, but there does come a point - it isn't very realistic to have eight attacks with most weapons in 6 seconds.

Meteor Shower also isn't realistic.

To respond to the thread maker, I agree that at high levels the number of attacks can be a problem. In an old campaign I ran one player (who isn't too fast at math) played a high level character who fought two weaponed and hasted too about half the time. So he was making 8 attacks around he also had a 12-20 critical range with his weapons (falchions, I let imp crit and keen stack).
I think you can imagine how slow his turns could sometimes go, even with a calculator .

I think if there was a simple way to combine several iterative attacks into one attack roll that'd be good (very rarely would the player target more than 1 or 2 opponents in a round unless he cleaved). Maybe you don't roll your second attack but add half it's damage to your first attack, 1/4 damage for the third attack and plus 1/8 for the fourth attack or something (very general idea/suggestion needs quite a bit of work).

 

[Crothian]

I'm still failing to see why capping the number of attacks is such a bad idea, provided there's still a good mechanical distinction between two-weapon fighters and single-weapon fighters. It certainly sounds better than preventing people who can't do speed math from playing certain archetypes.

Because I don't want the game to cater to the lowest common denominator. Do we throw out big words for people with a bad vocabulary? I think its better for people to be challenged, maybe with a bit of practice the player can become better and faster at adding numbers. Making the game easier for a small section of people is not what the game needs.

 

[isoChron]

What's taking the most time in our game aren't the melee/ranged attacks but the choice, effect and positioning of spells.
Number of attacks are ok as far as I see. (Attack bonuses in respect to AC are a completly other matter ... )

 

[jgbrowning]

Statistically increase damage per hit for fighter types to mimic average returns that result from additional itinerative attacks.

For instance: For every AC list a # of hit points of damage done to a creature in addtion to the base attacks. Fighter rolls three attacks and add the "# of additional points of damage based upon AC" for their fighter level and there you go.

It will result in a little less differentiation in weapon choice effect, but would speed combat up a lot. If worried about weapon choice effect, work on %s instead of discrete units of hp.

joe b.

 

[Turanil]

Thoughts?

Entirely agree with you, reason for which I rather play Castles & Crusades.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Statistically increase damage per hit for fighter types to mimic average returns that result from additional itinerative attacks.

For instance: For every AC list a # of hit points of damage done to a creature in addtion to the base attacks. Fighter rolls three attacks and add the "# of additional points of damage based upon AC" for their fighter level and there you go.

It will result in a little less differentiation in weapon choice effect, but would speed combat up a lot. If worried about weapon choice effect, work on %s instead of discrete units of hp.

joe b.

I've thought about something like this myself, but I've yet to find a method that really work. It either requires a lot more calculation on the fly--"I did 1d8+4, what's 35% of that...?"--or requires cross-referencing on tables--"I'm wielding a longsword, and he's got an AC of 23, so..."

I like the notion, I really do. I'm just not sure it actually speeds anything up or makes anything easier.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Because I don't want the game to cater to the lowest common denominator. Do we throw out big words for people with a bad vocabulary? I think its better for people to be challenged, maybe with a bit of practice the player can become better and faster at adding numbers. Making the game easier for a small section of people is not what the game needs.

Well, I don't particuarly care if they're challenged mathematically or not, honestly. That's not what they came here to do, and they're going to have to add up the numbers on 5-6 dice at a time, almost regardless of what they play. But, eight iterative attacks(with potential criticals) per round will slow the game down more than two-three attacks, I guarantee it, even if Speedy McMatherson is rolling the dice. Why not a more elegant solution?

 

[jgbrowning]

I've thought about something like this myself, but I've yet to find a method that really work. It either requires a lot more calculation on the fly--"I did 1d8+4, what's 35% of that...?"--or requires cross-referencing on tables--"I'm wielding a longsword, and he's got an AC of 23, so..."

I like the notion, I really do. I'm just not sure it actually speeds anything up or makes anything easier.

You'd have to cross reference a table: I think you're right in that there's no way around it.

joe b.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I've thought about something like this myself, but I've yet to find a method that really work. It either requires a lot more calculation on the fly--"I did 1d8+4, what's 35% of that...?"--or requires cross-referencing on tables--"I'm wielding a longsword, and he's got an AC of 23, so..."

I like the notion, I really do. I'm just not sure it actually speeds anything up or makes anything easier.

Yeah, it really doesn't -- which is why I don't suggest such a system for 3.5.

However, when the designers look at things for 4E, I'll bet they could come up with an elegant way of increasing damage that would allow for a capping of attacks at around 2-3. Honestly, if there were only a few attack rolls per turn, TWFers might actually be *more* unique than they are now.