Number of attacks/round

[totoro]

I was curious if anyone thinks it is a good/bad idea to allow DEX/2 attacks per round for every character? TWF or Flurry of blows would give an additional attack.

Each attack would be at -5 lower than the previous. AoO have to be saved up, but are made at base attack (you can still only take 1/round unless you have Combat Reflexes). So most characters would not take their worst attack (it wouldn't hit anyway), choosing to save up for an AoO instead.

I think you need fumbles (my rule is roll a '1' means reroll at -20, roll another '1' and reroll at -40, etc. and a negative modified attack roll is a fumble). Then, you won't take all of your attacks each round unless you have a decent chance of hitting.

What do you think?

 

[Gilwen]

that just makes my head hurt

Bryan

 

[Ravellion]

I was curious if anyone thinks it is a good/bad idea to allow DEX/2 attacks per round for every character? TWF or Flurry of blows would give an additional attack.

Each attack would be at -5 lower than the previous. AoO have to be saved up, but are made at base attack (you can still only take 1/round unless you have Combat Reflexes). So most characters would not take their worst attack (it wouldn't hit anyway), choosing to save up for an AoO instead.

I think you need fumbles (my rule is roll a '1' means reroll at -20, roll another '1' and reroll at -40, etc. and a negative modified attack roll is a fumble). Then, you won't take all of your attacks each round unless you have a decent chance of hitting.

What do you think?

I think it is:
a) unnecessary
b) unbalanced
c) a bookkeeping nightmare, with way too many dice rolled per character
d) unfair for non humanoids with low dex (Dragons for instance would only get 5 attacks as opposed to their current possible six)
e) greatly increase randomness in combat, with everyone making 6 to 14 attacks, simply hoping for a natural 20 to incease the chances of hitting.
f) Greatly reduce survival chances of low level PCs.
g) Put too much emphasis on the full attack on low level, making movement mostly moot.

In short, I don't think you should do it.

 

[Grazzt]

I was curious if anyone thinks it is a good/bad idea to allow DEX/2 attacks per round for every character? TWF or Flurry of blows would give an additional attack.

So, if I had a rogue with a Dex 20, I would get 10 attacks per round? And if my rogue happened to have TWF, he would get 11?


Bad, bad idea. Way out of balance.

 

[totoro]

thanks for the input

I've playtested the rule (by myself) and it seems to go pretty well. Not nearly as badly as would merit the responses thus far (which I appreciate nonetheless because I wanted to know how players would react so that I could respond as follows). I guess maybe I didn't explain how it works well enough, which is why it seemed so unbalanced to those who responded.

If you get multiple attacks from different weapons, you get to add them. So a dragon with claw/claw/bite/tail would get DEX/2 +3 attacks. And TWF for a human would give DEX/2 +1 (all at -2 to the attack roll). Notably, with my rule, the second weapon could be used for AoO and the TWF penalty would not affect the primary weapon attacks, which is much more the way if feels when you fight with a sword/dagger. In other words, the second weapon can be used occasionally, but it doesn't make you worse with your primary weapon.

So, yes, a rogue with 20 DEX would get 10 attacks (assuming he gets +15 base attack) at +15/+10/+5/+0/-5/-10/-15/-20/-25/-30. If the rogue has TWF/Ambi, then +13/+13/+8/+3/-2/-7/-12/-17/-22/-27/-32. It would be up to the character to decide how many of the attacks he wants to take, most likely saving some for AoO. You can make as many AoO as you want, but any over 1 provokes an AoO from anyone who threatens you (note: anyone who provokes an AoO cannot respond with an AoO). AoO are good if you get them, because you can save a difficult attack (e.g., -30) and take an AoO at full attack bonus (e.g., +15), so it is rarely worth making all of the attacks you are entitled.

Any negative attack roll is a fumble and if you roll a '1', you reroll and subtract 20 from the roll. Fumbles are pretty simple IMC. Your opponents, if any, get an AoO when you fumble. If the attack roll is -20 or worse, opponents get AoO and the DM (me) decides on an appropriate bad result. We use these fumble rules now and have never had a bad fumble and fumbles are rare at mid to high level. Any fumble rules would work, though.

It is actually surprisingly simple to implement the DEX/2 attacks (no major bookkeeping). Since few characters will make their full attacks, AoO works about the same as without the rule. Also, you don't need the attack progression tables for each class and is not based on BAB, which is slightly more complicated.

Advantages:
1) Disabled characters aren't exceptions to the AoO rules. If you cast a spell, you provoke an AoO, but if you just stand there you don't? Very weird. With my rule, you can save an AoO (or several) every round for a paralyzed opponent.

2) Combat flavor without lots of rules to memorize.
2a) A commoner, who has no chance against you, might go nuts and swing his club 5 times (at +0/-5/-10/-15/-20), allowing you to choose to save an attack for AoO when he fumbles (i.e., rolls a negative attack roll).
2b) When you meet someone whose defenses you are not yet sure of, you might test him out with a few of your better attacks. If he's good, he might be able to take adavantage of your recklessness (if you make a negative attack roll, he gets an AoO against you). Fighting defensively slows down the number of strikes an opponent makes against you since it becomes less likely to hit and every miss has a chance of being a fumble.

3) It makes more sense. How many toothpicks could your character pick up, one at a time, in 6 seconds. Do you think Ralph the 20th level dwarven fighter with an 8 DEX could pick up more than Joe, the 1st level commoner elf with a 20 DEX? Who could poke a dagger into a matress more times in 6 seconds? Certainly not Ralph. The explanation for why high level characters get more attacks in a round is that they make attacks that count. Stated differently, each attack roll is not a single strike, but rather a strike that is effective. So, if you attack an unmoving matress, Joe should get more attacks than Ralph. Also, if Joe decides to concentrate all of his efforts on one target and ignore any incoming attacks (e.g., he doesn't dodge any attacks, as is assumed by the combat rules), then he should be able to make more attacks than Ralph. My rule accomplishes this. Joe still won't hit Ralph, since his armor is too strong, and Ralph will probably take an AoO and kill Joe after his 3rd swing (or get initiative and kill Joe before his first swing). Then when Joe comes back as a ghost to get even, and Ralph is unable to effect him with his weapon, shouldn't Joe be able to attack a bunch of times? Now he doesn't have to dodge because Ralph can't hurt him. Seems like a bunch of attacks would be appropriate regardless of Joe's BAB.

4) Combatants can pick the combat pace. When threatened by multiple opponents, you will probably want to fight more conservatively, waiting for one of your opponents to lower his guard rather than taking all of your (increasingly more difficult) attacks. If nobody is threatening you, you might want to take several swings.

5) Less rules. No, really. This is *one* rule that has wide-ranging effects. It doesn't matter what your BAB is. No tables are necessary. High DEX won't break the rule because the penalties are too high (though undefended, helpless opponents can be struck more times by a high DEX character, who cares? A coup de grace is just as effective).

6) It's fun. Should you take that next attack at -15 hoping you roll a '20', or save it in the unlikely event you get to use an AoO? It's tempting to risk a fumble sometimes.

Disadvantages:

1) You have to divide your attacks into regular attacks and AoO. In practice, this is easy (the worst regular attack is saved as an AoO).

2) More AoO. Since the most effective attack is either the first attack (at no penalty) or an AoO, combatants will want to make more AoO, which is allowed under my rules, though making more AoO than 1 (or 1 + DEX bonus if you have Combat Reflexes) provokes an AoO from anyone who threatens you.

3) More attacks. In practice, there will probably not be that many more attacks at low levels, since fumbles are bad. An exception would be for when a combatant is not threatened.

-----------

So does at least one person like this?

 

[Grazzt]

It makes more sense. How many toothpicks could your character pick up, one at a time, in 6 seconds. Do you think Ralph the 20th level dwarven fighter with an 8 DEX could pick up more than Joe, the 1st level commoner elf with a 20 DEX? Who could poke a dagger into a matress more times in 6 seconds? Certainly not Ralph. The explanation for why high level characters get more attacks in a round is that they make attacks that count.

Picking up toothpicks and even stabbing a dagger into a mattress is a lot different than being able to swing a weapon at a living (and moving) target. I am a pretty dextrous person and could likely excel at such a contest. However, put me against an experienced swordsman, and I would likely get my butt handed to me, no matter how dextrous I am (or how many toothpicks I can pick up or how many times I can poke a mattress in 6 seconds).

And I still, IMHO, think that Dex/2 attacks per round is way too unbalanced. Just my opinion on the matter and not something I would ever use or play in a game that used it....but, like I said....just me perhaps.

 

[totoro]

Re: Re: Number of attacks/round

I think it is:

a) unnecessary
Response: True, but all rules are unnecessary. Since "unnecessary" is a conclusory statement, I really can't get much out of it.
---------
b) unbalanced
Response: I don't think so. Again, this is conclusory, so I can't really get much out of it.
---------
c) a bookkeeping nightmare, with way too many dice rolled per character
Response: The number of dice rolls will probably increase, but that has very little to do with bookkeeping. On paper, it is actually easier. I suppose you could write a +0/-5/-10/-15... string across a page and put your attack modifier above it. When you decide to make each attack, you apply the appropriate modifier. That is a tiny bit more bookkeeping than now, but I'm not sure that every player would need it. In any case, the more I think about it, the less interested I think I would be in making more than 4 attacks/round (the rest would be better saved for AoO, with the rare exceptional cases when you want to make a bunch of attacks against creatures with pathetic ACs). Furthermore, the number of attacks/round that you settle on doesn't have to be checked against BAB or any other table. You simply make sure it is less than DEX/2. That's less work.
----------
d) unfair for non humanoids with low dex (Dragons for instance would only get 5 attacks as opposed to their current possible six)
Response: I think this is simply a misunderstanding that came from my not explaining more clearly. You get to add your additional attack forms. The BAB-related number of attacks are replaced with DEX/2. More attacks at -5/attack/attack doesn't help that much, since the latter attacks are often more likely to result in a fumble than a hit. That shouldn't effect non-humanoids anymore than it effects humanoids.
-----------
e) greatly increase randomness in combat, with everyone making 6 to 14 attacks, simply hoping for a natural 20 to incease the chances of hitting.
Response: It only increases randomness if you aren't careful. Not a bad thing, IMO. So, if a player (with a 1st level 12 DEX fighter) decides to swing wildly 6 times, he will be in trouble (fumbles if attack roll is negative). And on the 6th attack, at -25 to the attack roll, the character may still fumble with a natural 20 (reroll and add 20, so if he rolls a 1 the second time, the modified attack roll may be as low as -4, which is a fumble). In short, randomness *can* increase, but probably will not if players are smart.
-------
f) Greatly reduce survival chances of low level PCs.
Response: I don't understand why. Perhaps you mean because there are more attacks? Assuming there are, it simply speeds combat. Everybody gets more attacks if they want them. I suppose the DM might have to explain to the players that they should consider making only one attack per round to avoid fumbling, but that should become apparent after a single round.
--------
g) Put too much emphasis on the full attack on low level, making movement mostly moot.
Response: The rule places no more emphasis on the full attack than is placed on it now at mid- to high-level. The increased attractiveness of movement at low levels is due to a game mechanic (low level characters only get 1 attack in full attack and only one attack if they move). I don't see this as a positive effect. In fact, just the opposite.

Thanks!

 

[totoro]

Picking up toothpicks and even stabbing a dagger into a mattress is a lot different than being able to swing a weapon at a living (and moving) target. I am a pretty dextrous person and could likely excel at such a contest. However, put me against an experienced swordsman, and I would likely get my butt handed to me, no matter how dextrous I am (or how many toothpicks I can pick up or how many times I can poke a mattress in 6 seconds).

And I still, IMHO, think that Dex/2 attacks per round is way too unbalanced. Just my opinion on the matter and not something I would ever use or play in a game that used it....but, like I said....just me perhaps.

Yes, an experienced swordsman should hand your butt to you if you aren't any good with a sword. That would not change with my rules. In fact, DEX still has relatively little to do with who will be more successful in melee. If you have a 16 DEX and the experienced swordsman has 10 DEX, you get 8 attacks at +0 (probably a miss), then -5 (probably a miss, but likely a fumble), then -10 (fumble about 1/2 the time), then -15 (fumble likely), then -20 (fumble very likely), and finally at -25 (again, fumble very likely). Since each fumble provokes an AoO, you are probably dead. If not, he gets an attack at +10/+5/+0 (none are likely to be fumbled), and saves a couple of attacks for AoO, in case you try to make all of your attacks. Note that with a DEX of 4, the experienced swordsman would hand you your butt even if your DEX were 25, though it would take him a lot longer (since you would have such a good AC).

Try this mind experiment: There are 6 of you. None very good with a sword. You completely surround an experienced swordsman. Not a god, just someone who is pretty good (say, 5th level fighter, 16 STR, weapon focus, MW weapon for a +10 BAB). Don't you think you should have a chance? He can probably kill 2 of you/round with 3 attacks (saving 3 for AoO). If you are cautious, so you don't fumble, you might only get a couple of attacks each for a few hits total. Then he kills a couple more of you and the other 2 of you run away. If you are more aggressive, he might kill a couple of you with AoO, but only after you get your attacks, leaving 2 of you... OK, bad example, all 6 of you get handed your butts (how embarrasing).

Another thought experiment: Against tougher opponents, the experienced swordsman will probably take fewer attacks, since fumbles become more probable with each successive strike. It just isn't worth swinging unless you have a reasonable chance to hit.

In any case, you are wise to not want to implement this rule (yet). I'm still not sure I want to. There might be something broken somewhere.