Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="totoro" data-source="post: 897291" data-attributes="member: 11939">thanks for the inputI'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?</blockquote>

Verification