Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="totoro" data-source="post: 897367" data-attributes="member: 11939">Re: Re: Number of attacks/rounda) unnecessaryResponse:  True, but all rules are unnecessary.  Since "unnecessary" is a conclusory statement, I really can't get much out of it.---------b) unbalancedResponse:  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 characterResponse:  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!</blockquote>

Verification