Removing Multiple Attacks: What changes must be done to monsters?

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's not "sweet spot" gaming to me, and like you, I want "sweet spot" gaming at my table.

Well, if you just want sweet spot gaming, cap your game at 10th level. Two attacks per round is manageable.

Well, assuming for the moment that resolving more than one attack takes more time than resolving a single attack, then yes, there is a problem if the desired goal is to speed up game play at the table.

I believe that if you make the necessary changes to speed up the math/resolution of four attacks, once that change is in place, you can probably resolve four attacks as quickly as you currently resolve one, using the current, confusing and slow method.

Give the players a target number and let them roll, roll, roll, roll.

 

[Flynn]

Cap it at 10th? What, and stop rewarding my players for playing the game by saying they can't get any better?

Yeah, we all have different ways of finding and keeping the game in the "sweet spot". I've run up to 24th level characters, and I know how long just preparing for combat can take, much less the inordinate amount of time that handling all those die rolls takes for resolving all those attacks, especially with a group that can't seem to remember their numbers from one die roll to the next.

Speaking of which, I'm eager to see the rules set you are working on for your "sweet spot" game. I've seen the various posts (including last year's D&D Design discussion), and I know that, if you haven't already started writing it up, you've got the plans in the back of your head. I hope you'll let us know when you are looking for playtesters or even customers interested in buying the next big thing from Bad Axe Games.

Minor League GT Fan Boy,
Flynn

 

[McBard]

No, it's slowing down the game because the high level characters have to resolve 2-6 attack rolls apiece, and so a round can take 30 minutes or more to resolve, particularly in D&D.

Try this out: don't roll damage. Every attack roll > AC does average, static damage. An attack roll exactly = AC is a "glancing blow" (1/2 the static amount). If the attack die roll is naturally in the weapon's threat range, and it beats AC, the attack is a critical (no confirmation roll: the critical does static damage x crit multiplier). Bottom line: three damages (1/2, average, critical).

We've used this method for 6 months, and have covered twice as many characters levels (a couple of other tweaks to speed things up have helped, of course). It's freakin' great, and I'll never go back to rolling for damage. 'Course, most players would probably flip out at a static damage suggestion (but then maybe they enjoy 30 minute rounds...and funny sided dice).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Cap it at 10th? What, and stop rewarding my players for playing the game by saying they can't get any better?

Well, I wouldn't stop a game as long as the players are having fun. If they're still having fun, combat can't be that much of a drag.

Speaking of which, I'm eager to see the rules set you are working on for your "sweet spot" game.

We're sort of goofing around in that direction in the Bad Axe hosted forum. (sig)

Minor League GT Fan Boy

Yeah, it's starting to make me uncomfortable.

 

[Flynn]

Wulf,

I came to a realization this morning based on someone else's input, and found that if you add the base weapon damage again for each iterative attack, it approximates the ranges I was seeing in my spreadsheet. I thought I would post something here for you, so that you could look it over yourself. It's directly related to your proposed solution for a damage multiplier related to BAB, and in a manner that is very easy to implement. Still not completely what you were suggesting, I think, but it's a lot closer.

I realize that your ideal solution is to continue iterative attacks and cap them at the old 2E max of 2 attacks per round, i.e. 10th level, but if you were ever put in a situation where you had to narrow things down to only one attack a round (doubt it, but you never know), then perhaps this might give you some food for thought.

Here's the post:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3515972&postcount=34

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I came to a realization this morning based on someone else's input, and found that if you add the base weapon damage again for each iterative attack, it approximates the ranges I was seeing in my spreadsheet.

Here's the post:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3515972&postcount=34

Makes sense. It will keep the average the same.

Of course it does take the edge off that rare "Hit! Another hit! And another! And another! Boo yah!"

Sometimes you have to sacrifice the booyah for the sake of expediency.

I can also say, without even opening a spreadsheet, that the more bonuses you have to damage (dual wielding, sneak attacking, power attacking, energy bursting) the more you will suffer from this rule.

Again-- consider the beholder. Or the mind flayer. Two critters with relatively low AC, with game-ending abilities. You have to take them down fast. Part of their challenge, surely, is mitigated by the fact that the fighters can take them out quickly with iterative attacks. The longer these critters stay around-- and reducing iterative attacks gives them staying power-- the more deadly they become.

 

[Flynn]

Again-- consider the beholder. Or the mind flayer. Two critters with relatively low AC, with game-ending abilities. You have to take them down fast. Part of their challenge, surely, is mitigated by the fact that the fighters can take them out quickly with iterative attacks. The longer these critters stay around-- and reducing iterative attacks gives them staying power-- the more deadly they become.

Sweet! My players mow through both beholders and mind flayers like they're going out of style. I can't get an encounter with these two creatures to last more than a round or two with the current rules. Now I might even be able to have some fun with the monsters that are actually supposed to be challenges!

Thanks,
Flynn