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

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks for the guidance, Wulf. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hmm, I don't like a lot of your assumptions, actually. I think that you can let WF, GWF, STR bonuses and such fall by the wayside-- they are meant to be incremental improvements over the baseline, so don't set the baseline to assume they're there.

I'd also like to see damage based, not on any fixed number (ie, 1d8) but simply on a variable X, where X can stand in for "100% of average damage."

You could then see the percentage increase of damage as BAB increases. (You can probably do that with the numbers you have.)

I dunno, it's too early for tough math.

I just have a gut feeling your methodology isn't the best model.

 

[Flynn]

Some Test Data To Play Around With...

Okay, I went back and checked my numbers, tried a bunch of different combinations on d6 and d8, with and without feats, with average magic weapons, with average damage and max damage, and even did one with no bonuses at all. The data ranges widely. I'll try to attach the spreadsheet I used, in case there are some problems with the math. Maybe someone else can do a better job of it.

Anyway, here goes nothing... (regarding my effort to attach something to my post, this being my first attempt in that direction.) My apologies if there are errors in my calculations, etc.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I am currently leaning towards an increase in damage equal to 0.75 X character level, rounded down, because the average conditions without feats for both a d6 and a d8 seem to point towards that being most representative of the differences in average damage for both between single attacks and iterative attacks on a per round basis.

This varies from the Saga approach, but Saga doesn't have to deal with magic items and the like.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'll see if I can get GlassJaw to take a look at this today.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ok, here's how I looked at it.

For iterative attacks (meaning the iterative attack is at -5/-10/-15) I looked at the natural roll required to hit on the first attack, then looked at the expectation that the iterative attack would hit.

Basically, a creature with a 2nd iterative attack deals, on average, x1.75 the damage of a creature with just the 1st attack, and so on from there.

Using this method, on average, the expected damage output is as follows:

1st attack: x1
2nd attack: x1.75
3rd attack: x2.25
4th attack: x2.5

Techically these are all inflated by .05 because of the natural 1 / natural 20 phenomenon. That is, the average expected damage on a successful 1st attack is actually only 95%, because a 1 always misses.

But it's easier to use these multipliers than to drop that 5%.

 

[Flynn]

Since damage is variable, Wulf, that seems to imply a damage multiplier instead of bonus damage. What are your thoughts on how your observations would translate into an actual game mechanic?

It's always amazing watching brilliant minds at work,
Flynn

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Since damage is variable, Wulf, that seems to imply a damage multiplier instead of bonus damage. What are your thoughts on how your observations would translate into an actual game mechanic?

Well, as I said before, what I would like to see as a solution is an extended threat range and crit multiplier that works out to "about the same numbers."

The reason for this is because the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attacks require progressively higher and higher "natural" attack rolls. As long as you're just making one attack roll, you might as well reward it when the roll is very high, as if all of the iterative attacks get to benefit from that high roll.

But I haven't got much further than that.

It's always amazing watching brilliant minds at work

It's just a matter of time before I commit an egregious math error. Stay tuned for decisive non-brilliance!

 

[Flynn]

Would the attached spreadsheet be of assistance? I did the whole range of die rolls (from 2 to 20), with a 20 crit range. The results are a little different than your numbers, but it is probably due to the fact that the percentages are not exactly linear as you change the required die roll. Still, it might give you something to work with for experimentation purposes.

Hope it helps,
Flynn

Edit: Oh, if it helps, I'm using the GT action points system to confirm crits, so don't worry about the messy calcs for confirming a threat.

 

[Jarrod]

I'm eagerly awaiting the results of this thread

I've been thinking of it the other way around, which means more work: that monsters with multiple natural attacks get _much_ meaner if iteratives go away but naturals stick around. A dragon would literally be a bundle of teeth and claws, and even something like a tiger could be extremely dangerous. That would shift certain classes of monsters to more difficult (AKA higher CR) while the iterative-based monsters would remain relatively static.

Which needs a rebalance of the entire thing. Not so much. But it might be something to keep in mind.

 

[Croesus]

In my group, we're using a fairly simple rule for both characters and monsters:

All creatures get one attack at their highest BAB. Damage = base damage (weapon/bite/claw/whatever) + Str Mod + BAB. 2H weapons still get 1.5 Str Mod.

Monsters with multiple attacks use the highest base damage of all the attacks and get 1.5 Str Mod for damage. So if a creature can bite for 1d8 and has 2 claw attacks for 1d4, the creature gets one attack at 1d8 + 1.5 Str Mod + BAB.

Monsters with specials dependent on multiple attacks, e.g., rend, have that ability re-written. For instance, rend only occurs on a successful crit (which makes crits very nasty). Hydras get one attack with each head, but each of its opponents can only be targeted by one head each round.

This has worked fairly well so far. Fighters still dish out more damage than non-fighters. Given that iterative attacks rarely hit against typical opponents, the total damage output of the characters is about the same as before. Low level characters actually get a bit of a bonus. Archers do much better with one shot (but lose multiple shots, so it evens out). DR is less of a problem. Monsters still dish out decent damage, but a few with high attack bonuses and multiple attacks are a bit weaker. A few creatures (carrion crawler) are a lot weaker, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

And best of all, combat is *much* faster.