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

[GlassJaw]

It appears your calcs covered a wider range of the iterative attacks than my iterative percentages did, namely when you could roll lower than a 2 on the first or later attacks and still hit, except for that Natural 1 rule. I have to admit that the numbers look pretty skewed at those ranges.

What do you mean by skewed? Skewed as in I did something wrong or skewed as in the vaules change?

 

[ValhallaGH]

which will potentially make combats much longer. Maybe this was a design goal, I don't know.

From what's been said by the designers, and the descriptive text in the samples, I'm pretty sure it was a design goal.

You'll note that fight scenes in the films last either a couple seconds against mooks or for several minutes against major foes. If you are correct, and damage values are low enough that it will take some time to wear through hp, then we'll finally have in-game minutes of combat between high level characters. Since that's a closer simulation of the films, and closer simulation of the films has been stated as a major design criteria, I am fairly certain that this was an intentional choice.

 

[jeffh]

So how does this compare to a static damage bonus with a single attacks? The most obvious is that it penalizes characters with a high AC. If a character needs to roll very high with their first attack to hit, iterative attacks won't be boosting their average damage very much. Now however, that player has a flat damage boost for when they do hit. The player with the high AC will now take more damage on average.

Actually, because a natural 20 always hits, when you need a very high number to hit anyway you benefit the most from iterative attacks. Conversely, when you have a very high AC is when you suffer the most from them (proportionately speaking). In the extreme case, when someone needs a 20 to hit, having three attacks triples their expected damage, where it would barely increase it by 50% if they needed an 11 to hit with the first attack. So assuming that the new damage bonus doubles the attacker's damage (a very generous assumption) the new system will be a wash in this situation for those who previously had two attacks and a severe hit for those with three or four, the opposite of what you concluded.

BTW, my own suggestion when I was considering doing away with multiple attacks was a somewhat more complex variant of what they're doing. By taking the Full Attack action, you would get to add your entire BAB to your damage; the Attack action, however, would remain unchanged. This is assuming the rest of the D&D combat system remains largely in place; it sounds like they've changed the whole framework enough that "Full Attack" may no longer have a meaning. In any event, I thought I'd mention this variant in case folks found it interesting.

 

[GlassJaw]

Actually, because a natural 20 always hits, when you need a very high number to hit anyway you benefit the most from iterative attacks. Conversely, when you have a very high AC is when you suffer the most from them (proportionately speaking).

Having a high AC is never a bad thing, so I disagree with your idea that you "suffer" from someone rolling a 20.

In the extreme case, when someone needs a 20 to hit, having three attacks triples their expected damage,

Theoretically true, which is why I also listed the delta change. In actual play, I would argue that having extra attacks but still needing a 20 to hit is diminishing returns.

You have a .0125% chance to score that triple damage (1 in 8000 chance). In an increase of average damage from a single attack, it's neglible at best. In my opinion, it doesn't "count" in actual gameplay. From a design perspective, I would almost assume it would never happens. You can't design around the idea that it might happen.

I stand firm by my conclusion that the damage bonus hurts characters with a high AC, simply because when they do get hit, the average damage they take will be greater.

 

[GlassJaw]

From what's been said by the designers, and the descriptive text in the samples, I'm pretty sure it was a design goal.

Which they may have stumbled upon by choosing a 1/2 level damage bonus. It seems "too clean" to me to have been a product of extensive play testing and analysis.

Not to say that it's wrong at all. I'm just trying to find some kind of analytical comparison of iterative attacks versus a single attack plus damage bonus. I never said they need to be the same, I'm just making the comparison as a basis for understanding the implications during actual gameplay.

 

[Flynn]

So, Glassjaw, since you didn't offer a solution, is it your stance that there's no way to come up with a game mechanic that would allow us to more readily dispose of iterative attacks and still use the monsters as they are written?

This additive damage approach may be wrong, but if you are throwing it out, then what are you suggesting that we replace it with? Changing the monsters, or changing the characters' combat results, as Wulf suggested above?

I mean no offense by the above, but I am interested in solutions in the long run. I'm willing to look at different approaches, but I haven't had any concrete suggestions as yet that were not bonus damage related. The damage multiplier suggestion shows promise, but the numbers have yet to be firmed up.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[ValhallaGH]

So, Glassjaw, since you didn't offer a solution, is it your stance that there's no way to come up with a game mechanic that would allow us to more readily dispose of iterative attacks and still use the monsters as they are written?

It's likely he's waiting for you to answer his earlier question.

 

[GlassJaw]

It's likely he's waiting for you to answer his earlier question.

Even more likely I have other things to do from time to time.

Without thinking too much more into it, iterative attacks still seems like the best choice. Bloated numbers and modifiers play a much larger factor in slowing down combat than multiple attacks in my experience.

One idea Wulf and I discussed was a damage multipled based on how much you exceed the roll needed to hit.

For example, if you exceeded your opponent's AC by 5, you would do double damage (the equivalent of 2 attacks), by 10, triple damage, etc.

The problem with this system is that it's all or nothing - it doesn't account for having two attacks but missing with one of them.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The damage multiplier suggestion shows promise, but the numbers have yet to be firmed up.

When it comes right down to it, if my players can't do addition, I don't expect them to do well with multiplication.

Iterative attacks is already the best system, IMO. It's not slowing down the game because the math is particularly hard, it's slow because it's hard to remember a dozen different bonus sources.

And also, I think, because there's too much secrecy behind the DM screen. If I knew the players' attack bonuses, and the AC's of the monsters, I could speed up play at my table by an order of magnitude-- seriously-- by just telling the players the target number on their first roll.

I'm not sure there's a problem, first of all; and secondly I'm not sure the answer is in the mechanics. It's best attacked by getting your hands back around your game-- by the throat if necessary.

 

[Flynn]

When it comes right down to it, if my players can't do addition, I don't expect them to do well with multiplication.

Agreed.

Iterative attacks is already the best system, IMO. It's not slowing down the game because the math is particularly hard, it's slow because it's hard to remember a dozen different bonus sources.

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. That's not "sweet spot" gaming to me, and like you, I want "sweet spot" gaming at my table. (I still remember when we used to game with only one attack per character in earlier editions, and things worked out well.)

I'm not sure there's a problem, first of all; and secondly I'm not sure the answer is in the mechanics. It's best attacked by getting your hands back around your game-- by the throat if necessary.

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. However, you have mentioned one solution I hadn't thought of, taking the players, er, uh, the problem by the throat.

Seriously, Wulf, thanks for all your help and your input. My desired goal in this thread is to discuss what needs to be done to monsters if I remove iterative attacks. I think that's been discussed pretty well, and your input has helped me come to a number of realizations about how to approach that. It may not be the ideal solution numerically, but at least it is an informed one.

Now to implement similar strategies into my Grim Tales game...

Looking forward to further "D&D Sweet Spot" discussions on other threads,
Flynn