Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Removing the penalty for multiple attacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hrothgar Rannúlfr" data-source="post: 4028718" data-attributes="member: 54436"><p>Our group eliminated the automatic multiple attacks at the -5 penalties. Instead, every character gets one attack per round (with certain weapons being excepted) unless they take a feat like those in <em>Star Wars Saga Edition</em> that allows multiple attacks. (We, also, increased the number of feats that characters get a bit...)</p><p></p><p>The exceptions were that we are testing an idea for weapon speed based on three categories. Fast weapons get 3 attacks a round. Medium weapons get two attacks per round. Slow weapons get 1 attack per round. That said, we've given some weapons (usually those in the slow category) a little added benefit concerning weapon reach that may allow attacks of opportunity in some cases. They don't actually threaten an additional square, just part of additional squares. Exiting a square one way provokes while exiting it another way, may not (for example).</p><p></p><p>With all weapons being treated the same, it never made much sense to us from a metagame perspective why all warriors wouldn't run around with greatswords or great axes. No one had any motivation to use a shortsword. Now, they do.</p><p></p><p>One extra balancing factor, though, is that were using a variant damage reduciton system. So, having multiple attacks with fast weapons (that usually deal less damage) means that the damage reduction is subtracted off of each attack (but there are more chances at a critical per round, too).</p><p></p><p>I wouldn't just eliminate the -5 cumulative penalty on each additonal attack without doing something to the rest of the way the game works. Our system is working for us, so far.</p><p></p><p>Another option that we're using is a feat that allows a character to treat a favored weapon as if it is one size category larger <em>only</em> for purposes of dealing damage. So, instead of going the multiple attacks route, a character might take the damage increasing feat, instead. The pre-requisites are pretty hefty, though. Much more than is required for Improved Natural Attack in the MM. And, it only applies to one weapon each time the feat is taken. Improved Sunder just got more valuable, too, because people will want to be able to sunder the guy's weapon if he has that feat.</p><p></p><p>We probably spent a couple hundred hours hashing out the effects of the various rule changes we were considering. And, these seem very workable, so far.</p><p></p><p>Please, don't just eliminate the -5 cumulative penalty. It's too simple a solution that will skew the balance of power in the game a little too much for the reasons already posted by others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hrothgar Rannúlfr, post: 4028718, member: 54436"] Our group eliminated the automatic multiple attacks at the -5 penalties. Instead, every character gets one attack per round (with certain weapons being excepted) unless they take a feat like those in [I]Star Wars Saga Edition[/I] that allows multiple attacks. (We, also, increased the number of feats that characters get a bit...) The exceptions were that we are testing an idea for weapon speed based on three categories. Fast weapons get 3 attacks a round. Medium weapons get two attacks per round. Slow weapons get 1 attack per round. That said, we've given some weapons (usually those in the slow category) a little added benefit concerning weapon reach that may allow attacks of opportunity in some cases. They don't actually threaten an additional square, just part of additional squares. Exiting a square one way provokes while exiting it another way, may not (for example). With all weapons being treated the same, it never made much sense to us from a metagame perspective why all warriors wouldn't run around with greatswords or great axes. No one had any motivation to use a shortsword. Now, they do. One extra balancing factor, though, is that were using a variant damage reduciton system. So, having multiple attacks with fast weapons (that usually deal less damage) means that the damage reduction is subtracted off of each attack (but there are more chances at a critical per round, too). I wouldn't just eliminate the -5 cumulative penalty on each additonal attack without doing something to the rest of the way the game works. Our system is working for us, so far. Another option that we're using is a feat that allows a character to treat a favored weapon as if it is one size category larger [I]only[/I] for purposes of dealing damage. So, instead of going the multiple attacks route, a character might take the damage increasing feat, instead. The pre-requisites are pretty hefty, though. Much more than is required for Improved Natural Attack in the MM. And, it only applies to one weapon each time the feat is taken. Improved Sunder just got more valuable, too, because people will want to be able to sunder the guy's weapon if he has that feat. We probably spent a couple hundred hours hashing out the effects of the various rule changes we were considering. And, these seem very workable, so far. Please, don't just eliminate the -5 cumulative penalty. It's too simple a solution that will skew the balance of power in the game a little too much for the reasons already posted by others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Removing the penalty for multiple attacks
Top