While I like 3.5/Pathfinder there are some things that I hate about it. The first and I think most crippling is multiple attacks. At low levels not so bad. BUT hit 10th-16th and the game comes to a crawl. No matter the shortcuts involve(using different color dice, random generators etc)it's still a drag on the game. My question is simple: Would it kill the game if every character had a base of one attack with higher up and maybe certain classes getting maybe one extra attack or something in that ballpark? Alot of people say "well the spellcaster would out do a fighter type in damage. But if the fighter type is doing +16 damage is that still the case?
I had a character for whom the entire playstyle was "hit thing with giant hammer". She had killed an ogre at level one and taken his weapon (a warhammer). I took all of Vital Strike, Furious Focus, and Deadly Stroke. It was a very fun character to play and spat out very respectiable damage.
One thing to consider is that a fighter-type, by having multiple attacks, can spread the damage around to multple targets.
someone doesn't play many RTSs
One thing to consider is that a fighter-type, by having multiple attacks, can spread the damage around to multple targets.someone doesn't play many RTSs
Well if you have ranged combatants plinking at them as well, especially a mage blasting scorching ray at them all then it works out in the end.
It really depends on if your encounters are usually lots of things or single things as to the decision to "share the pain"
One thing to consider is that a fighter-type, by having multiple attacks, can spread the damage around to multple targets.someone doesn't play many RTSs
RTSs have splash damage...
I agree with LilithsThrall here- Some characters can only handle groups by attacking multiple times. Any ranged nonmagic class (and some pallys) relies on iterative attacks to put the hurt on hordes. Take that away and magic classes with splash attacks will dominate utility and damage.
If you want to streamline things, you could try houseruling iterative attacks into a burst effect, similar to the archer fighter archetype's volley ability (except you would have them roll just once for everybody).
It really depends on if your encounters are usually lots of things or single things as to the decision to "share the pain"One encounter may be "lots of things" and the next encounter against "single things". A fighter-type with multiple attacks can adjust as needed. Perhaps a fighter-type with one big attack can adjust as needed IF the appropriate supporting rule is created (some sort of 'splash' damage, perhaps?).
There is a feat to attack the ground and make rough terrain, also whirlwind attack, Cleave as well.
In games that use saves and conditions, instead of damage and hitpoints, I've seen a "single die roll" style of combat.
For condition based health, it's usually just a single stat that goes up with level or power, and if you exceed the attack roll by an amount it causes more than one step down on the conditions.
Attacking multiple creatures is simply a penalty to the attack, but still a single roll against all the enemies.
To carry this over to dice damage and hitpoints, maybe something like this:
Always roll a single attack roll.
When attacking with multiple attacks from (former) iteratives or extra weapons, you simply add more attack bonus and damage to that roll. If you want to keep it with the D&D balance, then the extra damage only happens as a full round action.
When attacking multiple enemies, you have a penalty to your attack and damage to that roll.
This would streamline things a lot, I believe. In fact, it opens the door to easier implementation of things like "attack multiple enemies as a standard action", etc.
Yeah, you don't have as many "chances" to hit (since you go from multiple rolls to only one), but that's why extra "attacks" would increase the attack roll.
TWF would give a large increase to damage with little to no increase in attack roll (to mimic the normal penalty to attack rolls for using two weapons).
One attack roll per round, one decision to make: do I attack one guy, or multiple guys.
It would be difficult to do. 3e's engine is built entirely around iterative attacks for martial classes - there'd be a lot of changes to make if you were to get rid of those horrible, horrible things.
Trailblazer from Bad Axe games did a simple fix. At level 6 you still get your extra attack as normal, but the penalty is -2 and this applies to all attacks when you full attack. When you would normally get your 3rd attack, the penalty lessens to -1 (you never get more than 2 iterative attacks). When you would get your 4th, the penalty is gone. This only applies to iterative attacks derived from classes, monsters primary and secondary attacks are unaffected.
I could use my excel sheet to find out what the difference in attack is between "one roll + X" vs "one roll + 2nd roll @ -5". Resolve for X essentially.
Get the odds around the same, and you've got the lion's share of the problem resolved. Anything that triggers off an attack, gets a higher chance to trigger, so the odds are still the same (just add more damage). Crits also keep their odds (the confirmation roll has the bonus to attack).
The only real monkey wrench is the new "reroll" options. Not sure how those would kick in when transferring from a system of multiple rolls to a system of a single roll.
Edit:
Oh, and the option of making a full attack after the first hit.
Make your normal attack roll. If your attack exceeds by X (the penalty for making attacks against multiple targets), you can apply extra damage for multiple attacks, and/or appply that roll against multiple targets with the modified damage (+damage from multiple attacks/weapons, -damage from multiple targets), and even take a 5' step to include extra targets in that round.
You'd have to wrap your head around the concept, but I can see it working.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a feat to attack the ground and make rough terrain, also whirlwind attack, Cleave as well.It really depends on if your encounters are usually lots of things or single things as to the decision to "share the pain"One encounter may be "lots of things" and the next encounter against "single things". A fighter-type with multiple attacks can adjust as needed. Perhaps a fighter-type with one big attack can adjust as needed IF the appropriate supporting rule is created (some sort of 'splash' damage, perhaps?).
You do know that cleave and whirlwind attack would still have the issue of multiple dice rolling that the OP was complaining about right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trailblazer from Bad Axe games did a simple fix. At level 6 you still get your extra attack as normal, but the penalty is -2 and this applies to all attacks when you full attack. When you would normally get your 3rd attack, the penalty lessens to -1 (you never get more than 2 iterative attacks). When you would get your 4th, the penalty is gone. This only applies to iterative attacks derived from classes, monsters primary and secondary attacks are unaffected.
This is a great system and I've used it for a few months.
Having only two attacks that roll at the same bonus really speeds up the math. What's more, by very-high-level (16th) when iterative attacks were at their most annoying, the math actually becomes easier because your full attacks all have the same bonus as your standard attack.
On top of all this, the damage output remains pretty close to RAW (except on the extremes).
This has got to be one of the great all-time rule patches. It's a damn shame it's closed content, or I would push hard for inclusion in Pathfinder 2e. Hell, maybe Bad Axe would be nice and share if asked.
|
|
I had a thought to do like earlier editions did, with higher level characters getting more attacks at weaker enemies, and less against higher level enemies. The basic gist was that people with equal BAB could only make one attack at each other, while someone who had a higher BAB than his enemy could make multiple attacks against him. I couldn't make it very elegant, and it was a lot more bookkeeping, so I dropped it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not trolling, just don't get it.
I see this topic come up from time to time and I just don't ever see it.
In my experience iterative attacks are the least time-consuming component of what happens at the table. Deliberation and implementation take up far, far more. Even if you limit a player to a reasonable amount of time to make up their mind, there then comes the square-counting, the discussion of what swift and free actions are going to be taken, a little bit of free speaking, followed by oh-wait-I'm-a-caster-so-now-we-need-The-Talk. The Talk being "does SR apply", followed by "can the bad guy make his save" followed by "does he get bonuses to that save based on what this spell is" followed by "here's the damage" followed by "oh, maybe he's resistant to some of it".
What's so time-consuming about iteratives?
"27?"
Hit.
"18 damage plus 3 fire. 21?"
Miss.
"23 and a threat?"
Hit.
"22 for the confirmation?"
Crit.
"31 damage plus 2 fire."
Still up but battered. Next!
Sure, two-handed weapon fighting complicates things because the two hands have different damage modifiers, but straight iteratives are trivial.
So what I'm asking is... why is this taking any appreciable time in your campaigns? In mine the fighter types are done quicker than the casters, even with four attacks.
What's so time-consuming about iteratives?
"27?"
Hit.
"18 damage plus 3 fire. 21?"
that 18 damage could come from any number of dice rolls, buffs etc
***************************I would like not to have iteratives, so basically only one attack BUT
you could always make a feat or seven
-an attack with better to hit by sacrificing AC or a save
-power attack as is
-multiple swings at the cost of attack bonus or damage
combos like that....is a bit 4th editiony then
BUT basically each round you can move and have one 'attack'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I like 3.5/Pathfinder there are some things that I hate about it. The first and I think most crippling is multiple attacks. At low levels not so bad. BUT hit 10th-16th and the game comes to a crawl. No matter the shortcuts involve(using different color dice, random generators etc)it's still a drag on the game. My question is simple: Would it kill the game if every character had a base of one attack with higher up and maybe certain classes getting maybe one extra attack or something in that ballpark? Alot of people say "well the spellcaster would out do a fighter type in damage. But if the fighter type is doing +16 damage is that still the case?
Oh hell yes.
As it is, the fact that melee classes don't get full attacks all the time absolutely nerfs them at higher levels. Their damage output compared to the pouncing monsters, or the druids PET gets pretty pathetic based on only one attack. The last thing the game needs to do is to screw melee types over MORE than they already are.
Not trolling, just don't get it.
I see this topic come up from time to time and I just don't ever see it.
In my experience iterative attacks are the least time-consuming component of what happens at the table. Deliberation and implementation take up far, far more. Even if you limit a player to a reasonable amount of time to make up their mind, there then comes the square-counting, the discussion of what swift and free actions are going to be taken, a little bit of free speaking, followed by oh-wait-I'm-a-caster-so-now-we-need-The-Talk. The Talk being "does SR apply", followed by "can the bad guy make his save" followed by "does he get bonuses to that save based on what this spell is" followed by "here's the damage" followed by "oh, maybe he's resistant to some of it".
What's so time-consuming about iteratives?
"27?"
Hit.
"18 damage plus 3 fire. 21?"
Miss.
"23 and a threat?"
Hit.
"22 for the confirmation?"
Crit.
"31 damage plus 2 fire."
Still up but battered. Next!Sure, two-handed weapon fighting complicates things because the two hands have different damage modifiers, but straight iteratives are trivial.
So what I'm asking is... why is this taking any appreciable time in your campaigns? In mine the fighter types are done quicker than the casters, even with four attacks.
I'm with Anguish... I also find that my fighters finish way quicker than my casters (my four player party are all at 13th level).
Ultradan
It does seem to me that most of the time consumption is a result of having grids (square or hex make no difference) on the battlemat.
Amen. I use a battlemat only if there is a lot of interesting terrain, and a fairly large number of combatants moving around. For basic fights (surprise the bad guy in his room type stuff), we do without, and combat becomes very, very quick.
It does seem to me that most of the time consumption is a result of having grids (square or hex make no difference) on the battlemat.
Sure. But faster isn't always more interesting; otherwise speed chess would be more popular than regular chess.
@Anguish & company
What you've described is only a very basic, low level full BAB class attacking. A 6th level Fighter with Rapid Shot can pull this off (or even a Monk at 4th level, really).
It can get a lot more complicated than that.
Here's what a normal attack routine can run into:
1. the normal attack roll
2. critical checking (confirmation, or checking if immune)
3. conditional bonus damage (sneak attack, bane damage, etc)
4. checking elemental damage (resistant? immune?)
5. alternative attack options (combat maneuvers, class abilities)
6. rider abilities (if hit with shield, then bull rush, stunning fist needs to hit AND save, spell storing weapon enhancement)
7. weapon or enemy changing (did you kill the last target? quickdraw and throw an axe)
8. chain reactions (X ability causes enemy to threaten AoO from allies)
9. reroll options (zen archer, weapon master)
Apply iteratives to that, and it just multiplies these factors. Plus, it's not just iterative attacks.. it's also other forms of adding more attacks:
Two Weapon Fighting/Flurry: +1-3 attacks
Monk Ki: +1 attack
Medusa's Wrath: +2 attacks
Haste: +1 attack
Rapid Shot: +1 attack
Whirlwind Attack: modified to 1 attack roll per person in reach
There's a lot of ways to get annoying amounts of attacks. And this assumes a single character. How about we toss in a Ranger with an animal companion?
Suddenly we have a full BAB class, designed around conditional modifiers and ability trees that focus on extra attacks, combined with a second creature making it's own full set of attacks (Raptor? 5 attacks + pounce, so lots of attacks that apply almost all the time).
At high levels, we are looking at positioning two creatures and attacking around a dozen times each round (and ranged + pounce means it's happening almost every round).
This is how things start to slow down.
|
I think my favorite solution, and one I hope to implement whenever I get around to running my "super-excessively house-ruled" game, is thus:
A) Roll a single attack roll per turn in which you are making any attacks.
B) Any extra attacks from iteratives or things like Rapid Shot or TWF-ing are derived from that single attack roll.
Ex: Fred, 6th level Fighter with 20 Strength, Base to hit with his sword: +11/+6
Fighter Fred decided he's going to full-attack Big Bad Bob this turn, thus he rolls a single die, a 14, and has two attacks that turn which hit a 25 and 20 AC respectively.
This gets quite hasty, I expect, when you have iteratives such as the above. You can simply figure out your first attack at full BAB, and for every 5 by which you exceed the target's AC, you get an additional attack, up to your maximum.
I'd probably make crits confirm as separate die rolls, otherwise you could have a high chance of "full round crits", sure to take down whatever you're up against.
@Anguish & company
What you've described is only a very basic, low level full BAB class attacking. A 6th level Fighter with Rapid Shot can pull this off (or even a Monk at 4th level, really).
It can get a lot more complicated than that.
Okay, I think I'm getting an answer. Thanks for not thinking I was trolling.
My advice is then that the root of the problem is the language used at the table. The quantity of attacks isn't the issue (as you describe it), it's the breakdown of the results. Let's try again.
"23?"
Hit.
"Great. 24 physical, 6 cold, 7 sneak attack and it's dazzled for one round. Oh, and a crappy 21 on my free trip attempt?"
Doesn't do it.
Realistically weapon materials and properties (cold iron et al) are generally pretty well-known. If you've got golf-bag fighters, well, I'm suddenly on your side. Otherwise things like smites get declared before anything else, so DR and the like are pretty straightforward.
In my groups we use a monster statblock for character sheets. That's HUGE in terms of simplifying things. We include special attack modifiers.
Melee +1 greatsword +11/+6 (2d6+5/19-20x2)
Power Attack +9/+4 (2d6+11/19-20x2)
Smite +13/+8 (2d6+14/19-20x2)
Smite PA +11/+6 (2d6+20/19-20x2)
Please note, if there's a mistake in my hypothetical statblock, it's because I just generated it off the top of my head, not because I don't know how PA or smite work... I just made up offsets for an imaginary paladin.
See, if you do this sort of precalculation for things you regularly use, all you need to do is transform them for any temporary conditions like that +1 to hit due to haste, or that +2 to damage because of... whatever.
What I'm saying is not that the premise of this thread is flawed. I don't know your group(s). But here's my response regarding ways to simplify running an encounter without actually changing game rules.
Note: this doesn't work for highly evocative cinematic DM styles. If you describe the results of your players' hits, that's going to take huge amounts of time due to iteratives. "Your greatsword slashes deep into the orc chieftain's shoulder. As the blade slides through his flesh like a hot chainsaw through butter, the evil skin peels back and blackens as if it were burned by the powerful force of your god's wrath." Know what? IMHO after the nth time (where n is some low number) that stuff gets tired. Just say "hit, and your smite is working". Save the descriptions for crits, killing blows, or epic moves made at the right moment.
If Pathfinder 2E ever gets made, full-attacks are the first thing I want gone. Obviously, it would require a total overhaul of the system so it's not something we'll see soon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why is it such an issue, Multiple attacks have always taken the least time in a combat round at my table. Mostly it's the spellcasters i have to count down for. And i do tend to lead high level campaigns, where three to four iterative attacks are the norm...
|
|
While I like 3.5/Pathfinder there are some things that I hate about it. The first and I think most crippling is multiple attacks. At low levels not so bad. BUT hit 10th-16th and the game comes to a crawl. No matter the shortcuts involve(using different color dice, random generators etc)it's still a drag on the game. My question is simple: Would it kill the game if every character had a base of one attack with higher up and maybe certain classes getting maybe one extra attack or something in that ballpark? Alot of people say "well the spellcaster would out do a fighter type in damage. But if the fighter type is doing +16 damage is that still the case?
I have played in several single attack game systems. My experience is that they make the game less dynamic.
Dice rollers are your friend and solve most of these problems.
Hurray for smart phone apps.
Multiple attacks take too long? Cutting them down I guess could work. Or the players could figure out things before their turn comes around, which would drastically reduce wait time. If the math is determined before hand and all you need to do is roll some dice and add two numbers, I don't see the problem. In almost every game I have played in fighters take very little time to determine what they're doing, whether they're ranged nukes, two handed weapon monsters or two weapon fighters (Although they generally take less time due to most of the rolls coming up as a miss :P).
I see this situation as less of a system problem and more of a "players are not adequately prepared for their turn" problem. Encourage players to have their turn worked out as much as they can and things will flow nicely without the need for neutering the combat system.
<sarcasm>
You know what? This whole "dice rolling" thing is a bit of a drag. Why don't we just drop that entirely? I propose a streamlined Pathfinder system where you declare your action, roll a single D20 and then the DM decides if it succeeds based on how well you bribe him...
</sarcasm>
Obviously everyone will tweak the rules as they see fit, which is one of the major strengths of the system. Personally, I just don't see the appeal (or the situation that apparently causes the problem) to stripping down combat to such an extent.
|
Trailblazer from Bad Axe games did a simple fix. At level 6 you still get your extra attack as normal, but the penalty is -2 and this applies to all attacks when you full attack. When you would normally get your 3rd attack, the penalty lessens to -1 (you never get more than 2 iterative attacks). When you would get your 4th, the penalty is gone. This only applies to iterative attacks derived from classes, monsters primary and secondary attacks are unaffected.
How does Rapid Shot and Two Weapon Fighting tie into this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trailblazer from Bad Axe games did a simple fix. At level 6 you still get your extra attack as normal, but the penalty is -2 and this applies to all attacks when you full attack. When you would normally get your 3rd attack, the penalty lessens to -1 (you never get more than 2 iterative attacks). When you would get your 4th, the penalty is gone. This only applies to iterative attacks derived from classes, monsters primary and secondary attacks are unaffected.How does Rapid Shot and Two Weapon Fighting tie into this?
They work the same way — a single additional attack with both at -2.
Each feat grants an extra attack, but after two attacks, they start eliminating penalties. So I believe a character with all of the feats has four attacks total — all at the same bonus (imagine that!)
Well maybe I've just had different experience. In the last game I was in we ended up hating the Ranger with two weapon fighting tree and two different magic weapons with two different bonuses to it.
He used different color dice,had the bonuses all figured out and it still dragged on when his turn came up.
And don't get me started on animal companions.
Some people have mentioned Star Wars Saga, and personally, I think that if you're going to go to the "Everyone gets one Standard Action per round, and that action can be an Attack," then going the way of Star Wars Saga is the way to do it - as long as you remember to incorporate the per-level-damage-increase that SWSaga includes as part of its mechanic.
One of the major functions of the Iterative Attack mechanic is to make sure that there is a sufficient amount of damage scaling per level to potentially decrease the length of time that a combat takes against an equally-matched foe or group of foes (I say potentially because we all know that most 4-attack fighters will miss on their successive attacks a good number of times in any realistic combat situation). When a combatant is attacking 2, 3, 4 or more times per round, the potential for damage to scale upward (thus inflicting more average damage per round to the target) also increases.
When you remove iterative attacks, you are also therefore removing that commensurate damage potential.
Damage in SWSaga is calculated thusly:
weapon damage + 1/2 your level (rounded down) + applicable modifiers
So a Soldier with an unmodified blaster that does 2d6 will do 2d6+0 at 1st Level, while that same Soldier with that same blaster will do 2d6+10 at 20th Level - barring any Feats, Class Abilities, Talents, and so forth.
When using a Double Weapon, Two Weapon Fighting, or the Double/Triple Attack Feat Chain, the combatant acquires further attacks, at a flat penalty to all attacks that round - not at an iterative attack penalty, such as one finds in 3.X/PFRPG. Honestly, that's my biggest issue with the Double/Triple Attack chain - The flat penalty means that it is increasingly unlikely that your second/third attacks will hit at higher levels - which you need them to do in order to do enough damage to, say, that Colossal Junk Droid, in order to bring it down in short order.
And if you're using Triple Attack while fighting with Two Weapons? Forget it.
What I'm getting at is that while, no, having a single standard action/attack per round is not a game-killer, without some manner of damage-escalation, your fights are going to take a lot longer, especially for your single-focus melee types. Iterative attacks assume a certain amount of hit-miss ratios, magical item infusions, and Feat/Class ability methods of increasing damage as levels escalate. Rogues get Sneak Attacks, Wizards and Sorcerers get bigger spells, Clerics get much the same, and your Fighter types simply get more attacks at higher bonuses with Feats and magic weapons. Take away their attacks, and your single-role melee types suddenly find themselves becoming increasingly put-upon.
We tried the single-standard rule in a 3.5 game about a year or so ago, and this is what it boiled down to. When we put the commensurate per-level damage increase back in, with the Double/Triple feats, suddenly things got a lot more fun for the Fighter. That being said, we also removed the "-5/-10 penalty to all attacks" and just made them penalties to the successive attacks, which seemed to help a lot in the realm of Fighter Happiness.
|
remove additional attacks and replace with this: each additional attack would effect one creature adjacent to the original target and do 1/2 the original damage. You could either make attack rolls to see if they hit or just allow them to hit if the original attack hits automagically.
Simple, removes rolling damage 3-8 times, cuts down on attack rolls and is pretty easy to use.
My advice is then that the root of the problem is the language used at the table. The quantity of attacks isn't the issue (as you describe it), it's the breakdown of the results.
The fact that you can fix, work around, or otherwise deal with the mechanics doesn't mean they're not broken. Not that I'm saying they're broken necessarily, but I am definitely in the "less is more" camp.
Dice rollers are your friend
I'm not trying to pick on you or the way you play, but I really dislike things like this. Pencil, paper, book and dice are all one should need to play. I cringe every time I read or hear about people sitting around the table on their laptops rolling electronic dice. At that point, why not just play computer games together?
On maps, minis, dice rollers, etc... All of these things are helpful managing the rules, but I believe their presence indicates that the rules are bloated. A simple, streamlined set of rules would obviate the need for any of these aids.
Or the players could figure out things before their turn comes around
Except that what someone does 1 second before your turn can change your tactics, and that preparation is lost. This also discourages people from paying attention to what others are doing. If one has a fair degree of game mastery, it is manageable, but that can hardly be assumed. Putting the burden of rule bloat on the player does not solve rule bloat.
Trailblazer
I'm going to check this out. It sounds like a good fix, similar to one I have been working on.
Rule bloat is subjective. With that said I don't think dropping iterative attacks for this edition of the game since with changing a few other things since it is a part of the core system. I do think it would be good for a later edition
I can see them slightly time consuming at high levels, but not THAT much. Less than other things like a sudden debuffing, as an example.
I find them FUN, from a GM standpoint (description of a claw claw rend, or a dragon -rare- full attack).
I find it FUN for players too, bot as a succession of powerful blow, or a complicated switch of weapons, off-hand bashes and well timed steps.
I see people complains and I would find trailblazer's soultion a decent compromise, but I would keep them frankly, at least as a option.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not trolling, just don't get it.
I see this topic come up from time to time and I just don't ever see it.
Agreed. The reason we play this game face-to-face, aside from the social aspects and letting our imaginations wander, is for the for the tactile pleasure of occasionally getting to roll a heaping gob of funny-sided dice -- and the more difference kinds in one simultaneous throw, the better.
The more attacks you get, the more chances you have to critically hit your opponent. How would you account for this? Also, if you are limited to only one attack each round and that single attack misses, you don't have more chances to hit that round, how would you account for this?
I'm not discussing the merits, just wondering how to take these things into account.
The more attacks you get, the more chances you have to critically hit your opponent. How would you account for this? Also, if you are limited to only one attack each round and that single attack misses, you don't have more chances to hit that round, how would you account for this?
I'm not discussing the merits, just wondering how to take these things into account.
My post addresses some of this, Bob. It is a valid concern you have, and the way they handled it in SWSaga seems to address it adequately.
The more attacks you get, the more chances you have to critically hit your opponent. How would you account for this? Also, if you are limited to only one attack each round and that single attack misses, you don't have more chances to hit that round, how would you account for this?
I'm not discussing the merits, just wondering how to take these things into account.
There's no need to account for this. This is called the Gambler's Fallacy. You would think that rolling the dice over and over, your chances to hit or crit would improve, but they don't. They're exactly the same, every time. You have as much chance to crit on the first attack as the last. More iterations don't increase probability.
I bought the Trailblazer pdf yesterday, and I have to say, aside from PF, it's the best $5 I've ever spent on RPG material, for numerous reasons. They're very up front with their math, and it is clear that their reduced number of attacks produces comparable (slightly more) dpr than the traditional iterative attacks. Three attacks with the same hit chance is better than several attacks, the last few of which almost never hit.
They could have done some things better but it is a good change of pace.
My post addresses some of this, Bob. It is a valid concern you have, and the way they handled it in SWSaga seems to address it adequately.The more attacks you get, the more chances you have to critically hit your opponent. How would you account for this? Also, if you are limited to only one attack each round and that single attack misses, you don't have more chances to hit that round, how would you account for this?
I'm not discussing the merits, just wondering how to take these things into account.
It handles it for SWSaga, and I haven't looked at it in years, but does it deal with the disparity between PCs having only 1 attack and dragons having 6?
The more attacks you get, the more chances you have to critically hit your opponent. How would you account for this? Also, if you are limited to only one attack each round and that single attack misses, you don't have more chances to hit that round, how would you account for this?
I'm not discussing the merits, just wondering how to take these things into account.
There's no need to account for this. This is called the Gambler's Fallacy. You would think that rolling the dice over and over, your chances to hit or crit would improve, but they don't. They're exactly the same, every time. You have as much chance to crit on the first attack as the last. More iterations don't increase probability.
I bought the Trailblazer pdf yesterday, and I have to say, aside from PF, it's the best $5 I've ever spent on RPG material, for numerous reasons. They're very up front with their math, and it is clear that their reduced number of attacks produces comparable (slightly more) dpr than the traditional iterative attacks. Three attacks with the same hit chance is better than several attacks, the last few of which almost never hit.
They could have done some things better but it is a good change of pace.
In this case it's not a fallacy. If the PCs have their number of actions reduced from 4+ to 1, then they do have reduced chances of scoring a critical hit especially against lower CR opponents where a high crit chance can make a huge difference. If this isn't taken into account, then you are weakening the non-casters.
I'm not someone who can just do a bunch of math to show this but it makes sense that if you have fewer actions then you have fewer chances to crit or recover from a miss. 1 < 4+.
This can be a bigger issue against creatures with lots of attacks like a giant ocotpus or roper or nearly any tentacled creature that has tons of attacks. It would be like a poker player drawing 1 card while another can draw 6 and keep any 5. One has a better chance of winning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well maybe I've just had different experience. In the last game I was in we ended up hating the Ranger with two weapon fighting tree and two different magic weapons with two different bonuses to it.
He used different color dice,had the bonuses all figured out and it still dragged on when his turn came up.
And don't get me started on animal companions.
That just relates to the player, I played the Archery Ranger and had the pack of animals from APG. In my group when my turn came around, I was done in less than 30 seconds, the other people playing a variety of classes(Two Weapon Fighter, Oracle, Wizard, Sorcerer) All of their turns would take 2 min or more. Again, I was focusing on the game where they were talking, playing DS, reading through books, ect. You can play some of the most Complex Classes and not take forever to take a turn. Just cut the chatter and BS.