Actually, the flaw is that it's a cumbersome mechanic. Add dual-wielding and Haste and you are rolling dozens of dice, throw in some more damage adds like Flaming or Bane weapons and it's a major exercise just to take a full attack action as the levels go up. It's a pain and I'm glad they dispensed with it in 4e.
I'd meet you halfway...
Single or 2-handed weapon = 1 attack
Dual wielding = 2 attacks
I too prefer a game without iterative attacks, but the principle of making more attack rolls in the the same amount of time isn't mind-bogging to me.
The best solution I've used when it comes to multiple attacks in 1 round is color coded die. For example, my Swashbuckler 3/ rogue 6/ swordsage 1 fought with two-weapons (shortswords) and delt 5d6 of Sneak Attack die per attack. Add in Improved TWF and that's 4 attacks per turn at 5d6 (and 6d6 due to assassination weapons) per attack.....it got confusing once you add in DR and resistances and all that stuff. Luckily I had multiple colored d20's and I'd make a list with the attack bonuses next to the color. So 1st attack at +15 was Blue, 2nd at +15 was Red (off-hand), 3rd attack at +10 was Green, and 4th attack was White (off-hand). I then had the d6's color match to meet those d20 die. It was pretty simple to adjust for spells or flanking and then I'd just roll once for attaks (all d20 at once) and then once for damage (probably 15-20 d6's at once) then subtract from my modifier any DR or resistances. A full-round attack might have taken me 1 to 2 minutes to calculate and resolve.
|
Be sure, I'm not advocating it. But there would obviously be many situations where taking 10 would still fail. It's merely meant to circumvent a 2 minute turn to deal 40+ damage to something with 20 hit points.
I liked the Mutants & Masterminds 2e rule that stated you could Take 10 on attack rolls against minions, it meant that once you got their measure (i.e. worked out that taking 10 would result in a hit) and the minions didn't better their position (i.e. got into cover or did something else to improve their defence) you would just be rolling damage (or rather in M&M the minions would just be making Toughness saves).
|
Yes, sorry, a bit grouchy above. Unfortunately, this guy was often doing much more damage to creatures with much higher hit points - after all, this isn't really a problem for low level play anyway, and most monsters had more than twenty hit points at this stage.
For sure. It's just that it was stated that the character in question was already being very efficient with his dice rolling - I don't think there is another easy solution short of changing the combat rules.
@Diffan: Totally agree about the colour-coding. I also make my players roll all the dice for one attack (or all attacks if colour coded) at the same time.
To return to my "tell me what you rolled" method, it speeds things up even more because while the player adds up his damage, I can work out the attack roll vs. AC.
|
It's just that it was stated that the character in question was already being very efficient with his dice rolling - I don't think there is another easy solution short of changing the combat rules.
Well that's sort of my point - it simply doesn't happen (or to a much, much lesser extent) in 4e, and is one of the good things to have been abolished in that edition.
I followed all of the Blogs and Posts for a few weeks now and what I gleaned was the following:
- "forcing" everyone to play D&D with tactical battlemat combat was a mistake the 5e will not make
- 5e will be oldschool, going back to the roots of D&D in order to unify the playerbase at the lowest common denominator
- the relatively simple basic rules will be expanded by modules that are totally optional
This means (as far as I know):
- Skills are redone
(no longer is there an exhaustive list of skills but instead you use Attribute checks as in AD&D except for the cases where you have specialised - example: Strength 16 (swimming+5))
- few base classes are expanded by Archetypes
(there may be no Babarian base class any more but instead Babarian is now a Fighter archetype)
- Vancian is in again but not for everyone
(there will be vancian spellcasters again but certain spell casting classes will use the at-will/encounter/daily format in one way or the other)
- Growth will be trimmed back
(no longer will double the level mean four times the numbers)
Anything I missed or misread?
|
Nice list MicMan. Instead of archetypes 5E team seems to be calling them themes. Themes unlike archetypes wont be tied to class. There is also backgrounds to pick. I think the breakdown is class determines your base package. Theme determines your archetype, so what type of fighter/mage/priest you will be. Finally background will help determine what type of skills you have for interaction and exploration. I think that's what I have been reading.
|
|
Themes (assuming they mean the same thing) first emerged from 4e, and there they represented a sort of mild retrofitting to fit a particular setting or achetype. For example, "Escaped Slave", "Gladiator", "Dune Trader", "Athasian Minstrel" and a few others are themes from 4e Dark Sun, which can be added to more or less any character class (though probably work better with some than others, depending) to give them more flavour through additional powers or giving access to powers which can be swapped in in favour of the base class's normal ones. They've since come up with more generic ones, lik "Black-Hearted Knave", less tied to settings or campaigns. While it isn't necessarily the case that they will work the same same way in 5e, themes were quite a successful way of making character more unique and it is interesting to see the idea, at least, carried into 5e.
|
|
Themes (assuming they mean the same thing) first emerged from 4e, and there they represented a sort of mild retrofitting to fit a particular setting or achetype. For example, "Escaped Slave", "Gladiator", "Dune Trader", "Athasian Minstrel" and a few others are themes from 4e Dark Sun, which can be added to more or less any character class (though probably work better with some than others, depending) to give them more flavour through additional powers or giving access to powers which can be swapped in in favour of the base class's normal ones. They've since come up with more generic ones, lik "Black-Hearted Knave", less tied to settings or campaigns. While it isn't necessarily the case that they will work the same same way in 5e, themes were quite a successful way of making character more unique and it is interesting to see the idea, at least, carried into 5e.
I'd like to see them keep the themes as basic as possible, as they have alluded to allowing characters to pick up more themes, or progress in a single theme.
"Gladiator" is a good, simple theme that has an instant connection for most gamers."Black-Hearted Knave" is probably fine, but could be just "Knave".
What I don't want to see is:
"Vengeful Mystic Apprentice" or some such nonsense (obviously made up). If it seems like a combination of themes, it should be (similar to what seems to be the approach to core classes - no core class if it seems like a multi-class or theme solution).
Aubrey, you're describing 2nd Edition kits, which have been around since 1989.
Not really. Actually, the PF archetypes are closer to kits than Themes are. The difference being that kits changed set class features for others, at a one time event (usu. taken only at first level).
Themes are changable any time that you feel your circumstances change. You can start as gladiator, switch to escaped slave, and finally settle on dune trader. Also, themes don't change any class features, they add a flavor to what you already have, or allow you to take aspects a la carte, without having to take all of them.
They are very similiar to kits, and I have explained them as such to other gamers unfamiliar with Themes or Archetypes, but they have a lot more versatility and variation through the career's length. They may have been a throwback towards kit, but they are not kits.
|
|
Aubrey, you're describing 2nd Edition kits, which have been around since 1989.
Like Aadvark says, no I'm not - though I guess I was waiting for someone to say that (believe it or not, I was actually around for 2e and was aware of kits - have books full of them, in fact). Kits attached to specific classes, themes in 4e do not. You can be a wizard and an Athasian Minstrel if you so desire in 4e. Though I don't doubt that there was an element of inspiration from kits, themes don't work the same way. Archetypes in PF are really much more like kits, as they are attached to a specific class, and you can't retrain out of it. Kits and archetypes are effectively variants on a specific class, themes are an addition which can be applied to any class to give them more flavour and a mechanical basis for iconic background fluff.
|
|
I'd like to see them keep the themes as basic as possible, as they have alluded to allowing characters to pick up more themes, or progress in a single theme.
"Gladiator" is a good, simple theme that has an instant connection for most gamers.
"Black-Hearted Knave" is probably fine, but could be just "Knave".What I don't want to see is:
"Vengeful Mystic Apprentice" or some such nonsense (obviously made up). If it seems like a combination of themes, it should be (similar to what seems to be the approach to core classes - no core class if it seems like a multi-class or theme solution).
Well, they haven't done a theme for "Woke up pissed off with the boss this morning", but I hear what you are saying. They are more designed about who you are and what you know - there is one called "Wizard's Apprentice" but that seems reasonable given how iconic that theme is. If you are vengeful, that might come out in the separate background (again, 4e works similarly, where you can choose separately a theme - this is my job - and a background - goblins murdered my parents).
Do we know, more or less, when 5E will be released?
Supposedly, the release date is not set in stone yet -- playtest results are supposed to help them determine how much work they have left to do and thus how long until they can release the official books. We will just have to wait and see whether that is in fact what they do.