D&D, multiple attacks, and an alternative

[JonSetanta]

https://dmdavid.com/tag/the-obvious-inn ... aw-before/

AKA, Why multiple attacks for warriors are here to stay.

IMHO, they should not be a thing, as I recently found out with a high level Echo Knight (Fighter that creates a 1 HP duplicate of theirself that gains 1 attack a turn) that flanking (advantage) + 3-4 attacks + possible action surge leads to many, many, many attack rolls, not all of which are guaranteed to hit, especially with bounded accuracy.

Also, diminishing returns in the form of ever-increased penalties to later attacks in a round are absolutely stupid. This is a thing only found in 3e and PF variants.
AD&D and 5e do not have this, though they do have their own glitches.

The article states that the sole reason multiple attacks were implemented was that warriors in 4e were spending their single attacks taking down goblins or kobolds one at a time, while previous editions (and D&D Beyond, DMG) had an optional rule that allowed them to sweep multiple weak foes per turn, which was largely ignored by the gaming community.

This is an example of an oft-ignored DMG rule: https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/od-d-fig ... acks.4437/

So, rather than grant multiple attacks, I propose a melee combatant have a Melee DC of 10 + 1/2 BAB + STR or DEX, opposed by a Reflex save for half or some kind of "AC roll" adding armor bonuses and Dodge together (-10 from what the normal static AC value is), and this single attack is an area attack hitting all enemies surrounding the attacker at the same time. A successful save reduces damage to half and negates all rider effects.
Damage output would have to scale with level or BAB much like spell damage does in 3.X.
Something like (base weapon damage) + STR or DEX + (2, 3, or 4 per BAB).

This way, special abilities could add rider effects such as Stun, Prone, Fear, Bleed, extra elemental damage, wider reach, and so on.

Ranged attacks would be a Line, Cone, or Burst (centered on the point of impact) but only one attack per turn. Similar rider effects.

[JonSetanta]

Update: Just found this.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... e-attacks/

[Lord Charlemagne]

Assuming a standard D&D environment, attack rolls should be simple because most likely that is going to be how you are going to have monsters attack and then by a certain necessity of not being lame, you are going to need a wide variety of monsters & the ability to use multiple of them at the same time, so keeping it at its simplest form of, "roll this die with this bonus against this number" is a good way to have a easily understood mechanic that a lot of things use & can add variability to it by changing things armor class & to hit bonuses.

I think its fine & a good idea for PC's & certainly some monsters to make multiple attack rolls. Helps increase the average chance that something actually happens on their turn & can help texture things out by different people making different amount of attacks at different weights. You'd probably want to have a soft-cap or hard cap on the number of attacks a character could make, but where that lies depends on how many riders on each attack their are & other such stuff.

Diminishing returns for attack bonuses are bad. Make all attacks the same bonus or make 1 attack a "strong attack" & the rest of them after that a "weak" attack. If doing that model, you can then have some classes get benefits on their "strong attack" while others get benefits on their "weak" attacks, meaning it can then serve a way to make classes play differently while

[JonSetanta]

Well, if you suggest that even with reducing a multitude of attacks down to one should still allow some additional attacks, I'll look at the Metamagic feats Quicken Spell and Twin Spell.
If a caster can let off multiple SoD or area blasts or even Suck spells in a turn, I'll find the minimum level in which they can do that.

I agree on putting a limit to the number of rider effects per attack.
Maybe one per odd level, or even as few as one per five.

[WalkTheDin0saur]

https://dmdavid.com/tag/the-obvious-inn ... aw-before/

Ugh. Is there anyone who blogs about a technical topic and has anything interesting or insightful to say? I can't even say "well, TTRPGs have a culty anti-intellectual culture and there's no money in them, what do you expect" because blogs about computer programming are even worse. I guess it's that old saying, those who cannot do, teach.

This guy gets bonus points for trying to suck Mearls' dick when he doesn't even have jobs to give out anymore.

Also, diminishing returns in the form of ever-increased penalties to later attacks in a round are absolutely stupid. This is a thing only found in 3e and PF variants.
AD&D and 5e do not have this, though they do have their own glitches.

Rando piece of trivia, but it's from BECMI. Specifically Companion which is why more people don't know about it. I can't remember if iterative attacks made it into the Cyclopedia or not.

The article states that the sole reason multiple attacks were implemented was that warriors in 4e were spending their single attacks taking down goblins or kobolds one at a time, while previous editions (and D&D Beyond, DMG) had an optional rule that allowed them to sweep multiple weak foes per turn, which was largely ignored by the gaming community.

This is an example of an oft-ignored DMG rule: https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/od-d-fig ... acks.4437/

The article is talking about sweep attacks being a thing in 5e playtest documents, which I don't remember but I didn't read all the playtests. That extra-attacks-against-mooks rule you linked is from the 70s before TSR had tried to print a formal "official" ruleset. AD&D1e didn't have it, Red Box D&D didn't have it. It's not that the community ignored the rule, it just wasn't there. OSR people rediscovered it when they started going through PDFs of old books to get back to a time before 4e / WotC / Lorraine Williams / the Equal Voting Rights Act ruined everything, and sometimes they talk about it like it was a bigger deal than it really was.

So, rather than grant multiple attacks, I propose a melee combatant have a Melee DC of 10 + 1/2 BAB + STR or DEX, opposed by a Reflex save for half or some kind of "AC roll" adding armor bonuses and Dodge together (-10 from what the normal static AC value is), and this single attack is an area attack hitting all enemies surrounding the attacker at the same time. A successful save reduces damage to half and negates all rider effects.
Damage output would have to scale with level or BAB much like spell damage does in 3.X.
Something like (base weapon damage) + STR or DEX + (2, 3, or 4 per BAB).

Giving stabby types some kind of AoE move seems reasonable.

Most of the point of extra attacks is to make weapon damage scale though. At this point a normal person might suggest just giving everyone bonus weapon damage that scales with level. You know that meme template about an office meeting where the third guy makes the obvious reasonable suggestion and then gets thrown out the window? Apparently it goes over kind of like that. Mearls and Heinsoo seem to have gone through multiple rounds of it.

[JonSetanta]

Thanks for the feedback.

Am I doomed to repeat the same mistakes as Mearls here?
It seems the more article digging I do, the more I find I'm just repeating the past.

[angelfromanotherpin]

That extra-attacks-against-mooks rule you linked is from the 70s before TSR had tried to print a formal "official" ruleset. AD&D1e didn't have it, Red Box D&D didn't have it. It's not that the community ignored the rule, it just wasn't there.

AD&D PHB pg 25, bottom left. It was absolutely a thing, all the old SSI Gold Box video games included it.

[deaddmwalking]

Generally speaking, hitting one thing a bunch of times is a better strategy than hitting a bunch of things once. Focus fire is a good idea; in D&D a creature remains at peak effectiveness until it is felled.

It can be anti-climatic if the PCs all get 3-4 attacks against a single opponent and it lasts 1-2 rounds. It's the opposite if they're spreading attacks among multiple enemies and several (but not all of them) drop after the first round.

The main issue is that if you COULD attack everyone in reach, it seems logical that you could also attack one person in reach 2x or 3x by ignoring all the other targets. That's not true if your attack is striking the ground Golden Axe style and the ground exploding around you, but for some reason a lot of medieval fetishists don't like explicitly magical swording. People lost their shit over 'what do you mean enemies take damage on a miss.

But yes, if you can get around inherent biases (which you can't), it would absolutely make balancing the game easier if, regardless of the number of attacks you make, could only make one per opponent. Trying to describe all of the to-and-fro into a single set of rolls, though, gets complicated when you add more tactical options. If you can only attack someone once, Attacks-of-Opportunity are basically out.

The thing to keep in mind is that you have to pay attention to both sides of the equation. Increasing damage increases lethality. If you don't want 'boss monsters' to get ganked, you need to increase defenses. Giving a 'sweep attack' as a combat option to everyone is a pretty good starting point, but that doesn't do anything when all of your opponents are 15' tall and are all standing 10' beyond your natural reach.

[JonSetanta]

Hmm. The less enemies, the greater the damage?
Or maybe it's an issue of perspective, since by the time a warrior is going toe to toe with a giant or dragon, their damage bonus from BAB increases will simulate multiple attacks.
Against a horde of goblins it really doesn't matter at level 10 or 20, they are going to die in 1 hit each.

AoOs would remain unchanged but I'd remove the Combat Reflexes feat just to be safe.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

AoOs would remain unchanged but I'd remove the Combat Reflexes feat just to be safe.

Are you fucking with me? One AoO a round sucks dick and you know it. I'm not sure what your goal here is aside from "rolling multiple times to attack is bad". If you hate it that much, just let people make one accuracy check per round and every attack subtracts -2 or -3 from that value until they can't hit anything anymore. Don't neuter my ability to stand in a hallway and scream "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" at dudes and bonk them in the head with a mace. Extra attacks, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad.

[JonSetanta]

Conversely, I thought up a "Death Pool" of damage points that refreshes at the beginning of a warriors turn.

This would be about (weapon damage) + stat bonus + 5x BAB.
This damage can be divided between multiple targets, or dumped onto a single tough foe.

[NigelWalmsley]

One AoO a around sucks dick if it's your only way of doing area control, but there's no reason that needs to be the case. When a Wizard doesn't want people to go somewhere, he can just plop down a wall of stone or some shit and have done. Martial are control looks like "roll a bunch of opportunity attacks against everyone who goes through the area" because people won't let martials have nice things. Just let the Fighter declare that he is employing a Thicket of Blades, roll a single attack, and apply that to-hit and damage (maybe with a "save or stop moving" rider) to everyone who passes through his threated area. No need for extra rolling at all.

[JonSetanta]

What was that Psionic feat
.. Stand Still?
Something good like that.
Without the Fortitude save.

Actually, I could combine it with the Death Pool concept of damage output, where any for dealt at least 1 point of melee damage on an AoO loses all movement.
If the warrior blew all their damage hurting a giant or dragon that round, no AoOs.

[Emerald]

Conversely, I thought up a "Death Pool" of damage points that refreshes at the beginning of a warriors turn.

This would be about (weapon damage) + stat bonus + 5x BAB.
This damage can be divided between multiple targets, or dumped onto a single tough foe.

I think a pool of dice would be better than a pool of damage points, for a few reasons:

1) "Nd6 where N scales by level" is the standard pattern for go-to damaging effects (rogues' [level/2]d6 sneak attack, casters' [level]d6 blasting spells, etc.) and sticking with that for fighter types would be good, especially because a lot of people who play martial classes are the "spells are too complicated and I just wanna roll tons of dice" types and there are already complaints that casters get to roll Xd6 damage while fighters just roll 1dN+$TEXAS.

2) Players tend to have decision paralysis when you just give them a big blob of points. Every paladin player I've ever seen has agonized over precisely how to portion out their Lay On Hands healing (or harming, for the Tyranny/Slaughter variants) down to the last HP in any cases where they weren't just dumping their whole pool on someone, and giving that choice to the fighter every single round of combat has the potential to slow down their turns considerably.

3) Chunking things up into dice makes it easier to expand the system with things like letting fighters spend N dice to add certain rider effects (similar to spellthief class abilities or [Ambush] feats for rogues), which if you're adding stuff to fighter types already is probably something you'll want to do down the line.

What was that Psionic feat
.. Stand Still?
Something good like that.
Without the Fortitude save.

Actually, I could combine it with the Death Pool concept of damage output, where any for dealt at least 1 point of melee damage on an AoO loses all movement.
If the warrior blew all their damage hurting a giant or dragon that round, no AoOs.

Just 1 point is definitely too little, as that doesn't force any sort of tradeoff; the fighter can just use all but [number of enemies] points on his turn, a trivial loss after the first few levels or so, and then automatically stop anyone who comes near him. A small but nontrivial amount of damage plus a save, or a larger amount of damage without a save, would be better, and is essentially what Stand Still does because its DC is 10 + [damage dealt] so dealing lots of damage basically forces a halt except on a natural 20.

If preventing or stopping movement is too easy then that just exacerbates the "melee types just sit in place and full attack because movement is punished" problem and means that enemies simply won't go near fighters because there's no chance of getting past them. Stand Still is probably the better model, since most of the time a fighter will stop enemies but with a low damage roll it's not guaranteed, giving enemies a reason to chance it and forcing the fighter's allies to plan for a successful save just like a caster's allies have to plan for successful saves against debuffs and such.

[JonSetanta]

I don't think Stand Still implemented should derive save DC from damage, but rather 10+1/2 BAB+Stat bonus.

The reason for a pool of damage rather than dice was the situation of being surrounded on 8 sides by targets.
One would spend damage per target, or work with the DM to do it all at once.
Less dice rolling, which otherwise slows the game when you have about 12d6 to count.

I have never met a Paladin player with option paralysis regarding Lay on Hands.

[JonSetanta]

OK I found a solution between dice and damage pool.

It has to do with the Maximize Spell feat.

At level 7, or maybe 5 if you count cantrips, a Wizard can skip rolling dice.

So, there's some option.

1d6/BAB, or at level 5 it's 6 per BAB.

Things like Quicken, Widen, Reach, and Sculpt might also work.

[JonSetanta]

Work in progress: pending class name Paragon, or Hero.
"Fighter" as a role is far too generic, and we already have the Tome version which is more like Batman, my warrior will be more like Thor.


Bonus Fighter and Normal feats as normal on L1 and even levels, on odd levels add a [Strike] feat that either subtracts from Death Dice to alter the area/reach/frequency of use/other property of an attack, or a rider effect based on a level-appropriate spell as if the Paragon were a Wizard/Cleric/Druid.

d10 HP
Full BAB
4 SP
Fort + Ref
Class Skills open to any selection (because really, I don't care)

A single "Strike" replaces the default attack routine for a Paragon, dealing up to the maximum amount of weapon and Death Dice in damage, a hit which is resolved either an attack roll vs. AC of the target for single target Strikes or instead a Strike DC of 10 + 1/2 BAB + STR or DEX vs. the target(s) AC -10 +1d20 for multiple. A successful save against the Strike DC results in negating any status effects of the Strike and only half total damage.
Note that some Metastrike feats might add to the number of Strikes in a round, at the expense of Death Dice.

Death Dice
This damage output pool is the result of combining weapon, ability bonus (STR or DEX), and Paragon Base Attack Bonus d6s.
At the beginning of an attack action, a Paragon may spread their Death Dice for that round (choose which targets get a number of dice) between any number of foes within reach and range. Subtract a number of Death Dice for that turn according to Metastrike feat reductions.
If a single foe, roll attack as normal, or use Strike DC vs. AC roll as by the Paragon's choice.
For more than one foe, use Strike DC vs. AC roll for each.
If a Strike affects an area (as by certain Metastrike feats), spreading Death Dice is not necessary; all beings and unattended objects within the area take the maximum amount rolled, yet make AC rolls individually.
Every foe that was hit or failed the AC roll takes the allotted Death Dice damage and any other status effects applied that round.
If the attack roll "missed" or the AC roll at least matched the Strike DC, the target takes half allotted Strike damage and no status effects.

Paragons regain all Death Dice at the beginning of each of their turns.

Attacks of Opportunity may be made as normal, one per provoking enemy within melee reach, using the Strike DC vs. target's Fortitude save.
If the save fails, they take Strike damage as normal (adding any leftover Death Dice as the Paragon desires), halt all movement for the round and can not willingly move until the beginning of their next turn.

Two-Weapon FIghting (as by the feat, allowed without taking it) adds the second weapon's base damage and stat bonus to total Strike damage.
Add double the two-handed weapon stat bonus to total Strike damage rather than 1.5x.


Metastrike Feats:
Sweep Strike -1 dice: a melee Strike affects all targets within +5 feet of reach (Paragon's choice) and counts as an Area of Effect
Maximize Strike -3 dice: change Death Dice rolls to maximum values
Quicken Strike -4 dice: Strike as a Free action 1/round
Widen Strike -1 die: apply to area Strikes (such as Sculpt), doubles areas
Reach Strike -1 die: double distance of melee reach or range
Sculpt Strike -1 die: new AoEs for melee attack or ranged attack point of impact (or just becomes a Line)
Empower Strike -2 dice: 50% more Death Dice damage, which roughly averages to +3 per die if desired for simplicity
Twin Strike -4 dice: two Strikes as a Standard action
Invisible Strike -0 dice: normally a Strike has flashy glowy effects when empowered by elements or certain riders, but with this, a character swings their weapon, and shit happens mysteriously
Energy Admixture Strike -4 dice: add as much of one energy type in d6s as you normally would deal with Death Dice after total Metastrike reductions
Ghost Strike -1 die: affects Ethereal and Incorporeal targets normally
Explosive Strike -2 dice: pushes at least 10 feet away or more (to limit of AoE), deals +1d6 damage if targets hit anything per 10 feet and knocks prone

I was thinking about Occular Strike for "Laser Eyes" but it would be too difficult.


Pathfinder has some interesting and cheap status effect and elemental MM feats I might look into.

Centered Strike -0 dice: 30-foot radius area centers on you but doesn't affect you
Concussive Strike -2 dice: damage type becomes Sonic, and applies "Shaken" status for as many rounds as 1/2 BAB
Delayed Strike -1 die: for up to a minute, damage and effects are only applied as you desire as a later standard action
Elemental Strike -0 dice: change physical strike to a single energy type, or do half and half (energy and physical)
Selective Strike -1 die: up to 1/2 BAB allies are unaffected by your AoE Strike
Benthic Strike -1 die: half or more of the the Strike's damage is magical bludgeoning water element
Thundering Strike -2 die: anyone damaged by the Strike must make a Fort save (as normal) or be deafened for 1/2 BAB rounds

Special:
Peaceful Strike -0 dice: non-lethal damage, if the total damage dealt is greater than half the target's current HP they are affect by the Sleep spell in addition to taking the nonlethal damage
Lunge Strike -4 dice: as part of the Strike you may move along with the affected melee reach or thrown range without provoking AoOs up to your maximum move speed for the turn
Teleport Strike -7 dice: after a Strike resolves, you may Teleport to any space within range of the Strike's affected range or area; if a weapon was fired or thrown, you Teleport to that item and hold it
Impaling Strike -4 dice: a single target hit with a piercing weapon is nauseated for 1d6 rounds, or until you remove it (causing 1d6 additional damage to a living foe at the end of their turns until they make a DC 15 Fortitude save or Medicine check)
Burial Strike -4 die: a single target hit with a bludgeoning weapon is Paralyzed for 1 minute (Fort save allowed each turn to end) and moved 5 feet into the ground per 1/2 BAB with a giant 20-foot radius crater of difficult terrain around the hole, might begin to suffocate if buried too long
Vorpal Strike -9 dice: all targets hit by this slashing Strike while at half HP or less are decapitated if reduced to 0 HP by this Strike

Ultimately, instead of using any Death Dice or special riders or anything fancy, a Paragon can just make a simple melee or ranged attack for (weapon dice) + stat, 1 per 5 BAB.

[JonSetanta]

By the way, if a Paragon combines "Sculpt Strike" and selects a 120-foot Line, then uses "Lunge Strike" each round, then throws their melee weapon into the air, they are able to "fly" just like Thor at Level 5.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

A single "Strike" replaces the default attack routine for a Paragon, dealing up to the maximum amount of weapon and Death Dice in damage, a hit which is resolved either an attack roll vs. AC of the target for single target Strikes or instead a Strike DC of 10 + 1/2 BAB + STR or DEX vs. the target(s) AC -10 +1d20 for multiple. A successful save against the Strike DC results in negating any status effects of the Strike and only half total damage.

My man, you've got people adding and subtracting numbers just to figure out the Strike DC. This is not going to go well.

[JonSetanta]

Huh? It's exactly the same as any other save DC in 3.5e.

10, + 1/2 level or whatever, + stat

Unless you mean the AC roll, whicu is just a UA variant I borrowed just for this, and even then it's optional.
I could just say Fort or Ref save but that would ignore armor.

[Zaranthan]

If I were implementing this at my table, I'd switch all attacks to AC roll to make it consistent. Having AC roll for AoE attacks but To-Hit roll for single target at the same table is a recipe for frustration.

[JonSetanta]

If I were implementing this at my table, I'd switch all attacks to AC roll to make it consistent. Having AC roll for AoE attacks but To-Hit roll for single target at the same table is a recipe for frustration.

Hmm. Should I swap AC roll out for a Fort save?

[WalkTheDin0saur]

AD&D PHB pg 25, bottom left. It was absolutely a thing, all the old SSI Gold Box video games included it.

Hey, so it was! Thanks.

So, ok, there was a rule, but the AD&D version was watered down enough that it would almost never come up as a way to lawnmower through mooks. Even if you're level 10 fighting basic orcs the orcs have a full hit die so they don't qualify. On the other hand if you're level 2 fighting a pair of goblins you get to hit them both.

[Emerald]

I don't think Stand Still implemented should derive save DC from damage, but rather 10+1/2 BAB+Stat bonus.

I wasn't saying that it should go with a damage-based DC, just that that's how Stand Still currently works, and the effective result is that the target doesn't get a save if you deal enough damage and therefore it has the "no save, just stop moving" effect you were aiming for.

Death Dice
This damage output pool is the result of combining weapon, ability bonus (STR or DEX), and Paragon Base Attack Bonus d6s.

This phrasing implies that the Paragon is adding [weapon + stat + BAB]d6, which I assume is not what you meant as that would be waaay too many dice in the pool.

If you just mean the pool is [paragon level]d6 which can all be added to a normal weapon damage roll if desired, that's much more reasonable.

Attacks of Opportunity may be made as normal, one per provoking enemy within melee reach, using the Strike DC vs. target's Fortitude save.
If the save fails, they take Strike damage as normal (adding any leftover Death Dice as the Paragon desires), halt all movement for the round and can not willingly move until the beginning of their next turn.

If I were implementing this at my table, I'd switch all attacks to AC roll to make it consistent. Having AC roll for AoE attacks but To-Hit roll for single target at the same table is a recipe for frustration.

Hmm. Should I swap AC roll out for a Fort save?

Any particular reason why you're considering using Fort saves for this instead of Ref saves? Movement negation (including Stand Still) is generally keyed to Ref, and stat-wise swapping AC to Ref is a more equitable swap than AC to Fort.

Sweep Strike -1 dice: a melee Strike affects all targets within +5 feet of reach (Paragon's choice) and counts as an Area of Effect
Maximize Strike -3 dice: change Death Dice rolls to maximum values

All the metastrike costs are too low, these two especially. Sweep Strike effectively removes all tradeoffs about assigning pool dice to different targets, given the above rule about applying full results to all targets for AoE strikes, meaning there is literally no reason not to use it whenever there are multiple targets in reach. For Maximize Strike, turning Nd6 damage into [N-3]×6 damage is literally always worth it once you're dealing 7 or more d6s on a single strike after metastrike costs. Those two feats would be must-haves for Paragons the same way Natural Spell is for Druids even if Paragons didn't get bunch of free [Strike] feats, which they do, and several of others have similar obvious breakpoints at which you always want to use the feat with no tradeoff.

I'd strongly suggest roughly doubling the metastrike costs so they actually match the equivalent metamagic feat adjustments (+1 spell level = 2 dice, not 1) or adding some other restriction so Paragons don't spam the same metastrikes with every attack.

[Foxwarrior]

Sweep Strike deeply confuses me. Isn't this entire conversation supposed to be about considering different mathematical relationships between focus-firing one enemy and splitting attacks between multiple enemies? Why would you write Sweep Strike at all if you hadn't completely forgotten what the Death Dice were designed for?

Btw, if you just want to have it so you can do X damage to one enemy, or X/2 damage to each of two enemies, or X/3 damage to each of three enemies, that's how the Rogue works already. I believe that, roughly speaking, damage-dealers in Tome are set up more like: some characters are good at dealing X damage to one enemy (which they can then split up), and other characters are good at dealing X/2 damage to fifteen enemies at once (with some limited ability to focus fire by casting a different spell, probably one that doesn't do X damage but has SoD effects).