I’m still trying to assemble my House Rules for the next campaign. I recently added a few items:
I wonder whether the last one helps poor players that are have multiple attacks, possibly hasted.
#RPG #thoughts
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Roll to-hit and damage once, then use these two rolls for all your attacks
Only the players, I suppose, not the monsters? Otherwise tripple critical...
– Sektat 2008-06-25 13:33 UTC
---
Hm... Good point. As a DM I would also like to use something that speeds up play, actually. Full attack by a Vrock is five attack rolls. Gaaah.
Some possible solutions:
1. Separate rolls to confirm crits. The number of crits on average will remain the same, but variance will go up, ie. crits are more dangerous.
2. Roll to confirm and only the first attack is considered to be a critical. The others just hit. The number of crits on average will go down, but not by much since second and third attacks will be harder to confirm anyway.
What do you think?
Another one I’m thinking of:
But I haven’t gone through the list of spells to check whether that makes sense.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-06-25 13:46 UTC
---
I like solution (2). It’s a good solution.
Level 0 zero: I hardly ever use them, and our party hardly ever uses them, and since all are healed after a battle anyway there is no problem with a free cure minor wounds (1 HP) at will.
– Sektat 2008-06-25 16:12 UTC
---
Thought some more about it. Vrock with 5 attacks: After “old” rule you will be hit 20% of the attacks (with the correct AC), with the “new” houserule there is a 20% chance that you will be hit 5 times (and 80% that you won’t be hit at all). However: those 5 times will hurt you big time. Makes the game by far more deadly for the players. I LIKE IT. However, I might be the only one...
And: rolling damage only once only works if all attacks actually do the same damage (claw - bite - talon ...)
– Sektat 2008-06-25 22:01 UTC
---
Well, two attacks at +15 and three attacks at +13... But it’s true: Monsters with the Multiattack feat get increased variance on their damage. If you roll well, changes are higher that all five attacks will hit.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-06-25 23:24 UTC
---
I think unlimited cantrips and orisons is a good idea – perhaps keep the current spell slots, but change it into which ones you can prepare, and those are the ones you “memorized” that day and can cast at will.
For monsters with multiple attacks, why not have them instead either (1) make a single attack, or (2) take a single attack at a penalty (maybe -2 or -5) and gain additional damage dice (perhaps +1d6-1d8 per natural attack) to mimic making a flurry of attacks?
– Adrian 2008-06-27 08:08 UTC
---
Hm... Right now the effect would turn the following Vrock full attack
2 claws +15 melee (2d6+6) and bite +13 melee (1d8+3) and 2 talons +13 melee (1d6+3)
into this one:
claws +15 melee (4d6+12) and bites and talons +13 melee (2d6+1d8+9)
which in turn means:
full attack +13 melee (2d6+1d8+9), bonus damage 4d6+12 if to-hit exceeds AC by 2
Suddenly it looks *very* deadly. I’m not sure I like my own proposal.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-07-10 13:24 UTC
---
Give the vrock 2 claw attacks, which it can make as a standard action.
As a full attack, let it take a -5 penalty (-2 instead because it has Multiattack), and add 1d12 damage to each claw attack, or some other damage expression (I think 2d8 or 2d10 might better approximate its original damage potential, if you don’t want to nerf that). You are still only rolling 2 x d20s to hit. It still feels like it makes multiple attacks (2 claws). But when it stands and really rakes and bites at a target (full attack), it does additional damage.
– Adrian 2008-07-11 05:12 UTC
---
Actually I just saw the following in an EN World thread: “The only thing I’ve found that slows down high level combat is the trailing math of iterative attacks, which we’ve killed in favor of 1/2 BAB damage bonus.” That would get rid of the “exceed AC by 5 or 10” thing. Just add more damage to the output. Then again, I’m not sure whether the original idea behind this change is the encouragement of more movement and other actions during combat instead of full-attack.
Some of that could be fixed by the DM using more skill checks, I guess. Fighting a giant? Make a climb check DC 30 and automatically crit (instead of a full-attack). Make a jump check DC 20 and automatically charge even over difficult ground (encourage movement). Give fighters access to the Pounce feat or let them make a jump check DC 30 to make a full-attack at the end of a move. There was an interesting article on “cinematic combat” in KoboldQuarterly.
I guess for the Vrock all the DM needs to do is figure out what the multiple attacks are “worth”. I’d probably approximate 2 × 2d6+6 + 2 × 1d6+3 = 6d6+18 (and ignore the bite damage; in return, forget about the -2 to-hit). Critical damage would be 8d6+30 (not 12d6+36).
Wulf Ratbane only uses his suggestion for *iterative* attacks, not for *multiple* attacks, though. ¹ Perhaps he’s right and multiple attacks are not really a problem. I think I have to watch my game for a while longer before deciding what to do, if at all.
– Alex Schroeder 2008-07-11 09:41 UTC
---
Multiple attacks also serve to differentiate monsters from PCs and humanoid monsters/NPCs, which use weapons rather than claws, jaws, tentacles, talons, etc.
I really like the 1/2 BAB damage bonus replacing iterative attacks in theory. I have not seen how it works in practice. The major changes this would cause:
1. How would Two-Weapon Fighting work? Probably the same. But how about the Improved and Greater versions? Maybe progressively reduce the TWF penalties?
2. A related question is how would a monk’s flurry of blows work?
3. How does this alter the mechanics and/or power level of feats like Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack?