D&D 4E Number of attacks and 4E

[Crothian]

A cap on the number of attacks in a full attack is all that's needed, I think -- Combat Reflexes, as it only allows one AoO per provocation, wouldn't suffer at all.

But it has the potential to have lots of attacks. As does cleave, WWa, and other options. If you limit one you really have to limit them all. But I still perfer in being a little patient and helping the player out in the course of the game. Changing every little thing that causes the players a bit of a problem will really not benifit anyone.

 

[Stalker0]

A very simple alternative that will change no mechanics....have 1 die roll represent 2 attacks.

While it will obviously affect the dyanmics of a single round of combat greatly, over the course of many combats it comes out the same.

 

[The Human Target]

I prefer a faster round in general.

I agree with you, it can be tedious even with prerolling.

I'd like to see one attack per round max, with shorter rounds.

 

[Torm]

Yeah, but I think Torm wanted more.

You're right, I do - but what I want is more like the Shot Clock from Feng Shui for initiative, with Weapon Speeds (and corresponding Casting Times), and feats and class progression that allow you to speed up a bit, or even slow down to do special stuff.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd rather fix the game, really.

Why must two weapon fighters get an extra attack?

Yeah, I agree. You could simply do something like "TWF: This feat gives you a +4 bonus on damage, but you have to wield a weapon in your off-hand." This might mean that your base damage die is dependant upon your class & the number of hands you use. (ie. Fighter 1-Handed: 1d8; 2-H: 2d6; Rogue 1-H: 1d6; 2-H: 1d8, etc.)

The problem is that reducing complexity reduces the number of options you have in combat (such as choosing different weapons), and those options are what combat in D&D is all about. I think D&D strikes a good balance between complexity and abstract simplicity, and if I wanted a different feel I could play a different system.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

In a homebrew system I'm working on, two weapons grant a bonus to hit and damage. While it is very NOT D20, you might do something simillar. A +1 or 2 to hit, then add the weapons base die to damage.

 

[Crothian]

In a homebrew system I'm working on, two weapons grant a bonus to hit and damage. While it is very NOT D20, you might do something simillar. A +1 or 2 to hit, then add the weapons base die to damage.

Then why would anyone not fight with 2 weapons?

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

Then why would anyone not fight with 2 weapons?

They might be fighting with a shield. This provides protection.

They might be fighting with a two handed weapon. This grants higher base damage, str bonus, and is cheaper to enchant.

They might be holding something else, like a light, or climbing. Having one hand free provides versatility.

As for my homebrew, it takes skill to learn both weapons and fighting styles, so someone might not want to spend the points in so narrow a focus.

Theres plenty of reasons, even without delving into something lame, like it not being in charachter.

 

[Crothian]

But just havign 2 weapon fighting give a bonus to damage negates some of the negatives that the style has. Also, since only one weapon is doing damage and the off hand provides extra damage to that only one weapon needs enchanted. Sword and board has always been seen as inferior, and holding another item happens so rarely it doesn't matter.

 

[Herobizkit]

That's not a bad plan. Take half of the maximum damage of the weapon in your off-hand and add it to your damage.

Thus...
1d3 gets a +1 bonus
1d4 gets a +2
1d6 gets a +3
1d8 gets a +4
1d10 gets a +5.

Still, the whole purpose of TWF is to get that extra attack.