Multiple Attacks?

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:22 am

Another question to ponder...

A round is 10 seconds (D&D 3.x has a round to be 6 seconds)... However, aside from possibly using a second weapon in your off-hand, all character classes get only one attack a round?

I know that a fighter gets the Extra Attack ability but that's only at 10th level. Combat Dominance (4th level) is a good idea but is restricted by Hitdice and Hitdice type (1 HD with type being d6 or less)

The Monk has a second unarmed attack at later levels too... but that seems to be it for multiple attacks for classes across the board.

Am I missing something? (I'm still pouring through the book which I got just before the weekend).

If this was the case... I was thinking of allowing an extra attack for fighters using their specialized weapon and maybe something different for Rangers like allowing a two-weapon fighting style at a lesser penalty than normal (heralding back to other D&D versions)

Any thoughts?

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:43 am

The most important thing to realize is that 1 roll does not equal 1 swing or strike. That is, the roll doesn't really represent 1 attack, but rather a series of feints, strikes, and maneuvers. The roll represents your "best shot." It's an abstraction. When I describe a combat, I'll often say things like "you feint low and then press your attack with a flurry of blows to his head and shoulders. He fends off your assault with some success, but one strike rings off his helmet, knocking it askew and opening a cut across his nose." That was one roll that might have done average damage. (I don't describe big wounds until the last few hit points.)

Given the abstract nature of the attack roll, I've never been a huge fan of multiple rolls per round. I think it's almost always better to give a bonus to the attack roll or to the damage, rather than an extra attack roll. I could type out a long explanation, but it's easier to link to Robert Fisher's site. He also has some good points about two weapon fighting.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:47 am

I'm looking at using the attacks per round for fighters, paladins, rangers and knights along the lines of the 1st edition table for it.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:11 am

There are a lot of good links on cncplayer.net to peruse as you decide how you want to do things. House rule ideas on adding attacks is just one.

I strongly suggest playing the rules as written. We have been playing for 8 months, over 30 sessions, and the more I run it the more I leave alone.

My biggest change is how I adapted feats and skills from 3E. Essentially all I've done there is say the 3E ruels are guidelines. If there is a feat you want to "attempt", such as cleave (being the most common), let me know and I will tell you the TN (usually TN 12 + HD of the creature/opponent), if you succeed you get the cleave.

Skills, I use the skills listed by class as a clear guideline as to what classes in C&C have as skills. ALL the skills. I don't want lists, so they can have all of them. I still had to have them write a list of craft and knowledge skills, beyond class essential, and limit them to 1+INt modifier.

I have pretty much left everything else alone. I am still considering improving the thief's BtH, though. And I probably will adapt eith Serlerans method for using spellcaster feats in C&C . I have to decide if I want to use that alternative magic system posted to cncplayer.net last weekend first.

Arioch · Post by **Arioch** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:14 am

well if you want some of th classes to have more attacks per round, or gain them sooner it is easy to add. My player haven't' had a problem with the rules as written.

ken
_________________
Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics

Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you

Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour

WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ?
http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:45 pm

I thought about adding multiple attacks for all the warrior type classes, but felt that would take away one of the big advantages of the monk class. I guess that one could add another attack to the monk as well.

For me I dedided just to go with btb for number of attacks.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:07 pm

BtH - 6 = +1 attack, if one were inclined to do such, same as 3.X.

Example, a 12th level Fighter has a BtH of 12, so 1 attack at +12, second at +6. Ignore the Extra Attack ability, since this would replace it, but, if you wanted to keep it, I would grant a third attack at the +6 adjustment.

Same level Ranger with BtH of +11 would get one attack at +11, one more at +5.

I would not apply it to the all classes. Instead, only:

Fighter

Ranger

Paladin

Barbarian

Knight (while unmounted)

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:32 pm

Fighters as they stand in my game.

1) Combat dominance is at first level for all warrior types. (the hit die goes up progressively at higher levels)

2) Weapon specialization comes in at forth.

3) Extra attacks come in at 6th and 12th

A C&C fighter, as it stands, would not survive in my campaign. ^_~`

The ranger had its favored enemy ability dumped and the choice of a weapon style: archery, TWF (reduced penalties, -2 offhand), ect, put in its place.

Sure. I can listen all day to the debate about 'abstracted moves'. I read 500 pages of it during initial playtest and development. But I've done things a certain way for years and I'm disinclined to restructure my whole setting parameters at this point. ^_)~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:27 pm

Treebore wrote:
I strongly suggest playing the rules as written. We have been playing for 8 months, over 30 sessions, and the more I run it the more I leave alone.

I think that is an important thing to remember. See how the system works before making changes.

Right now, we play the game as is (with the addition of criticals and fumbles). The decision to make any changes is being withheld until my players reach the levels where the changes would take effect and I first see how the rules work in that department as is.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:03 am

Thank you all so very much... you've all brought good points and good ideas for me to consider with this. It also prompted me to look back in my old AD&D books and such again. I must have consulted my older 1st ed and 2nd ed books more in the past week than I have the past year! C&C is awesome!!!

First off, I am sure that the current system, as-is, is balanced enough. I looked back to the AD&D's 1st ed PHB and it too didn't have multiple attacks. It looks like multiple attacks were released in the Unearthed Arcana (which also introduced Weapon Specialization). It's been standard in AD&D ever since and eventually found it's way into the current edition of D&D.

In terms of lower levels, this won't really be an issue either but with the wealth of old material I have and past characters from old campaigns that would make perfect NPCs in new ones (not to mention some of the nastier critters in the M&T), I feel that I need to at least consider multiple attacks in C&C. PC's won't stay low level forever and should they have the misfortune to get connered by a BBB (Bigger Badder Beast) which happens to have multiple attacks, I'm sure the question is bound to pop up.

I could also be completely wrong -- the system does merrit to be tried in it's unaltered state first.

The other factor I have to keep in mind are the players... some of which have never experienced anything but D&D 3.x which means that C&C will be closely scrutized and compared to the only thing they know. The SIEGE system in itself will be an easy sell and it will just require getting some used to (for some). FEATs will be a grey area -- the fact that there is an emphasis on class abilities in C&C will help. I perfectly understand why the game is designed this way.

Multiple Attacks on the other hand is a bit different. I do have some clearer ideas where I may want to take this though but any other thoughts or ideas are still welcome.

Thanks again!

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:57 am

Quote:
I looked back to the AD&D's 1st ed PHB and it too didn't have multiple attacks.

Actually it did, for Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:11 am

I'm pretty sure 1E eventually got to two attacks/round just like 2E. I would have to look to be sure. It was spelled out somewhere around the attack table for fighter types.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:29 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
Actually it did, for Fighters, Paladins and Rangers.

I might have missed it... when I started playing AD&D it was when 2nd Ed came out in the late 80s; I only got the 1st ed PHB, DMG, and UA years later for additional reference.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:51 am

Page 25 of the AD&D PHB.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:19 am

serleran wrote:
Page 25 of the AD&D PHB.

Thanks, I'll check it when I have a chance!

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:40 am

Here is a thought,

Allow warrior type classes, with a bht of at least +6, make two attacks per round, each at 1/2 thier normal bth(rounded down). So a 6th level fighter could make one attack at +6 or two attacks at +3.

I would allow this only to the warior type classes

and the split of the bth must be kept even.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

PeelSeel2 · Post by **PeelSeel2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:42 am

I have always seen the round as more of 6 seconds.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:02 pm

PeelSeel2 wrote:
I have always seen the round as more of 6 seconds.

Me too. 10 seconds is forever in a fight, 6 seconds is a long time too. Most of my experience is limited to hand to hand martial arts type, but in one on one the fight was usually over in about 6 to 10 seconds. Going for a brutal takedown, not the tournament type of fighting.

So I just have to go with a short 6 second round. the only reason I don't go to 3 is because the round allows for all kinds of martial combat, such as crossbows, as well as the "move".

I just had a thought. What about allowing two melee attacks in rounds where you don't move? If I did that 10 second rounds wouldn't bother me. Of course then spellcasters are going to be twice as deadly if I allow that across the board. So I would have to probably rule spellcasting can't do it.

I'll have to think some more on this.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:28 pm

Treebore wrote:
Me too. 10 seconds is forever in a fight, 6 seconds is a long time too. Most of my experience is limited to hand to hand martial arts type, but in one on one the fight was usually over in about 6 to 10 seconds. Going for a brutal takedown, not the tournament type of fighting.

So I just have to go with a short 6 second round. the only reason I don't go to 3 is because the round allows for all kinds of martial combat, such as crossbows, as well as the "move".

I just had a thought. What about allowing two melee attacks in rounds where you don't move? If I did that 10 second rounds wouldn't bother me. Of course then spellcasters are going to be twice as deadly if I allow that across the board. So I would have to probably rule spellcasting can't do it.

I'll have to think some more on this.

With C&C a round is 10 seconds... with D&D 3.x a round is 6 seconds. However, AD&D (at least 1st edition) a round was 1 minute. In the 1st ed PHB under the First Strike section (pg 105) it basically says that the one attack attempt represents the chracter's best attack attempt. This happens in the midst of a flurry of other things... feints, rushes, parries, etc.

Actually Philotomy Jurament in his reply to my original post regarding the question of multiple attacks makes this very same point and provides a link to a couple of articles.

However, even if 10 seconds can seem like an eternity in a fight (and those with sorm form of martial arts background can attest to this)... imagine a round that lasts one minute!

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:31 pm

Quote:
However, AD&D (at least 1st edition) a round was 1 minute.

I always preferred the 1 minute round. It made more sense to me. Sure, fist fights are fast and furious, but it has been my experience that fights with weapons involved the participants are usually a bit more cautious. It makes all the difference in the world when you know that its a blade you'll be catching in your side as opposed to a fist. Makes you be a little more cautious and look for an opening.

Plus, think of the slowness of movement when it comes to fully armored knights. Its not like they're ninja quick or anything. Like it was mentioned, the minute round didn't necessarily represent a single attack. It was a series of blows, parries, etc.

Arioch · Post by **Arioch** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:35 pm

I also liked the 1 minute round, and have for the most part switched back to it when I run.

ken
_________________
Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics

Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you

Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour

WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ?
http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:31 pm

Never liked the 1-minute per round thing. In my games, I want things more "cinematic" and that only works with short rounds. This way as a CK, I can add visual descriptions to certain actions making the description of combat more... visceral. Well maybe not visceral, but certainly easier to cinematically describe the events of 10 seconds as opposed to 1 minute.

......................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

james_austintx · Post by **james_austintx** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:33 pm

We used the 1 min combat rounds in 1e...I think. We also used fatigue rules since they where so long...

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:22 pm

I rarely care how long a round is, since its used almost exclusively for combat, so in my games, generally, a round is a round... its not any set amount of time. Pretty much, just as long as it takes to resolve all the actions the participants take. The only time it really matters what the exact duration of a round is when there is some overhead time table of events and the DM/CK has to be able to keep track of when what happens. In those cases, I just set a number of rounds... like AD&D did with summoning of creatures: one die something + something else so the event is not immediate and gives the party a chance to stop it, if they can.

Arazmus · Post by **Arazmus** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:38 pm

Yeah the old 3 attacks every two rounds (at 5th lvl?) nonsense. Fighters might need more attacks I guess, but I pretty much go as written. If they want more they can forego a shield and pick up an extra weapon.
_________________
I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. ~Zorg

DocEldritch · Post by **DocEldritch** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:36 pm

I plan on using some modified Weapon Mastery rules from the old Rules Cyclopedia, which at higher ranks of training will give a second attack with a weapon. Fighters will still keep their bonus attack they get at 10th, so eventually a fighter who wanted to would be the only PC class that could pull off 3 or 4 attacks per round (depending on if they are dual wielding).

C&C is written more along 1e and 2e lines, where monsters had less health, so multiple attacks are not as needed to whittle away at huge health totals. In 3e, a lot of monster health bloat seems to have been added because of the number of spells that did large HP damage. C&C has fewer of those and more "save or suck" effects, so using the smaller HP totals from 2e is probably a better tactic (or even 1e).

I also plan on doing some kind of critical hits rule, though still debating what, and as far as feats go, doing something sorta what like Omote (I think it was his idea) does, where a PC can "learn" a feat by using it over and over in game. In addition, some feats can be trained for (spend gold and time and you get the benefit), but I don't plan on really offering many feats. More if a player asks about something, it'll probably be available.

I've also been thinking about Kits (I seem to recall one or two allowed an extra attack at some point, or extra weapon proficiencies/specializations), though I am not really sure they are needed, or that I want to deal with too much complexity! The whole reason I am leaning towards C&C over 3.X or Pathfinder, is how much I hate dealing with monster/NPC stats/design/setup at this point!

Troll Lord Games

Multiple Attacks?

Multiple Attacks?

Re: Multiple Attacks?