No multiple attacks for fighters?

[thistleknot]

I didn't think of it normally, but now I'm worried seeing some basic monsters like ghouls get 3 attacks, but a fighter even at lvl 20 only gets 1? Or am I missing something?

[SmootRK]

Core rules yes you are correct, but Combat Options Supplement has specialization rules that allow more.

The Core Rules follow pretty closely to the game seen in B/X D&D with only a few innovations. You will only see stuff that does not appear in B/X in various supplements.

edit, I don't think adding additional attacks is going to break much of the game, but be sure to consider the power levels of games in middle/upper levels. Monsters generally won't get this perk (above their normal attack routines), so they are effectively nerfed a bit by adding in this effect one-sidedly to the player-characters.

[Dimirag]

You can use OD&D combat prowess (one of my favs) or AD&D attacks per round with or w/o specialitations, or even 3.5, or perhaps some new system! ;D

[thistleknot]

I was thinking of using 3.5 babs, just crossing the levels over and starting at +1 and progressing as if the new attack starts at lvl 1. I can't believe it wasn't ported from 3.5 cuz if the monsters r, then those w multiple attacks have a clear imbalance against the pcs who don't.

Wbat supplements have multi attacks?

[Maliki]

Combat Options: A Basic Fantasy Supplement, has rules for Weapon Specialization, which allows fighters to attack more than once per round.

[thistleknot]

Here's what I came up with

Multiple Attacks
Rules:
Once BAB hits 6, second attack is +1, begins as if second (and subsequent attacks are at level 1)

Fighter
Level, Bonus, (Attack Bonus Levels)
6 +4, +1 (lvl 6, 1)
11 +7, +4, +1 (lvl 11, 5 ,1)
16 +7, +5, +3, +1 (lvl 16, 10, 5, 1)
20 +8, +6, +5, +3 (lvl 20, 14, 9, 5)

[SmootRK]

I was thinking of using 3.5 babs, just crossing the levels over and starting at +1 and progressing as if the new attack starts at lvl 1. I can't believe it wasn't ported from 3.5 cuz if the monsters r, then those w multiple attacks have a clear imbalance against the pcs who don't.

Wbat supplements have multi attacks?

Realize, this game was not a stripped down version of 3.x, but rather an effort to effectively remake B/X experience with a few innovations. The only reason one thinks of anything d20-ish, is because the OGL was utilized to make everything nice and legal.

Although many folks have incorporated various things that also appear in d20 games (myself included), BFRPG does not even try to be one akin to one of the modern games.\

That said, I see no reason that your logic (additional attacks based upon each +5 of bonus) would not work well, even for other classes when they get to those BAB.

[Joe the Rat]

Covering all of the ground on this, did someone have a mook-grinder rule for fighters in BFRPG (aka "sweep attack", hit multiple monsters of 1hd or less, 1/lvl)? I'm fairly certain it's not core, but I thought I saw it somewhere in the context of BF.

I need to write this stuff down. My memory's getting more muddled than a mojito.

[thistleknot]

Smootrk

My remark might have sounded like a slight on the game, I geared it to get a response. However, the ultimate test if the mechanic is balanced is game testing. If it plays fine, then great! I for one think a level 5 fighter might have a hard time w a ghoul due to his 1 attack to the ghouls 3...

I didn't go w the +5 thing I mentioned b4 (check the proposed table I submitted for a fighter). And my logic was in the fact that the monsters r pulled from the srd w multiple attacks where the players have multiple attacks. The players r reduced to single attacks yet the monsters keep there's. That is where my logic was coming from.

[SmootRK]

Monsters are not necessarily pulled from SRD. Some might (in the Field Guide) but otherwise are actually drawn from the earlier sources. Even the efforts to clean up and expand the Field Guide are going back to roots when possible.