No multiple attacks for fighters?

[thistleknot]

Thx for that update. I thought from reading the guide on monster conversion, that they were being pulled from srd

[Joe the Rat]

The thing to remember is many of these monsters were around way back when, and had multiple attacks back when PCs only got the one. They weren't made tougher by 3e+. The PCs were.

I believe part of the intent behind multiple attacks way back when was to scale up the Fighters damage output relative to the other classes, not to the monsters.

[thistleknot]

Okay, you guys win. I was wrong. I wanted to check it against original d&d, and sure enough, a ghoul has the exact same attacks.

Sigh.

IMO, I still think multiple attacks would be a better fit.

I even think the new saving throws are a better fit (make the game simpler), but whatev's. I see what the designer is trying to do, get back to the roots, not make a d20 version that is similar.

Which brings me to another point. The HD's for monsters are the same as d20 (according to the conversions), but the player's hits are lower than the d20 version, but again, that is following the same logic as the multiple/attacks. Going to the original d&d roots.

I can respect that.

[Dimirag]

I was thinking a combo between 3.5 & AD&D something like
BAB--------------APR
+1 - +5 ---------- 1
+6 - +11 -------- 3/2
Etc...
If using Specialization you are consider one "attack rate" better

[thistleknot]

Altho the ad&d multi hit system gave more variety, I think it was dropped due to complications of keeping track of how many attacks a player had between alternating turns and would make bfrpg more complicated. Where as a 3.5ish multiple attacks wouldn't require as much extra tracking.

[Dimirag]

A simplier solution could be: 1 attack per 5BAB or part thereof.
-The attack raiting improves as in 3.5.
-The BAB is fully used in every attack like in AD&D.

--Especialization gives another extra attack.

I have another idea but is less "Basic"...

[Solomoriah]

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...

Y'know, I see things like this all the time. Yes, face-to-face, the level 5 fighter might easily have trouble with a ghoul. But duh... if you are a fighter, and the only way you know to fight is face-to-face, you must have not been paying attention in class. The only time a fighter should face a ghoul in melee is when he doesn't have a choice, or at least, when he has really good backup.

Players facing monsters with advantages like paralysis who think the dice are their friends are kidding themselves. You've got to be smarter than that. Using ranged weapons to soften up the opponent is pretty elementary.

Fire works nice too.

[SmootRK]

You know, when I think about it. The progressing Attack Bonus, which automatically grants multiple attacks when the bonus reaches certain point (after +5, to make +6/+1 attacks) is one of the more intuitive changes to the game over the ad&d style... but it does add in some other considerations. The idea is actually very conservative compared to how specialization adds attacks normally.

For instance, what to do with specialization rules... does the bonus granted give consideration to the number of attacks, or just towards the attack roll itself?

What do you do with the extra attacks that specialization might grant? My own thought would be to simply allow the bonuses granted by specialization to count towards determining when the second attack (or third) is earned. For instance, specialization giving a Fighter +1 to hit bonus would allow him (no other factors included) to earn the second attack at 7th level (whereas a Fighter without such would not earn it until 8th). In my own BFRPG campaign, where I use an altered Attack Bonus table, this would be a tad more pronounced at upper levels where Fighters really shine in my games.

Then another thing to consider is the idea of wielding an off-hand weapon. What bonus structure should be used there. I would guess, that simply 1 extra attack roll is granted at full attack bonus (but modified for the off-hand use) is given.

And now, Monsters with upper HD/Power Levels... should they be given something for their higher attack bonuses?

Just stuff to consider while fiddling with one rule change, how many facets of the rules can be affected.

[Dimirag]

Weapon Specialization could add +5 to the extra attacks BAB or give a 2nd attack with normal BAB wichever is lower, so:
1 attack at +3 -> 2attacks at +3
1 attack at +7 and one at +2: 2 attacks at +7

A secondary weapon gives another attack at base minus off-hand penalty (and the BAB for the primary weapon is also penalized). Or instead of an extra attack gives an attack/damage/ac bonus (fixed or depending on weapon or at players choice)

[dymondy2k]

OK so at level 7 your fighter earns a second attack.. and you say he's earned a +1 to his base BAB, so at level 7 it would be +6. So I'm still confused as to how you would apply the BAB to the second Attack? Would the first one be +6 and the next a certain penalty lower? Microlite has a similar rule that when your BAB hits +6 your allowed to take a second swing at a -5 penalty. Another idea would be that once the fighter has a +6 BAB (Or even +4) that he has to declare he is doing a dual attack and his BAB is split between his two attacks, so a +6 would give him a +3 to each attack, +7 would give a +4 to the first attack, +3 to second etc. Just thinking out loud here on these..