* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Multiple attacks in 2e! Started at 05-24-04 11:04 AM by vader42xx Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=245554 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-24-04 11:04 AM Thread Title : Multiple attacks in 2e! How did you deal with multiple attacks in your 2e games (PC attacks that is)? When a fighter has, for example, 3/2 attacks in my games he always gets 1 attack on the first round and 2 attacks on the second (and then it alternates back and forth). But I've also heard those who allow it to work either way (ie: the fighter gets to pick which way he alternates). The funny thing is that I can't seem to find a ruling for either way of doing things in the DMG or PHB. So, was there one and I just missed it or was that up to the DM to deal with? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-24-04 11:18 AM We always had the lower number of attacks occur first. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Tedra Date : 05-24-04 12:33 PM I do it the same way you do Vader, 3/2 is handled by one attack the first round, two the next and back to one attack etc. I don't think there ever was a ruling that said officially, you have to do it that way or not. What gets me are how the two attack rounds go. For instance, if you are fighting against a creature that has one attack, on your second attack round, how do the attacks fall? Saying the fighter wins initiative, we always say the fighter goes, then his opponent, then he goes again. Or fighter against fighter both with two attacks we do, Bob, George, Bob, George. Just curious if others also handle it that way. I don't think there was an official rule you can point your finger to saying the fighter (or what have you) must take his 3/2 attacks as one the first round, then two the second round, but that is how I've always done it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Glorified_Suffering Date : 05-24-04 12:47 PM Whenever we get to that moment when we can have the 3/2 attacks our DM usually leaves it up to the players so they can have a little more fun seeing as how they'll have a little more control over their character (or maybe let the group decide..just be straightforward with it and take a vote..but make sure it cant be changed later on if they want it to go back...they've already made up their mind)...and also..the issue of the initiative roll...we thought of it as such...when a player is hit his roll is set back by 2..(i.e. ..he rolled a 5...he now has a 7..and keeps getting added on as he's hit...so he could very well be at 11 after two more attacks from someone else)..we agreed that after being hit a creature..or a character would need some time to recover and regain his posture so to speak before he could actually land the attack he was going after..like a delayed response..if you get hit first it may stun you a little bit..so you're slowed down by a +2 to init. for every landed hit...but yeah...we sorta make up our own versions to everythyng....sorry if i didn't make this that clear.. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Tedra Date : 05-24-04 01:00 PM I think that's an interesting idea with the initiative G-S. We usually have to add a commentary on why the dwarf fighter or whatever rolled a 16 initiative, such as he's too busy showing off, cursing from a previous hit, or laughing at another PC who rolled a 1 and flipped his weapon eight feet in the air. Or on low initiative cases, he could just be really ticked after a strike from the previous round. :) We don't usually add any homebrewed initiative modifiers as you do, merely offer an explaination as to any serious deviations in high or low numbers. We have a female dwarf PC that is notorious for rolling outlandishly high initiatives, so if we implimented something such as your +2 from a successful hit the previous round, by the fourth round she would be somewhere in the 20's. :eek: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-24-04 01:25 PM I could've sworn there was a rule on the 3/2 thing somewhere even before 2e, but I can't find it. Maybe the UA, since I don't have mine handy. Or maybe I'm thinking of a Dragon article... I think we played it 1 & 2 like others, but I can't recall for sure. Also, we let a player make all the attack rolls his character was allowed at the same time. When we tried to delay 2nd attack roll until after the opponent's attack, we kept forgetting them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-24-04 02:08 PM Thanks for the comments everybody. :) And like you, Robert, I know there was a rulling on it some place but I can't remember where. And, what's more, I know it was in 2e (ok, I'm pretty sure at least...lol). But I do think it was in a Dragon magazine or something similar (not in the DMG or PHB). Anyway, it doesn't matter, rule or not, I just hate that I can't remmber it. :D As for delayed attacks, we always did that (and still do). I let anything with "natural attacks" take them all at once (even if it's claw/claw) but anything else that is a true multiple I use the staggered attack rule in the PHB and DMG. That gives the monsters a little leg up on the characters and that's not always a bad thing. It also serves to balance out warriors (especially those with specialist attacks) against other "non-warrior fighters" like certain clerics, etc. But, yeah, it can be a pain to remember that second round of attack sometimes, kinda like a poker game. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-24-04 04:35 PM We always played with the player choosing the order, although for some reason I do believe there was a rule in 2e whichstated the highest attack rate happened first, then the lower (If any.): 3/2 meant 2 first round / 1 second round. However, I am not sure of this, it just seems like one of those things I remember reading when I used to read the 2e books often. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Mock26 Date : 05-24-04 06:45 PM OK, here is what I found in The Player's Handbook: The use of two weapons enables the character to make one additional attack each combat round, with the second weapon. The character gains only one additional attack each round, regardless of the number of attacks he may normally be allowed. Thus, a warrior able to attack 3/2 (once in the first round and twice in the second) can attack 5/2 (twice in the first round and three times in the second). Don't ask me the page because I got it off of an electronic version of the PHB, but it is in Chapter 5, under the section titled "Attacking With Two Weapons." Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-24-04 07:06 PM Plus that only makes sense...a person able to attack at 3/2 only gets 1/2 of an attack that first round...the second half is finished in the second round...perhaps you could have him automatically attack at the beginning of the second round, or have a second attack at the very END of the first round (very little difference there)...but still, either way, or even if done how we did it with initiative rolls for the attacks...they ONLY get 1 1/2 attacks per round, which means, only able to do 1 attack that first round... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-24-04 07:51 PM Excellent, so at least we have it cleared up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-25-04 02:41 AM Ah ha!!! I knew it was in there someplace! And I do remember thinking it was in a pretty dumb place when I found it all those years ago. Thanks for the information, I feel better now. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Varl Date : 05-25-04 02:08 PM the issue of the initiative roll...we thought of it as such...when a player is hit his roll is set back by 2..(i.e. ..he rolled a 5...he now has a 7..and keeps getting added on as he's hit...so he could very well be at 11 after two more attacks from someone else) That's a cool idea. I was thinking a +1 might be better. I like the idea. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 05-27-04 01:34 AM We use the Combat & Tactics system for initiative, and they make it pretty clear how multiple attacks are handled. As already stated, a 3/2 rate = 1 in round 1, 2 in round 2. But the 2 in round 2 don't happen simultaneously. The first happens at the char's initiative order. The second happens one phase later. Before we switched to phases, we used to have the second attack happen last in the second round. And it IS easy to forget about the second attack, so we've played plenty of combats where the 2 attacks happen at the same time, just to keep it simple! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-27-04 02:26 AM So the Combat and Tactics system is the exact same thing in the PHB, just stated more clearly. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-27-04 02:53 AM We always played two attacks at the same time too, but since we did for everyone, it evened out (Ran it that way for nigh seven years and never saw a problem with it.). It made things flow a lot smoother, at least in our campaign. In my 1e campaign, I try to keep things more "by the book", and even though the designers did a good job, I often find that something just need to be tweaked to not just suit my player's styles, but mine as a DM as well. So now, in it, I am thinking of running it like that instead of "staggered". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-27-04 04:43 AM I like the staggered method myself. Helps balance out the multiple attacks warriors get over non-warriors. But, anyway, whatever works best for ya. :) I was just digging through Combat & Tactics as Dugald reminded me about it and I found attacks of opportunity. Now that is something I think 2e was missing. I don't like the new intiative system or the different times for rounds, turns, etc. But the AoO rules are quite nice. You don't get them for every situation under the sun like in 3e and you don't need to take a bunch of "feats" to make them work like they should. In C&T they only keep players from doing the really stupid stuff that no rule covered before. So you can't run through that pack of goblins just because you have a lower initiative. ;) I also like it that you don't get AoO against a spellcaster just for casting his spell. Second edition already gives you enough time to mess up those spells as it is. So, all in all, AoO for 2e are pretty nice, a rule that will make combats make a bit more sense in my games. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-27-04 04:51 AM Even though I have never used it, I like the rule that allows you multiple attacks against creatures with less HD than you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-27-04 05:08 AM I've never see anything like that. Do you mean the rule that allows fighters to get attacks equal to their levels against creatures of less than 1 hit die (ie: 1-1)? That rule I like, but I've never seen anything that allows characters to get multiple attacks against something that happens to have less hit dice than they do. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-27-04 06:15 AM Yep, that is what I meant. You can see how much I read and remember the PO series. ;) Let's just say I was pretty PO'ed about the money I spent on them. The large section on weapons and continued specialization was the only saving graces of that book for me. The combat rules seemed comprehensive, but they were not my cup of tea. The weapons refrences were excellent though. More inclusive than Arms and Equipment (Although not as stylish.). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-27-04 09:22 AM Actually that rule is in the PHB (or DMG, can't remember) someplace or another. It's got a little bity sidebar and nothing else. lol Of course, it may also be in the player's option series as well, I don't know. :) And, yeah, player's options are just that as far as I'm concerned. You have a bunch of options to pick from and you're sure to find something or other that you like but I doubt anybody ever used the entire system. Way too many rules, mods, etc if nothing else. If you're using the whole thing you might as well be playing 3e, that's what it reminds me of. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 05-27-04 10:41 AM Are you talking about the "Heroic Fray" rule? I can't remember it ever actually coming in to play in our group. I think C&T's combat was a happy medium. It's detailed enough to provide for a "realistic" flow of combat without getting bogged down in too much detail. But I'm sure we're using a subset of the entire system. e.g. We don't use the critical hits system. But the essential thing is that combat's rules not slow down the storytelling aspects, so using traditional Initiative, or resolving all multiple attacks at one time ... those are easy choices for a DM to make if it's going to promote more exciting game play. It comes down to what the players are comfortable with, and what the DM is able to manage. As for the PO series, they're definitely "pick-and-choose" in our group. The whole Character Points system was way too cumbersome for my taste, Spell Points, Subability Scores ... none of that has found a home with us. But Combat Maneuvers, Weapon (& Style) Specialization, and some of the expanded content for the traditional rules in the other books (NWPs, etc.) have helped flesh out our game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 05-29-04 12:40 AM Didn't use much of anything from the PO books. I just had players with multiple sequential attacks divide thier number of attacks by 10 (the number of segments we used in a round) rounded down, and separated thier attacks by that number of segments, although they got thier full number of attacks regardless as long as they didn't move that round. For instance if someone with two sequential attacks made his first attack on a four initiative, they could attack again on initiative nine. If that same person had a five or higher initiative, they could attack on that initiative and again on initiative 10. If that same person got three sequential attacks in a round (say they had two attacks plus one using a sword of speed), and they made thier first attack on initiative four, they could get a second attack on initiative seven, and thier last attack on initiative count 10. If that same persons first attack was made on initiative count five, they could attack again on count eight, and get thier last attack on count 10. And so forth. I allowed a character with two weapon fighter style to decide whether thier "style" was to attack with both weapons simultaneously or rather their "style" was to stagger their weapon attacks (once a "style" was chosen it couldn't be changed). The advantage of choosing the attacking simultaneously "style" was more potential damage quicker, but both attacks had to be directed against the same opponent. The advantage of the staggering the attack "style" was that if the first attack hit and killed, the second weapon attack could be used against a different opponent. As I recall most chose the first style. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-29-04 02:59 AM The only two things I use from the PO series are spell points and attacks of opportunity. Everything else added a little too much detail for me. I like combat to be smooth and simple so we can get back to the storytelling. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Silverthrone Date : 05-29-04 04:57 AM Ahh, multiple attacks and intiative in old edition D&D. My method is somewhat based on Basic Set. Intiative is decided by the highest roll of a d6 (Group, modified by dex for indivduals if in indivdual combat.). Essentially, all spells that would only take one round to cast are began at the begining of the round and "go off" at the end of that round (Giving anyone in betwee a chance to stop them.). Long casting spells always end on the end of their last round of casting. Multiple attacks are all done on the attacker's chance to act, not staggerd. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-01-04 03:51 PM Originally posted by Silverthrone Essentially, all spells that would only take one round to cast are began at the begining of the round and "go off" at the end of that round (Giving anyone in betwee a chance to stop them.). Interesting. Not too long ago, I became informed that the official method in B/X is that spell casters must declare casting before init. Then the side that wins init has a chance to disrupt casters on the other side, but the side that loses init can't disrupt casters on the side that won init. This is an interesting variation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.