Claw, Claw, Bite

[Thorulfr]

OK, I know this is going to wander into heresy (please be gentle with the pitchforks and torches.) A couple of years back, there was a flurry of discussion about multiple attacks and two-weapon styles, and one of the more popular choices was to have people fighting with two weapons roll ONCE to hit, and if they do hit, roll twice for the damage and take the higher of the two values.
Now, what if we applied that same logic to the monsters that have multiple identical attacks like with two horns or two claws? Using that mechanic, the 'claw, claw' attacks are rolled only once, and if there is a hit, the damage is rolled twice and the higher value taken?

[tdenmark]

I like that solution. There is such a huge escalation from one attack to two attacks that this sounds like a good intermediary.

So claw (1d6), claw(1d6), bite (1d8) could be roll 2d6 and a 1d8, damage is whatever the highest result on a die is. Not sure that is quite as elegant as it is for two weapons.

[retrorob]

I don't think it's a heresy - 3LBB don't include multiple attacks, apart from centaurs, giant crabs, balrogs and hydras. This routine "claw/claw/bite" comes only in the supplements. Personally I don't use it. All attacks do 1d6 damage unless stated otherwise. Combat is dangerous enough.

[Mushgnome]

I look on "claw/claw/bite" as a direct response to Greyhawk Supplement variable weapon damage and exceptional strength.

If, in your campaign, a fighter with a two-handed sword does 1d6 damage, then you probably don't need to give monsters claw/claw/bite attacks.

But, on the other hand, if you give fighters 3d6 damage (plus up to +4 for 18/00 strength) vs. size Large opponents, that's when you want to give the monsters claw/claw/bite attacks, to "balance" the fighter's increased damage output.

I personally prefer the "all weapons do 1d6 damage" style of 3LBB play.

[Mushgnome]

By the way, there is a third alternative, staring us right in the face: "man-type" combat as detailed in Monsters & Treasure.

In this style of combat a Troll attacks as "6 men" and makes 6 attacks/round (each "man" attacking as a 1HD creature; one of the attacks at +3 to hit).

This gives the Troll a huge potential damage output up to 36hp per round! So in that sense, Greyhawk Supplement giving the troll claw/claw/bite of 1d4/1d4/1d8 is actually a big "nerf" or downgrade over 3LBB man-type combat. Max damage of 16 instead of 36hp/round.

(There is much debate, the exact definitions of "normal man" and "man-type." For example, is 1+1HD still considered a "normal man"? Does the troll get 6 attacks/round vs. a Veteran fighting-man? I've had different DMs make different rulings, where exactly that cutoff point lies.)

In other words, I think there are strong, by-the-book, rules-as-written arguments for trolls to get 1, 3, or 6 attacks per round. (Trolls being just one example.)

[delta]

Feb 11, 2022 7:25:25 GMT -6 retrorob said:

I don't think it's a heresy - 3LBB don't include multiple attacks, apart from centaurs, giant crabs, balrogs and hydras. This routine "claw/claw/bite" comes only in the supplements. Personally I don't use it. All attacks do 1d6 damage unless stated otherwise. Combat is dangerous enough.

You're right there aren't many. I'd also contend it's indicated for chimera, purple worms, and giant octopi/squid.

[muddy]

I've been doing something like this for a while now, though I'm using Blueholme. I like the way it speeds up battles and reduces the number of die rolls.

Instead of three separate attacks of 1d6, I roll one attack with potential damage of 3d6, though the description of results will be something like claw/claw/bite. So, PC's still do 1d6 dam, but have variable HD, and the damage done by monsters can very greatly from 1d6.

A while back I reached out to Delta about the mathematics, wondering if this made much of a difference. He confirmed my suspicion that while damage will be more likely to swing between extremes (nothing one round, 10 the next) it averaged out about the same. I compensate (usually) by ensuring the description of the creature is commensurate with its deadliness. So players may not benefit from the gradual accumulation of low damage (giving them time to withdraw), but know going in this will be a fierce fight (giving them a clear indication that choosing to engage is serious and withdrawal may not be an option).

Of course, if it is a creature capable of engaging multiple opponents (maybe a hydra as opposed to a mountain lion) I revert to separate attack rolls.

[retrorob]

Feb 11, 2022 10:19:27 GMT -6 delta said:

Feb 11, 2022 7:25:25 GMT -6 retrorob said:

I don't think it's a heresy - 3LBB don't include multiple attacks, apart from centaurs, giant crabs, balrogs and hydras. This routine "claw/claw/bite" comes only in the supplements. Personally I don't use it. All attacks do 1d6 damage unless stated otherwise. Combat is dangerous enough.

You're right there aren't many. I'd also contend it's indicated for chimera, purple worms, and giant octopi/squid.

giant octopi/squid - correct, "each arm may attack". For purple worms perhaps it depends on the situation and facing. As for chimera - not sure, but why not, IMC they can attack thrice

[vindigator]

A couple (maybe 10) years ago two weapon fighting came up again. Rolling two dice for damage and taking the better is my preference for two weapons. (And I like the term advantage from 5e.) One weapon allows use of a shield for +1 AC. I use +1 to hit for two-handed weapons, and two weapons result in increased damage.

This works well with the claw/claw/bite attack routine. All attacks are one d20 roll. For damage, roll twice and take the higher result. Ties on the dice reflect a special outcome, for example, an owlbear grapples the defender and will automatically hit the following round unless the defender breaks free.