Multiple Melee Attacks WB Style

[philotomy]

I was examining the math behind multiple attacks (binomial distribution -- ugh), looking for an appropriate bonus instead of additional attack rolls. The exact increase in the chance of a successful hit from additional attacks varies, but as an average over the entire range of level/hit-dice vs. 9-2 AC*, it appears that +4 (20% better chance to hit) is reasonable for representing a second attack, and +6 (30% better chance to hit) is reasonable for representing three attacks. (This does leave out the possibility of separate damage rolls from multiple successes, but hit points are lower since I'm not using Greyhawk-style hit dice, so I don't think it's a significant concern.)

So let's say you want to boost the Fighting Man's combat ability relative to the other classes. One way would be to allow him an increased probability for a successful hit that is similar to multiple attack rolls at higher levels, but model this with a bonus instead of separate attack rolls. For example, let's say you decide 1st-3rd level FM get the standard chance to hit, as normal, but Heroes get the equivalent of 3 attacks in 2 and Superheroes and above get the equivalent of 2 attacks per round.

For the Heroes (including levels 4-7), you could do this two ways. Every other round, the hero might get a +4 to hit. Alternatively, you could split the bonus, and give him a +2 to hit on every round. The Superhero would get a +4 bonus every round. Of course, these bonuses would apply to melee, only.

The same approach could be used for monsters that traditionally get multiple attack rolls (e.g. claw/claw/bite). For example, a ghoul would receive a +6 to hit instead of a claw/claw/bite routine. A successful hit would do 1d6 damage and require a paralysis saving throw, as normal. (In other terms, this means a ghoul with has about the same chance to hit as a Stone Giant! And actually, for a lower HD monster like a ghoul, the +6 understates the increased chance to hit from three attack rolls.)

Not sure what I'll do with this (i.e. whether I'll actually start using it or not). I just thought it was interesting as an alternate approach to multiple attack rolls per round.

* - actually, I ran the numbers for a FM of levels 1, 4, 8, and 12 across all ACs from 9 to 2.

[fitz]

My argument against this is simple: players like more attacks more than they like a bonus to an attack. Give a player a chance to roll more dice and they'll leap at it.

[aldarron]

Great work Philotomy. 3LBB combat, both alternative and with Chainmail is abstract. Okay, that's not news. Problem is that, from Supplements I & II on, everyone seems to want to make exceptions, variable wepaon damage, hit location, and of course, multiple attacks per round. Exceptions change it from abstract to specified and once you do that the mechanic becomes unbalanced - like one bowler getting extra sets when the rest only get 10. "Extra attacks" is a particularly silly concept in a 1 to 2 1/2 minute round where scores of "attacks" would actually take place - provided the opponent isn't killed.
The death of an opponent at some point in that round allows a variable amount of extra time, which is part of the reason why I personally prefer the Arsonian method of allowing fighters to continue to engage new opponents (multiple attacks per round) each time they make a kill.

Adding a bonus to the abstract attack roll is a very reasonable approach to modeling increasing combat prowess. OD&D already has a model for this in Fighting Capability. So rather than picking arbitrary numbers, such as heros get 3 attacks in 2, I would prefer to match the Fighting capability system. So, for example, I would add a bonus pip for level 2, a +2 for level 3, and a +4 for level 4 (representing an extra die per round). A Superhero then would be +8 and I might decide to cap it there.

[kesher]

Jan 6, 2010 9:48:00 GMT -6 aldarron said:

3LBB combat, both alternative and with Chainmail is abstract. Okay, that's not news. Problem is that, from Supplements I & II, everyone seems to want to make exceptions, variable wepaon damage, hit location, and of course, multiple attacks per round. Exceptions change it from abstract to specified and once you do that the mechanic becomes unbalanced - like one bowler getting extra sets when the rest only get 10. "Extra attacks" is a particularly silly concept in a 1 to 2 1/2 minute round where scores of "attacks" would actually take place - provided the opponent isn't killed. The death of an opponent at some point in that round allows a variable amount of extra time, which is part of the reason why I personally prefer the Arsonian method of allowing fighters to continue to engage new opponents (multiple attacks per round) each time they make a kill.

Maybe the problem here is calling them "extra attacks" as opposed to "extra chances to land a telling blow", which is really what damage is supposed to be in, like you say, a combat round that's a minute long.

Which I guess might then argue for the bonus instead of "multiple attacks", for the sake of conceptualization, though I also agree that it's fun to picture your character making actual multiple attacks...

You know, the problem of combat round conceptualization is something that deserves more discussion---how do people describe/visualize the combats as they're happening, and how does this affect what kind of bonuses seem to "make sense."

[philotomy]

Jan 6, 2010 11:53:44 GMT -6 kesher said:

Maybe the problem here is calling them "extra attacks" as opposed to "extra chances to land a telling blow"…

Indeed. Or even just "higher probability of significant damage." Basically, you embrace the abstraction. This is really just boosting the Fighting Man's chance to hit (in melee) using a mathematical model that is close to that of multiple attack rolls without actually using multiple attack rolls.

(I also thought it was interesting to see just how big a bonus multiple attack rolls equate to. It's no wonder ghouls have done in so many low-level parties. A ghoul with 3 attacks has a probability to hit that's about equal to a 9HD monster!)

[philotomy]

Jan 6, 2010 5:33:55 GMT -6 fitz said:

My argument against this is simple: players like more attacks more than they like a bonus to an attack. Give a player a chance to roll more dice and they'll leap at it.

I think that's a valid argument, especially since the "bonus instead of extra rolls" approach, here, is mathematically very similar (by design). It's the same argument that tips the scales towards using critical hits in my game, despite the fact that I don't really like them and that they tend to favor the monsters.

Nevertheless, I can't help wondering how much of it is tradition and presentation. For example, if the bonus is just presented as a "Fighting Man Melee Bonus" that is granted at Hero and Superhero levels, that might seem more desirable. I can see a player going "awesome, I get to use my Hero melee bonus this round." (Which is one argument for not spreading the +4 equally across 2 rounds, actually.)

Like I said, I haven't decided what I'm going to do with this. Maybe nothing. Right now, my game only includes multiple attacks for high HD types attacking groups of enemies with 1HD or less (e.g. a Hero getting 4 attacks when facing orcs). But I may end up wanting to boost the FM's combat effectiveness relative to the other two classes, and I'm just looking at various ways to do that, including paths not already worn smooth.

[EdOWar]

The other component to multiple attacks is the potential to inflict additional damage. Sure, not every attack will hit each round, but they might, and then the character would inflict more damage. Given that OD&D uses mainly 1d6 for damage, that is a significant factor.

Instead of giving a bonus to hit, how about a bonus to damage? Or split the difference, a small bonus to hit and to damage.

Edit: Also, higher level characters already have better to-hit modifiers (and magic weapons, giving further bonuses). So a +4 or +6 to-hit would make a miss almost impossible in some cases.

[kesher]

Jan 6, 2010 13:11:36 GMT -6 EdOWar said:

Edit: Also, higher level characters already have better to-hit modifiers (and magic weapons, giving further bonuses). So a +4 or +6 to-hit would make a miss almost impossible in some cases.

That's actually a really good point...

[philotomy]

Jan 6, 2010 13:11:36 GMT -6 EdOWar said:

The other component to multiple attacks is the potential to inflict additional damage…Given that OD&D uses mainly 1d6 for damage, that is a significant factor.

What I'm doing is comparing a WB approach (one attack/1d6 damage/1d6 HD) with an AD&D or GH-ish approach (multiple attacks/variable damage/higher HD). The bonus only addresses the increased chance to hit during the round and ignores the possibility of multiple damage rolls. However, in the AD&D-style approach where multiple attacks are used, hit dice are also bumped up and damage is made more variable. I decided that if HD were kept at D6 (i.e. not bumped up), I'd just ignore the possibility of bumped up damage, too. It's a hand-wave.

Instead of giving a bonus to hit, how about a bonus to damage? Or split the difference, a small bonus to hit and to damage.

Sure, you could. One of the weird things about D&D combat is that there are three ways to model combat effectiveness: the chance to hit, hit points, and the amount of damage done.

If you don't like the damage hand-wave, or you're using the bumped up hit dice, adding a bonus to damage (or increasing the size of the damage die) would be one way to go. On the other hand, one of the main arguments for the "bonus only" approach is that its fast and simple. Tweak too much and you lose that advantage over just having multiple attack rolls.

Edit: Also, higher level characters already have better to-hit modifiers (and magic weapons, giving further bonuses). So a +4 or +6 to-hit would make a miss almost impossible in some cases.

Sure. But don't forget that the +4 or +6 is exactly the kind of increase that multiple attack rolls grant. For example, a Hero (4th level) has a 65% chance to hit an AC9. Give him two attack rolls, and he has an 88% chance of at least one success; that's a 23% increase. Give him three, and he has a 96% chance of at least one success; that's a 31% increase. A 12th level Fighter has a 55% chance to hit AC2. Give him two rolls, and he has an 80% chance of at least one success (25% increase). Give him three rolls, and he has a 91% chance of at least one success (36% increase). The same kind of probabilities hold true for monsters. Across the table, an increase of 20% and 30% seems to be a good average. So the +4 and +6 isn't some crazy high boost; it follows the power-up that the game takes when multiple attacks are added (slightly more in some cases, slightly less in others, but a decent average).

However, since the "bonus only" model always uses a single damage roll, you could even say that the bonus only model is slightly less of a power-up, compared to multiple attack and damage rolls.