Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Soepkom 11-30-04, 06:55 PM	My current group now plays for about a year, and we have always resolved combat that if one or more combatants have more than one attack, first everyone makes their first attack, in initiative order, then the order starts again for the 2nd attack, and so on. I just discovered today, that that is not core... How do you guys about this way to resolve combat?
arphaxad 11-30-04, 07:17 PM	My current group now plays for about a year, and we have always resolved combat that if one or more combatants have more than one attack, first everyone makes their first attack, in initiative order, then the order starts again for the 2nd attack, and so on. I just discovered today, that that is not core... How do you guys about this way to resolve combat? That sounds fairly tedious, Just imagine a table of monks and two weapon fighters/rangers at high level, one tun would take an hour.
DM Zoc 11-30-04, 11:20 PM	What if fighter one goes and makes a first attack, and then fighter two runs away? Does fighter one now gain a move action to follow? What if fighter two only makes the first attack and then runs away? Or would he have to wait until his attack pass in order to run?
Edymnion 11-30-04, 11:49 PM	You just take all of your attacks at once, the other guy doesn't get an option to run away in the middle of it. You have to realize its more like in the movies where they rain down hit after hit so fast that you miss something if you blink. It isn't like they just sit there and go "I hit you last time, so now its your turn!" Of course, he can still attack once and run away. You take the attack as your standard action, then move action to move away. You can't make more than one attack per round unless you're taking a Full Attack option, and then you aren't allowed to move during it.
Soepkom 12-01-04, 06:30 AM	That sounds fairly tedious, Just imagine a table of monks and two weapon fighters/rangers at high level, one tun would take an hour. actually, it doesn't really affect the effort, unless someone just got a new attack or something like that. Like I said, we've been playing like this for a year, and we're kind if used to it. It doesn't increase the number of actions, it just puts them in a different order. What if fighter one goes and makes a first attack, and then fighter two runs away? Does fighter one now gain a move action to follow? What if fighter two only makes the first attack and then runs away? Or would he have to wait until his attack pass in order to run? you don't have to choose wether to use a standard attack or a full attack until you want to take a 2nd attack. This means that if a fighter attacks baddie A with his 1st attack, and the baddie runs away, the fighter can run after him or perform some other MEA as soon as he would have had his 2nd attack. You just take all of your attacks at once, the other guy doesn't get an option to run away in the middle of it. You have to realize its more like in the movies where they rain down hit after hit so fast that you miss something if you blink. It isn't like they just sit there and go "I hit you last time, so now its your turn!" Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a movie where two people were fighting, and one of them got to land 4 or more blows to someone *before* they were really involved in combat (ie. flat-footed) And remember you attack at about the same speed at lower levels than at higher levels, the extra attcks you get simulate becoming better, and thus hitting more often. I've been thinking about it, and compared to using the core rules, this affects 2 things the most: - initiative is less important - spellcasters have an advantage (if they lose initiative to someone in melee, they act after their first attack, not after their last attack) (and it doesn't really affect the duration or difficulty of combat in our group, because half of the group knows the (our) rules well and do combat like this because they don't know any else, and the other half forgets how to calculate attack bonus every now and then...) edit: and anyway, thanks for the input :)
arphaxad 12-01-04, 07:45 AM	actually, it doesn't really affect the effort, unless someone just got a new attack or something like that. Like I said, we've been playing like this for a year, and we're kind if used to it. It doesn't increase the number of actions, it just puts them in a different order. I understand that. My two weapon fighting rogue with 6 attacks takes at least ten minutes to calculate damage, and I roll all the dice at once. The whole system seems to be designed to nerf rogues, and help casters (who really don't need any help). It would nerf rogues because they would be able to get less attacks while someone is flatfooted. Of course in my lifetime I've come to despise houserules, but that's just me.
Soepkom 12-01-04, 08:01 AM	You have a point there, didn't think about sneak attack. But on the other hand, apart from game mechanics, realism-wise I think this also is weird, for the same reason as I stated before with the two fighters, attacking someone multiple times before they are 'combat-ready' seems weird to me. I am also really wondering how this got into our game. I'm afraid I'm to blame, since I have the only 2nd edition history, and IIRC our way was how it worked in 2nd ed. Guess next session I'll discuss our 'mistake' and ask the groups opinion about how we want to continue.
DrMorganes 12-01-04, 10:51 AM	Toss the "realism" concept right out into the snow (Happy December, all! 24 more shopping days, yadda yadda). D&D is designed around fairness (nominally), balance (nominally), and ease of use (again, nominally). Having played since AD&D 1st Edition, and three editions of Shadowrun (which spaces iterative attacks out over the course of the round), I will say with confidance that it's far easier from a bookkeeping perspective to grant all attacks at once. Stick with the Core Rules as much as possible. House rule with caution, and only when absolutely necessary to deal with those irritating issues not explicitly covered in the Core Rules. As for how to deal with your error, suggest that your troupe tries the "all attacks on your turn" option for a fight or two during your next session. If they like it, stick with it. If not, don't. ;)
Soepkom 12-01-04, 11:13 AM	Stick with the Core Rules as much as possible. House rule with caution, and only when absolutely necessary to deal with those irritating issues not explicitly covered in the Core Rules. I couldn't agree more, and am absolutely positive I wouldn't even have considered doing it this way if I had read the rules right the first time :rolleyes: But I'm growing kind of fond of the way we do it now... :P
starfire311 12-01-04, 04:31 PM	having iteritive attacks performed at the end of the round was how I did it in 2nd ed and how it is done in Rifts. However it just doesnt work for 3rd ed... the second level ranger in my group would go nuts. I can imagine now Me: Anna you see 2 orcs wearing Chain Shirts... roll Initiative Anna: remember I said I already had an arrow knocked Me: no problem Anna: I got a 21 on my intiative Me: that is better than both the orcs you go first Anna: OK I am gonna rapid shot them so that gives me a -2 to my attack right? First attack I get a 13 dang I missed. Me: laughing maniacally both Orcs duck out of sight you will need to move closer to see them. Anna: well then I dont get my second attack from rapid shot. Me: guess not Anna: well would a 15 have hit if I didnt rapid shot. Me: well I guess but too late for that now. yeah some how these rules really breakdown when using rapid shot and two weapon fighting.
He Who Shall Not Be Named 12-04-04, 05:28 AM	Originally Posted by DrMorganes Having played since AD&D 1st Edition, and three editions of Shadowrun (which spaces iterative attacks out over the course of the round), I will say with confidance that it's far easier from a bookkeeping perspective to grant all attacks at once. Took the words right out of my mouth. :D Shadowrun's initiative, IMO, is much more dynamic and effective than D&D's (even tho the bookkeeping may be a bit lacking :P ). It also makes it much more important. Unfortunately, since many abilities in D&D are full-round based, it's nigh-impossible to convert to a balanced Shadowrun-action-for-action initiative in D&D. :weep:
Soepkom 12-04-04, 07:07 PM	I've discussed our 'error' with the group, and it was unanymous that we are used to and like our current way of handling initiative. We haven't run into real balance problems because of this, but if we will in the future we might reconsider or change something minor to accomodate for that. Otherwise, we decided to stick with the current way of handling things. (just to let you guys know :) )
lostone 12-05-04, 09:22 AM	As mentioned previously, this way is the way Rifts is run in combat. I started my roleplaying experience in Rifts, played that exclusively for many years. Dabbled in D&D2E a bit, but didn't really like the system (I was stubborn), didn't have access to the books, and didn't feel there was enough flexibility in the system for character creation (we didn't have players option, I still haven't really seen it). When I got to D&D3E, I was with a new group, with an excellent DM, and I hated how the bad guys got all their attacks before me (I had -1 initiative). I was used to Rifts, and initiative isn't as important since the winner gets one attack before me. In D&D it puts a lot more focus on getting a good initiative roll. I've gotten used to D&D now, and I haven't looked back to Rifts seriously, I like the D&D system better, and honestly I can't see how taking one attack in D&D would be easy to track, with movement and attacks of opportunity and all that, it seems like a logistical nightmare to make sure that someone isn't getting extra movement or anything. Wow, that got long. :zzz: I feel like an old codger reminiscing about the good ol' days, back when we walked to school uphill both ways, barefoot in the 4ft of snow and -100 degree weather.