>It is important to realize that a combatant does not attack only once in a round because there isn't time to attack a second time - but because the combatant doesn't get another chance to see an opening. Additional attacks that are gained as combatants increase in level because less of a opening is needed in order to mount a meaningful attack - that is, more than 1 per round.
D&D causes autism.
It makes sense though.
Perhaps instead of merely calling it autism, you could have instead explained why it's wrong. Or is this merely something you have some feelings on and don't really understand why it's wrong and thus can't explain why?
At its face it makes sense. A better trained warrior sees more openings, and is more capable of utilizing them, whereas the lesser trained isn't.
Makes sense to me.
I've always assumed that is how it works. That the two combatants are clashing steel the whole 6 seconds and the attack actions are the actual attempted swings past the opponents guard.
Let's see you come up with a way to do this shit then.
I like you.
No it really doesn't.
Why not?
Wouldn't an autistic person enjoy the concrete abstraction and not feel the need to justify it?
>OP tries to take his misguided D&D hate out of its containment thread
Embarrassing. Mods should just start banning these kids already to spare themselves from all this humiliation.
New to the thread, but of course it does.
I'm a guy who does a bit of martial arts, I'm not even that good, just a hobbyist really.
If you stand there and let me pound on you, I can punch you about 15 times in the space of a 6 second round, if not more. I'm also sure that if I were translated into DnD, I wouldn't even rate a 1st level monk or anything. I don't think 15 attacks a round is quite right, and a lot of that is because in a real fight, I'm just not going to get an opening for so many shots, and in addition, I'm not sure how many punches quite count together to make up an "attack".
But as someone gets better and better, especially if you go well past the possibilities of people on earth, yes, you get more effective openings, you see more opportunities, you spend less time flailing and looking for an opening in that 6 second window and more time hitting them.
Same here, for most systems.
If the combatants are wielding guns, I assume that most of the round is one combatant trying to get a shot that looks good enough to pull the trigger. Even fully automatic fire is only a quick burst.
why wouldn't this make sense? It's the same way in whfrp 2e and that's where i first read something like that.
So shouldn't your attacks decrease if you fight against a fighter of higher skill than yourself?
That's kind of the systemic problem with D&D combat: outside of 4e there's no real "defense" skill value, high level encounters are instead conducted with the opponents having a lot of offensive capabilities and a lot of hit points.
I suspect OP means that if you didn't see it like this before, you have autism.
It also doesn't make sense, because better trained warriors also get better at defending themselves.
>It also doesn't make sense, because better trained warriors also get better at defending themselves.
Well, in 4e your AC does raise as you go up in levels... but then even in 3.5 your HP goes up, which could be considered "getting better at defending yourself".
Nah, HP scaling with level just means that your characters get fatter and fatter and thus have more meat for enemies to chop through to hit anything vital.
Correct. Basically, PCs never spend calories as fast as they ingest them. A level 20, high con PC is typically going to be a mountain of lard, cartilage, and scar tissue. Gygax specifically points out that the reason why a decently leveled fighter can take the punishment of several warhorses to kill is due to his body mass equaling that of several warhorses.
What would a better system be? Your skill - Their Skill = Number of attacks, to a minimum of 1?
No, it doesn't really.
It makes sense until level 3-4, and then it stops making sense.
Or when Haste is +1 AR and +1 attack per round.
Or to put it as it actually works: Every 5 levels, a full BAB progression class gains the ability to move like a hasted creature, and for every 5 levels even more so.
The AR bonus on the top of that, should make it rather super human.
>Or to put it as it actually works: Every 5 levels, a full BAB progression class gains the ability to move like a hasted creature, and for every 5 levels even more so.
>The AR bonus on the top of that, should make it rather super human.
So you're stance is that the fighting mechanics in D&D when you get passed level 3 or 4 makes standard characters turn superhuman-ish?
And this is a bad thing?
>And this is a bad thing?
Only when its overlooked.
You could argue a level 5 BAB character moves with a extreme grace.
But a level 10 BAB character would move faster than a hasted creature, and literally rend trough whatever is attacked.
Yes, it does.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and there's nothing superhuman in that at all.
There's literally nothing superhuman about being able to attack four times in 6 seconds. Anyone can do that. There is something superhuman about getting to do a quadruple power attack through a wall using a quarterstaff.
>But a level 10 BAB character would move faster than a hasted creature,
They move slower, actually, all else being equal.
Being very fast giving you extra attacks does not suggest getting extra attacks make you fast.
>But a level 10 BAB character would move faster than a hasted creature, and literally rend trough whatever is attacked.
And what, precisely, would the issue be with this? Dungeons and Dragons is a Heroic Fantasy system. If you want grim and gritty, go try Riddle of Steel or WFRP.
How about everyone gets an attack every second, and the ability to parry other attacks?
>There's literally nothing superhuman about being able to attack four times in 6 seconds.
If a human has 4-8 HP, and a normal attack is 1D6?
Every "hit" is a full committed lethal hit.
Remember: You don't just have to touch them with the weapon, you also need to properly pierce and retrieve said weapon.
It is also a interpretation issue. If swordmen moves like Revenge of the Sith swordmen, or if they are really good at moving forward to perform lethal attacks.
Sadly this is also D&D. A game designed around heroic fantasy, where very few creates has less than 12HP.
>How about everyone gets an attack every second, and the ability to parry other attacks?
Wait, second as in every second level or second as in measurement of time?
Because I'll tell you right now, that won't work they way you think it might.
>If a human has 4-8 HP, and a normal attack is 1D6?
People regularly die from single punches. Admittedly, they're usually not prepared for them, but it's not exactly an unheard of or even an uncommon thing.
>I'm a guy who does a bit of martial arts, I'm not even that good, just a hobbyist really.
>If you stand there and let me pound on you, I can punch you about 15 times in the space of a 6 second round, if not more. I'm also sure that if I were translated into DnD, I wouldn't even rate a 1st level monk or anything. I don't think 15 attacks a round is quite right, and a lot of that is because in a real fight, I'm just not going to get an opening for so many shots, and in addition, I'm not sure how many punches quite count together to make up an "attack".
A level 10 Fighter with haste can attempt to land a succesful blow every 2 seconds.
You think this is unrealistically... fast? Slow?
A normal human can easily glance hits 3-4 times a second.
Proper fatal hits, with full decapitation, limb chopping or a full 2000-3000 N of impact? Not so much. Maybe 1 per 2-3 seconds, but not successive.
Then you're playing GURPS.
>A normal human can easily glance hits 3-4 times a second.
I think I've found your issue.
>what is codex martialis
So you think D&D is unrealistically fast at higher levels?
Thats sorta a selling point of Heroic Fantasy user.
That user might really like it, even if the D&D writers don't, and deny it to all their ability.
I want to see him write it. He keeps not writing it, because he knows that as soon as he actually commits to having an opinion rather than just making factual statements about mechanics, I'll tell him his opinion is shit-tier.
What? No. Do you have any idea what autism actually means?