"Attack Die"

[Zak S]

I think the phrase "attack die" is a little confusing--particularly in the "Mighty Deeds" section.

The term refers to the bonus a warrior gets to attacks (which is rolled) but it is easy to confuse with the d20 (or 16)
roll that a warrior uses to actually see if the attack succeeds.

"Attack bonus roll" maybe?
"Attack modifier die"?

[jmucchiello]

Action die is the d20 you can roll to make an attack or cast a spell (or make a skill check). At 5th level fighters and wizards gain a second action die at d16.

Attack die is specific to the fighter/dwarf and is the d3/d4/d5/d6/d7 used with MDoAs.

[Harley Stroh]

Received. I think it could be confusing. Perhaps it is just the MDoA die, or "Arms die."

//H

[Rick]

"Prepare to" die

[Harley Stroh]

Yeah ... for a while I advocated for MDoA to be shortened to DOA.

//H

[reverenddak]

ACTION die vs ATTACK die.

It's probably clear now, but I can see where they can get confused. Maybe BONUS die should be used instead.

[goodmangames]

You're right, the terms are easy to confuse. Maybe "the cool die"?

[shadewest]

Deed Die?

[jmucchiello]

I was actually thinking it should be called the class die as it is (in 3e terms) a class bonus to the attack roll. And if it was expanded to magic, wizards would add their class die to their action die when casting a spell. Thieves would add their class die to skill checks involving skullduggery.

[reverenddak]

I was actually thinking it should be called the class die as it is...

I like it. The bonus Class die.

[jmucchiello]

Hey, we agreed on something, rev. dark!

[talmor]

Also, calling it the class die let's you use for things like Theives and their skills without having to come up with a different name...

[jmucchiello]

Also, calling it the class die let's you use for things like Theives and their skills without having to come up with a different name...

As I said above. More people agree with me. I'm so happy. (And feeling a little weird today apparently.)

[reverenddak]

Hey, we agreed on something, rev. dark!

Oh, we've agreed on several things! heh. I think we want the same things from this game, but I think the priorities are just different.

[finarvyn]

the MDoA die

I think that this isn't any better. Too many abbreviations make my brain hurt.

[muherd]

"Bonus Die" perhaps? I mean, it does add the bonus to attack and damage in addition to the cool MDoA stuff.

[moes1980]

I have just been calling it the "attack bonus" or "level bonus to hit" or something like that. Basically, any phrase I used to use to refer to the +x number that fighters get per experince level is what have been using to refer to that bonus to-hit die.

I like the attack die is instead called an action die. Makes me think that it can relate to other thigns other than just attacking or casting spells. For example, if a 5th level fighter wanted to bash down a door, then run into a room and attack a monster, I would let him use one action die (his choice) for the roll to bash down the door, then make his move, and then roll the other action die for the attack. I think that is kind of a cool way to let high level characters do more in a round than just get extra attacks. Since an elf can attack with one action die and cast a spell with the other, I don't see why the action dice cant be used in this other way as well.

[jmucchiello]

I like the attack die is instead called an action die. Makes me think that it can relate to other thigns other than just attacking or casting spells. For example, if a 5th level fighter wanted to bash down a door, then run into a room and attack a monster, I would let him use one action die (his choice) for the roll to bash down the door, then make his move, and then roll the other action die for the attack. I think that is kind of a cool way to let high level characters do more in a round than just get extra attacks. Since an elf can attack with one action die and cast a spell with the other, I don't see why the action dice cant be used in this other way as well.

That is exactly the intent of the action die. It just isn't spelled out very well in the Beta rules.

[bholmes4]

I like the attack die is instead called an action die. Makes me think that it can relate to other thigns other than just attacking or casting spells. For example, if a 5th level fighter wanted to bash down a door, then run into a room and attack a monster, I would let him use one action die (his choice) for the roll to bash down the door, then make his move, and then roll the other action die for the attack. I think that is kind of a cool way to let high level characters do more in a round than just get extra attacks. Since an elf can attack with one action die and cast a spell with the other, I don't see why the action dice cant be used in this other way as well.

I think this sounds cool and cinematic but couldn't this be handled by the MDoA die?

It would almost have to be applied backwards. Maybe the PC rolls to bash down the door as normal and rolls, but doesn't apply, the MDoA. If the door is bashed down and the MDoA is 3+ the door flings open and the player rolls his attack and applies the already rolled MDoA to hit. If the MDoA is less than 3, the door flings open but the warrior is slow to recover and the monster attacks first.

Your way is definitely cool and gives me pause to think if I should continue to house rule out multiple attacks/round like I plan (I don't like how they can slow the pace between player turns).

I think my MDoA example could work and accomplish the same thing but I'm not sure. With the multi-attack system you would simply roll d14 for the door, enter the room attack with D20 + MDoA and still do something neat like disarm the monster, all in one round. I like that! My way isn't quite as cinematic I guess but it's pretty close as the warrior could still disarm it when it gets to the next round.

[smathis]

Your way is definitely cool and gives me pause to think if I should continue to house rule out multiple attacks/round like I plan (I don't like how they can slow the pace between player turns).

When I ran it, we had an Elf. He had a d20 and a d14. He assigned one to one action and one to another beforehand. And then resolved them in whatever order made sense. So, sometimes the d14 happened first. Sometimes the d20 did. I didn't stop him or coach him on "doing it the wrong way". I was more interested in watching how he approached the mechanic organically.

He read it and THAT'S how he understood it to work.

I thought that was pretty interesting.

[bholmes4]

When I ran it, we had an Elf. He had a d20 and a d14. He assigned one to one action and one to another beforehand. And then resolved them in whatever order made sense. So, sometimes the d14 happened first. Sometimes the d20 did. I didn't stop him or coach him on "doing it the wrong way". I was more interested in watching how he approached the mechanic organically.

He read it and THAT'S how he understood it to work.

I thought that was pretty interesting.

I actually would have thought it was done his way too lol. Did it slow things much using two actions?

My main issue with 2 attacks is that I want my player's engaged at all times. I want their turns to come back around so fast they can't disengage or end up lost as to what just happened. With all the chart checking that can go on at this game I am very hesitant on this issue.

[moes1980]

I like the attack die is instead called an action die. Makes me think that it can relate to other thigns other than just attacking or casting spells. For example, if a 5th level fighter wanted to bash down a door, then run into a room and attack a monster, I would let him use one action die (his choice) for the roll to bash down the door, then make his move, and then roll the other action die for the attack. I think that is kind of a cool way to let high level characters do more in a round than just get extra attacks. Since an elf can attack with one action die and cast a spell with the other, I don't see why the action dice cant be used in this other way as well.

I think this sounds cool and cinematic but couldn't this be handled by the MDoA die?

It would almost have to be applied backwards. Maybe the PC rolls to bash down the door as normal and rolls, but doesn't apply, the MDoA. If the door is bashed down and the MDoA is 3+ the door flings open and the player rolls his attack and applies the already rolled MDoA to hit. If the MDoA is less than 3, the door flings open but the warrior is slow to recover and the monster attacks first.

Your way is definitely cool and gives me pause to think if I should continue to house rule out multiple attacks/round like I plan (I don't like how they can slow the pace between player turns).

I think my MDoA example could work and accomplish the same thing but I'm not sure. With the multi-attack system you would simply roll d14 for the door, enter the room attack with D20 + MDoA and still do something neat like disarm the monster, all in one round. I like that! My way isn't quite as cinematic I guess but it's pretty close as the warrior could still disarm it when it gets to the next round.

Just a few things about using the MDoA instead of the second action die to bash down a door, not all characters get to make MDoA's, so that would limit basing down a door and attacking in the same round for high level pcs would be limited to fighters and dwarves, not sure that makes sense when a mage can still cast two spells in one round at high level, but then couldnt kick down a door and cast a spell becuase they don't have MDoA.

When I ran it, we had an Elf. He had a d20 and a d14. He assigned one to one action and one to another beforehand. And then resolved them in whatever order made sense. So, sometimes the d14 happened first. Sometimes the d20 did. I didn't stop him or coach him on "doing it the wrong way". I was more interested in watching how he approached the mechanic organically.

He read it and THAT'S how he understood it to work.

I thought that was pretty interesting.

I actually would have thought it was done his way too lol. Did it slow things much using two actions?

My main issue with 2 attacks is that I want my player's engaged at all times. I want their turns to come back around so fast they can't disengage or end up lost as to what just happened. With all the chart checking that can go on at this game I am very hesitant on this issue.

I am not to worried about it slowing down the game, especially since different die typs are used. The tricky part is if the attack bonus die is rolled once for both attacks, or rolled for each attack. The first way would mean you could roll your attack bonus and action dice all at once, and calculate what hits pretty quick. If you roll your bonus die with each one that could end up being a little slow but it will still be way faster then 4th ed and pretty qucik compared to 3.x rules for multible attakcs. I also get the feeling that pcs are not really going to get more than 2 or maybe 3 action dice ever. Instead, those other action dice will just get better. I don't know if that is how it will work, just my suspicion.

[bholmes4]

Just a few things about using the MDoA instead of the second action die to bash down a door, not all characters get to make MDoA's, so that would limit basing down a door and attacking in the same round for high level pcs would be limited to fighters and dwarves, not sure that makes sense when a mage can still cast two spells in one round at high level, but then couldnt kick down a door and cast a spell becuase they don't have MDoA.

....

I am not to worried about it slowing down the game, especially since different die typs are used. The tricky part is if the attack bonus die is rolled once for both attacks, or rolled for each attack. The first way would mean you could roll your attack bonus and action dice all at once, and calculate what hits pretty quick. If you roll your bonus die with each one that could end up being a little slow but it will still be way faster then 4th ed and pretty qucik compared to 3.x rules for multible attakcs. I also get the feeling that pcs are not really going to get more than 2 or maybe 3 action dice ever. Instead, those other action dice will just get better. I don't know if that is how it will work, just my suspicion.

To the first part it's a good point but I have no problem with limiting other classes from this sort of thing, it's just not their specialty. Then again I may limit players to one roll (action) per round anyway. That said depending on the situation (ie. mid combat) I may allow them to kick down the door and act but likely add a penalty or something. Ideally kicking down the door is just the start of a surprise roll though so it's not an issue you are likely to encounter often.

To the second, I am almost positive the same attack bonus die applies to both rolls. The problem I see is that you are assuming the second die never becomes a d20 but I am not so sure when we see the higher levels released. That kind of limits rolling all at once but I suppose it's not a big increase. I just don't know what it adds to the game (having extra actions).

[moes1980]

To the first part it's a good point but I have no problem with limiting other classes from this sort of thing, it's just not their specialty. Then again I may limit players to one roll (action) per round anyway. That said depending on the situation (ie. mid combat) I may allow them to kick down the door and act but likely add a penalty or something. Ideally kicking down the door is just the start of a surprise roll though so it's not an issue you are likely to encounter often.

To the second, I am almost positive the same attack bonus die applies to both rolls. The problem I see is that you are assuming the second die never becomes a d20 but I am not so sure when we see the higher levels released. That kind of limits rolling all at once but I suppose it's not a big increase. I just don't know what it adds to the game (having extra actions).

Well, even if the second die became a d20, you could still roll two d-20s at the same time since both attacks are made with the same weapon and both do the same damage on a hit, its just a matter of did you hit once or twice. As for what it adds to the game? it makes pcs more powerful! That is almot like asking "what dose increasing to hit bonus do for the game other then inflate the math and make it a little tougher to calculate your final to hit because your adding 7 instead of 2 to your roll?"

Getting a second attack means more crits (and fumbles), and means dishing out more damage. And haveing a mage be able to cast two spells in a turn is really something, now they can chain casts spells and stack their effects (like, say, casting invisiblity and fly and then flying away to escape an encounter) or cast the same spell twice (such as doubling up on sleep, or magic missle, to really bring home the hurt on the enemy). And being able to do more then just attack or cast a spell with your second action die really ups the antie, representing the ability to performe a greater number of difficult actions in the time it takes less expereinced characters. And it will help characters to do better when they fight monsters that also have more then one action die (the ape in the free rpg day adventure that has 60 hps and two action dice, each a d20, will be alot tougher if the other classes are not getting two action dice).

True, you could just say all monsters have one action die and house rule that way but, really, throwing monsters with multiple attacks at players, and players hitting that level that lets them attack more then once per turn is just plain fun!

[bholmes4]

Moes1980: You almost have my convinced but I am not sold yet. I will have to do some serious tests with my play group once our full campaign develops.

On one hand I love the situations you suggest, the possibilities for creative play. On the other hand I want to have henchmen and hirelings be a significant part of this campaign. Your multiple attacks will be your henchmen. If I allow multiple attacks I worry about handling time and having 15+ minute battles like later editions.