Attack Sequencing vs. Round Count

[Xaxyx]

A thin wisp of dry, desert wind playfully sprayed sand onto the boots of the bloodied and bruised warrior. Drawing deep, haggard breaths, he glanced about at the corpses riddling the ground surrounding him, fallen comrades intertwined with the twisted bodies of orcs. The battle had seemed to last forever. His companions had been slain to the last man; he alone stood, broken hilt in hand, shattered shield discarded to his side, blood dripping down his body only to soak into the ground at his feet. His battle rage began to subside, and as it did, the pain of his grievous wounds began to throb.

Suddenly, movement caught his eye. One lone orc, nursing a hobbled leg, had snatched up a cruel blade and was slowly dragging itself toward him. Momentary panic was instantly washed away by his long years of battle hardening. To one side lay a heavy crossbow, cocked and loaded, miraculously unscathed after the grueling combat. Snatching it up, he allowed its weight to press comfortably against his shoulder. Steadying his breath in rhythm with his heartbeat, he took slow, cautious aim at the approaching figure and

DM: Sorry. You can't attack this round.
Jim: Huh?
DM: This is round 18. It's an even-numbered round.
Jim: But... I don't understand. You said that the heavy crossbow was already loaded.
DM: Heavy crossbows have an attack rate of 1 every 2 rounds. That means they can only be fired on odd-numbered rounds. This round is even-numbered.
Jim: Uh... but I... ok...
DM: (rolls some dice) Oops, looks like the orc kills you.

----------------

It's often the case that DMs will want to facilitate tracking the various complexities of combat with simple, easily remembered rules. At first glance, it may seem very straightforward and effective to deal with the chaos of varying attack rates with a rule of thumb that all figures, at all times, get their greater attack rate on odd (or even) rounds, and their lower attack rates on the remainder. Thus, for 3/2: two attacks round 1; one attack round 2; etc.

But this arbitrary allocation of attacks has no correlation whatsoever to what's actually happening to the character. If a character is supposed to start out his attack sequence with his superior rate, what difference should it make what the "round number" is? Round numbers are wholly meta-game, out-of-character concepts. They're labels, nothing more. It's just as meaningful to name the rounds "A", "B", "C", etc.

By using round numbering to somehow influence character performance, we end up machinating cartoonish circumstances wherein two characters perform the exact same actions in the exact same order, but because one figure started on an odd round and the other figure started on an even round, we somehow miraculously end up with different results. I can only imagine medieval physicists studying the fascinating phenomenon of lining up a row of specialist fighters against wooden practice dummies, yelling out "start!" to each one in turn every few seconds, and marveling at how each dummy is struck either once or twice, alternating. Or, worse, really ludicrous situations like the one I've illustrated above, wherein the character can't pull the trigger on his heavy crossbow -- not because he doesn't have enough time; not because he didn't load, cock, or aim; not because of his proficiency, specialization, or any sort of competence relating to the character itself; but because, somewhere in a dimension totally unrelated to the reality in which the character exists, it's "Round 18"?! Come on.

Vastly superior, I suggest, is for DMs to allow players the privilege of tracking their own attack sequences. They already track everything else -- to-hit and damage bonuses, hit points, armor class, whatever. Why not this as well? Surely players are competent enough to know how often they attack. Surely players are reliable enough to remember how many attacks they took the prior round -- especially in play-by-post, wherein "remembering" is as simple as scrolling up a page.

[dmw71]

If a character is supposed to start out his attack sequence with his superior rate, what difference should it make what the "round number" is? Round numbers are wholly meta-game, out-of-character concepts. They're labels, nothing more. It's just as meaningful to name the rounds "A", "B", "C", etc.

I wholly agree with this. I understand why it's done, though: Simplicity. There is a great deal of information that needs to constantly be tracked, and weapon specialization with multiple attacks every (other) round only adds complexity to an already complex situation.

It is much easier to rule that an extra (or, in the case of a heavy crossbow, the only) attack will occur on and "odd" or "even" round, but this does comes at a cost to realism, which I agree is a shame. I would hope think that a DM would be reasonable enough in your illustrated situation to allow the crossbow attack regardless of round, but I suppose that is the decision of each DM in their own game.

[Alethan]

... comes at a cost to realism...

I guess it just depends on how realistic you want your game about fighting mythical monsters with +2 magical swords and sleep spells to be.

[dmw71]

... comes at a cost to realism...

I guess it just depends on how realistic you want your game about fighting mythical monsters with +2 magical swords and sleep spells to be.

Point taken.

However, in the situation used for illustrative purposes:

Suddenly, movement caught his eye. One lone orc, nursing a hobbled leg, had snatched up a cruel blade and was slowly dragging itself toward him. Momentary panic was instantly washed away by his long years of battle hardening. To one side lay a heavy crossbow, cocked and loaded, miraculously unscathed after the grueling combat. Snatching it up, he allowed its weight to press comfortably against his shoulder. Steadying his breath in rhythm with his heartbeat, he took slow, cautious aim at the approaching figure and

DM: Sorry. You can't attack this round.
Jim: Huh?
DM: This is round 18. It's an even-numbered round.
Jim: But... I don't understand. You said that the heavy crossbow was already loaded.
DM: Heavy crossbows have an attack rate of 1 every 2 rounds. That means they can only be fired on odd-numbered rounds. This round is even-numbered.
Jim: Uh... but I... ok...
DM: (rolls some dice) Oops, looks like the orc kills you.

It hardly seems fair to prevent a reasonable attack from taking place based upon some arbitrary label used simply to define or organize unique turns in a combat situation.

[Xaxyx]

I guess it just depends on how realistic you want your game about fighting mythical monsters with +2 magical swords and sleep spells to be.

There's realism, and then there's realism. Even +2 swords and Sleep spells have rules that guide them, physical laws that characters can understand and comprehend. Spells have to be understood, studied, and memorized. They take time to cast, requiring verbalization, somatic gestures, material components. Granted, these concepts are abstracted for the player. The player doesn't have to know what gestures the character is making; he just "casts the spell". But how the spell works, mechanically, is very well known to the character. Thus, the player knows the character's capabilities, based on the physical laws -- we call them game rules -- around which the character's abilities revolve.

But to arbitrarily assert that the character can or cannot do something based wholly on a distinct, separated, meta-game concept interferes with our ability to suspend disbelief in even the most fantastic of settings. It's consistent that characters can't cast Sleep without a handful of sand. For the player, that's how the rule works. For the character, that's how the spell works. But odd vs. even rounds for attack sequences defy any sort of plausible explanation for a character's perceptions of reality. Why was the character's attack impeded? We as players know what the "rule" is. But that doesn't translate at all -- at all -- to the character's perceptions. It's not consistent; it's nonsensical. Even magical worlds can and should make sense.

[rredmond]

I think the example is unfair. Because the crossbow is already loaded. It takes every other round, because you take a round to load those durn things.

For me I worry about the every other round when it's an extra attack. But the example is an interesting illustration of where, if you had multiple rounds to attack some poor creature who is not going to run away or melee with you, then yep I'd be apt to have the PC track it. But with the method of the specialization (which I only add because it's in OSRIC, as a strict 1E, core book kind of guy, I wouldn't normally) I use, then it becomes even more important. I don't have to worry about the specialization extra attacks, as they come on the odd rounds; makes that heavy crossbow attack easier to track.

But honestly it's the simplicity that gets it for me. Call me a simple guy. If I wanted to get more in-depth and detailed I'll go the round of everyone rolling for parries, attacks, defense, and fainting from fear every round! (There is a game TnT maybe, that does that parry thing, when an enemy hits you, you can roll for a parry and then still attack, fun!)

But the example combat in the OP is a good one, a point well taken, and would make alternate universe Spock "consider it".

[Alethan]

Let me preface this by saying it doesn't matter to me, either way. I'm completely indifferent on the subject, as far as caring whether or not I have to keep track of such things. I believe both sides have merit.

... arbitrarily...

But it isn't arbitrary. One could easily argue it is just another game mechanic meant to make keeping track of combat actions easier for the DM. It has purpose to people. It is, therefore, not arbitrary.

Vastly superior, I suggest, is for DMs to allow players the privilege of tracking their own attack sequences. They already track everything else -- to-hit and damage bonuses, hit points, armor class, whatever. Why not this as well? Surely players are competent enough to know how often they attack. Surely players are reliable enough to remember how many attacks they took the prior round -- especially in play-by-post, wherein "remembering" is as simple as scrolling up a page.

In a game where the GM gives the players the responsibility of rolling dice and keeping track of things, it sounds like a great idea. Don't know if it is vastly superior, but it is a good idea. Why not take some of the management hassle off the GM's shoulders?

But not all games are the same. Not all GMs are the same. Some give a lot of responsibility and control over to the player and some don't. Personally, over the last year or so, I've found the amount of fun I have with a game really has very little to do with how much control I have over making my character's dice rolls or whether or not I'm the one who monitors my AC or my To Hit bonuses.

One of the PbP games I'm in, and enjoy immensely, is very much unlike most of the games on this forum. And it's been a highly active game (averaging 6-8 active characters at any given time) for well over three years (though I've only been in it for most of two). The players control the character actions - they decide where to go and what to do and who to attack. But the players never roll one single die. 100% of the dice rolling is controlled by the GM. He keeps track of what is a hit and what is a miss and when you make two attacks in a round or when you make one. He has a very formulaic way of doing things - you have to, I think, when you're managing a sandbox campaign with that many players for that length of time.

Among other things, this translates into smoother combat sequences than most other PbP games I participate in. He doesn't waste any time waiting for a few stragglers to get their dice rolls in. Everyone has default actions for combat. He posts a round every other day. You have time to jump in and change your action from the default for the next round if you want, and he makes a point of asking for any changes to our actions, especially if things are going poorly. But you'd better be following the game and paying attention, because 48 hours after the first round, the second round will post, whether or not you've changed your action. It makes for a very smooth game, as far as combat goes. Of course, we still end up with hang-ups, waiting for people to post actions in non-combat instances, but that is the nature of PbP.

I don't think his way of doing things is any better or any worse than any of the games here. Honestly, I wasn't sure I'd like not having control over rolling dice; it was a very different concept to me. But I took a chance and gave it a shot. And I'm glad I did because, as it turns out, I love it.

I have a great time playing his game. I don't have any problems with suspension of disbelief because everyone with two attacks has to make those attacks in the same round. My suspension of disbelief is challenged enough because I play a two-headed halfling! I have plenty of other things to think about, like, "If one of my heads starts choking on something, it's cool because my other head can do the breathing for both of them for a while" or, "Can my second head start studying magic use?" or, "How do I go about doing normal things without drawing too much attention to myself, like walking down the village street, looking through the wares at the market to see what I need to buy?"

To be honest with you, I have no idea what his mechanics are for multiple attacks per round. I don't worry about it. I don't feel badly when my character misses his target for the third time in a row or when he only does one point of damage with his attack - the dice rolling is what it is and it's all in the DM's hands. The only thing I DO worry about in his game is making sure my character doesn't do anything (else) stupid.

Bah. Who am I kidding? I don't really even care if he does something stupid, as long as it is "in character" and I don't cause a TPK. That's why he's a two-headed halfling.

[Xaxyx]

But it isn't arbitrary. One could easily argue it is just another game mechanic meant to make keeping track of combat actions easier for the DM. It has purpose to people. It is, therefore, not arbitrary.

Semantics. It is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to flipping a coin to see whether the player gets one attack or two that round. It's a feature of the combat system that's completely detached from the combat system. Would you be in support of a rule that determined the number of attacks your character gets in any given round randomly? That's about as arbitrary as it gets; and it's effectively the method we're discussing here.

I'll raise the stakes. Would you reconsider your character's action, knowing that he'll only get one attack vs. two attacks, because of the round number? I.e., would your character's in-game decision revolve around an out-of-game mechanic that has direct influence over his efficacy? Would you question the gaming ethics of a player who does so? Heft your blue bolt for a moment, if you will, and consider this statement: "Normally, I'd draw my long sword and attack the orc; but since this round is numbered "eight" and therefore I would only get one attack, I'll instead cast a spell." Does that make your skin crawl? It sure does make mine.

In a game where the GM gives the players the responsibility of rolling dice and keeping track of things, it sounds like a great idea. Don't know if it is vastly superior, but it is a good idea. Why not take some of the management hassle off the GM's shoulders?

As I said, I fully understand the purpose of the rule and deeply sympathize. Indeed: in the game in question, I made it excruciatingly clear right from the get-go that I'd abide by the rule, as written, if such is the DM's will. End of story. But I simply boggle at the notion that this supposed alleviation of burden merits the astoundingly bizarre alteration to a player's decision-making process when weighing his character's options from one round to the next.

One of the PbP games I'm in, and enjoy immensely, is very much unlike most of the games on this forum. {snip}

Oh, I'm totally fine with a DM abstracting (in the sense of taking the dice away from players) combat for purposes of facilitation, even in a face-to-face game. It's just dice rolls; it doesn't matter who rolls them. Kudos to the DM who's willing to take up that burden. But I'd still question that same DM, as impressive as his management skills may be, if he uses shortcuts that radically alter character efficacy in such an unrelated, meta-game manner.

The only thing I DO worry about in his game is making sure my character doesn't do anything (else) stupid.

Bah. Who am I kidding? I don't really even care if he does something stupid, as long as it is within character and I don't cause a TPK. That's why he's a two-headed halfling.

Two heads are better than one, after all.

[Alethan]

Would you reconsider your character's action, knowing that he'll only get one attack vs. two attacks, because of the round number? I.e., would your character's in-game decision revolve around an out-of-game mechanic that has direct influence over his efficacy? Would you question the gaming ethics of a player who does so? Heft your blue bolt for a moment, if you will, and consider this statement: "Normally, I'd draw my long sword and attack the orc; but since this round is numbered "eight" and therefore I would only get one attack, I'll instead cast a spell." Does that make your skin crawl? It sure does make mine.

Abuse of the rules is a different story.

Maybe a better way to approach this would be to break down the multiple attacks theory even more. Get rid of the concept of "every other round is the additional attack". You don't get 3 attacks every 2 rounds no matter what weapon you have in your hands at the time.

Instead, the first round you attack with a weapon is the lower number of your attack rate. If you continue attacking with that weapon in the consecutive round, then you get your bonus attack. Explain the additional attack by saying the momentum of the initial round helps you to make the additional attack.

So Tim and Steve enter combat with a pair of orcs. Both have a 3/2 attack rate with their long swords.
Round one: They both attack one time. Tim lands a lucky blow and drops his orc. But he sees seven more orcs charging at them from 180 yards away. They'll be here in two rounds.
Round two: Steve continues his attack and gets two attacks this round. Tim stops to dig into his pack for a potion of giant strength.
Round three: Steve has some pretty bad luck and is still fighting his orc. He gets one attack this round. Tim finally finds his potion and drinks it. The drums beat on. They are coming...
Round four: Steve gets two attacks this round again. He finally connects with his second hit and drops the orc. he looks up to see seven more surrounding them. Tim gets to attack, as well, but since this attack isn't a consecutive round after his first one, he starts over with one attack.
Round five: Steve gets one attack and Tim gets two attacks.

Hmm... I like that.

[Xaxyx]

Abuse of the rules is a different story.

Yes, but here's the sticking point -- is it abuse, really? I mean, after all, that is the rule. It's perfectly fine, I think we'd both agree, for a player to make a decision on what his character would do given how effective said character would be at that activity, given in-game circumstances. For example, if his character would only get one sword swing because he's slowed, or tripped on a rock last round, or whatever, then the player must make the tactical decision of either accepting a round with only one attack or doing something else.

But in this case, the available options -- and, thus, the player's tactical decision for his character -- rest on OUT-OF-GAME conditions. So what should we expect of our player, then? "Well, because it's round eight, my character would get two attacks... but if it were only round seven, he'd only get one attack... and if he only got one attack, I'd cast a spell instead... so I'll just cast a spell this round, even though he could get two attacks because it's round eight." Really? That's the mental gyration we'd have to expect from a player? So much for a simplification of the combat system.

{snip} Hmm... I like that.

As do I. It is in fact the exact system that I use in my own campaigns. +1 USP (Unseen Servant Points™) to you, sir!

[Xaxyx]

Oh, my; how'd I miss this? Sorry red!

I think the example is unfair. Because the crossbow is already loaded. It takes every other round, because you take a round to load those durn things.

What's unfair about it? The rule is that heavy crossbows, like all fractional attack rates, get their better attack rate (1) on even-numbered rounds, and their lower attack rate (0) on odd-numbered rounds. The reason is apparently irrelevant; we've suspended reason, in point of fact, in lieu of convenience. It works that way for all characters, and for all heavy crossbows, in precisely this manner, from one round to the next, always. Seems "fair" to me.

For me I worry about the every other round when it's an extra attack. But the example is an interesting illustration of where, if you had multiple rounds to attack some poor creature who is not going to run away or melee with you, then yep I'd be apt to have the PC track it. But with the method of the specialization (which I only add because it's in OSRIC, as a strict 1E, core book kind of guy, I wouldn't normally) I use, then it becomes even more important. I don't have to worry about the specialization extra attacks, as they come on the odd rounds; makes that heavy crossbow attack easier to track.

Why do you worry about tracking it at all? Why not simply let the players track it? Most players I know are obsessed with tracking that sort of thing. And, well, if they forget to take their extra attack, tough nuts for them.

Do you track all of the armor class, to-hit and damage bonuses for all of the characters in your campaign? Including bonuses from specialization? Including bonuses from race? Including bonuses from class? Including bonuses from that stupid short sword that's +3 vs. lycanthropes? Including bless, haste, paladin auras, and the zillions of other "buff"-type effects potentially floating around? And if so -- WHY? Just make the bloody players do it. They live for it!

But honestly it's the simplicity that gets it for me. Call me a simple guy. If I wanted to get more in-depth and detailed I'll go the round of everyone rolling for parries, attacks, defense, and fainting from fear every round! (There is a game TnT maybe, that does that parry thing, when an enemy hits you, you can roll for a parry and then still attack, fun!)

Your simplicity comes at too steep of a cost, in my opinion. Actually, I don't even see your system being "simpler" at all. I find it terribly confusing and burdensome. Now, every time my character attacks, I have to first find out what "round number" this is -- a piece of information that would otherwise have absolutely no bearing whatsoever to my character's actions. It's not even an "attack rate" anymore; it's an attack "pattern", independent of circumstance, independent of history, relying solely on wholly out-of-character information. Bleh.

But the example combat in the OP is a good one, a point well taken, and would make alternate universe Spock "consider it".

Fair enough. I can try to whip up with some more if you'd like. Here's a fun one:

Character A, an elven fighter/mage specialized in long sword:
Round 1: Cast a spell.
Round 2: Slice-and-dice for two attacks with long sword.
Round 3: Cast a spell.

Character B, also an elven fighter/mage specialized in long sword:
Round 1: Make one lousy, stinking attack with long sword.
Round 2: Cast a spell.
Round 3: Make one lousy, stinking attack with long sword.

Result: by merit of your melee combat system, character A was able to cast an extra spell over the same time frame as another character, but still get off the same number of melee attacks. Booya!

[rredmond]

Yes, but here's the sticking point -- is it abuse, really? I mean, after all, that is the rule

Here's the thing, in my game this is the rule. I'll read the rest of it tomorrow. What a sucky @$$ work day today was. Can't even take solace here! To bed...

[Alethan]

Abuse of the rules is a different story.

Yes, but here's the sticking point -- is it abuse, really? I mean, after all, that is the rule. It's perfectly fine, I think we'd both agree, for a player to make a decision on what his character would do given how effective said character would be at that activity, given in-game circumstances. For example, if his character would only get one sword swing because he's slowed, or tripped on a rock last round, or whatever, then the player must make the tactical decision of either accepting a round with only one attack or doing something else.

But in this case, the available options -- and, thus, the player's tactical decision for his character -- rest on OUT-OF-GAME conditions. So what should we expect of our player, then? "Well, because it's round eight, my character would get two attacks... but if it were only round seven, he'd only get one attack... and if he only got one attack, I'd cast a spell instead... so I'll just cast a spell this round, even though he could get two attacks because it's round eight." Really? That's the mental gyration we'd have to expect from a player? So much for a simplification of the combat system.

Yeah, I still call that abusing the rule.

But the thing is, in the almost-three years I've been doing Play-by-Post, I've never seen anyone abuse that rule in such a way. Actually... thinking back to all the years I've gamed, I don't know if I could come up with an example of anyone doing that at the same gaming table as me. It might not be completely breaking a rule, but it is abusing it. It's against the spirit of the game.

There are only two cards in my Magical GM Deck of Cards. If I were the GM and someone pulled that on me, I'll pull the "Not cool, not gonna happen" card. If they bitched, I'd pull the other one. "The GM makes the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can play a different game."

That's pretty simple.

[Xaxyx]

Yeah, I still call that abusing the rule.

But the thing is, in the almost-three years I've been doing Play-by-Post, I've never seen anyone abuse that rule in such a way. Actually... thinking back to all the years I've gamed, I don't know if I could come up with an example of anyone doing that at the same gaming table as me. It might not be completely breaking a rule, but it is abusing it. It's against the spirit of the game.

I would agree that it would be rule abuse if, for example, the player purposely planned his actions such that his melee attacks always occurred on even-numbered turns. I.e., he always purposely alternated between melee attacks and other stuff (spell casting, etc), under the auspices that his melee is more efficient due to the Round Numbering Rule. That would be rule abuse. That would be contrary to the spirit of the rule, which was to facilitate combat for the DM, not to give the players artificial bonuses.

But the circumstances that concern me are those wherein the character's efficacy is affected by the RNR through no fault of the player. My heavy crossbow example quite readily illustrates this principle, I daresay. But I still would defend the ethics of the player who chooses to cast a spell rather than perform one melee attack, but would defer his spell to taking two melee attacks. It's tactically sound; and he didn't purposely machinate the scenario. It's simply the situation as it unfolded.

In fact, I'll raise you: what would be your reaction to a player who asserts, "Well, according to the RNR, I technically would get two melee attacks this round; but I don't think that's fair for me to do, so in the spirit of the game, I'd like to only take one attack"?!

And if you allowed this, would you then allow that same character to take two attacks on the next round, the "wrong round"? (Careful; this is a trick question!)

[dmw71]

Maybe the easiest way to eliminate a significant source of this issue is to not allow weapon specialization. Or, allow a modified system where fighters are able to specialize, but only grant the bonus to hit and damage while removing the multiple attack bonuses. If everyone except high-level fighters is limited to a single attack per round, this problem (for the most part) is a non-issue.

You may still run into an occasion situation (e.g. heavy crossbow), but I say the DM should let simple common sense guide that ruling.

[rredmond]

Maybe the easiest way to eliminate a significant source of this issue is to not allow weapon specialization. Or, allow a modified system where fighters are able to specialize, but only grant the bonus to hit and damage while removing the multiple attack bonuses. If everyone except high-level fighters is limited to a single attack per round, this problem (for the most part) is a non-issue.

You may still run into an occasion situation (e.g. heavy crossbow), but I say the DM should let simple common sense guide that ruling.

Ah, but at a certain level fighters get that extra attack anyway, without specialization.
Then we're back to square one.

Good conversation here...

[max_vale]

To add my two cents to this discussion if I may...

I think it's in one of the Second Edition books; but there is an example spelled out where if one man is handing loaded crossbows to another man who is shooting them; his firing rate is 1 a round; regardless of type of Crossbow....as someone else mentioned; this is because the "every other round" for a Heavy Crossbow is supposed to be based on a round spent loading the crossbow in between shots.

This makes sense to me....but what is more problematic is increased firing rates for missile weapons with specialization (and more on specialization in a minute).....particularly X-bows (and firearms if you allow them; I don't; but I don't know of any other personal weapons with less than once a round Rate of Fire)....as Rates of Fire increase with levels.

The other major problem....as vividly alluding to in previous posts; is what to do with attack rates like 3/2 and 5/2; etc. On top of this; what happens with a second weapon in hand? My simplistic fixs: Don't have odd attack rates at all and a second weapon means 1 extra attack a round with that weapon....which can occur at the same time as the "main" weapon; or last in the round; or in a "timed" sequence whenever the rolls indicate...as the DM chooses.

Instead; I allow Fighters (and ONLY fighters) to get 2 melee attacks a round a 7th Level (all other classes get this rate at 9th level); and missile ROF never changes. I.e. a 1st Level Fighter can shoot 2 arrows a round; the same as a 15th level Fighter. Specilization is only for increasing "To Hit" and "Damage" rates......though to compensate; I don't make it cost extra weapon prof. slots. I.e. a Fighter has 4 slots; he can choose 4 different weapons and with 1 of them he's specialized.

Maybe too simplistic....but it works for me!

Edit: I see dmw beat me to the punch....DOH! I wouldn't remove "specialization" though; Fighters prety much have nothing going for them in terms of "perks of class" without it!

[Alethan]

Seems like a good solution, max.

[max_vale]

Thanks alethan!

This can also lead to crafty players (or ANNOYING; depending on the DM's viewpoint ) having non-warrior types carry around some loaded crossbows that they can hand to the Fighters when the occasion arises!

"Bruno...how long do Brother Smyth and I have to lug these damn Heavy Crossbows around?"

"Quit your bellyaching Mandrake! When that Dragon attacks from the air; you'll thank me!.....Assuming we're not incinerated that is!"

[Xaxyx]

Let me try doubling down for a moment here, if I may. Enter the monk.

The monk, in 1st Edition AD&D, increases his open hand attack rate as he levels. By the book (Dragon Magazine monks notwithstanding), at 4th level, his attack rate with open hand attacks increases from 1 per round to 5/4.

What the heck is a 5/4?! I'm glad you asked. That's five attacks over four rounds. It states quite explicitly in fact, right in the class description, how this attack rate works: on every fourth round of consistent melee combat by the monk, he receives a second open-hand attack. So his attack sequence goes: one, one, one, two. Wash, rinse, repeat. Simple. Easy.

So. How would we crowbar this poor bastard into the RNR? Would he only get his extra bonus attack on rounds evenly divisible by four? Is it now "easier" to do that math in our heads in order to rationalize how many flying fists of fury are flung, instead of just letting the guy playing the monk figure all that out for himself?

And how would we adapt the model where characters get their bonus attacks on odd rounds? Monks get their extra strikes on odd rounds that are one higher than rounds that are evenly divisible by four? Do I need a calculator to play a monk now? This is simpler? This is superior? This improves the game?

Or do we simply disallow monks because their attack rates are too complex? :p