Except your AB increasing is already approximating ones skill increasing in combat (along with other things like damage per hit and crit chance). If your statement is correct, then why not have multiple attacks per round early on?
While I'm not a medieval knight or fantasy warrior, I have done a few types of swordplay ranging from martial arts to fencing to even some medieval style combat (with padded weapons so bruises are (hopefully but not always) the worst thing that happens). Something very common across those (especially as a beginner) is that you aren't actually attacking a lot of the time -- you're maneuvering, watching your opponents, and looking for an opportunity to strike. As you get more comfortable you're able to strike/recover more quickly and see more opportunities to launch an attack, even if some of those opportunities aren't as good. To me that's what the increasing attacks (at progressively *lower* AB, mind you) represent -- the ability to (relatively safely) strike more often at the cost of those extra attacks not being as good as the "best" attack.
I just searched YouTube for "medieval combat" and this was one of the top results -- I don't know what the rules/gear/etc are but apparently it's some international event. Even if you just watch 20-30 seconds of that you'll notice that people aren't actually swinging that much unless they have a massive opening (like a target with their back turned who's being grappled by a teammate or something). It's not Flynning where you're constantly swinging at the other person's weapon or something. And yes, you might do some things like feints and parries but those aren't actual strikes at the opponent intended to hit -- the feint is to try to open up an opportunity to land an "actual" swing and thus it makes sense it wouldn't be rolled as an actual attack.
Why can't both be approximations of improved skill?
I can't quote it, but I do recall Monte Cook, or Skip Williams, or one of those people responsible for 3.0 design talking about just this thing at some point. I think I recall it in dragon magazine or something.
Either way trying to match reality point for point is pointless (HA!). If it was perfect most people would drop with one good attack. Since that would be as fun as dental work I'll just appreciate the fantasy of it 
MagicalMaster, on 16 Sept 2015 - 2:59 PM, said:
Er, by my calculations that'd be 31 pounds. 2 * 15 + 1 = 31. Or do you mean 25 pounds in addition to whatever is equipped?
Actually we're both wrong. I was referring to PnP weight, not NWN. Obviously restricting a character to 25 lbs of weapons in NWN would be a major hindrance. Greatsword is 8 lbs in PnP, while the Greataxe is 12 like I was thinking.
MagicalMaster, on 16 Sept 2015 - 2:59 PM, said:
Which is all I was even hoping for in my example as you might recall. Fire one bow shot, spend rest of round switching to melee weapons, start next round in melee. Shadow was talking about stunning me for 6+ (emphasis on the +) seconds upon switching after the bow shot...which not only costs me any remaining attacks in the current round (fair) but also every attack in the next round (not so far). And that's assuming the minimum of 6 seconds.
I don't particularly like that solution either, but it's not inherently unfair 'IF' the person is trying to use the exploit. Personally I like the ClearAllActions approach. Stops the exploit and doesn't harshly punish people who are switching weapons for reasons like trying to pick a better one.
The better idea in NWN is just to transition smoothly when swapping from melee to ranged? From what I understand (referring to both this thread and other discussions) the concern is about literally gaining *extra* attacks that should not exist in the first place (as in you have two attacks per round but use weapon switching to gain three or more attacks, for example). That's the exploit.
Yeah, which I feel that ClearAllActions fixes the exploit while also bringing it closer to PnP without being overly complicated.
Retour en haut
