Cleaves vs Multi-Attacks
The cleave rule is pretty common for fighters: after defeating an enemy, you get to attempt a free attack against another. How effective is this rule, especially when compared to getting additional (guaranteed) attacks per turn? I wrote a script to simulate the cleave rule, assuming a couple parameters: the enemy would be an orc (HD 1, AC 13), 1 hit die equals 4 hit points, 1 hit lands d6 damage, and fighters improve their attack chance by +1 per level. I ran this script for level 4 and level 8 fighters, since those are typical comparison points.
The results were shocking. The level 4 fighter, on average, dealt 0.85 hits and killed 0.43 orcs per round; and the level 8 fighter dealt 1.33 hits and killed 0.67 orcs. When adding a +1 bonus to attack and damage, assuming a B/X fighter with a strength score of at least 13, these values increased slightly to 1.00/0.66 and 1.70/1.10 respectively. If we use d10 for the damage die, the values became 1.00/0.71 and 1.79/1.24. If both the bonus and increased damage die were used, the values became 1.14/0.91 and 2.20/1.75. Don't even worry about level 1 fighters lol.
So, how do we improve this? You could have multi-attacks in combination with the cleave rule. Say, if a fighter gained 1 extra attack every 4 levels, the values above would be multiplied by 2 at level 4, or 3 at level 8. Isn't that annoying, though, needing to keep track of attacks while also making free attacks? Not to mention, aren't ability bonuses also kind of a pain?
Taking a page out of my skirmish rules for FMC, here's a thought I had: just add their level to damage, as well as attacking. This means our level 4 fighter adds +4 to attack and damage, and our level 8 fighter adds +8 instead. Assuming d6 damage and no ability bonuses, the values jump to 1.50/1.50 for the level 4 fighter and 3.95/3.95 for the level 8 fighter. Voila!
This has a couple of interesting implications. First, as the fighter's damage bonus increases, the math guarantees that they will cross off 1 (or more!) hit dice. For example, a level 5 fighter will deal a minimum of 6 damage, guaranteeing that they will eliminate any HD 1 figure (assuming 1 hit die = d6 hit points) on a successful hit—enabling them to cleave yet again. This also means that the fighter will be able to single-hit and cleave even stronger figures. A level 4 fighter, on average, will defeat an HD 2 figure if they land just one hit! This has all the effects of multi-attacks without needing to count them.
(Edit: Also, once a hit is guaranteed to defeat a foe, the number of times one can cleave depends entirely on the to-hit chance.)
What I will say is that you can have this effect just by applying any significant bonus to damage, regardless of the source. My friend Alex said that, while playing in Miranda's Nightwick campaign, having a sword with +3 against undead was super effective in combination with the cleave rule. That's because when you roll d6+3, you might as well be guaranteed to defeat an HD 1 enemy! By extension, rather than applying the attack bonus to damage, just give fighters some big bonus somewhere along the line, like when they get a magical weapon. That's pretty by-the-book.
The cleave rule, unfortunately, does not help when combining attacks from multiple figures. I would say that you could use my aforementioned skirmishing rules for this, but I don't imagine they would make sense with a cleave rule.
Hmm. I had assumed cleave makes more damage.
ReplyDeleteThe rule as I heard it before though was that you can use it one time per level, per round, allowing you to chain together killing attacks. I don't think you meant that though, did you?
that's the thing: there's little point to restricting how many times a fighter can cleave because, statistically, they will not be able to make that many hits per round. if you're referring to multi-attacks, e.g. 1 attack per level, you can just multiply the efficacy of one attack by how many they get per round (with or without cleave).
DeleteOk, I really like the idea of applying a bonus to attack and/or to hit for the fighter equal to level. That being said, wouldn’t that affect the monsters’ AC progression? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really all that interested in “balance” or something. I’m just curious because LotFP did something similar—and somehow managed to convolute it, being as it is a really straight forward rule— and, at the same time, adjusted the unarmoured target number to 12. Asking from absolute ignorance here.
ReplyDeletehi rata, that is a really good question that i've had on my mind as well! what's weird already is that AC progression in classic D&D, i think, is already very funky. fighters in OD&D at level 13 receive a +9 bonus which already renders AC 9 [10] an auto-hit (unless you decide that a roll of 1 is always a failure, like B/X does); this is even funkier when they get a +2, so anything up to AC 6 [13] may as well auto-hit (unless a roll of 1 is always a failure). definitely agree that this is something that the +1/level rule struggles with. one solution is to cap fighters at level 8, similar to in chainmail, so their bonus is also capped at +8. by extension, if you wanted levels to go up to 10 without having weird caveats in the rules, having unarmored AC be 12 would enable that.
Delete'just add their level to damage, as well as attacking': yes, this is very elegant - also nice the way it gradually increases the chances of 'cleaving' larger-than-1-HD creatures, too.
ReplyDeleteAnother option might be to drop the cleave concept and make it a player choice how many attacks the fighter makes each round. For every extra attack , the player takes -2 on all of the to hit rolls (e.g. if the player chooses to attack 3 orcs, they roll 3 attacks, all of them at -4 to hit). Another might be to retain the idea of following up after the first attack, but make the rule that the fighter can keep on making new attacks as long as they keep on hitting (so you don't have to kill an orc to get a second attack). Depending on the effect you want, you might not allow multiple attacks against the same individual opponent during the same combat round. A final option that occurs to me is to make the 'cleave threshold' different, in some way e.g. instead of having to kill a target, the player just has to roll X+ damage, maybe X = 2 HP per target HD, or 1+target HD.
I really adore the whole keep attacking until you miss approach! I think aesthetically the idea of tearing into an opponent relentlessly is pretty awesome, and the fact that it could be used for that or cleave or some crazy sword dance is really fun. I brought it up to a friend and they thought adding a cost could be good, like fatigue or something. I like The Lovely Dark's approach where you can take d4 damage of pain and exhaustion to attack again *if you miss*, which i think could also be applied here. Or gain a slot of fatigue in ur inv, or take d4 dmg if ur inv is full. I think getting a higher hit chance per level really leans into this whole mechanic either way, especially if everyone has a sort of terrible hit chance to begin with.
Deletethank you, kenco and politespectre!! :) the idea of a different trigger for cleave is neat---will echo politespectre that attacking until they miss is especially neat!
Deletei ran another simulation, and found that the results are basically the same if you add the fighter bonus to damage as well as attack. however, even more fascinating is that if you remove the damage bonus, the fighter makes the same number of hits! although they are less effective at killing, with the level-4 defeating 0.85 orcs and the level-8 defeating 2.44 orcs.
because of this, however, the restriction on not being able to attack the same target multiple times might not be necessary. this might instead be a way of "soft-coding" multi-attacks without strictly regulating them!