The complaining in this thread is not about the multi-classing itself. It is about a style of play. A style pf play which sees players taking care only on achieving the highest damage in combat without a thought about the story of the character. D&D is a role-playing and storytelling game first and foremost.
That it is the kind of game we are supporting here, at least some of us.
This....just seems like a shocking lack of creativity and foresight.
From the standpoint of a GM, DnD 5th is not GURPS. You cannot make a character *so* min/maxed that they can do literally anything. Even cheesing the RAW to it's fullest potential, the power level is still manageable by even minimal efforts. Are they overly powerful in combat? Throw non-combat encounters in. Social issues, power struggles, hell even traps. Put them in no-win situations they cannot fight out of. Hell, if someone is THAT powerful, how would all of the nemeses and evil factions be totally unaware of this person? How would they not study them? Even Batman had his villians figure out his limits and weaknesses and exploit those. The point of a Min/Maxed character is there is both a min *and* a max. A good GM will exploit the min while allowing the player to flex their "max".
From the standpoint of a player: why do stats or build have to totally factor out of roleplay? Can't I use my 20 Strength and 8 Intelligence in fun and interesting ways? You can be the best actor in the world and be a veteran roleplayer, but that 10 Strength Human is not moving the boulder out of the way by himself without really shattering any sense of reality in the world. Fezzik from Princess Bride is a perfect example of this: someone who is built for a singular purpose - Strength - and yet is a fundamentally interesting, quirky, and enjoyable character. If the player is making an optimized character, figure out why. If they are trying to "win" D&D, then yes, that is a bad thing and totally missing the point of what makes games like these fun, but if they are simply trying to make a niche character, I see no issues with that.
See, but there's a difference between min-maxing for optimization and min-maxing because it makes sense to the archetype. A paladin maxing out strength and charisma isn't the problem. It's the paladin who maxes out strength and charisma and then grabs levels in sorcerer or warlock because they want refunding smites that becomes the problem.
I've said it before on Paladin forums and I'll say it again now: It's not that there can't be a good story behind why a paladin is getting powers granted to him by a fiend. It's that in almost all of these cases the story comes AFTER the character is designed. The story is in response to the min-maxing, when it should be the other way around.
There's nothing wrong with trying to make your character as focused in one thing as possible. There is something wrong with building your characters around a focus. That's why I always come up with a backstory first and then pick the class that would best fit that story.
If I saw half as many Ancients Paladin + Druid/Ranger as I do Paladin + Warlock/Sorcerer, I'd be more agreeable that they might have done it purely based on the storyline. Because, it can be an interesting storyline (Especially Ancients Paladin + Fey Warlock). But that's not the case: EVERYONE does Palalock or Sorcadin and they always go with the same feats/spells/invocations. The only exception I've seen are those who dip fighter for a second fighting style (defense, assuming they already took great weapon fighting), second wind, action surge, and improved critical/maneuvers. Hell, the really blatant ones are those who go paladin + fighter + sorcerer/warlock.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
See, but there's a difference between min-maxing for optimization and min-maxing because it makes sense to the archetype. A paladin maxing out strength and charisma isn't the problem. It's the paladin who maxes out strength and charisma and then grabs levels in sorcerer or warlock because they want refunding smites that becomes the problem.
I've said it before on Paladin forums and I'll say it again now: It's not that there can't be a good story behind why a paladin is getting powers granted to him by a fiend. It's that in almost all of these cases the story comes AFTER the character is designed. The story is in response to the min-maxing, when it should be the other way around.
And that's where I disagree. I don't see that style of play as an issue. If someone wants to optimize for damage and be the best combat monster they can, I'm totally fine with that. If the player is a super egomaniac who has to be the center of attention at all times or "win" D&D, THAT is an issue, but that is the different between "character" issues and "player" issues.
My argument is simply this: I don't think the arguments here pertaining to multiclassing, min/maxing, optimizing, what-have-you has ANYTHING to do about power creep or RAW or "munchkins" as much as it does with "playing with ******* players". My last character was basically a ball of Adamantine and HP but I played my character as plan B. If a strategy ever went totally sideways, my character could dig us out of basically anything, but I wasn't front-and-center rubbing my power in peoples faces or hogging the spotlight for self-aggrandizing ego-stroking. I took a back seat and shined only when others really needed me to. Great power, great responsibility, etc., etc.
Keep in mind the DnD is a game. Meant for players to have fun with each other. Two different tables can sit down and the appearance of what goes on might be completely different. But they are both playing DnD.
If you hate multiclassing and optimizing, that's fine, make all the rules you like for your table and let all the players know up front. But don't tell others that their playstyle isn't valid because its not how you enjoy it. Murderhobos are valid playstyles. If the table is having fun, then they are doing what they like. Combat free sessions are a valid playstyle, if the table enjoys intrigue of high society politics and gossip where the slightest physical altercation would have them banished forever, that's also fine if the table is having fun. Rolling 3d6 for your stats in order is fine, using a 50 point buy is fine.
Players and DM having fun is the issue. If they are, its probably fine. If they aren't, its probably not.
If I am looking to join a table, and the DM says "No feats, multiclassing, or tactical playing" I am probably going to say "Thanks, I'll find another game", likewise, if a DM says "Anything you can find on Dndwiki is fairgame" I will also probably pass.
Set your house rules exactly how you like, but don't tell me or anyone else that "no true Scotsman" tries to make their characters powerful when playing dnd.
Ah, the kids these days. Explain to this old fart what the 'ell is a "murderhobo"? Some guy at a game store was yelling this from the gaming area and I didn't know whether to call the cops are give him first aid for a seizure. Needless to say, after that initial exposure I have an inherent negative connotation with the phrase. Knowing what one is may help me get back squarely into the impartial zone.
I apologize for interrupting this thread. I'll parrot what Thain said word-for-word, except for "murderhobos".
Ah, the kids these days. Explain to this old fart what the 'ell is a "murderhobo"? Some guy at a game store was yelling this from the gaming area and I didn't know whether to call the cops are give him first aid for a seizure. Needless to say, after that initial exposure I have an inherent negative connotation with the phrase. Knowing what one is may help me get back squarely into the impartial zone.
I apologize for interrupting this thread. I'll parrot what Thain said word-for-word, except for "murderhobos".
I'm an old fart too... someone please explain...
As for the OT, personally I don't play to min/max, but then again, I'm older and enjoy the RP aspect of the game. I'm DMing some players now that have a ton of video game experience and they're like: how can I kill stuff fast? If they're having fun, then I'm dishing out story and encounters as fast as I can. Granted, I have other issues, but, like someone mentioned, it's more 'player'-related than 'character'-related.
Murder hobos is actually a term that I heard used by one the the developers of dnd at dragon con. They are players who go through adventures using the direct and bloody path with little regard for story or placing roots.
Hence they are murderers as they really just kill the things they are pointed at, and hobos as they never actually bother to set any kind of roots anywhere even often being a wandering orphan to avoid having to have family interaction.
It is typically used as a derogatory form, but if your table is happy with it, then they may proudly brand themselves as such.
Murderhobos is a term used (originally pejoratively, but occasionally affectionately) for the player characters in RPGs, both in video games and tabletop games. The term arises due to the fact that most adventuring characters and parties are technically homeless vagrants, generally living on the road and sometimes in temporary accommodation, and the default solution to problems faced by the typical adventurer boils down to killing things until the problem is solved or treasure is acquired. In many games (especially older pure hack and slash-types of the type that Gary Gygax despised) killing things and taking their stuff is simply the order of the day, all morally acceptable and proper, either because that's all the players are interested in doing or all the GM can come up with. In more nuanced settings, "Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain (basically, munchkins).
Although it is a fantasy standard that adventuring parties are welcomed into towns and villages and hailed as saviors, there is a small trend for this to be inverted in some games and stories (usually for comedy's sake) and have the protagonists be treated as the homeless serial killers they actually are, either by having them rejected from civilized society or by having the NPCs/minor characters respond with pants-shitting fear whenever the heroes present themselves. Murderhobos left to their own devices are bad news for the region they occupy, so they are often dealt with by giving them quests that take them to dangerous places in distant locations, where they can kill some other monsters (or at least some foreigners).
I also don't like multi-classing with a damn good reason. (The answer is still no.) But I am clear about the rules at my table and do remember that it is a game - this does not always mean side splitting laughter but challenging situations designed to make you think and consider...
My groups are not murder-hobos - they are the town council!
I see an awful lot of people who are upset that people are having fun the wrong way. The people who are against min/maxing just happen to min/max in different ways. They are no different, neither are they superior.
I see an awful lot of people who are upset that people are having fun the wrong way. The people who are against min/maxing just happen to min/max in different ways. They are no different, neither are they superior.
It could just be bad experience for me, but in my experience, the guy who min/max's is also the one guy the rest of my players tend to not want to play with. So it starts a whole group dynamic thing.
Further, I'm more okay if you spend your time min/max as long as it makes sense. Paladin/Warlock doesn't really make a lot of sense. Now if in game, somehow the Paladin meets a demon and the demon does trick the PCs...and then the Paladin wants to go warlock...okay. But usually the reason why the Paladin went Warlock are the same for everyone who does it, who tries to justify doing it because...
Getting stronger purely for the sake of getting stronger is a perfectly valid RP reason to do something. Its not like the classes and their abilities are hidden information from other people. A Paladin might strike a deal with a Patron specifically to get more frequent smites. That same Paladin might suddenly awaken their sorcerous past, or they might intentionally awaken a sorcerous origin to provide some spell slot fuel for more smites. There are many valid RP reasons to become a Sorlockadin. I know that in real life I can train separately as a gymnast and as runner. I can also combine gymnastics and running to be a free-runner. I can just as easily do the equivalent in game and it doesn't make me any worse of a person. And by all means, if you're the DM go ahead and make Warlock multiclass Patrons matter. Don't be a passive aggressive jerk and use it as an excuse to berate your players, but feel free incorporate those things so your players can interact with them. There are many interesting additions to be had in your stories.
But its worth mentioning: Whenever you multiclass, you're making an exchange. A Paladin 2/Warlock 2/Sorcerer 2 is a very different character with very different abilities than a Paladin 6, Warlock 6, or Sorcerer 6. You don't just get all that power for free. You delay or halt progression, making some of the higher level abilities unobtainable, or delaying mid-level abilities to end-level play. And especially for 5e, the multiclass exchange has more parity by far compared to 3.5 of Pathfinder. 3.P had wildly varying powerlevels, splats, and options that just aren't a problem in 5e. Your exchanges in specialization or utility are much closer to equivalent, with a huge portion of the difference being caused by the style of game being run. If you're running a combat focused campaign, it makes sense that improving your combat abilities will be a greater benefit to you than not. Making those same choices in a political intrigue campaign will be less impactful, and might actually make you perform worse.
And sure, minmaxers can be insufferable. But, the "anti-minmaxers" can be just as insufferable. There are people all over that don't mesh with you individually or mesh with the party, but minmaxing isn't the cause of their "bad" play. There's no correlation. Minmaxing does not have an inverse relationship with RP. You can indeed do both at once, and do them well. And as a DM, if you aren't making your player's decisions matter, whether its finding creative solutions or multiclassing down a new path, then you're also guilty of diminishing the collaborative storytelling that makes TTRPGs unique.
So one thought is to seek medical attention while having a seizure, rather than posting on DND message boards- but hey you do you.
Putting that aside, I think you have to realize that the two really go hand in hand- a keen interest in the game can be both a keen interest in it's mechanics, and enjoying the experience their nuance can give you, while also enjoying the story and the clever character personalities you can make. It's become fashionable (presumably becausea lot of the pre-4e crowd came back) to hate on character optimization, or 'not get it' but honestly it's getting a little tiresome, why play a game with such elaborate combat mechanics without enjoying them? Why not just play something like dungeon world, which is geared for a more exclusively narrative experience, instead?
Well it is a roleplaying game, so maybe roleplaying should play a part. For me its less the act of doing it, but the extremes that people go to in an attempt to justify the choice, like they did it for roleplaying purposes and not optimization purposes. It isn't really the story of the game, and it isn't really being done because before adventure the character trained as a soldier, but didn't use those concepts until he multiclassed.
So if you are playing a paladin who multiclasses into a warlock, I think that should play out in the game. I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it should play out in the game, not having occurred ten years before the warlock class was achieved. (which makes no sense)
It has been my experience that the people who optimize their characters look for every way to make him op which in turn causes friction within the group. If that isn't your experience then great.
It is important to always remember that mechanical effectiveness of a character, and how well that character is role-played, orthogonal traits - however much of one there is has no relevancy at all to how much of the other there will be.
Same with interest in "character build" vs. interest in "character story".
Where I have see friction caused is when the expectations of the people playing do not match (i.e. some players get upset about the relative effectiveness of some other player's character, or some players get upset about other players not liking what they like or disliking what they dislike), and when the DM mishandles the event of a player character being mechanically powerful by doing anything other than letting that character be mechanically powerful - because no one actually wants to have to min/max or optimize (whatever you want to call it) just to get their character "good enough". Their goal in building a mechanically potent character is to feel mechanically potent, so raising the difficulty to match (effectively no different from preventing them from optimizing and leaving the difficulty alone) only makes them redouble their efforts at being mechanically potent (causing the "arms race" that never ends well), or makes them frustrated to the point of not enjoying the game (which means failure as a DM, because the goal is to have fun and keep your players coming back for more).
The best that can be done for a player that loves to optimize is to let them spend some time running rough-shod over challenges their character is built to be good at, but also occasionally (as in not basically all the time) end up with challenges before them that the character is really bad at. The player will either enjoy this greatly because it is what they have always wanted, or they will release that getting what they asked for didn't work out for them and will start asking for something different (i.e. they'll build their characters differently, like scaling down the mechanical potency until their preferred balance between good-at-what-I'm-supposed-to-be-good-at and not-great-at-some-stuff is reached).
Different styles of play appeal to different kinds of people, and there are all sorts of people in this world. What's important is to remember that no style of play is objectively better or more fun than another, so all sides can leave their elitism at the door. When people who enjoy different play styles get together for a game, the thing to do is to communicate and find an agreeable compromise that maximizes the overall enjoyment of the game for the whole group. I'm not the type to min max my characters but that doesn't mean that I have to talk down to those who are or let their style of play get in the way of mine and how much I enjoy the game. (Or vice versa). Whatever. That's just my two cents on the matter.
I feel like you guys have never truly dealt with someone who literally chooses the most over powered options, all the time. So if you open up Race selection, he will chose to be an Aarakocra Ranger who shoots a bow, who can also throw a dagger (Or maybe carry 20 daggers so he can throw both at once) in his off hand, always fly above the battlefield, and hunts down every last feat from every last resource that he possibly can that will give him some randomness like +10 to attack for three attacks at first level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just a remark here.
The complaining in this thread is not about the multi-classing itself. It is about a style of play. A style pf play which sees players taking care only on achieving the highest damage in combat without a thought about the story of the character. D&D is a role-playing and storytelling game first and foremost.
That it is the kind of game we are supporting here, at least some of us.
See, but there's a difference between min-maxing for optimization and min-maxing because it makes sense to the archetype. A paladin maxing out strength and charisma isn't the problem. It's the paladin who maxes out strength and charisma and then grabs levels in sorcerer or warlock because they want refunding smites that becomes the problem.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
?!? I think the game is perfectly set up for role-playing - got rid of a lot of silly rules (Rules, see Pathfinder) and allows people to play.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
And that's where I disagree. I don't see that style of play as an issue. If someone wants to optimize for damage and be the best combat monster they can, I'm totally fine with that. If the player is a super egomaniac who has to be the center of attention at all times or "win" D&D, THAT is an issue, but that is the different between "character" issues and "player" issues.
My argument is simply this: I don't think the arguments here pertaining to multiclassing, min/maxing, optimizing, what-have-you has ANYTHING to do about power creep or RAW or "munchkins" as much as it does with "playing with ******* players". My last character was basically a ball of Adamantine and HP but I played my character as plan B. If a strategy ever went totally sideways, my character could dig us out of basically anything, but I wasn't front-and-center rubbing my power in peoples faces or hogging the spotlight for self-aggrandizing ego-stroking. I took a back seat and shined only when others really needed me to. Great power, great responsibility, etc., etc.
Keep in mind the DnD is a game. Meant for players to have fun with each other. Two different tables can sit down and the appearance of what goes on might be completely different. But they are both playing DnD.
If you hate multiclassing and optimizing, that's fine, make all the rules you like for your table and let all the players know up front. But don't tell others that their playstyle isn't valid because its not how you enjoy it. Murderhobos are valid playstyles. If the table is having fun, then they are doing what they like. Combat free sessions are a valid playstyle, if the table enjoys intrigue of high society politics and gossip where the slightest physical altercation would have them banished forever, that's also fine if the table is having fun. Rolling 3d6 for your stats in order is fine, using a 50 point buy is fine.
Players and DM having fun is the issue. If they are, its probably fine. If they aren't, its probably not.
If I am looking to join a table, and the DM says "No feats, multiclassing, or tactical playing" I am probably going to say "Thanks, I'll find another game", likewise, if a DM says "Anything you can find on Dndwiki is fairgame" I will also probably pass.
Set your house rules exactly how you like, but don't tell me or anyone else that "no true Scotsman" tries to make their characters powerful when playing dnd.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
I wear pants, short pants.
I also ask a lot of questions; insatiably curious
Murder hobos is actually a term that I heard used by one the the developers of dnd at dragon con. They are players who go through adventures using the direct and bloody path with little regard for story or placing roots.
Hence they are murderers as they really just kill the things they are pointed at, and hobos as they never actually bother to set any kind of roots anywhere even often being a wandering orphan to avoid having to have family interaction.
It is typically used as a derogatory form, but if your table is happy with it, then they may proudly brand themselves as such.
I also don't like multi-classing with a damn good reason. (The answer is still no.) But I am clear about the rules at my table and do remember that it is a game - this does not always mean side splitting laughter but challenging situations designed to make you think and consider...
My groups are not murder-hobos - they are the town council!
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
I see an awful lot of people who are upset that people are having fun the wrong way. The people who are against min/maxing just happen to min/max in different ways. They are no different, neither are they superior.
It's important to play with your toys correctly XD
Toys are important in life...
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....
as you grow older your toys get more expensive
Getting stronger purely for the sake of getting stronger is a perfectly valid RP reason to do something. Its not like the classes and their abilities are hidden information from other people. A Paladin might strike a deal with a Patron specifically to get more frequent smites. That same Paladin might suddenly awaken their sorcerous past, or they might intentionally awaken a sorcerous origin to provide some spell slot fuel for more smites. There are many valid RP reasons to become a Sorlockadin. I know that in real life I can train separately as a gymnast and as runner. I can also combine gymnastics and running to be a free-runner. I can just as easily do the equivalent in game and it doesn't make me any worse of a person. And by all means, if you're the DM go ahead and make Warlock multiclass Patrons matter. Don't be a passive aggressive jerk and use it as an excuse to berate your players, but feel free incorporate those things so your players can interact with them. There are many interesting additions to be had in your stories.
But its worth mentioning: Whenever you multiclass, you're making an exchange. A Paladin 2/Warlock 2/Sorcerer 2 is a very different character with very different abilities than a Paladin 6, Warlock 6, or Sorcerer 6. You don't just get all that power for free. You delay or halt progression, making some of the higher level abilities unobtainable, or delaying mid-level abilities to end-level play. And especially for 5e, the multiclass exchange has more parity by far compared to 3.5 of Pathfinder. 3.P had wildly varying powerlevels, splats, and options that just aren't a problem in 5e. Your exchanges in specialization or utility are much closer to equivalent, with a huge portion of the difference being caused by the style of game being run. If you're running a combat focused campaign, it makes sense that improving your combat abilities will be a greater benefit to you than not. Making those same choices in a political intrigue campaign will be less impactful, and might actually make you perform worse.
And sure, minmaxers can be insufferable. But, the "anti-minmaxers" can be just as insufferable. There are people all over that don't mesh with you individually or mesh with the party, but minmaxing isn't the cause of their "bad" play. There's no correlation. Minmaxing does not have an inverse relationship with RP. You can indeed do both at once, and do them well. And as a DM, if you aren't making your player's decisions matter, whether its finding creative solutions or multiclassing down a new path, then you're also guilty of diminishing the collaborative storytelling that makes TTRPGs unique.
So one thought is to seek medical attention while having a seizure, rather than posting on DND message boards- but hey you do you.
Putting that aside, I think you have to realize that the two really go hand in hand- a keen interest in the game can be both a keen interest in it's mechanics, and enjoying the experience their nuance can give you, while also enjoying the story and the clever character personalities you can make. It's become fashionable (presumably becausea lot of the pre-4e crowd came back) to hate on character optimization, or 'not get it' but honestly it's getting a little tiresome, why play a game with such elaborate combat mechanics without enjoying them? Why not just play something like dungeon world, which is geared for a more exclusively narrative experience, instead?
Well it is a roleplaying game, so maybe roleplaying should play a part. For me its less the act of doing it, but the extremes that people go to in an attempt to justify the choice, like they did it for roleplaying purposes and not optimization purposes. It isn't really the story of the game, and it isn't really being done because before adventure the character trained as a soldier, but didn't use those concepts until he multiclassed.
So if you are playing a paladin who multiclasses into a warlock, I think that should play out in the game. I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it should play out in the game, not having occurred ten years before the warlock class was achieved. (which makes no sense)
It has been my experience that the people who optimize their characters look for every way to make him op which in turn causes friction within the group. If that isn't your experience then great.
It is important to always remember that mechanical effectiveness of a character, and how well that character is role-played, orthogonal traits - however much of one there is has no relevancy at all to how much of the other there will be.
Same with interest in "character build" vs. interest in "character story".
Where I have see friction caused is when the expectations of the people playing do not match (i.e. some players get upset about the relative effectiveness of some other player's character, or some players get upset about other players not liking what they like or disliking what they dislike), and when the DM mishandles the event of a player character being mechanically powerful by doing anything other than letting that character be mechanically powerful - because no one actually wants to have to min/max or optimize (whatever you want to call it) just to get their character "good enough". Their goal in building a mechanically potent character is to feel mechanically potent, so raising the difficulty to match (effectively no different from preventing them from optimizing and leaving the difficulty alone) only makes them redouble their efforts at being mechanically potent (causing the "arms race" that never ends well), or makes them frustrated to the point of not enjoying the game (which means failure as a DM, because the goal is to have fun and keep your players coming back for more).
The best that can be done for a player that loves to optimize is to let them spend some time running rough-shod over challenges their character is built to be good at, but also occasionally (as in not basically all the time) end up with challenges before them that the character is really bad at. The player will either enjoy this greatly because it is what they have always wanted, or they will release that getting what they asked for didn't work out for them and will start asking for something different (i.e. they'll build their characters differently, like scaling down the mechanical potency until their preferred balance between good-at-what-I'm-supposed-to-be-good-at and not-great-at-some-stuff is reached).
Different styles of play appeal to different kinds of people, and there are all sorts of people in this world. What's important is to remember that no style of play is objectively better or more fun than another, so all sides can leave their elitism at the door. When people who enjoy different play styles get together for a game, the thing to do is to communicate and find an agreeable compromise that maximizes the overall enjoyment of the game for the whole group. I'm not the type to min max my characters but that doesn't mean that I have to talk down to those who are or let their style of play get in the way of mine and how much I enjoy the game. (Or vice versa). Whatever. That's just my two cents on the matter.
I feel like you guys have never truly dealt with someone who literally chooses the most over powered options, all the time. So if you open up Race selection, he will chose to be an Aarakocra Ranger who shoots a bow, who can also throw a dagger (Or maybe carry 20 daggers so he can throw both at once) in his off hand, always fly above the battlefield, and hunts down every last feat from every last resource that he possibly can that will give him some randomness like +10 to attack for three attacks at first level.