Iterative Attacks

[DaveMage]

How unbalancing it is to simply make all iteritave attacks at -5? (Though you would earn iterative attacks at the same time you do under the standard rules.)

So, instead of +11/+6/+1, you would have +11/+6/+6.

A 20th level fighter would have a BAB of +20/+15/+15/+15.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

How unbalancing it is to simply make all iteritave attacks at -5? (Though you would earn iterative attacks at the same time you do under the standard rules.)

So, instead of +11/+6/+1, you would have +11/+6/+6.

A 20th level fighter would have a BAB of +20/+15/+15/+15.

Easy to check with my spreadsheet. Be right back to edit this post.

Up to a 30% increase in expected damage at 3 attacks.

Up to a 50% increase in expected damage at 4 attacks, with the biggest gains across the subset of most common ACs you will encounter.

[Treebore]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Easy to check with my spreadsheet. Be right back to edit this post.

Up to a 30% increase in expected damage at 3 attacks.

Up to a 50% increase in expected damage at 4 attacks, with the biggest gains across the subset of most common ACs you will encounter.

Which standard are you comparing these too? D&D standard or your idea? IF its the D&D standard how does it compare to your idea?

[mmu1]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

This kind of anecdotal feedback is useful to me, but I am still waiting for the guy who says, "No way, man. If it weren't for that 3rd and 4th attack, I never could have taken out that black pudding with that broom handle."

(Most of the oozes fall into the category of "So easy you can't miss.")

Now that you mention it...

I've actually done something like that - our group nailed the BBEG and we were about to book, rather than fight an enormous ooze released by one of the traps guarding his den of evil (because IIRC the wizard figured out it had the at-will ability to try to transport someone to a random plane), when I decided that hell no, my dwarven barbarian wasn't going to run without at least trying to kill it. Four attacks on max Power Attack later, the thing was modern art.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Treebore

Which standard are you comparing these too? D&D standard or your idea? IF its the D&D standard how does it compare to your idea?

Comparing to RAW.

My method increases damage expectation over the RAW by no more than 16%, and has a drop-off on the edge cases to compensate.

0/5/5/5 is all upside.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by mmu1

Now that you mention it...

Four attacks on max Power Attack later, the thing was modern art.

Heh. Right.

But notwithstanding losing the ability to GO NUTS on a gelatinous cube... how's the idea grab you?

[Johnny Angel]

What about Monks? They get a Flurry of Blows, after all, and are liable to stack Two-Weapon Fighting on top of that. And they aren't just going to be using it for damage -- with Improved Trip and such abilities they can make a lot of use of those extra attacks. But this makes their turns take forever at higher levels. Seems like they've got a lot to lose by your system.

[Runestar]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angel

What about Monks? They get a Flurry of Blows, after all, and are liable to stack Two-Weapon Fighting on top of that. And they aren't just going to be using it for damage -- with Improved Trip and such abilities they can make a lot of use of those extra attacks. But this makes their turns take forever at higher levels. Seems like they've got a lot to lose by your system.

Well, PHB2 did refer to flurry of blows as "flurry of misses", and the OP's model is very similar to the decisive strike variant it gave the monk (the intention was to give the monk fewer, but more meaningful attacks). It is a waste of time if you had 9-10 attacks, but only a few could hit consistently (since you are still entitled to an attack roll, even if you are going to hit only on a natural 20).

It is not without its merits. Dr is less of a consequence, since you make fewer attacks. Gameplay would be sped up, since you make fewer rolls. But abilities which trigger on hit, such as sneak attack, may be less valuable. Power attack's efficacy would be easier to gauge since all your attacks are made with the same bab.

I am liking it more and more.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angel

What about Monks? They get a Flurry of Blows, after all, and are liable to stack Two-Weapon Fighting on top of that. And they aren't just going to be using it for damage -- with Improved Trip and such abilities they can make a lot of use of those extra attacks. Seems like they've got a lot to lose by your system.

Anybody who rolls a lot of d20s, against edge case ACs (very high and very low) is going to lose damage.

But this [making lots of use of extra attacks] makes their turns take forever at higher levels.

That's why folks want iterative attacks "fixed."

Personally I feel that the biggest slowdown is in the variable attack bonus. Doing the math for every attack is a pain in the ass. I don't care if you're playing a hasted thri-kreen monk-ranger-Tempest and you have 12 attacks, if you can roll all of your attacks at once and easily sort them into hits and misses, that's fine by me.

It's having to roll them one at a time, each with a different attack bonus, that drags the game down.

So to be clear-- my proposal, which reigns the attack sequence back to two attacks, is doing it primarily because it is the closest match to existing damage expectation, not because "two attacks is fewer than four attacks."

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

It's having to roll them one at a time, each with a different attack bonus, that drags the game down.

So to be clear-- my proposal, which reigns the attack sequence back to two attacks, is doing it primarily because it is the closest match to existing damage expectation, not because "two attacks is fewer than four attacks."

That's interesting, because the appeal of your proposal for me is that "two attacks is fewer than four attacks." With one exception in my groups, nobody has a problem with "+14, then +9, then +4." (Obviously, +12/+12 would be simpler.)

With a couple of exceptions, the high-BAB PC-players don't particularly like rolling multiple attacks at once, actually, and as far as I'm aware, nobody begrudges them the few extra seconds of suspense on their turn. In our groups, spellcasters tend to take significantly longer turns than BAB monsters.

[mmu1]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Heh. Right.

But notwithstanding losing the ability to GO NUTS on a gelatinous cube... how's the idea grab you?

As far as the various alternatives to iterative attacks go, I think it's probably the best one I've read so far. I've never been a fan of the "one attack with an increasing damage bonus" way of solving the problem.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

That's interesting, because the appeal of your proposal for me is that "two attacks is fewer than four attacks."

Don't misunderstand me: It's a happy coincidence.

With one exception in my groups, nobody has a problem with "+14, then +9, then +4." (Obviously, +12/+12 would be simpler.)

I don't have a problem with it either-- in terms of having a problem doing the math. But there is no question that it is incrementally slower than a batch roll with one modifier.

As far as I'm aware, nobody begrudges them the few extra seconds of suspense on their turn.

Same here, for the most part. In fact, I have made exactly that argument in defending the confirmation roll on crits. We like that moment of suspense.

But-- allowing of course that groups differ-- nobody really finds it "suspenseful" wondering if Bob is going to correctly add 14+9 for once in his friggin' life.

[Holy Bovine]

I like Wulf's solution - it is simple and easy to work with. In my own experience I have had fighters take the special ability from the PHB 2 that allows them to dump all of their extra attacks and gain an second attack at their highest attack bonus. The pure fighter who took it never lacked for massive damage output!

[med stud]

Would I accept an increase in damage in 90% of the cases as a tradeoff for losing out vs the rest of the 10%? Of course!

I also like the solution, I found it funny that in 3.x, the most brawny characterclasses requires the most math-savvy players to play the most efficient . This way it becomes easier.

I also thought about the corner cases you refer to; couldn't there be some solution that increases critical chance if you go up against very low AC? It would still leave the "only hit on a 20"- problem unsolved, but really, how common is that sort of opposition? At least I find it in poor form to the players of fighters to bring in that kind of opposition.

[Arkhandus]

I don't like the idea......a skilled warrior should be able to wound or defeat several opponents at once, and cleave/great cleave/whirlwind attack are rather limited means of doing so (and relying on other stuff besides mere skill a.k.a. BAB).

And AC serves mostly to fend off iterative/secondary attacks at upper levels (at least against average or serious challenges), AFAIK, so eliminating those iterative attacks (or making them no worse than the primary in accuracy) makes AC lose most of its value (ergo making armor, shields, and such half-worthless).

If my fighter's high AC from magic armor + magic shield + feats and Dex and stuff only serves to give the enemy's attacks a small margin of failure, without at least shielding my fighter from a lot of iterative and secondary/off-hand attacks, it ain't worth the trade-off in my damage output or other abilities (and why not just play a barbarian then, for the DR if getting hit every time is just going to be a foregone conclusion?).

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Arkhandus

AC serves mostly to fend off iterative/secondary attacks at upper levels (at least against average or serious challenges), AFAIK, so eliminating those iterative attacks (or making them no worse than the primary in accuracy) makes AC lose most of its value (ergo making armor, shields, and such half-worthless).

If my fighter's high AC from magic armor + magic shield + feats and Dex and stuff only serves to give the enemy's attacks a small margin of failure, without at least shielding my fighter from a lot of iterative and secondary/off-hand attacks, it ain't worth the trade-off in my damage output or other abilities (and why not just play a barbarian then, for the DR if getting hit every time is just going to be a foregone conclusion?).

Thanks for laying out your reasoning, Arkhandus. Those are indeed valid points.

At what level (currently) do you feel that AC stops being of any use against primary attacks?

How many creatures in the SRD do you suppose have 3 or more iterative attacks at -10 or -15?

(Note that multiple attacks-- eg claw/claw/bite-- are not the same thing as iterative attacks.)

Interesting: 21 of 564, counting templates and Good creatures.

[Darrin Drader]

I'll be honest, I think your system has merit if plugged directly into 3.5.

However, I like the way Pathfinder handles this issue. If you have Great Cleave, you keep attacking nearby opponents as long as you keep hitting. This gives you the same potential to affect a lot of opponents with a single attack as if you were a wizard casting an area effect spell. Or, if you take Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike, you can forego iterative attacks and just deal more damage on the attack(s). I can't think of a reason why you'd want to use traditional iterative attacks if you have those feats.

I ran a 5th level game a while back where the fighter was using the new version of Cleave to see if it tipped game balance too far in his direction and I was pretty pleased with the way it worked.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

I'll be honest, I think your system has merit if plugged directly into 3.5.

However, I like the way Pathfinder handles this issue. If you have Great Cleave, you keep attacking nearby opponents as long as you keep hitting.

On its own, that's fine. It's certainly "more attacks" than before.

As a replacement for iterative attacks, it sucks. Negative binomial distribution is a harsh mistress.

Or, if you take Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike, you can forego iterative attacks and just deal more damage on the attack(s). I can't think of a reason why you'd want to use traditional iterative attacks if you have those feats.

I dealt with Vital Strike and IVS a few posts back, wherein I was very specific as to why you would want to use your iterative attacks in place of those feats.

[Darrin Drader]

On its own, that's fine. It's certainly "more attacks" than before.

As a replacement for iterative attacks, it sucks. Negative binomial distribution is a harsh mistress.

I suppose that depends on what you're fighting. Going back to that 5th level playtest I ran, the party was up against a group of orcs. The fighter with the Improved Cleave feat walked out into the middle of a group of five and started swinging, hit four, and did an average of something like 12.5 points of damage to each of them.

Against opponents with higher ACs, I can see how that would be less useful.

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

I dealt with Vital Strike and IVS a few posts back, wherein I was very specific as to why you would want to use your iterative attacks in place of those feats.

Aha!

Flat damage boosts don't really replace iterative attacks. They can't, because a flat damage boost has no way of knowing how many damage dice you might have been adding.

Let's look at SWSE for example, that gives a flat damage boost of 1/2 your level instead of iterative attacks.

If your attack has a fairly low vanilla damage rating-- say a plain sword with an average of 9.5 damage-- then a +10 damage bonus at +20 BAB works out just fine.

But if your attack is a +3 holy flaming longsword, and you happen to be sneak attacking for +7d6, well then a flat +10 damage isn't going to come close to replacing the lost iterative attacks. (You'd average 1d8+2d6+1d6+7d6 = ~40 damage, plus STR.)

Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike work the same way. They only multiply the base weapon's damage-- no bonuses for STR, magical effects, sneak attack, successful crits, etc.

If you're using a weapon that does 1d8 base damage, then Vital Strike takes you from 1d8/1d8/1d8 at 0/-5/-10 to 2d8/2d8 at 0/-5.

I suppose that should motivate me to pay a little more attention before posting.

I guess my question then becomes, if I were to use your system, would VS and IVS still be attractive feats to take? Is your system maybe a little too good?

[Runestar]

AC does have a use even if your enemy is going to hit you on a 2.

In the very least, it prevents you from becoming a power attack magnet of sorts.