General RPG Rules DiscussionDiscuss the rules of any game except D&D or Pathfinder, such as Arcana Evolved, Mutants & Masterminds, Star Wars Saga, d20 Modern, and the like.
I suppose that depends on what you're fighting. Against opponents with higher ACs, I can see how that would be less useful.
It can't be less useful than the prior version of Cleave/Great Cleave.
The old version of Cleave/GC require you to drop the opponent to trigger the bonus attack(s). Dropping the opponent, perforce, requires a successful hit.
The new C/GC give you a bonus attack on a successful, regardless of whether you drop the target or not.
(At least that's my understanding from context here-- I'm not looking at my PF doc at the moment.)
Quote:
I suppose that should motivate me to pay a little more attention before posting.
NP! (And in retrospect my reply looks a lot more snarky this morning than I intended it last night. It was late, and I had turtles and cats on my mind.)
Quote:
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?
I think you have to evaluate what I have presented here in the context of standing alone as "the" fix for iterative attacks.
VS and IVS are very easy to evaluate-- use the "reverse" damage calculation I mentioned in that post. If their expectation is better, you'd use them.
The kinds of characters I build, I don't think they'd be used very often, but not everybody is a twink like me.
There are other emergent benefits to this proposal (levelling the expected damage output non-fighter classes, reducing the necessity of AC-pumping for PCs, etc.) but I am primarily concerned with how this fix strikes the primary fighting classes.
How does this reduce the need for PCs to AC Pump?
Don't the two high attack rolls with no low ones mean that mid level AC is less useful than it would be compared with facing secondary iteratives with significantly lower attack rolls? Doesn't this lead to PCs pumping their ACs to their max since they only face those high attack rolls?
It can't be less useful than the prior version of Cleave/Great Cleave.
The old version of Cleave/GC require you to drop the opponent to trigger the bonus attack(s). Dropping the opponent, perforce, requires a successful hit.
The new C/GC give you a bonus attack on a successful, regardless of whether you drop the target or not.
(At least that's my understanding from context here-- I'm not looking at my PF doc at the moment.)
Yeah, that's absolutely correct, and I agree that the Pathfinder versions are a lot more useful than the 3.5 versions.
__________________ Darrin Drader
Freelance Writer/Game Designer
Previously posting as Whisperfoot
Don't the two high attack rolls with no low ones mean that mid level AC is less useful than it would be compared with facing secondary iteratives with significantly lower attack rolls? Doesn't this lead to PCs pumping their ACs to their max since they only face those high attack rolls?
You basically can't pump your AC high enough to stop the first or second attack of most creatures in the BAB +11 range. So as someone else pointed out upthread, the point of AC at high levels is to deflect the 3rd (-10) and 4th (-15) attacks.
This is by design, by the way. At low levels, combat is supposed to be boolean-- hit or miss, because one or two hits can put you down. At high level, the game switches from a boolean model to an attrittive one.
Wellllll... heh. On the hit point scale, anyway. In fact it remains a boolean game with respect to Save or Die.
You basically can't pump your AC high enough to stop the first or second attack of most creatures in the BAB +11 range. So as someone else pointed out upthread, the point of AC at high levels is to deflect the 3rd (-10) and 4th (-15) attacks.
As a PC or npc?
A lot of monsters tend to use natural attacks, and if you give them improved multiattack, this effectively means that all their attacks are made at the same bab. So if your AC can't stop the 1st one, it won't stop any of them.
The only consolation is with regards to whether it decides to power attack for 10 or 20.
You basically can't pump your AC high enough to stop the first or second attack of most creatures in the BAB +11 range. So as someone else pointed out upthread, the point of AC at high levels is to deflect the 3rd (-10) and 4th (-15) attacks.
This is by design, by the way.
You mean it was the intention of the 3E designers? Why did they never tell anyone? (Or did they, and I missed the memo?)
I like the change. I think the speed-up (both in number of rolls and ease of calculation) is totally worth the loss of damage in the few corner cases.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
A lot of monsters tend to use natural attacks, and if you give them improved multiattack, this effectively means that all their attacks are made at the same bab. So if your AC can't stop the 1st one, it won't stop any of them.
More than "a lot" of creatures use natural attacks. The vast majority use natural attacks (not iterative attacks-- certainly true of the BAB 11 and higher crowd; see above). And most creatures with natural attacks don't have multi-attack. (But that's a pure wild guess at the moment!)
So for most, they'll be at +0 primary and -5 secondary. There are no "tertiary" natural attacks at -10. The only way to have a -10 penalty is to use iterative attacks, and there aren't that many creatures that have 3rd and 4th iterative attacks (see my post above).
Monsters' average attack roll (that's attack bonus +11) lags behind the tank PCs average AC up through 9th level (assuming a sword and board fighter who is diligent about upgrading his AC*).
Beyond 9th level, AC starts to lag the average attack roll, until the monsters have a 10 point advantage at 20th level.
So to put that (hopefully) more clearly: Starting at 9th level, monsters are designed to hit the "good AC" PCs on at least a 11+ (and it only gets better from there). That means the secondary attacks will land on a 16+. (If you are not a "good AC" PC then the outlook is even more grim for you.)
A creature with iterative attacks, on average, would be looking for natural 20s on the 3rd and 4th rolls.
(Obviously if your campaign uses lots of high level NPCs as BBEGs, you have a different situation.)
* This counts +9 AC for "armor + DEX" (in any configuration), +2 for large shield, and level-appropriate magic bonuses for armor, shield, deflection, and natural armor. You could gain another +1 for dodge; +2 for mithril armor; +2 for tower shield.
You basically can't pump your AC high enough to stop the first or second attack of most creatures in the BAB +11 range. So as someone else pointed out upthread, the point of AC at high levels is to deflect the 3rd (-10) and 4th (-15) attacks.
This is by design, by the way. At low levels, combat is supposed to be boolean-- hit or miss, because one or two hits can put you down. At high level, the game switches from a boolean model to an attrittive one.
Wellllll... heh. On the hit point scale, anyway. In fact it remains a boolean game with respect to Save or Die.
So your saying since you take out those 3rd and 4th iteratives (and bumping up that second one) you take away the main point of AC, so there is less incentive to drive as hard as you can on AC at higher levels (especially for normally mid AC classes like rangers or rogues) because it will be increasingly marginally useful. Also the difference between mid AC and no AC bonus will diminish leading to unarmored D&D characters being more viable.
As noted though AC will still be useful to prevent massive power attack in addition to the increasingly little chance of stopping those full BAB strikes.
Will switching to your system mean that pumping AC by 2 for example lead to less damage blocked on average than under the iterative system for a sample BAB 11+ monster/NPC?
So your saying since you take out those 3rd and 4th iteratives (and bumping up that second one) you take away the main point of AC, so there is less incentive to drive as hard as you can on AC at higher levels (especially for normally mid AC classes like rangers or rogues) because it will be increasingly marginally useful. Also the difference between mid AC and no AC bonus will diminish leading to unarmored D&D characters being more viable.
As noted though AC will still be useful to prevent massive power attack in addition to the increasingly little chance of stopping those full BAB strikes.
Will switching to your system mean that pumping AC by 2 for example lead to less damage blocked on average than under the iterative system for a sample BAB 11+ monster/NPC?
I couldn't figure out anything of what you said to snip. It's all good.
Now that I have actually looked at the data, I am not sure why anyone was incentivized to pursue AC as a strategy at high levels.
Remember that 9th level or so is the turning point. The farther away you are from 9th level the more (at low level) or less (at high level) AC will matter.
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.
Well, let's see. At 6th-level a human fighter can easily have +12 to hit and do 2d6+9 damage (+6 BAB +4 Str +1 Focus +1 enhancement, 2d6 greatsword +6 Str +2 specialization +1 enhancement), while an opposing fighter could have AC 23 or 24 (+1 Dex +9 magic full plate +3 magic heavy shield +1 Dodge), +2 more if using a tower shield instead. A troll would hit them less often, a gorillon or chuul just as often as the fighter, and a hill giant or bulette more often.... So fairly even there...
At 11th-level that fighter could have +22 to hit (+11 BAB, +5 Str, +2 Belt of Giant Strength, +2 focus and greater focus, +2 enhancement) and deal 2d6+14 damage (+10 Str, +2 specialization, +2 enhancement), versus another fighter with AC of 30 (+3 Dex, +10 magic mithral full plate, +4 magic heavy shield, +1 ring, +1 amulet, +1 Dodge) or 32 with a tower shield instead, also roughly even. A glabrezu or fire giant or frost worm or dire tiger would hit about as often, a hamatula or stone golem less often, an adult or mature adult dragon just as often, a purple worm more often.
I'd say it starts to break down more around 14th or 15th-level. And trying for high AC severely cuts down on damage output by then (moderately so at the lower to middle levels). The greatsword fighter's high-AC counterpart would be attacking at maybe +12 for 1d8+7 damage at 6th-level or +19 for 1d8+8 at 11th (maybe a bit better if they could afford a strength-booster despite their expensive AC-boosters). And it just gets worse from there for the AC-guy.
Final edit (man I wish I could type more than a paragraph at once without getting auto-logged-out): My point is mostly just, though, that your AC isn't going to stop the primary attacks much; if you really try to pump it up, you may get hit half the time by primaries, but your damage output will be lower than your enemy's and you won't have as much attack bonus to use for accuracy or Power Attacking.
DMing the PbPs: (FR 3.5) A Hard Time in HarrowdaleOOC , IC , IC 2 , RG
and (3.x/d20) The FirstOOC , IC DMing on OpenRPG: D&D 3.5 - T13K Fall of the 14th Kingdom, T13K For More Than Glory, SR3 - Welcome to Seattle, Chummers Playing: (PbP) Alaric the Alchemist, Cade the rogue, Grackle "Grubeater" Granitetop, Kerrix Malzan, Lars Crichton, Liiros Tivaniel, Vardok Stonekennel, Warren the halfling, (OpenRPG) Kaleverithis, Oobla Fat Cheeks
*EN World's Eyros Creative Exercise and Rules/Crunch of Eyros
*My Rhunaria D&D setting, prestige classes, feats, etc. *Favorite links
(Rhunaria and Links temporarily offline now)
*My Aurelia D&D thread on EN World, setting and rules; new and
revised 3e races, classes, variants, PrCs, feats, spells, etc.
Last edited by Arkhandus; 9th January 2009 at 08:41 PM..
I should have edited that to say get cracking on Trailblazer FASTER .
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question in terms the semi-math literate like myself can understand. You sir have a convert.
__________________ "Mr. Prince, would you like to know the most significant event in the history of freedom?"
"The American revolution?"
"A defensible choice, a close second even, but not mine. I would choose the moment when the Roman plebians required the patricians to write down the twelve tablets of the law and put them where everyone could see them—and thereby proclaimed the law supreme over the politicians. The rule of law is the essence of freedom."
—Conversation between Prince Lysander and Colonel Falkenberg, The Prince
I think this would dramatically speed up play. No, rolling at +22, then +17, then +12, then +7 isn't terribly complicated. But if I'm just rolling two dice at +20, I can roll them all at once and be done. It effectively turns four rolls into one. Damage can be all rolled in one handful as well.
As for the outliers, maybe a couple of options in that case? Proposals
- If a natural 20 is *required* to hit (ex you have +11 to hit and they have AC 35) and the character rolls a natural 20, the crit is automatically confirmed.
- If the character has +19 or more needed to hit ie, only misses on a one, they gain one additional attack when the opponent is felled. If the character has the Cleave/Great Cleave feats, this attack is in addition to the ones granted by those feats.
Plug that into your spreadsheet and see how it helps the outliers!
Multiple attacks were so much easier to deal with and you didn't feel like you had to give up attacks. I am going to try a variant of the Martial Pool Martial Pool - a New combat mechanic? in the place of iterative attacks.
My only critique is that the declining penalty (-2/-1/0) is a little clunky, since it gives the appearance (not actuality, just appearance) that the character's BAB is going backward and then jumping forward.
But that's a nitpick. Overall I like it better than 4 iterative attacks.
My only critique is that the declining penalty (-2/-1/0) is a little clunky, since it gives the appearance (not actuality, just appearance) that the character's BAB is going backward and then jumping forward.
But that's a nitpick. Overall I like it better than 4 iterative attacks.
It's the same mechanic as the monk's extra unarmed strikes. I didn't review it for clunky appearance, just the expected damage.
Here's an extremely top-of-my-head idea that intrigues me, but I haven't remotely thought through the consequences. It kind of ties into the Trailblazer idea of Combat Reactions.
I was thinking of how 1E handled multiple attacks - if you had multiples attacks, you got your first one, and then your opponent got his, and then you got your second attack (nobody I know actually played it exactly this way but that's another story). I was thinking "how could you do that in 3E?" I thought of having a delayed, two-part initiative - IE I rolled a 20 for initiative, I would get my first attack at 20, my second at 15, etc.
But that's more complication than its worth. So then I thought that it was more like a reaction - and that spurred me to think: what if you only got 1 attack per round, but got more reactions, and more things that triggered reactions - for example, what if when you got your second attack, you instead got a Combat Reaction that allowed you to take a swing at someone when they took a swing at you? There are feats out there that let you do this, but I'm talking about making it a core piece of the combat rules.
Like I said, I have no thoughts whatsoever on how this would impact game play, or how balanced it would be (luckily folks like Wulf are around who are highly skilled at the mathematics of this sort of thing). It just seemed like an idea I had never heard proposed and that it was worth tossing out there.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
Trailblazer is now available.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
