Iterative Attacks

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've been doing some heavy permutations/probability number crunching over the break, and I wanted to run something past the folks here.

Playing around with possible speed fixes for iterative attacks, I've found something that works pretty good for me personally:

• At 6th level, you get a 2nd attack, but both attacks suffer a -2 penalty (-2/-2 instead of 0/-5).
• At 11th level, the penalty drops to -1/-1 (instead of 0/-5/-10).
• At 16th level, the penalty drops to -0/-0 (instead of 0/-5/-10/-20).

But there is just no way around one peculiarity of the 3rd and 4th iterative attacks, to wit:

Against creatures that you have almost no hope of hitting (natural 18 or better on your first attack, and natural 20's thereafter); and against creatures that you almost can't miss (needing "less than a natural 2" on your first attack, with a great chance of success on even your 3rd and 4th attacks), your expected damage will drop off.

So the core poll question is this:

If your expected damage over the range of 80-90% of all creatures you will encounter will INCREASE by 5 to 20%, would you be willing to lose your 3rd and 4th attack, and accept a DECREASE against the "edge case" creatures (very high AC or very low AC)?

EDIT: I want to clarify that. At -1/-1, your expected damage against most creatures you will encounter is BETTER than three attacks at 0/-5/-10; and at -0/-0, your expected damage against most creatures you will encounter is BETTER than four attacks at 0/-5/-10/-15.

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.

[Treebore]

So why wouldn't just continuing this -2 on to the third and 4th iterative attacks not work? The biggest power of the fighter types over spellcasters is how many damaging attacks they can do per round.

Or why wouldn't doing -4 for the third, and -6 for the 4th, and have them then offset by further level gain also work?

[Runestar]

Possibly yes. This is the main reason why I like the strike maneuvers from tome of battle. As a standard action to initiate, they allow me to move and still retain a reasonable damage out. While the damage I deal is typically inferior to a fighter utilizing the full attack action, it is more consistent, in that I am not reliant on full attacks. And of course, dr applies only once (or not at all, for certain maneuvers), so against foes with fairly high dr, I might actually come out ahead.

This is based on the monk's decisive strike variant from the PHB2, no?

I think your proposed change might benefit the fighter very minimally, because he already has a similar option in the PHB2.

This does however, appear to make power attack a must-have feat.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Treebore

So why wouldn't just continuing this -2 on to the third and 4th iterative attacks not work?

Damage goes WAY up.

Or why wouldn't doing -4 for the third, and -6 for the 4th, and have them then offset by further level gain also work?

My goal is to eliminate different bonuses/penalties for iterative attacks, so that you can do the math once and roll in a batch.

Dropping down to just 2 attacks (period) is another marginal increase in speed at the table, but it's not the same imperative as normalizing the penalty.

[EricNoah]

Looks good to me. My DM allowed me to basically double my damage but only do one attack per round - my experience in that campaign was that I was hitting about 1-2 out of every 4 attacks. He also let me develop some special maneuvers I could do in lieu of more damage (including knocking my opponent back, damaging armor [AC permanently drops by 1 to 3 points depending on how much Power Attack I put into it - helps me help the rest of the party finally land a blow], and even shattering magical effects [expend a prepared dispel magic on a successful hit]).

[Treebore]

OK, so you don't see the extra fighter attacks as balancing their power against what spellcasters can do?

I mean 30 HP fireballs don't seem like much, but if they do 30 HP to 20 different targets mages can do 600 HP of damage per round. Granted, thats likely an unusually high example, but its meant more as an illustration of what I am asking about.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Treebore

OK, so you don't see the extra fighter attacks as balancing their power against what spellcasters can do?

Treebore, of course.

This is not the place to run through the probabilities-- they are long, they are complex, they are not message-board friendly. For some attack permutations, we are talking about 1 chance in 160,000.

Everything you need to know is in the first post. I will repeat it, not to hammer on you, but because I want everyone to be clear.

The fighter does not LOSE damage against 80-90% of all creatures. He GAINS damage. He GAINS damage even without his 3rd and 4th attack.

This change IMPROVES the fighter by increasing his damage against the bulk of foes he will ever face.

Let me repeat that:

A two-attack sequence of 0/0 has a greater expected damage output than a four-attack sequence of 0/-5/-10/-15 against most creatures you will ever encounter.

He will lose damage against the edge cases-- creatures with an AC so high you basically need a natural 20 to hit, and creatures with an AC so low you basically need a 1 to miss.

Most creatures in the SRD-- that is, 80%-90% of all creatures-- fall inside an expected AC range that does not include these edge cases.

But I am not willing to necessarily throw those edge cases away without sounding it out with other folks.

Is the trade-off worth it if there is a perceptible increase in combat resolution at your table? Even if occasionally you will come up against a creature that you would have done better against using the old method (3rd and 4th attack)?

[El Mahdi]

Other: Let's hear it!


Just eliminate Iterative Attacks.

Then...

Limit multiple attacks by monsters (only give them a second attack if they're originally listed as having multiple attacks, and then only if their first attack is successful).

and...

Decrease HP of monsters (whatever "feels" right, somewhere like 10% to 25%, depending on how dificult or "balanced" you want it).


This will also have the added benefit of making combat move faster, and make Feats like Cleave really mean something.

[Treebore]

So to sum up, your saying your analysis shows by hitting more often with that second attack they actually do more damage close to 90% of the time? I can believe that, because I felt my third and 4th attacks were all but useless to roll for. Like you said, you hardly ever hit with them, especially against encounters "of your level".

Sounds to me like the way to go.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Treebore

So to sum up, your saying your analysis shows by hitting more often with that second attack they actually do more damage close to 90% of the time? I can believe that, because I felt my third and 4th attacks were all but useless to roll for. Like you said, you hardly ever hit with them, especially against encounters "of your level".

Sounds to me like the way to go.

Extremely well put! That's it exactly.

[mmu1]

I think you should have had a "Yes, it's acceptable even though I still like iterative attacks as they are now." option.

That's how I feel, anyway - I'm pretty happy with how attacks work currently, but I'd be willing to consider an alternative provided it wasn't so simplified that you only ever got one attack per round (without using powers/special abilities).

I suppose the ideal thing from my point of view would be a system under which you still got up to 4 iterative attacks, but calculated in such a way that you'd be able to use the same modifer for all of them, but I doubt that the amount of overhauling required to make that happen would be practical - or even doable.

[Thondor]

I remember an Old thread (in 3e house rules) that basically established the idea that using the old 1e/2e rules for etra attacke created extremely similar average damage. Just proposing the idea that you could look at that.
Quick check in the (2e) Paladin's handbook: 7th level 2/3 attacks per round (eg 2 attacks in first round, 1 in secound etc) 13+ 2/round. I believe the fighter got these a level sooner then the paladin and ranger. The simplicity is that your attack roll doesn't change -- eg surprise round and standard action attacks are the same as when you get more attacks.
I have used this rule in a 3.5 game that got to 8th level. It does make things simpler. (I usually let the player decide what round they get their first 2 attacks)

[Runestar]

On a side note, does anyone have any suggestions on what they normally do with their iterative attacks, considering that you tend to miss quite frequently with them? Do you just pray that the dice roll your way, or is there a more efficient option for using them?

For example, tome of battle has the stormguard warrior feat. So a high lv fighter with said feat could convert his 3rd and 4th attack into touch attacks (deal no damage, but grant a small damage bonus on all his attacks for the next round). So unless your foe too has a very high touch AC, you shouldn't have any issues hitting with touch attacks.

Tripping could be made using your last attack (since for some reason, opposed trip checks ignore bab). Not sure if there is some justification for not initiating a trip on your first attack, given the +4 to-hit being prone grants (which applies to all your subsequent attacks). Sunder/disarm is out, given they involve opposed attack rolls.

Some other trick?

[kitsune9]

I like these discussions on iterative attacks. It's an interesting dilemma in that we know some of the inherent problems with having so many attacks per round, how the last attacks are basically useless, etc., etc.

In my campaign, even though it's a pain at high levels, we play iteratives as is so some of the players in my game by the time they reached 16th level, two weapon fighting, haste, etc, they do about 10 attacks in a single round I think.

My overall problem with iteratives is the high level aspect of it in slowing down the game. At the lower levels, it's not really a big deal.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by mmu1

I think you should have had a "Yes, it's acceptable even though I still like iterative attacks as they are now." option.

I did my best to tune the questions to provide an answer that helps me as a designer.

I suppose the ideal thing from my point of view would be a system under which you still got up to 4 iterative attacks, but calculated in such a way that you'd be able to use the same modifer for all of them, but I doubt that the amount of overhauling required to make that happen would be practical - or even doable.

The overhaul is not problematic at all. You look at the first attack entry in the Full Attack on the statblock, then subtract the modifier for the first and all iterative attacks. It's very easy to do on the fly.

Also, remember that we are talking about iterative attacks, and not multiple attacks. There is a difference. A claw/claw/bite routine is an example of multiple attacks.

In searching for a flat penalty, I also looked at -5/-5/-5 at 11th; and -7/-7/-7/-7 at 16th. They also "work" but they expanded the size of the upper edge cases. In other words, they redefine "Really hard creatures to hit" down from needing a natural 18 to hit, to needing a natural 13 to hit. (There's one creature at the 18+ mark: The svirfneblin. There are scores of creatures at 13+. Big difference.)

Originally Posted by Thondor

I remember an Old thread (in 3e house rules) that basically established the idea that using the old 1e/2e rules for extra attacks created extremely similar average damage. Just proposing the idea that you could look at that.

I remember that rule well.

I will look at it out of curiosity, but I always hated having to remember whether I was on a 1-attack round or a 2-attack round. It was as annoying as 1-2-1 counting for movement.

Originally Posted by Runestar

On a side note, does anyone have any suggestions on what they normally do with their iterative attacks, considering that you tend to miss quite frequently with them? Do you just pray that the dice roll your way, or is there a more efficient option for using them?

Originally Posted by kitsune9

I like these discussions on iterative attacks. It's an interesting dilemma in that we know some of the inherent problems with having so many attacks per round, how the last attacks are basically useless, etc., etc.

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.")

Tripping could be made using your last attack (since for some reason, opposed trip checks ignore bab). Not sure if there is some justification for not initiating a trip on your first attack, given the +4 to-hit being prone grants (which applies to all your subsequent attacks). Sunder/disarm is out, given they involve opposed attack rolls.

Well, now, that's another issue entirely. Pathfinder has a good leg up on Combat Maneuvers but I would like to see them made more useful.

[Wulf Ratbane]

I wish there was a poll option where I could make the respondents viewable to the poll starter but not the public.

I'd like to ask the "Unacceptable" folks some follow-ups.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

If your expected damage over the range of 80-90% of all creatures you will encounter will INCREASE by 5 to 20%, would you be willing to lose your 3rd and 4th attack, and accept a DECREASE against the "edge case" creatures (very high AC or very low AC)?

Yes, this seems like a very good way of handling it. One question - how do you handle two-weapon fighters in this case? A ranger with six attacks (3 with each hand)?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne

Yes, this seems like a very good way of handling it. One question - how do you handle two-weapon fighters in this case? A ranger with six attacks (3 with each hand)?

The TWF feats are designed to let your off-hand mimic what your main hand is doing at the same bonus for the same iterative attack. Mechanically, that wouldn't change.

Since your main hand isn't making a 3rd or 4th attack, Greater and Superior TWF would go away-- or need to be altered (e.g., lessening the off-hand penalties by 1 each).

[The Black Kestrel]

Wulf,

I'm at toss up. I was happy with the Pathfinder solution to iterative attacks (Vital Strike and Imp. Vital Strike) which essentially fixes your attacks at 11th level and beyond to 0,-5 with a damage boost (1 extra die of damage or two extra dice of damage). I like that you retain the option of additional iterative attacks for the "edge" opponents with the Pathfinder solution. I'm also curious if you have modeled the PF solution versus yours and how it turns out from a hit perspective and from a damage perspective.

So for now, I'm unable to vote.

P.S. Get cracking on Trailblazer

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by The Black Kestrel

Wulf,

I'm at toss up. I was happy with the Pathfinder solution to iterative attacks (Vital Strike and Imp. Vital Strike) which essentially fixes your attacks at 11th level and beyond to 0,-5 with a damage boost (1 extra die of damage or two extra dice of damage).

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 like that you retain the option of additional iterative attacks for the "edge" opponents with the Pathfinder solution.

Well of course you do! Who wouldn't like to choose the best possible expectation at all times?

I'm wary of Spreadsheet Warriors who keep a tally of exactly when they are better off using Attack Mode A or Attack Mode B.

I'm also curious if you have modeled the PF solution versus yours and how it turns out from a hit perspective and from a damage perspective.

Just eyeballing it I can tell you that can't replace an unknown amount of damage (flaming? high STR? sneak attack?) with a known amount of damage (weapon average damage) and expect it to "work out."

Basically, given the choice, you will always use Vital Strike if the damage expectation exceeds the expectation on your third attack.

If Vital Strike adds 9 damage (on average, considering 1d8 base weapon that yields a 2d8 boost) then you will use Vital Strike anytime that:

9 > (3rd attack probability)*(3rd attack average damage).

If your third attack has a 5% chance of hitting (nat 20), you'd need to be averaging 180 damage per attack to equal Vital Strike. (Not likely...)

Conversely if your 3rd attack hits 50% of the time, you'd only need to be averaging 18 damage-- trivial for most fighters and rogues.

You can do the math in reverse. If you know that your holy flaming longsword sneak attack averages 40 damage, then you know you want to use it anytime your chance to hit on your third attack exceeds 9/40, or 22.5% (ie, you hit on a natural 16 or better).

If you need a natural 17 or better, go with Vital Strike.

Speaking, admittedly, as a lazy designer who is just eye-balling it, I conclude that Vital Strike is lazy design and Jason just eye-balled it.

P.S. Get cracking on Trailblazer.

Dude, this IS cracking on Trailblazer.