Iterative Attacks

Galloglaich · Jan 21, 2009

Wulf Ratbane said:
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.

I selected "Other": I agree iterative attacks is a clumsy rule: use the Martial Pool instead.

Give your players a Martial Pool dice at a certain rate, say one at first level plus one per every 3 BaB. (Or alternately do as we do and give them one per BaB with a cap at 4th level)

Then once they have say two Martial Pool, that means two dice, with no extra bonus ove their BaB, but they can choose to either attack twice with one die each, or attack one time using both dice and keeping the highest roll. This is called a "roll many / keep one" system. It improves their average die roll by about +4, doubles their chance of getting a natural 20, and all but eliminates their chance of getting a fumble (all of this increases with more and more dice). You can also give them multipliers on critical hit damage, one per dice they rolled.

If you are using armor as damage reduction you can have even more fun with this by letting them use their MP for active defense die rolls.

This eliminates all that useless arithmetic, and also allows you basically replace things like full attack option, tracking the number of AoO, fighting defensively, etc. etc. just by weighing the dice in your hand instead of doing a bunch of math.

It's much more intuitive, more cinematic / dramatic and also faster IMO.

G.

Max Money AWA · Feb 13, 2009

OK Have only read the first page so forgive me. (I'll edit this after I read the rest)

I like old school combat. In First Edition and 2nd Ed AD&D, the fighter-types could make more than one attack per round (that was one of the things that set them apart from the rest of the classes). What about changing the OP set-up to this:

* Most classes can make more than one attack with a -2 penalty when the BAB for the class reaches +6. Period. No getting better, no dropping off. Just the way you have it.

* The fighter-type classes get a bonus of +1 at 11th level and another one at 16th level (basically the same as the OP) and capping the number of attacks per round at 3 and not four.

One related question, how do you deal with movement in a round when making a full attack in this set-up?

I also like the idea of dropping back a bit with critter hit points as well.

Wulf Ratbane · Feb 13, 2009

Hey Max!

Read on... Most of what you ask for is covered in the thread (and my proposal).

GlassEye · Feb 13, 2009

Your system (which seems quite accessible and easy to me) describes an extra attack at 6th level then decreasing the negative modifier at 11th level and 16th level. Is this for all characters or just the fighting types? Would it make much of a difference (or was it your intent) that the extra attack and decreases to penalty occur at +6 BAB, +11 BAB, and +16 BAB?

Wulf Ratbane · Feb 14, 2009

GlassEye said:
Your system (which seems quite accessible and easy to me) describes an extra attack at 6th level then decreasing the negative modifier at 11th level and 16th level. Is this for all characters or just the fighting types? Would it make much of a difference (or was it your intent) that the extra attack and decreases to penalty occur at +6 BAB, +11 BAB, and +16 BAB?

All characters-- it's based on BAB.

But note that wizards will only achieve +10 BAB, and Clerics/Rogues +15.

GlassEye · Feb 14, 2009

Thanks for the clarification. I like this; it sounds like a very workable fix. I plan on bringing it up at my tabletop game and seeing if they'd be willing to give it a shot.

Runestar · Feb 14, 2009

Has anyone tried implementing a manyshot variant for melee attacks? Maybe you can make all your attacks as a standard or full action, but you take an attack penalty. How might it work? I think it may be a tad too strong (it is okay for ranged since archers are already virtually assured of full attacks regardless of where they stand on the battlefield, but it is harder for melee to ensure that they can consistently make full attacks while staying within reach of their foes).

But then, warblades and swordsages can initiate diamond blade nightmare at lv15+, so it doesn't quite seem as bad...

Max Money AWA · Feb 16, 2009

Max Money AWA said:
One related question, how do you deal with movement in a round when making a full attack in this set-up?

I also like the idea of dropping back a bit with critter hit points as well.

Wulf Ratbane said:
Hey Max!

Read on... Most of what you ask for is covered in the thread (and my proposal).

Read through the whole thread and didn't really find anything on how you run movement and full attacks.

Do you run it old school and full movement with full attacks, or do you only allow partial movement (something less than a full move) with full attacks?

genshou · Feb 17, 2009

Since no change is proposed, assume the standard rules apply. Any time you are making more than one attack, you must take a full attack action unless a special ability or feat states otherwise.

Max Money AWA · Feb 17, 2009

genshou said:
Since no change is proposed, assume the standard rules apply. Any time you are making more than one attack, you must take a full attack action unless a special ability or feat states otherwise.

So now a full-attack action is worse than before, if what you say is true, because you get one or two less attacks and can only take a five foot step in that round. <looks for the Mr. Yuck face>

If you are going to use this version of iterative attacks, then up to normal movement should be allowed.

Iterative Attacks

Is the proposed trade-off acceptable?

YES. Iterative attacks need streamlining, this will work.

NO. Iterative attacks need fixing, but this isn't acceptable.

NO. I never had a problem with iterative attacks anyway.

Other: Let's hear it!

Galloglaich

First Post

Max Money AWA

First Post

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer

GlassEye

Adventurer

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer

GlassEye

Adventurer

Runestar

First Post

Max Money AWA

First Post

genshou

First Post

Max Money AWA

First Post

Similar Threads