Iterative Attacks

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.

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)

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?

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.

mmu1 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

Thondor said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Runestar said:

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?

Click to expand...

kitsune9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Wulf Ratbane said:

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)?

Click to expand...

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)?

Kid Charlemagne said:

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)?

Click to expand...

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).

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

The Black Kestrel said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Dude, this IS cracking on Trailblazer.