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.
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.")
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?
Now that you mention it...
Four attacks on max Power Attack later, the thing was modern art.
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.
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.
But this [making lots of use of extra attacks] makes their turns take forever at higher levels.
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.)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."