Epic Advice Column
Chill pill, WD. The man's opinion isn't wrong - it's his opinion: if someone thinks iteratives are clunky than they think iteratives are clunky. Now whether the opinion has merit in an objective discussion is a different animal.
By and large, you're right about people who can't deal with knocking off 5 from each attack (or simply increasing their To Hit/target roll by +5 for each attack) shouldn't be dealing with epic or even high-level characters.
In the long run, multiple attacks are really only increasing your statistical average damage versus a variable AC. If someone really wanted to get rid of that mechanic, they'd have to get rid of that variable AC... that would be tantamount to getting rid of the attack roll. If that was to happen, you'd end up with something like... percentage of what we're familiar with in terms of weapon damage in a single value for Standard Attack and another (slightly larger) value for Full Attack. So, instead of having a +x/+x-5/+x-10 or whatever, you'd have Damage+Damage*.75+Damage*.5+Damage*.25|Damage is considerably less than in the RAW, since it'd be automatic.
You tell me: which is clunkier?
By and large, you're right about people who can't deal with knocking off 5 from each attack (or simply increasing their To Hit/target roll by +5 for each attack) shouldn't be dealing with epic or even high-level characters.
In the long run, multiple attacks are really only increasing your statistical average damage versus a variable AC. If someone really wanted to get rid of that mechanic, they'd have to get rid of that variable AC... that would be tantamount to getting rid of the attack roll. If that was to happen, you'd end up with something like... percentage of what we're familiar with in terms of weapon damage in a single value for Standard Attack and another (slightly larger) value for Full Attack. So, instead of having a +x/+x-5/+x-10 or whatever, you'd have Damage+Damage*.75+Damage*.5+Damage*.25|Damage is considerably less than in the RAW, since it'd be automatic.
You tell me: which is clunkier?
Last edited:
Clunky is as clunky does. I think it's far, far clunkier to fix what isn't broken in the most widely accepted baseline of the game, i.e., the core rules. Iterative attacks are one of the base assumptions of combat in the game, and getting rid of them is giving melee characters the shaft once again.
And I have no idea what you were trying to communicate in the second paragraph.
And I have no idea what you were trying to communicate in the second paragraph.
Upper_Krust
Hero
Hey WarDragon mate! 
Its the difference between making a knockout punch and throwing a succession of jabs. Taking your time to weigh an opponent up and make a measured assault should result in a more telling blow.
What you could legitamately argue is that such tactics are probably more strength based than skill based, but the simple fact of the matter is that in D&D, strength parallels skill by giving a bonus to hit, and reducing damage to make multiple attacks* is possibly too alien a concept...although it might be worth looking into the more I think about it.
*Which we are indirectly doing anyway via reducing the opportunity for Power Attack.
Staggered iterative attacks IS more clunky than what I propose. Now you can say well the difference isn't that great - fair enough, but THERE IS a difference. Ergo it IS more clunky and I'm right - you're wrong.
WarDragon said:
Its the difference between making a knockout punch and throwing a succession of jabs. Taking your time to weigh an opponent up and make a measured assault should result in a more telling blow.
What you could legitamately argue is that such tactics are probably more strength based than skill based, but the simple fact of the matter is that in D&D, strength parallels skill by giving a bonus to hit, and reducing damage to make multiple attacks* is possibly too alien a concept...although it might be worth looking into the more I think about it.
*Which we are indirectly doing anyway via reducing the opportunity for Power Attack.
WarDragon said:
Staggered iterative attacks IS more clunky than what I propose. Now you can say well the difference isn't that great - fair enough, but THERE IS a difference. Ergo it IS more clunky and I'm right - you're wrong.
WarDragon said:
It's simple, even if my explanation isn't.
Since each 'attack' isn't necessarily a 'swing' of the weapon, iterative attacks (i.e. more attacks per round) are really just net increases to the statistical average damage a fighter puts out every round, yes? And that average is determined by their percentage chance to hit the target AC.
In a world where you want to get rid of that relationship between attack and AC, you'd have to reduce all attacks to mere damage values that happen regardless of that the target's AC might be, but are only affected by the target's damage reduction. And given that iterative attacks statistically deal less damage than the primary attack (because each iterative hits 25% less often), you could simply say that anytime a fighter makes a standard attack, he deals Damage X, such that X equals his base damage minus the target's DR; anytime he makes a full attack, he deals X, +.75X (first iterative), +.5X (second iterative), and so on.
It's not a good idea, per se, but it's what you'd get in a world where the relationship between attacks and AC weren't what they are.
Except.... it doesn't, in D&D. Even with the change you proposed.Upper_Krust said:
Why not just make a feat that lets people sacrifice attacks to increase the damage of their main one? It accomplishes what you want, without screwing fighter-types over even more than WotC does, which is the only net effect of dropping iterative attacks altogether.
We'll have to agree to disagree in this case. But regardless, clunkiness is the lesser of two evils here; how is a little bit of simple math so much worse than cutting melee damage output by anywhere up to half?Staggered iterative attacks IS more clunky than what I propose. Now you can say well the difference isn't that great - fair enough, but THERE IS a difference. Ergo it IS more clunky and I'm right - you're wrong.
Why is clunkyness a mechanical reason to get rid of something?Upper_Krust said:Staggered iterative attacks IS more clunky than what I propose. Now you can say well the difference isn't that great - fair enough, but THERE IS a difference. Ergo it IS more clunky and I'm right - you're wrong.
Upper_Krust
Hero
Hi WarDragon mate!
Indirectly it does (via power attack), but this is why I mentioned its more of a strength/damage thing.
I was thinking of an ability that would let you deal +50% damage per attack sacrificed.
But lets remember this is only an optional Fighter Class, on the website. Its not something I am pushing to change at all, nor is it something I am pushing in the Immortals Handbook. Its simply 'food for thought'.
I think despite the temporary lag from the BAB reduction using my system, overall it still does deal statistically better damage. So you can't claim at any point damage output will be less, let alone half as much.
WarDragon said:
Indirectly it does (via power attack), but this is why I mentioned its more of a strength/damage thing.
WarDragon said:
I was thinking of an ability that would let you deal +50% damage per attack sacrificed.
But lets remember this is only an optional Fighter Class, on the website. Its not something I am pushing to change at all, nor is it something I am pushing in the Immortals Handbook. Its simply 'food for thought'.
WarDragon said:
I think despite the temporary lag from the BAB reduction using my system, overall it still does deal statistically better damage. So you can't claim at any point damage output will be less, let alone half as much.
