Full round attacks

[Sadrik]

So, the game breaks down at a certain level because attack modifiers along with an attack routine of +16/+11/+6/+1. It simply becomes too ridiculous with amount of time you put into rolling your attacks and off hand attacks and different modifiers with each attack and then going into damage modifiers and dice for flaming frost shock etc. A major revision imho needs to strike down all of this non-sense. I played a 16th level shield bashing dwarven defender and it took me 15 minutes just to go through my attack routines and deal damage. Change needs to happen in this area, what are your suggestions?

Not to mention the imperative to stay still to get your massive swingage of carnage off is too great. One attack and move + AoO or stay still and swing four or more attacks... the answer is simple.

 

[StormingMarcus]

The best I can think of is to have only one attack, with increasing bonus to damage based on level (or BAB); two weapons let you choose which to use and give you a little damage bonus.

 

[Bladesinger_Boy]

Manyshot, attacks string, fewer rolls

I think limiting things to one attack roll might better, but this needs to balanced power-wise so it's not simply a kick in the pants for fighter types.

I like the philosophy of Manyshot: -2 per attack combined, and the x1 per attacks (w/o precise damage bonuses). So, two attacks is -4 to hit at x2 damage, three attacks in -6 to hit at x3 damage, four attacks is -8 to hit at x4 damage. Manyshot caps at four integrated attacks (unless there some epic feat that allows a fifth or further attacks... I don't know, is there?).

So, some ideas:
- per "string" of attacks (if we see iterative attacks at -0, -5, -10 BAB, a string being all attacks at the same base penalty, so for example, all -0 attacks are one string, all -5 attacks are another sting, all -10 are another string), only one roll is made. Characters get one attack per tier. So, even a 21st level Two Weapon Fighter would only make 3 attack rolls.
Handling how to integrate damage might be harder. Basically, in the example of TWFing, each attack roll represent both a combined primary and off hand attack. I guess that means you would just combine the damage of both. So, an 14 str ranger with a +2 flaming Longsword and +1 shocking shortsword would do d8+d6+4 (longsword) and d6+d6+2.
But that brings up the question: if we integrate attacks from one string all together, how do we determine overall attacks bonuses: higher of either attack, lower of either attack, higher attack -2 or -1 or -?
- How do we differentiate the penalties for "light" weapons TWF and full "one-handed" weapons TWF?

I posted a message here on the Project: Phoenix boards that relates to this Project Phoenix General: Tiers, BAB & iterative attacks, non-epic into epic
I spitballed some ideas there about one attack per tier, how to deal with TWF or Flurry of blows, and better ways to other extra enchanted attacks like from haste. Here is some of the gristle:

TABLE B 3x2 non-hasted
_____________Regular Atk Pattern____TWF/Flurry Pattern
first string attacks:…… -0 …………………………. -0
second string attacks:.. -5 …………………………. -5
third string attacks:….. -10 ………………………… -10


TABLE C 3x2 hasted
_____________Regular Atk Pattern____TWF/Flurry Pattern
first string attacks:…… -0 …………………………. -0
second string attacks:.. -0 …………………………. -0
third string attacks:….. -0 …………………………. -0

Basically...
- characters would get one attack per tier (one at 1st, two at 11th, three at 21st)
- effects like haste would, rather than granting additional attacks, supplement the lower than -0 attacks up to only -0 penalties. It's more like all of your attacks being at your highest BAB instead of granting extra attacks. Maybe that's too powerful at higher levels and we should create things like "lesser haste" that only grant that "up to -0 penalty" bonus to only one attack and "greater haste" that would affect all attacks. As said, haste would only become useful to 11th+ level character if this happened.

If TWF is two attacks per tier (even if they're integrated into one attack roll), is it fair to integrate two attacks per tier into Manyshot? Does that empower archers too much? Would the attack penalties or other parameters need to be reworked?

I like the idea that standard attacks, even though they should only use one attack roll, could integrate the damage of two attacks to proper facilitate TWF/Flurry characters. This might require more work in differentiating standard attacks from charges or spring attacks (as we don't want charging to be too powerful).

Anyway, ideas, reactions, comments?

 

[StormingMarcus]

I've only skimmed through it, but it seems not so simple as I'd like.
If you limit only to 1 attack per round, consider another option: when the character would be able to make 2 attacks, her attack deals 2[w], when 3 attacks --> 3[w] and so on.

 

[Sadrik]

Bladesinger boy I am not sure I follow completely.

Storming markus I don't like the 2[w] for the same reasons I don't like it in 4e it puts too much emphasis on using the highest damage die possible. when you are doubling tripling your weapon damage die it makes even a small increase in damage die much more dramatic than was intended with the weapon. For instance dagger vs. great sword 3d4 vs. 6d6 is a lot compared to 1d4 vs. 2d6. ymmv.

 

[Sadrik]

Well, lets back this up a bit. How do monsters work? They don't get multiple attacks except by having multiple natural attacks. So characters should work that way too. I don't like exceptions like if you have a class you get multiple attacks it makes leveling up monsters with classes funky anyway.

Clearly a fighter making one attack a round and dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 8 at 12th level is pretty unacceptable (+3 flaming sword with a 20 STR). The damage is also highly dependent upon the gear the fighter has.

The optimal change would be one that is very easy to plug into the 3.5 system and ultimately does not create an exception to monsters and how they play out. Two weapon fighting feat works just like:

Multiattack [General]
Prerequisite
Three or more natural attacks.
Benefit
The creature’s secondary attacks with natural weapons take only a -2 penalty.
Normal
Without this feat, the creature’s secondary attacks with natural weapons take a -5 penalty.

I would replace two weapon fighting with this feat. It is simple and does not have extra modifiers. Fight with two weapons -5 with the feat -2, period. Tack on the improved version and you have no need for other feats.

Improved Multiattack [General]
Prerequisite
Three or more natural weapons, Multiattack
Benefit
The creature’s secondary attacks with natural weapons have no penalty. They still add only one-half the creature’s Strength bonus, if any, to damage dealt.
Normal
Without this feat, the creature’s secondary natural attacks have a -5 penalty (or a -2 penalty if it has the Multiattack feat).

Now as far as fighting with one weapon and attacking with it multiple times I think that flurry of blows does an excellent job of that. Why not simply make that a feat with a BAB requirement of +6? Of course the monk gets this as a bonus feat. Then add in improved flurry that removes the -2 or gives -4 for three attacks not sure which one mathematically and game time sink is better. Either way though you can roll all three of your d20s at once and determine if they hit without having to recalculate your boni on each successive roll.

On the flip side the feats could be available for monsters too so watch out for killer dragons with improved multiattack and improved flurry!

Additionally it might make the most sense to give a few extra feats so that these don't feel like a feat tax. I do think making them feats is better than straight up class features because then monsters don't have to be exceptions. So perhaps feats every odd level instead of every third level (+3 feats over the 20 level course).

 

[Bladesinger_Boy]

Storming Marcus wants only one attack roll per round, even if it does 3w or such-and-such more damage than a normal single attack.

Okay, Sadrick, are you comments in line with the "single attack roll" camp, or similar to my original idea of one attack roll per string (whether TWFing or not)? I'm ambivalent to making only one attacks roll per round because I think it weakens precision-based damage like sneak attack and it empowers too much effects like True Strike, Hunter's Mercy, etc (one mega attack roll).

We also seem to be on the same page that, even if we are rolling multiple attack rolls still, using the same bonus is easier because we can roll them simultaneously more easily. But Sadrick, you want fighter types to spend a feat to get their additional attacks? I'm not down with that. Mages don't have to spend feats to get their 5th or 7th or 9th level spells; it just happens because you're a such-and-such level mage.

So, lets list some data and then try to string this all together.
- You get one attack naturally, and that never increases w/o further feats
- You can take an off-hand attack (or secondary attack) and that attack only suffers a -5 penalty to hit
- with MULTIATTACK, that offhand/secondary attack is only at -2 to hit
- with IMP MULTIATTCK, that offhand/secondary attack is only at -0 to hit

And for Flurry...
- FLURRY feat (or 11th lvl paragon tier) grants the option of -2 to hit with all hands to gain an extra primary attack
- IMP FLURRY feat (or 21st lvl paragon tier) grants the option of -5 to hit with all hands to gain two extra primary attacks

Here's the problem I see, Sadrick: if we don't keep TWF on parr with # of offhand attacks, two-handed weapon with their flurry of 3 attacks will easily surpass TWFing with it's 3 primary and 1 offhand attack. Make sense? We could change them to say...

- FLURRY feat (or 11th lvl paragon tier) grants the option of -2 to hit with all hands to gain an extra attack with all hands
- IMP FLURRY feat (or 21st lvl paragon tier) grants the option of -5 to hit with all hands to gain two extra attacks with all hands

I think all of the attacks for one hand should be rolled into one attack roll with beefed up damage. Let it do x2 and x3 damage respectively. So, you'd roll one attack for your primary hand and take a -5 to do x3 damage, and likewise with the offhand for -5 for x3 damage. Each hand only gets precision damage once.

Did I have your flurry idea right at all?

In terms of amount of feats and granting more, I go by the Pathfinder rules. Bonus feats at 1st level and every 2 levels thereafter, so 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th,... This also helps for using "tiers" as they'll always get a bonus feat at the same time as they unlock a new tier of feats.

 

[Sadrik]

I think you have it.

You are right in the fact that TWF would not be as good as Flurry. The only thing is that Flurry has a BAB req of +6 (the monk would get it early and not be required to fulfill the requirements). So the two weapon fighter has the ability to have multiple attacks from level 1-5 and at level 6 could also take flurry. So they would be making many more attacks but not hit as hard as the flurrying greatsword fighter.

All monsters/characters and creatures would be -5 to hit with all weapons or natural attacks. With the multi-attack feat it would lower all the attacks penalties to -2 with improved it would lower to -0.

Flurry would be -2 for two attacks with your primary weapon. So a character with multi-attack and flurry could make two primary attacks at -4 and one secondary off hand attack at -4 too. The player simply designates one of his dice as the off hand attack and rolls 3d20 and determines what hits. Secondary attacks all do 1/2 strength damage and not full strength as a primary attack.

This seems very simple and intuitive. What do you think?

 

[Bladesinger_Boy]

don't knock yourself out for Multiattack

2 points

1) I don't think you're getting why TWF sucking is a prob. Two-Handed weapons getting three super attacks, with TWF fighter types getting three mediocre attacks and one crappy attack is not fair, should not be designed. We can't weaken TWF like that.

When I'm saying Two Weapon Fighting here, I'm talking broadly about fighting with two weapons and how those mechanics work. Not necessarily the "Two Weapon Fighting" feat. Just an FYI so we're on the same level.

Maybe Two Weapon Fighting works like this:
- you have two weapons, one in each hand
- your offhand damage is rolled together into the same attack roll of your primary attack
- use 1/2 your strength mod
- only apply precision damage like sneak attack once (that has been a niche in the past for TWFing types so maybe some way to change that- feat or something)
- use the lower attack between what would be your primary hand and your off hand bonuses (ex: if you have a +4 longsword in your primary hand and gain a +14 bonus overall, while your off hand is a +2 shortsword at a +12 bonus, so you make the single attack roll at +12)

Actually, as much as I did mention that fewer attack rolls meant empower single attack buffing effect like True Strike or Hunter's Mercy, it will also empower tactics stuff like feinting and then sneak attacking an opponent. Or charging. Or effects that are next attack only.

2) We want to reduce and consolidate the overall number of attack rolls made. So we want to avoid 6 or especially 8 or 10 attacks per round. Monsters follow their own trends in terms if number of attacks, damage, etc. Look at Dragons: bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, 1 tail slap. Mariliths: like 6 arms at like 4 attacks each = 24 attacks (if I remember correctly). This will fix like the Mariliths four attacks per arm. But the fact that Dragons or Marilth still haver six different arms to attack with shows you there on a whole different scaling system. So don't knock yourself out trying to get PC mechanics to work when reverse engineering NPC rules. Multiattack, flurry... these are just ideas. I like the intention of fewer, simplier rules but I suspect Multiattack cannot be wok into proper PC TWFing.

 

[Sadrik]

I am really kind of digging the idea of multi-attack and flurry.

Multi-attack works slightly different with monsters. With monsters you have -0 to hit with your primary attack and -5 to hit with your secondary attacks. With the multi-attack feat you lower the penalty of the secondary attacks to -2.

To make this feat universal for characters and monsters. Add a clause that says that says monsters with a primary attacks suffer -0 for those attacks. Or better yet you could say that fighting with 2 weapons the attacks are considered secondary attacks.

1st level fighter with long and short sword, multi-attack and 18 STR
-2 to hit
1d8 + 4
1d6 + 2

1st level fighter with greatsword, weapon focus and 18 STR
+1 to hit
2d6+6

At 6th long and short sword, multi-attack, flurry and 18 STR
-4 to hit
1d8 + 4
1d8 + 4
1d6 + 2

At 6th greatsword, weapon focus, flurry and 18 STR
-1 to hit
2d6+6
2d6+6

Okay, I see what you mean. It sucks to spend a feat and then be worse that the 2 handed weapon fighter. Hmm, how do we get similar results from utilizing flurry and multi-attack.

Perhaps full strength on the secondary attacks or Flurry feat flurrys both hands for 4 attacks. What about dual long swords and other 1-handed weapons could they be options? then you would be doing 2d8 damage rather than 1d8+1d6.

However, what can you do to make more attacks be effective? Shield as your off hand weapon is very powerful, double weapons add 1.5 STR to both weapon ends, also getting multiple sneak attacks in is also very powerful. Could it simply be a suboptimal strategy with the caveat that it is powerful with certain builds? Is that acceptable?

Regardless I think it is weak and needs a boost.


Btw, here is what the greater flurry would do (straight from monk):

Greater Flurry
When a monk reaches 11th level, her flurry of blows ability improves. In addition to the standard single extra attack she gets from flurry of blows, she gets a second extra attack at her full base attack bonus.

Note that the Greater Flurry would have a +11 BAB requirement.