Iterative Attacks

[freyar]

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.

How is it worse just to get fewer attacks if those attacks are actually worth more? From Wulf's simulations, the average damage is actually higher in most cases for his system.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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?

Here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...n/248004-iterative-attacks-4.html#post4629723

(You may have overlooked it because I was brief.)

 

[Qualidar]

Coming in a bit late to the discussion, but I was thinking about the edge cases this morning: at what point could you add and extra attack (or 2), balanced by a penalty, and have it equal out to the old expected damage output with the iterative attacks?

I'm wondering if having the option to start wildly swinging would work: 3 attacks at -10 each or four attacks at -15 (or whatever statistically works) as an alternative for when you just need to swing for the fences against a horde of low level orcs or a powerful dragon you need to get lucky to hit.

 

[Quartz]

Here's another edge case: what about the character who goes for the Spring Attack tree? They can eventually get 4 attacks too, each separated by movement. This is the sort of character who takes a shot or two at the BBEG then leaps away to hammer a mook. A high-level monk with this - or worse, a high level monk with a few fighter levels - is just plain nasty.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Here's another edge case: what about the character who goes for the Spring Attack tree? They can eventually get 4 attacks too, each separated by movement. This is the sort of character who takes a shot or two at the BBEG then leaps away to hammer a mook. A high-level monk with this - or worse, a high level monk with a few fighter levels - is just plain nasty.

How does anyone get more than one attack while moving and forgoing a full attack action?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

How does anyone get more than one attack while moving and forgoing a full attack action?

There's a couple of feats that allow this in Player's Handbook II. Bounding Assault allows two attacks during a spring attack. Another feat allows a third, and so on.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

My experience with multiple attacks wasn't that there was a problem for fighter attacks; there was a huge problem when special actions were added.

For example: The combination of Whip + Rapid Shot (why, oh why?) + Haste + This is a touch attack + Followup Trip Confirmation Roll. Then add on to that: Crack of Fate + Splat book extra attack. Then: AOO for standing up + Combat Reflexes. We had a player who could use more of the resolution time than all of the other players combined. He did awesomely hold off a huge horde of goblins, orcs, ogres, and giants, at a choke point, but it wasn't fair to the other players how much time he used.

My fix for this is to make special attacks (e.g., Power Attack and Trip) standard actions and be done with it.

Would you consider simply adopting flurry of blows as a single unified mechanic for making multiple attacks?

Also: Can we answer what is the basis for multiple attacks in the first place? What immersion are we trying to engender?

Also: Wasn't the combat round a lot longer in 1E? I think the justification for multiple attacks is reduced because of the shortening of rounds.

I do like this probabilistic argument for multiple attacks (which subsumes Cleave): For a portion of your round, if you miss someone, then you used all of your effort in that portion of the round to try for a hit, and you were unable to succeed. You ought not to get an additional attack. If you do get a hit, then chances are you expended less than your full effort on that attack, and you should get a followup attack (with a subtraction, since you only have so much effort left over). I would still want to allow you to divide your effort to make several less focused attacks.

Has anyone put the range of combat options on an axis:

Power Attack (-hit +dmg)
Normal Attack
Precise Attack (+hit -dmg) [don't think this currently exists]
Defensive Attack (-hit +ac) [Weapon Finesse, Fight Defensively, Full Defense]
Light Attack (extra attack, -hit) [Flurry of Blows]

Edit: Ok, here is a question: When going from a single attack (@+5BAB) to a second attack (@+6BAB) how much does that change your damage output? How much of an attack bonus is that equivalent to? Also, I can imagine that the maths work our very differently at this point if multiple attacks are disallowed, or are reduced.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Would you consider simply adopting flurry of blows as a single unified mechanic for making multiple attacks?

Good catch-- that's pretty much exactly what I have done.

Also: Can we answer what is the basis for multiple attacks in the first place? What immersion are we trying to engender?

For me it's a mechanics/balance issue. The fighter types need damage output at high levels.

 

[tomBitonti]

I keep getting back to a number of fundamental changes that 3E introduced. My understanding is that melee damage was increased in order to give fighters greater damage output, so to allow them to compete better with spell casters.

Looking at the primary sources of damage at higher levels, I can see:

From 1e:

Sword base damage: 1d8
Possible Magical Add: +0 to +5
Possible Strength Add: +0 to +8 (what is the high end here)
Damage multiplier from iterative attacks: x1 to x4?? (I don't remember the high end from 1E)
Sneak Attack: +0 to +xd6 (don't know the high end)

From 3e:

Add Power Attack: +0 to +40, per attack
Add Higher Strength: up to +13 (Half-Orc barbarian: 36 == 20 + 4 + 6 + 6)
Add Criticals: +0 to +90 (for a x3 battleaxe from a raging barbarian with improved critical)
Add Multiple Sneak Attacks

I'm thinking that where this goes wrong is with the combination of the damage adds with iterative attacks, which gives you a non-trivial second-order add to damage.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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).

OK, so just to be sure I'm getting this straight:

A Ranger (or any fighter with 2-wpn fighting) would look like this:

6th level (2-wpn fighting)
+2/+2/+2/+2 (+6 BAB, -2 to attack for multiple attacks, -2 for 2-wpn fighting, extra off-hand attack due to Improved 2-wpn fighting)

11th level (assuming no adjusted greater 2-wpn fighting)
+8/+8/+8/+8 (+11 BAB, -1 to attack for multiple attacks, -2 for 2-wpn fighting, extra off-hand attack due to Improved 2-wpn fighting)

16th level (same asumptions)
+14/+14/+14/+14 (+16 BAB, -0 to attack for multiple attacks, -2 for 2-wpn fighting, extra off-hand attack due to Improved 2-wpn fighting)

Incidentally, I like the idea of altering Greater and Superior TWF in the manner you propose.