Reducing iterative attacks

[Kerrick]

I played around this idea back when I first started working on PP, but I couldn't come to a satisfactory solution and dropped it. Pathfinder's working on the combat section now, and the issue has come back up. People are trotting out the usual arguments - too much die rolling, the lowest attacks are a waste of time since they almost always miss, etc. - but they are valid, so I thought I'd revisit this one.

I was thinking that instead of getting a new attack at +5, +10, etc., it would be +6, +12, and +18 - the most you get is 3 attacks. This has several effects:

a) Fighters (who still advance faster than everyone else) would get to enjoy some time with their extra attack, instead of gaining the 4th one at L20, where most groups end the campaign.

b) Obviously, there's less die rolling, which makes for quicker combats.

c) Fewer attacks with TWF.

Now, you might say that mid-BAB classes would never get a 3rd attack. And you'd be right... except I came up with a fix for the EAB issue. See, I figured out that if you don't roll over to EAB until you hit +20, everything balances out - a Ftr 20/Wiz 20 and a Wiz 20/Ftr 20 have the same BAB. Thus, everyone will eventually get 3 attacks.

I'm also considering giving monks a high BAB (whether or not I go with this rule). They're effectively unarmed fighters, and reducing the iterative scale would hurt them. Giving them a high BAB would mitigate the ever-popular "flurry of misses", making them more effective combatants.

Thoughts?

 

[Hawken]

What about eliminating iterative attacks altogether?

What I mean is that instead of getting extra attacks at +6, +11 and +16--I don't know anything about that +5, +10 stuff, so I'm going by 3.5 raw here--you get an extra die of damage with a successful attack.

So, at +6 BAB, the character gets to add an extra die to his damage roll. If he's using a dagger, he does 2d4 damage; longsword, 2d8; then add in whatever modifiers. The second die represents an extra attack , so damage from external sources (such as the Shock property of an enchanted weapon) would also be added, but damage intrinsic to the character (Str, weapon specialization, sneak attack), would not be added but would be considered to be part of the extra damage.

I haven't run the numbers or anything like that, but at face value it seems like a good way to make multiple attacks important while also eliminating extra rolls (or at least extra attack rolls).

In the case of two weapon fighting, I would suggest a separate attack roll for that and for the Improved, Greater and Perfect versions, add extra die of damage as if the better feats were iterative attacks.

So: A 13th level Fighter with Greater Two Weapon Fighting, would get 2 attack rolls on a full attack; one with his primary weapon and a second with his off-hand. If successful, these attacks would inflict 2 extra dice of damage.

A Monk could be treated similarly when flurrying: He still takes the -2 (or -1 or -0) to his attack roll, but if successful, he inflicts an extra die of damage per extra attack granted by the flurry. To reduce/prevent brokenness, I would suggest disallowing the extra attack(s) from two weapon fighting when the Monk flurries.

Something I just thought of too: Allow the Fighter to gain his extra die at +5, +10, +15 and +20 instead of 6, 11, and 16. Something ONLY for Fighters too. Like it could be a class ability they get at that level of Fighter. This would prevent people from dipping into Fighter just for this treat and reward those who stick with Fighter the entire way.

 

[Kerrick]

What about eliminating iterative attacks altogether?

What I mean is that instead of getting extra attacks at +6, +11 and +16--I don't know anything about that +5, +10 stuff, so I'm going by 3.5 raw here--you get an extra die of damage with a successful attack.

Oh yeah... it's +6/+11/+16... my bad.

I'm not sure about eliminating them entirely. I've played 1E and 2E, so I know what it's like - it's kind of boring, getting only one attack/round. Not only that, but it severely limits combat maneuvers that use attack actions - disarm and trip, e.g. - because you could either attack or use a maneuver, but not both (some would argue that this would make those things more balanced, but that's another story). Your suggestion is popular over on the PF boards, though Jason's sticking with the normal attack progressions. (Edit: My bad; apparently Pathfinder has two feats called Vital Strike and Imp Vital Strike where you can sacrifice an attack to deal extra damage in all your other attacks. I'm more inclined to go with this idea and/or reduce the number of iteratives.)

As far as giving monks good BAB, I've dropped that idea. Lots of people on the PF forums have suggested the same thing (that's where I got the idea, really), but several others have put up good arguments against it - mainly, if the monk gets a good BAB, why bother playing a fighter? There's another suggestion (which is also popular) that monks lose the -2 penalty for their flurry. I wonder if anyone realizes the penalty is reduced over time? I never noticed it myself until you pointed it out.

 

[ashockney]

Smooth Attack Actions

Here is my recommendation:

Full Round Actions
Smooth Attack Action
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a smooth attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.
Your attack roll for a smooth attack is 1d20 + the average of your attack bonus modifiers with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.

Damage Rolls: If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal average damage for the type of weapon used. Damage is deducted from the target’s current hit points.

For example, Tordek the fighter takes a smooth attack action against a giant with AC24. Tordek’s attack bonuses are +21/+16/+11, and he deals 1d8+11 damage with his longsword. Tordek’s smooth attack rolls will be 1d20+16, and his damage on a successful hit will be 16. He chooses to make all his attacks against the giant, therefore he rolls 3d20. His results are 13, 7, and 2. Therefore, he hits AC 13+16=29, 7+16=23, and AC 2+16=18. Against the giant’s AC of 24, that yields one successful hit, for 16 points of damage.

 

[ashockney]

I was thinking that instead of getting a new attack at +5, +10, etc., it would be +6, +12, and +18 - the most you get is 3 attacks. This has several effects:

I'm also considering giving monks a high BAB (whether or not I go with this rule). They're effectively unarmed fighters, and reducing the iterative scale would hurt them. Giving them a high BAB would mitigate the ever-popular "flurry of misses", making them more effective combatants.

Thoughts?

The challenge with the proposed solution is that you've completely taken away the one significant advantage of the fighters that balances them with the other classes. Why exactly would I play a fighter if instead I could play a cleric or monk with all those other abilities?

 

[ashockney]

What about eliminating iterative attacks altogether?

So, at +6 BAB, the character gets to add an extra die to his damage roll. If he's using a dagger, he does 2d4 damage; longsword, 2d8; then add in whatever modifiers. The second die represents an extra attack , so damage from external sources (such as the Shock property of an enchanted weapon) would also be added, but damage intrinsic to the character (Str, weapon specialization, sneak attack), would not be added but would be considered to be part of the extra damage.

I haven't run the numbers or anything like that, but at face value it seems like a good way to make multiple attacks important while also eliminating extra rolls (or at least extra attack rolls).

This seems to be driving towards an attempt at "simplifying" combat at high levels, however, causes very serious issues with balance between the classes. Ironically, this solution is pretty close to the math in 4e, but to make it work they had to drop some CRAZY nerf action an all the other classes, especially the spellcasters.

In summary, the result would be to dis-incentivize the classes that need balancing help in high level D&D at the expense of simplifying combat.

 

[Hawken]

This seems to be driving towards an attempt at "simplifying" combat at high levels, however, causes very serious issues with balance between the classes.

I'm not trying to "4E" the game. What balance issues are you referring to? Please give an example or two so I can see what you mean.

In summary, the result would be to dis-incentivize the classes that need balancing help in high level D&D at the expense of simplifying combat.

Please tell me how you mean this? I understand the words, just not where you're going with them--so I'm not exactly sure how to respond.

 

[Kerrick]

The challenge with the proposed solution is that you've completely taken away the one significant advantage of the fighters that balances them with the other classes. Why exactly would I play a fighter if instead I could play a cleric or monk with all those other abilities?

Which issue do you mean - delaying BAB, or giving monks full AB? I've already dropped the second idea.... as for the first, *everyone* gets the delayed BAB - I'm not changing any of the progressions, or giving everyone the same progression (did I give that impression? Sorry), just changing when iterative attacks kick in. Fighters will still progress faster than everyone else, and will have 3 attacks at L18, while everyone else has only 2.

Please tell me how you mean this? I understand the words, just not where you're going with them--so I'm not exactly sure how to respond.

I think what he's saying is that you're penalizing the classes that most need the boost (fighters), since reducing them to only 1 attack per round severely limits their damage output, which is what they rely on to be viable. They need those extra attacks (or some analogue thereof - see PF's Vital Strike feat). Reducing total number of attacks by 1 wouldn't affect too much, I think, because the lowest AB attack generally misses anyway.

 

[ashockney]

I'm not trying to "4E" the game. What balance issues are you referring to? Please give an example or two so I can see what you mean.

Please tell me how you mean this? I understand the words, just not where you're going with them--so I'm not exactly sure how to respond.

An example of what I mean:
At 18th level, an iconic Dwarven Fighter has four attacks per round with a Dwarven Waraxe, starting with +32 attack bonus (smooth attack bonus of +25), dealing an average of 24 damage. If the average AC of monsters found in an average EL of 18 is 28, that indicates that the fighter should hit on average 4 or greater (85%). That means he'll deal an average of .85 x 4 x 24 = 82 points of damage per round (plus some love for crits).

His peer, the sorcerer, using similar math can easily deal 15d6 damage (average 52 damage) to a whole group of enemies (with corresponding, albeit difficult) saves for half damage.

His peer, the rogue, can deal 166 points of damage per round in melee or 88 points from ranged attacks. (6 attacks, dual wielding daggers with weapon finesse and sneak attack)

When in comparison, the rogue has a distinct advantage/role in combat. The fighter is the "utility knife" dishing damage to anything, anywhere without limit. The fighter's tough as nails, the rogue's like a paper doll...if you can find him or hit him. The sorcerer is classic artillery. He can blow up everything, or blow the hell out of any one thing (Polar Ray would deal around 18d6 = 63 damage single target, no save).

If you take away the multiple attacks from the fighters and/or rogues, they will become even MORE powerful in comparison. Arcane casters will deal more damage, to more people, than the fighter (and others). In addition, they have access to most of the control, utility, and buffs.

In high level games that I've run, I've had players who were running fighters say that they felt all they were there to do was keep the mage alive long enough to blow everything up. That's not a very fun/teamwork oriented balancing.

 

[ashockney]

Which issue do you mean - delaying BAB, or giving monks full AB? I've already dropped the second idea.... as for the first, *everyone* gets the delayed BAB - I'm not changing any of the progressions, or giving everyone the same progression (did I give that impression? Sorry), just changing when iterative attacks kick in. Fighters will still progress faster than everyone else, and will have 3 attacks at L18, while everyone else has only 2.

If you give monks full AB, there's really limited purpose to playing the fighter. He has fantastic benefits, far better than stacking up feats and wearing armor.

As to delaying the attack progression, it is the same result as I've described above, that in comparison to the non-melee/ranged classes this would distort the balance. That would be akin to saying, I'm going to give all monsters a +3 to all their saving throws. There's not necessarily anything WRONG with doing that, or anything, to make your game easier and fun to play. However, if you were an arcane caster that counted on a portion of your opponents to fail their saves, you would be considerably less effective.