Reducing iterative attacks

[Kerrick]

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.

Yeah, like I said, I dropped that idea.

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.

I see your point, but is one level all that big a difference? Let's use a concrete example here to see. We'll take a L5 wizard and a L5 fighter vs. a minotaur (WotC CR 4, UK CR 6, so I think it's close enough).

The fighter has BAB +5, 17 Str (+3), a +1 longsword, WF, and WS. He gets one attack/round at +10 (counting all the bonuses); he can hit the minotaur's AC (14) 80% of the time (barring a nat 1), dealing 1d8+6 points of damage per hit (10.5 damage on average, or 15 on a crit).

The mage can cast magic missile (auto hit) for 5d4+5 points of damage, or 17 damage on average. Or he could toss out a lightning bolt (we'll assume minimum DC, so 14 vs. +5 Ref save, or 55% chance of full damage) for 5d6 damage (17 damage, or 8 even on a successful save).

At L6, the fighter gets a second attack. He now hits 85% of the time with his first attack and 35% of the time with his second, for an average damage output of 21 per round (or 25 on a single crit, or 30 on two crits).

The mage can still cast magic missile or lightning bolt (6d6 this time, for 20.5 damage).

If we go with my idea of delaying the second iterative until L7, the fighter's damage output at L6 would be roughly half that of the wizard's; at L7, the wizard would have a 7d6 lightning bolt that deals 24 avg damage. Whether or not the fighter gets that second attack, he'll still lag behind the wizard in damage output at L7.

At L14 (normal progression), the fighter would have three attacks at +14, +9, and +4. He's still using that longsword, which is +3 now; his Strength is 20, and he's got GWF and GWS too. His total AB is now +25; his damage is 1d8+12, or 49.5 if all three attacks hit.

The mage can toss off a 14d6 DBF (49.5 damage, or 24 on a successful save). Or he could do an empowered cone of cold for 22d6 (77.5).

Let's put them up against a purple worm (UK CR 15). It's got AC 19, so the fighter chances of hitting are: 75%, 50%, and 25%. The wizard's chance of dealing full damage with his DBF: DC 20 vs. +8 Ref = 60%.

The funny thing is, I didn't plan any of this out beforehand - I was pulling numbers out of my head as I wrote it here. I find it rather interesting that they balance out so well in terms of pure damage output, but I think the wizard will have the edge regardless, because his attacks have a better overall chance of success (and even if they fail, they often still deal some damage). I think we'd have to playtest it to see if delayed iteratives would actually improve anything.

 

[Kerrick]

I was looking at UK's site for some things, and I stumbled across his revised fighter.
How he handles iteratives is very interesting - you get a single bonus, but you can take any number of iterative attacks you want, each at -5 from the previous (1 at -5, 2 at -10, etc.). I would add that you can't reduce the bonus for any attack below +0.

This could work - say, you have a +12 BAB, and you want to make two attacks with Power Attack. By this rule, the most you could add from PA would be +7 - your first attack would be at +5, the second at +0. (I'm considering making PA a standard action with a +5 or +10 cap, though - you're taking a little longer to make an extra-powerful attack, and you need time to wind up and recover.)

Likewise for Combat Reflexes, fighting defensively, etc. - if you take a penalty to AB from ANY source, it affects how many attacks you can make that round.

Edit: Making one or two attacks is a standard action; making 3-4 is a full-round action as normal. This should encourage players to use fewer attacks, which will speed up combat and encourage more movement on the battlefield (because you can move and make a couple attacks). I was thinking about this today, and I realized that attacking is pretty binary - it's either "1 attack" or "full attack" - there's no in-between, so everyone just goes for the full attack, even though the last attack generally misses.

 

[Hawken]

The immediate fault (or maybe benefit) of your suggestion, Kerrick, is that all +1 BAB classes, at 20th level, would get 5 attacks per round!

+20/+15/+10/+5/+0

This would also give those with Rogue progression 4 attacks per round instead of 3.

+15/+10/+5/+0

Granted, at those levels a +0 to attack isn't too likely to hit, but its still an extra attack. And then you get the combos, like a monk fighter getting 6 or 7 attacks in a round. Throw in two weapon fighting and that string of feats and you could easily get 10 or more attacks in a round before prestige class abilities (Frenzied Berserker, I believe) or effects (Haste) that add even more attacks.

Or you could rule where the attack is based on the level--a second attack at 6th level instead of 6 BAB, a third at 12th level. And maybe give the Fighter class a special ability where they get a fourth attack at 18th, just to give them an edge over the other classes in combat.

If you want to get more than one attack on a standard action, you could rule that additional attacks could be made at the expense of 50% of your movement rate (if your speed is 30' or more), or 10' (if 20' or less).

So a Human fighter with 3 attacks could make 2 attacks on a standard action and still move 15', but if he wanted all 3 (or more) attacks, he would have to take a full round action.

A monk with 5 attacks and 60' speed could make 2 attacks and still move 30' or three attacks and move 15', but if he wanted to make more attacks, he would have to take a standard action.

 

[Kerrick]

The immediate fault (or maybe benefit) of your suggestion, Kerrick, is that all +1 BAB classes, at 20th level, would get 5 attacks per round!

+20/+15/+10/+5/+0

This would also give those with Rogue progression 4 attacks per round instead of 3.

+15/+10/+5/+0[

Oops. I totally missed that. I could put a cap on number of attacks equal to 1/5 BAB (for each hand)... or simply rule that the bonus for any attack can't be reduced to below +1 instead of +0 (+0 BAB notwithstanding, since it's not a reduction).

Or you could rule where the attack is based on the level--a second attack at 6th level instead of 6 BAB, a third at 12th level. And maybe give the Fighter class a special ability where they get a fourth attack at 18th, just to give them an edge over the other classes in combat.

That would give poor BAB classes more attacks.

If you want to get more than one attack on a standard action, you could rule that additional attacks could be made at the expense of 50% of your movement rate (if your speed is 30' or more), or 10' (if 20' or less).

I like that. You can make no attacks and a double move, one attack and a full move, two attacks and a half move, or three attacks and a quarter move (round to the nearest 5 feet, so a human could move 10 feet). If you take all four attacks, you only get a 5-foot step (combat stride).

The problem comes with trying to classify those actions - if you only get a half-move, is that a move action? I'd say that all attacks (except for a full attack) are classed as a standard action, and the movement is still a move action - you just have a reduced movement rate. You cannot, however, take any other action that requires a move action if your alloted movement is reduced.

So, for example, the fighter from the above example takes 3 attacks. He can then move up to 10 feet, but he can't do anything else that takes up a move action. This gives him a little more mobility than just a 5-foot step, but isn't totally overpowering (like giving him a full attack as a standard action, though I do have a high-level feat that allows fighters to move AND get a full-attack action).

 

[Hawken]

Oops. I totally missed that. I could put a cap on number of attacks equal to 1/5 BAB (for each hand)... or simply rule that the bonus for any attack can't be reduced to below +1 instead of +0 (+0 BAB notwithstanding, since it's not a reduction).

If you try to correct it by saying no attack at +0, then you couldn't get a second attack at +5 BAB if your second attack is 5 points less--you'd be right back where it is now, an attack at +6 and a second at +1.

You could cap it at 3 attacks per round (and give the Fighter at 4th attack somewhere in there). That's what most people would get anyway with the exception of the fighting classes. Off-hand attacks could account for up to 3 more and then class, prestige class and other effects could raise it further. But the idea here is to reduce the number of attacks, right?

That would give poor BAB classes more attacks.

And there in lies the conundrum--for the player. They would be ABLE to make 1 more attack than they can now, but, honestly, would a wizard-type really WANT to?

How about this for the moving and attacking:

Attack Action: Standard
# of Attacks Movement Remaining
1 All
2 50% of move speed
3 25% of speed/10' of speed if speed is 20' or less
4 10' step
5+ 5' step

For 3 attacks, the remaining movement would be either 25% of base speed or 10' if the remaining speed is 20' or less after being reduced 75%.

The number of attacks is the total attack rolls made (including class abilities such as flurry, etc, and extras such as from two weapon fighting) with that standard action.

 

[Kerrick]

If you try to correct it by saying no attack at +0, then you couldn't get a second attack at +5 BAB if your second attack is 5 points less--you'd be right back where it is now, an attack at +6 and a second at +1.

I have no problem with that, really. It's not the numbers I'm concerned about so much as the number of attacks being made each round (i.e., the amount of dice being rolled).

You could cap it at 3 attacks per round (and give the Fighter at 4th attack somewhere in there). That's what most people would get anyway with the exception of the fighting classes. Off-hand attacks could account for up to 3 more and then class, prestige class and other effects could raise it further. But the idea here is to reduce the number of attacks, right?

Like I said, I'm seeking a way to reduce the amount of die-rolling. Why be forced to take all your attacks if you don't have to/want to? If players have the option to make fewer attacks per round and still be able to do other cool stuff, I think this is a win-win situation.

And there in lies the conundrum--for the player. They would be ABLE to make 1 more attack than they can now, but, honestly, would a wizard-type really WANT to?

Probably not, since it's not going to be very accurate. Which obviates the need for it, I think.

How about this for the moving and attacking:

Attack Action: Standard
# of Attacks Movement Remaining
1 All
2 50% of move speed
3 25% of speed/10' of speed if speed is 20' or less
4 10' step
5+ 5' step

For 3 attacks, the remaining movement would be either 25% of base speed or 10' if the remaining speed is 20' or less after being reduced 75%.

That works. For a Medium character (we'll say a human), 3 attacks reduces his speed to 7 feet (round up to 10), which is why I went with a 5-foot step for full attack action. This wouldn't affect Spring Attack, really... since all attacks have to be taken at the same time, it would still enable you to move in between attacks (we'd just have to revise it to say that you can make no more than two attacks - either move-attack-move-attack, or vice versa, as long as you don't exceed your allotted move).

The number of attacks is the total attack rolls made (including class abilities such as flurry, etc, and extras such as from two weapon fighting) with that standard action.

Ooh... TWF. I was wondering how to factor that in, but I like your solution. This would hit the TWF fighters with a big nerf stick, which is what they need. The monks' flurry is balanced out by his increased speed, which means he can still be a viable striker.