Iterative Attacks

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

It's early and pre-coffee, but that looks right.

As you mention, with the alteration to GTWF and STWF, he'd be +16/+16/+16/+16 at 16th level.

One more +16 with haste.


All attack rolls always at the same attack modifier-- that's the important point. If they're not, you (or I) messed up somewhere.

The ranger is easy. I really should review this against the monk. (This is much closer to the monk's attack progression.)

 

[Sturm_Brightblade]

Hi Wulf!

First of all... Great work! I've been following your ideas since the old "Encounter Simplified" thread (ages from now) and I'm anxiously expecting the final release of Trailblazer.

Now, on the topic of Iterative Attacks, how would a BAB progression look like, using this replacement? I mean, how this could possibly affect classes that do not have the BAB=Level progression?

If you could post some table, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks a lot (in advance) for all your tweaks to 3.5/Pathfinder.

Best regards,

Sturm.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Now, on the topic of Iterative Attacks, how would a BAB progression look like, using this replacement? I mean, how this could possibly affect classes that do not have the BAB=Level progression?

The same way it works now, Sturm.

At +6 BAB you can make two attacks at -2/-2 each.
At +11 BAB you can make two attacks at -1/-1 each.
At +16 BAB you can make two attacks at -0/-0 each.

 

[mxyzplk]

It's the same mechanic as the monk's extra unarmed strikes. I didn't review it for clunky appearance, just the expected damage.

I like the idea in general but I'm really tempted to simplify it even more by saying "one extra attack at normal BAB at level 10". Period, end of story. Makes the curve jaggier but - I have to say, I'm getting sick of all the 3.5 math and details. Not quite enough to go to a retro-clone but enough that I'd like to see a lot of the clunkiness stripped out.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Question about how this compares to another "fix" option that's been floated...

A while back there was this big ol' long thread talking about iterative attacks. The whole thing basically boiled down to 2 solutions, both of which involved doing away with iterative attacks:

1) Add 1/2 BaB as a Damage bonus. I seem to recall this had traction with the folks that basically wanted something that would perform about the same level as iterative attacks, but much shorter and easier to remember.

2) Add full BaB as a Damage bonus. This wasn't as popular with folks, but I happened to like it personally, as it seemed like it put the combaty types back up to doing decent amounts of damage in comparison to the casters.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Question about how this compares to another "fix" option that's been floated...

A while back there was this big ol' long thread talking about iterative attacks. The whole thing basically boiled down to 2 solutions, both of which involved doing away with iterative attacks:

1) Add 1/2 BaB as a Damage bonus. I seem to recall this had traction with the folks that basically wanted something that would perform about the same level as iterative attacks, but much shorter and easier to remember.

2) Add full BaB as a Damage bonus. This wasn't as popular with folks, but I happened to like it personally, as it seemed like it put the combaty types back up to doing decent amounts of damage in comparison to the casters.

Neither of those solutions comes anywhere close to performing "about the same level" as iterative attacks.

If you add 1/2 BAB as a damage bonus, that's 10 points of damage max at +20 BAB. If your 20th level fighters were only doing 10 points of damage, combined, with their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attacks... well, you are not playing anything resembling a normal D&D campaign.

Ditto for full BAB as a damage bonus. Still not even close.

This one fails even a cursory analysis, but just such a cursory analysis is available on the first page of this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/248004-iterative-attacks.html#post4612174

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Neither of those solutions comes anywhere close to performing "about the same level" as iterative attacks.

If you add 1/2 BAB as a damage bonus, that's 10 points of damage max at +20 BAB. If your 20th level fighters were only doing 10 points of damage, combined, with their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attacks... well, you are not playing anything resembling a normal D&D campaign.

Ditto for full BAB as a damage bonus. Still not even close.

This one fails even a cursory analysis, but just such a cursory analysis is available on the first page of this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/248004-iterative-attacks.html#post4612174

Thanks for that. Not sure how I missed that cursory analysis the first time around... I'll blame it on moving overseas and call it good.

Bear with me if I seem slow, but I guess I have to wonder... why do we need iterative attacks in the first place? If it's just to deal with the fact that monster have lots of hit points, then a solution is to either increase the amount of damage that's done (either by giving a bigger flat damage bonus or iterative attacks) or scale back the hit point inflation on the critters.

When Pathfinder first came out, they chopped back the skills (apparently similar to Star Wars Saga) and people freaked; the amount of nerd-rage was astonishing (to me at least). So now we've got Trailblazer and your apparent goal isn't so much compatibility as Pathfinder and more "fixing stuff". So, what is it exactly that iterative attacks are bringing to the game, other than it's one of those things (like the skill list) that people insist (for some reason) be there.

 

[Scott DeWar]

as wizards get to do more damage with their spells and eve the chance to wield duel wands for double attacks, the rogue is doing extra sneak attack damage and the druid gets to have an army of animal companions and followers, why should the fighter get stuck with just : I hit with my sword: Whack!

I is hard enough that the fighter is the meat shield for the party, being up on the front line in the mids of spells zinging around him, and gods only know what else. why shouldn't his expertise show some pazaz and get multi attacks as he has learned how to skillfully weave with his weapon through the defenses of his opponant?

 

[Qualidar]

as wizards get to do more damage with their spells and eve the chance to wield duel wands for double attacks, the rogue is doing extra sneak attack damage and the druid gets to have an army of animal companions and followers, why should the fighter get stuck with just : I hit with my sword: Whack!

I is hard enough that the fighter is the meat shield for the party, being up on the front line in the mids of spells zinging around him, and gods only know what else. why shouldn't his expertise show some pazaz and get multi attacks as he has learned how to skillfully weave with his weapon through the defenses of his opponant?

I think Scurvy's point was "why not just do more damage with the one attack as the solution".

Off the top of my head: it restricts you to attacking just one opponent.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I think Scurvy's point was "why not just do more damage with the one attack as the solution".

Off the top of my head: it restricts you to attacking just one opponent.

It also restricts your effectiveness for the entire combat round to the whims of a single d20 roll. As anyone who's rolled a d20 knows, they are utterly unpredictable in any single instance.