alternate rule for iterative attacks.

[NotZenon]

I understand there has been mountains written on this already. Perhaps my idea has already been suggested but i thought i would post my alternate rule for iterative attacks (just in case it hasn't been posted and discussed).

BaB progresses as normal, without the iterative attacks added on.

- At +7 BaB and +14 BaB the player gets the option of performing an additional attack if they wish. (that makes two possible attacks at BaB +7 or three at BaB +14)

-If the player wishes to perform this additional attack, they must divide their BaB between the two attacks, or if they wish to do three attacks, they must divide the BaB between the three. Extra modifiers are not lost. Strength and other Modifiers are applied afterwards.

Examples.
-A level 8 fighter could attack once at +8 BaB or attack Twice at +4/+4.
-A level 9 fighter could attack once at +9 BaB, or attack Twice at +5/+4.
-A level 14 fighter could attack once at +14, or twice at +7/+7 or three times at +5/+5/+4.

I'm personally in favor of getting rid of the "full attack" option and just leaving doing extra attacks as a standard action.


(i realize this system would mean TWF would have to be rebuilt, although in my train of thinking TWF and THF and SWF all need to be rebuilt and rebalanced.)

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Yeah, people have been going around on fixing iterative attacks for years now. You're probably going to be best off doing one of two things:

1. Search the forums. I know, this doesn't sound very helpful but people have been taking about this for years and there's been all sorts of stuff written and analysis done. It's going to be difficult to have a conversation on this in some ways, because the ground has been heavily covered already by most of the folks that have been here a while. Once you've got a grounding in what people have talked about and done the maths on, it'll be easier for you to decide what (if any) solution is going to work for you. Because at this point, most folks have their solution already.

To get you started, here's the most recent in-depth rehashing of the topic I'm aware of:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/other-rpg-discussion/248004-iterative-attacks.html

It's not exhaustive, but it should at least giving you a decent grounding. Wulf has spent a bunch of time over the years playing around with the maths of what's going on in the system. He's also responsible for some solid products in the past, including Grim Tales which is a Sword & Sorcery toolkit/game from a few years back.

2. The aforementioned Wulf? He's got a pretty solid product out now called "Trailblazer". In it, he tackles things like Iterative Attacks as well as other stuff. You can buy the pdf of it here: Trailblazer - Bad Axe Games | EN World PDF Store

Overall, I really dig Trailblazer. Although he suggests using Pathfinder as a base, to be honest you really don't have to. Trailblazer laid over on top of standard 3.5 should work a pretty treat. I don't happen to necessarily agree with everything in it (I dislike the Action Point approach and I personally am a fan of dropping iterative attacks entirely) but it's a solid product.

You can also get a feel for some of Wulf's other thoughts by popping by his blog: EN World D&D / RPG News - Wulf Ratbane It doesn't look like he really does anything with it these days, but reading the entries will give you a feel for what he's looking at and how he sees (some ) things.

 

[NotZenon]

cool man - yeah i'm waiting for trailblazer to arrive in the mail (any day now). and i have the badaxe games forum bookmarked.

i read a fair bit in the forums but i can't "search" since i need to subscribe to use that option.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

To be honest, I think your version might actually make things more complicated. Maybe just because the "subtract 5 until you can't anymore" method is so normal and ingrained in me by now that it seems easier than it does to others. But I don't get how division is an improvement from subtraction, in terms of user friendliness.

 

[HoboGod]

Yeah, and in most cases, I'd pick the standard way of obtaining iterative attacks. A) I'd get a higher overall BAB after 5th level, and B) All the same reason TWF is useless when used by anyone but general back stabbers.

 

[slwoyach]

I do two things. Firstly, instead of iterative attacks you gain a +1 increase to the threat range of any weapon you wield per +5 BAB. Secondly, you can choose to make multiple attacks in a round, but you suffer a cumulative -3 to all attack rolls per extra attack and you can't reduce your BAB to less than half.

For example, if you have a +13 BAB you could choose one attack at +13, two attacks at +10/+10, or 3 attacks at +7/+7/+7. He could not make for attacks at +4/+4/+4/+4 because that would reduce his attack bonus to less than half. In addition, all attacks gain a +2 to their threat range.

It's usually a bad idea to take more than two attacks in a round unless you're facing an opponent with a really poor AC or you are facing inferior opponents and you want to use your attacks to parry their blows (requires opposed attack rolls.)

For E6 I adjust the rule so that you can't reduce your BAB below 0, so a 6th level fighter can make up to 3 attacks while everyone else is limited to two. I also only give the +1 threat bonus at +6 instead of +5.

 

[NotZenon]

Yeah, and in most cases, I'd pick the standard way of obtaining iterative attacks. A) I'd get a higher overall BAB after 5th level, and B) All the same reason TWF is useless when used by anyone but general back stabbers.

I didn't realize the implications of my idea at first, partly because i mostly only do low level stuff (like E6). Problem with my system (like you pointed out) is once you get into the higher levels its totally useless. And nerf's the warrior classes even more (which is bad).