Alternative Rules for Extra Attacks

[airwalkrr]

How does two weapon fighting factor into this? Do I get two attacks instead of one for my standard/move/swift/immediate action?

Very simple. TWF lets you make an offhand attack as part of a standard attack. ITWF lets you make an offhand attack as part of a move action. GTWF lets you make an offhand attack as part of a swift action.

Are natural weapons affected at all?

Not at all. This only affects attacks with manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes.

If you can still use a full attack to use all of your natural weapons (i.e., the rules as currently written), then intelligent monsters will 5 foot step away, since that requires the fighter to use his swift action to come back into melee range rather than make a third attack.

That is an interesting idea to think about. I'm glad you brought it up. Things like this are why I posted it in the first place. Although if I think about it, this gives fighters incentive to back their opponents up against a corner, which would actually seem realistic. I might have to think about this situation a bit though.

 

[Dandu]

Would like to run a combat simulation to try and test out various iteriative attack variants? I think you could get some volunteers.

 

[Tharkon]

Normally you'd get your theoretical 5th attack at 21. With this that's where you'd get your 6th attack, so it's one extra attack over the course of the career.

Under the normal rules, epic characters (those with a character level beyond 20) can't increase their BAB, nor does your BAB ever give you more than 4 attacks (5 in your situtation) so level 21 wouldn't give the 5th or 6th attack.

Personally I have never seen a problem with the way the system is normally, yes the final attacks are lower, but try landing 4 fully accurate attacks in 6 seconds, it's only realistic that the iterative attacks are less accurate, and in a situation where it is hard to land a hit you would need something to enhance your accuracy or speed or forsake the extra attacks in favor of landing a big hit on a tough monster.
On the topic of mage vs warrior, high level monsters are likely to have spell resistance, energy resistances and high saving throws.

 

[airwalkrr]

...On the topic of mage vs warrior, high level monsters are likely to have spell resistance, energy resistances and high saving throws.

Conjuration spells, spells that don't have an energy type, and spells that don't allow saving throws come to mind, of which there are plenty. I will agree with you that in theory this is the way it is supposed to work and in the core rules alone, it does because there are so few conjuration spells. In my games I house rule that a lot of conjuration effects allow spell resistance for this very reason because I still like to allow more varied options via the Spell Compendium et al. But there are plenty of ways to get around the things you mention. And players who like wizards tend to find ways around them.

 

[Dandu]

On the topic of mage vs warrior, high level monsters are likely to have spell resistance, energy resistances and high saving throws.

Fireball isn't the end all, be all of arcane spells. There are other ways to go about playing a mage. As airwalkrr pointed out, the right spells (many of them from the Conjuration school) laugh in the face of SR, ER. As for saving throws, the general rule of thumb is that dumb brutes have poor Ref and Will, things that cast spells have poor Ref and Fort, and fast things have poor Fort and Will. Pick a few good spells targeting saves (Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Slow, etc), go for spells that don't allow saving throws (Sleet Storm, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles), or simply focus on buffing the party until everyone can go toe to toe with a Tarrasque and have at it.

I will agree with you that in theory this is the way it is supposed to work and in the core rules alone, it does because there are so few conjuration spells.

There's usually enough to get the job done in my experience.

 

[Greenfield]

Under the normal rules, epic characters (those with a character level beyond 20) can't increase their BAB, nor does your BAB ever give you more than 4 attacks (5 in your situtation) so level 21 wouldn't give the 5th or 6th attack.

Which is why I referred to them as "theoretical". I included level 21 simply because it was the final overlap point for both sequences.

Regarding Fighter v Mage: A fighter type can typically do more damage to a single target than a mage can. Mages can do damage to much larger groups of opponents.

 

[airwalkrr]

Fighter vs. mage is an age-old topic with plenty of room for discussion. For that matter most people have already decided where they stand on the issue and are extremely unlikely to budge from their opinion. If you'd like to discuss that, I think you should fork the discussion into a new thread. I'd prefer we remain on topic and discuss the merits and flaws of the system I proposed. I apologize that I let myself get dragged into it.

Personally I have never seen a problem with the way the system is normally, yes the final attacks are lower, but try landing 4 fully accurate attacks in 6 seconds, it's only realistic that the iterative attacks are less accurate, and in a situation where it is hard to land a hit you would need something to enhance your accuracy or speed or forsake the extra attacks in favor of landing a big hit on a tough monster.

Well I think by the time we are talking about 16th-level characters we have gone beyond the realm of realistic and have entered the realm of mythic. I don't have a problem with high-level combat characters moving at such tenacious speed that they can land several blows in the space of a few seconds while behind them a wizard is preparing to disintegrate another monster while a cleric uses divine magic to bring the rogue from the brink of death (-9 hp) to full health with a heal spell.

With that in mind, I think it is perfectly acceptable to dispense with a bit of realism for the sake of a system that streamlines combat a bit by 1) reducing the number of to-hit rolls in high-level combat and 2) reducing the number of adjustments made to individual attack rolls.

 

[Greenfield]

So, rock-paper-scissors it is then. Clean and simple, fast and final.

Okay, all mockery aside, I can see the desire to speed up combat. Most players I know have their numbers written down, modifiers included, and own enough different colors of dice that they can (and do) roll several attacks at the same time. Once they know the AC of the opponent, they know what they have to roll on each of their dice. There isn't any calculation to speak of in play, so your system won't speed anything there.

What it will do is effectively nerf any DR in the game by concentrating damage into a single blow. That impacts the CR of a lot of critters, and forces us to rebalance monsters and encounters. Pretty much nothing with a DR can be run right out of the book any more.

That seems like the exact opposite of speeding or simplifying combat. But if you're the DM, it's your game and you can do what you like. Personally I don't think I'll be adopting it any time soon.

 

[airwalkrr]

Okay I completely don't understand your argument about DR. Perhaps you can explain that a bit. Are you referring to my variant or the one proposed by Scurvy_Platypus?

 

[Greenfield]

Adding BAB to the damage nerfs DR. Even if the damage total per round works out the same between your proposal and the current rules, focusing all the damage into a single blow means that more of it gets past the DR. That means that you need to adjust the CR of critters with DR, since DR is less effective.

Any system that adds damage bonus in exchange for fewer blows has this effect.

Is that any clearer?

Addressing your original idea of adding attacks at full bonus in place of Move, Swift, etc. actions is a separate problem. You're adding a lot of horsepower to the PCs without any counterbalance on the monster side. This doesn't nerf some monsters, it effectively nerfs them all.