Alternative Rules for Extra Attacks

[airwalkrr]

Okay, I understand now. I thought you were addressing my system, but I see you were referencing the BAB to damage idea.

Back to my system, I don't know how much horsepower it actually adds to the weapon-wielding characters. (Note: This rule applies to PCs and monsters who use weapons alike.) But that's because I haven't actually play-tested it yet. I may be doing so soon though as I am entertaining the idea of using it for my re-boot of Maure Castle PBP. The way I see it, monsters have a way to mitigate PCs getting three attacks at full BAB. Sometimes they will be able to use it, other times they won't, other times it won't even matter.

Example A: Monster takes a 5-foot step back and attacks. PC advances 5 feet as a swift action and makes two attacks at full bonus. In this situation compared to RAW a PC with a BAB of 6-10 is actually getting a nice little +5 bonus to his second attack. A PC with a BAB of 11-15 is getting the same bonus, but losing his third attack at -10, which probably doesn't hit very often, but still has a chance. A PC with a BAB of 16+ is getting the same bonus but losing two attacks, albiet both attacks that probably have a very poor chance of hitting. So at mid-levels I see this as a significant boost, possibly to the tune of 12.5% extra damage (I won't go into the math but it's relatively simple). At higher levels, maybe not so much. But it is difficult to tell at this point.

Example B: Monster is back against a wall or corner. PC gets all three attacks. In this case, it seems a significant boost at any BAB of 6+. I won't argue with you there. But then, a monster shouldn't want to ever have its back to a wall.

Example C: Monster is a Flyby-Attack type like a dragon. PCs don't often get to take on these types of monsters on their own terms. Getting in a full attack on such a monster doesn't seem to happen very often in my experience, and I've run a fair share of such encounters in 3.5, but maybe I'm just a mean DM who likes to use intelligent monster tactics. Anyway, in cases like these, I don't think the change will have much of an effect. Although it might give PCs an improved chance of actually breaking that grapple check from the flyby improved grab.

Overall I would say it is a modest boost to high BAB classes. And I don't necessarily find that a bad thing. I don't think anyone would ever argue that the high BAB classes (aside from the warblade) are overpowered.

 

[Dandu]

And I don't necessarily find that a bad thing. I don't think anyone would ever argue that the high BAB classes (aside from the warblade) are overpowered.

Given that there are people who believe monks to be overpowered...

 

[Tovec]

To simplify things even further (and bring them closer to where they started) why not change to:
At BAB 6 you get a second attack. Looks like +6/+6 instead of +6/+1 as before
At BAB 11 you get a third attack at -5. Looks like 11/11/6 instead of 11/6/1.
At BAB 16 you get a second lesser attack at -5. Looks like 16/16/11/11 instead of 16/11/6/1.
This has the benefit of not having to rewrite a lot of rules and cutting the problem of "high level characters wanting to drop their last two attacks".
It has the added benefit of making fighters a little more comparative (if they can hit more often) to casters as well as bringing the general BAB rules closer in line to monsters with natural attacks.

EDIT: Oh crap a page 2? Hold on.

 

[Tharkon]

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.

If a warrior gets near a spellcaster though than the spellcaster's low armor class and hit points will be a problem. And most spellcasters also need to prepare and kind of guess what they'll face. Maybe an anti-magic field?

Either way, I never look at it as spellcaster vs. warrior.
I look at it as spellcaster & warrior vs. lots of monsters.

 

[Dandu]

Offtopic reply to Tharkon
[sblock]

If a warrior gets near a spellcaster though than the spellcaster's low armor class and hit points will be a problem.

This has been rehashed countless times. To summarize, invisible flying spellcasters who can throw up forcefields are difficult to walk up to.

[quoteAnd most spellcasters also need to prepare and kind of guess what they'll face. Maybe an anti-magic field?[/quote]
I have not feared antimagic field since I learned it could not suppress Wall of Force, and began laughing at it when the Orb series of spells came out.

Either way, I never look at it as spellcaster vs. warrior.
I look at it as spellcaster & warrior vs. lots of monsters.

Laudable. However, the difference in ability to affect lots of monsters is what caused people to label spellcasters as overpowered.

There's direct damage, which deals damage to a large group. Generally seen as suboptimal, because there's also crowd control, which can disable or neutralize a large group and allow allies to mop up with ease. There's mind control, which turns the enemy into an ally, and lots of other stuff.[/sblock]

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Oftentimes players of high level characters don't even bother to calculate their attack totals for their last two or three attacks and just look for natural 20s because they realize how poor their chances are of hitting as they get progressively more attacks.

Any player who cares so little about just what they need to hit that they don't bother doesn't deserve the extra attacks in the first place and as DM I would be HAPPY to summarily deny them those extra
attacks at all simply because they're being such wankers. But that's me...

What are your thoughts?

I don't have any issue with how 3E handled iterative attacks and thought they implemented things just fine. Of course, I also believe that the closer the PC's get into mid-to-upper teens or higher the worse D&D works in any edition through 3.5 (don't know nor much care about 4E at that point). But again, that's me...

 

[airwalkrr]

Any player who cares so little about just what they need to hit that they don't bother doesn't deserve the extra attacks in the first place and as DM I would be HAPPY to summarily deny them those extra
attacks at all simply because they're being such wankers. But that's me...

It is a behavior that is reinforced by experience. I don't know how much high-level D&D 3.5 you have played, but those last two attacks at -10/-15 really don't have much of a prayer of hitting a non-ooze. In that respect the high-BAB classes get less and less rewarding as they advance. That is contrary to the progression of spellcasting classes, which get more and more rewarding as they advance. I'd like a system in which extra attacks are at least the same amount each time you get them.

I don't have any issue with how 3E handled iterative attacks and thought they implemented things just fine. Of course, I also believe that the closer the PC's get into mid-to-upper teens or higher the worse D&D works in any edition through 3.5 (don't know nor much care about 4E at that point). But again, that's me...

Well the DM stepping in to address balance gets more and more important as time goes on. This rule is me stepping in to address something that I see as poorly done in high-level D&D 3.5. Maybe it isn't the answer, but I would like to try it.

 

[slwoyach]

Meh, I simply dropped iterative attacks and grant a +1 to the threat range of all attacks by a character for each extra attack lost. Since I only run E6 variants this means I don't have to worry about how much the system breaks at higher levels and I just give full BAB classes their crit bonus and call it a day.

 

[airwalkrr]

[MENTION=1022]slwoyach[/MENTION], I suppose that's fine if you run E6. Heck, if you run E6, the iterative attacks aren't as big of a deal since you get, at most, one, and the penalty is only -5. My main complaint is that the third and fourth iterative attacks are worth substantially less so that they become a non-factor in most combats.

Example: Let's assume a 16th-level fighter has a +29 to hit with his primary attack (16 plus WF plus GWF plus Str 24 plus +4 weapon enhancement) arbitrary number really, but let's work with it). Now lets assume he is fighting a marilith (CR 17 so a pretty fair challenge). Let's also assume the marilith is run by a competent DM who had her cast unholy aura on the first round of combat. The fighter is up against AC 33. Now with his first attack that is an 85% chance to hit. His next attack has a 60% chance to hit. His third attack has a 35% chance to hit. And his final attack has a mere 10% chance to hit. He isn't going to be paying much attention to those last two attacks because combined they deal less damage than his second attack (which would be 60% of his average damage compared to 45% of his average damage). The attacks aren't worthless, but they aren't that impressive either. If we assume the marilith is also wearing armor (and it really isn't a stretch to imagine a marilith having +4 studded leather armor; no penalty for wearing it and about the median for the treasure tables). Those final two attacks at 5% hits, which means 5% his average damage. Now of course there are a number of things the fighter can do to improve his attack rolls, but most of those rely upon spellcasters knowing what they are doing.

For anyone who has played high-level 3.5, you understand why this is a problem.

 

[Mark CMG]

One alternative to iterative attacks would be to allow the player to have all attacks happen off a single attack roll with double the dice of damage on a hit for two iterative attacks, triple damage for three iterative attacks, etc. The incentive being that the roll is per the first attack BAB.