Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alternative Rules for Extra Attacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 5518605" data-attributes="member: 12460"><p>I've never been very fond of the way 3e did extra attacks for higher level characters. The penalty for extra attacks always seemed to make them worth less and less. 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. So that's the "Why" of this thread.</p><p></p><p>I've worked for some years to come up with an alternative system. What do you think of this one?</p><p></p><p>When a character with a base attack bonus of +6 or higher makes an attack as a standard action, he can choose to make a second attack as a move action. This second attack uses the character's full base attack bonus and occurs after the first attack.</p><p></p><p>When a character with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher makes an attack as a standard action followed by an attack as a move action, he can choose to make a third attack as a swift action. This third attack uses the character's full base attack bonus and occurs after the second attack.</p><p></p><p>A character with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher can make an attack as an immediate action, but doing so forfeits his swift action on his following turn as normal. As usual, a character may make only one immediate action per turn.</p><p></p><p>As a companion house rule, taking a 5-foot step is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but precludes the character from moving any further during his turn.</p><p></p><p>As another companion house rule, the haste spell, rather than granting an extra attack when you take a full round action to attack, allows you to determine your number of attacks per round as if your base attack bonus were 5 points higher. This plateaus hastes functionality at high levels since it grants no extra attacks to characters who have a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Given the almost universally-held opinion that haste is a must-have spell for arcane characters, I don't feel this would be inappropriate.</p><p></p><p>Taken together, this gives high-level characters with high base attack bonuses some better tactical options for their extra attacks because they are more reliable. It also provides some balance to high base attack characters relative to spellcasters as it gives them a chance to interrupt spellcasting at high levels without requiring them to ready an action. I am thinking this rule favors archers over melee characters, but archers are already limited by heavy feat requirements as well as MAD (multiple ability dependency) to be effective.</p><p></p><p>Some might have a knee-jerk reaction to this as a nerf to high base attack bonus characters because it reduces them (and all other characters as well) to a maximum of 3 attacks per round (without Two-Weapon Fighting, etc.). But I think given the improved reliability of the extra attacks, the trade is at the very least a fair one. I would argue it is a favorable improvement based on my observations of high-level combat involving high base attack bonus characters.</p><p></p><p>What are your thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="airwalkrr, post: 5518605, member: 12460"] I've never been very fond of the way 3e did extra attacks for higher level characters. The penalty for extra attacks always seemed to make them worth less and less. 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. So that's the "Why" of this thread. I've worked for some years to come up with an alternative system. What do you think of this one? When a character with a base attack bonus of +6 or higher makes an attack as a standard action, he can choose to make a second attack as a move action. This second attack uses the character's full base attack bonus and occurs after the first attack. When a character with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher makes an attack as a standard action followed by an attack as a move action, he can choose to make a third attack as a swift action. This third attack uses the character's full base attack bonus and occurs after the second attack. A character with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher can make an attack as an immediate action, but doing so forfeits his swift action on his following turn as normal. As usual, a character may make only one immediate action per turn. As a companion house rule, taking a 5-foot step is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but precludes the character from moving any further during his turn. As another companion house rule, the haste spell, rather than granting an extra attack when you take a full round action to attack, allows you to determine your number of attacks per round as if your base attack bonus were 5 points higher. This plateaus hastes functionality at high levels since it grants no extra attacks to characters who have a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Given the almost universally-held opinion that haste is a must-have spell for arcane characters, I don't feel this would be inappropriate. Taken together, this gives high-level characters with high base attack bonuses some better tactical options for their extra attacks because they are more reliable. It also provides some balance to high base attack characters relative to spellcasters as it gives them a chance to interrupt spellcasting at high levels without requiring them to ready an action. I am thinking this rule favors archers over melee characters, but archers are already limited by heavy feat requirements as well as MAD (multiple ability dependency) to be effective. Some might have a knee-jerk reaction to this as a nerf to high base attack bonus characters because it reduces them (and all other characters as well) to a maximum of 3 attacks per round (without Two-Weapon Fighting, etc.). But I think given the improved reliability of the extra attacks, the trade is at the very least a fair one. I would argue it is a favorable improvement based on my observations of high-level combat involving high base attack bonus characters. What are your thoughts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alternative Rules for Extra Attacks
Top