Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 5523604" data-attributes="member: 12460">[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.</blockquote>

Verification