Discussion on iterative attacks

[Verdande]

Ignoring the little squabble that's broken out, I dislike full attacks because, again, they encourage players to stand there and trade blows. All you do is attack a couple more times. Oh, how exciting!

It essentially discourages attacking, since the attacking combatant gets only one attack, while the defender on their turn gets their full attack routine.

Not to mention that the last attacks are unlikely to hit except against poorly armored opponents, who are more likely than not the exact same opponents that an extra couple of attacks won't be needed to kill.

 

[malraux]

I don't get the iterative/multiple attack hate. It never bothers me running the game, and players really seem to love it when they can pull off a wave of stabbiness.

Compared to a druid taking his turn, I didn't ever really dislike iterative attacks. That said, they often felt like there was too much dice rolling for little effect. I personally would have preferred a method that simplified the dice rolling into fewer rolls with each rolling being more important. Certainly I found other issues at the table to be much worse.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Not to mention that the last attacks are unlikely to hit except against poorly armored opponents, who are more likely than not the exact same opponents that an extra couple of attacks won't be needed to kill.

In 3.5, was better use the last ones for maneuvers needing a touch attack to be started.

In pathfinder is not longer true (maybe better trip or stun or blind your enemy with the first attack, so you have better chances to hit with the last ones and you made him less effective).

Feats or Barbarian powers, or buffs help too, but I can agree on staticity. Just remember Quickdraw and what can do

 

[Dausuul]

Well, iterative attacks and full attack action are two separate concerns. You could easily house-rule full attacks as a standard action, or even allow you to take a move action as part of the full attack, with the attacks coming at any point along the way. (Watch out for dragons though...)

My take on iterative attacks is that--like much of 3E--they were a really brilliant mechanic, very elegant on paper, that in play proved to be overly fiddly and confusing. Three or four attacks at different attack bonuses is a nuisance to keep track of*, and new players had a tough time grokking it.

At the same time, I can see why 3E's designers went with them. Like I said, on paper they're extremely clever. It's a neat little solution to the challenge of granting multiple attacks without a massive power spike each time a new attack comes online. Not only that, but they extend monster "longevity"--you may have reached the point where your primary attack only misses Monster X on a 1, but that means your secondary attack needs a 7 or better and your tertiary needs a 12, so the attack rolls still matter.

[size=-2]*This is a quirk of mine though. I go to some lengths to make sure my 4E PCs have the same bonus on all attack rolls. It's not that hard to keep track of a couple different attack bonuses, but it bugs me.[/size]

 

[Stoat]

What do you mean for "full attack?"

Swing the greataxe 4 times? Tear an enem with two weapon and then stun a second with a kick? Disarm a neraby enemy, move of 5 feet, quickdraw a whip, and trip a distant enemy?

Put on the ground all enemies in reach? Pin three enemies on the wall with arrows? Kill a nearby enemy and trip a distan one quickdrawing bolas?

What is a full attack? Did you ever realized what a full attack can do?

I agree these are examples of what a PC can do with a full attack, but:

1) For the most part, they're feat intensive. Either you have to have the feat to try 'em (stunning fist, that arrow-pinning thing) or you really need to have a feat to before you have much chance of succeeding (tripping, disarming, using exotic weapons like bolas or a whip). Because they're feat intensive, most player's really won't be able to try all of them.

2) Disarm and trip are good tactics, IF you're fighting medium-sized bipeds that carry weapons. A Remorhaz has no weapon to disarm, and his many legs and huge size make him essentially untrippable. A whole stack of monsters are unstunnable.

3) Unless you're a spellcaster, the most efficient way to end a combat is to reduce your enemy to 0 hit points. In 3.X, the most efficient way to do that is to make full attacks.

 

[Reynard]

1) For the most part, they're feat intensive. Either you have to have the feat to try 'em (stunning fist, that arrow-pinning thing) or you really need to have a feat to before you have much chance of succeeding (tripping, disarming, using exotic weapons like bolas or a whip). Because they're feat intensive, most player's really won't be able to try all of them.

Probably my biggest quibble with 3.x was the introduction of so many cool combat options that anyone could try, and then making it so that only an idiot would do so without having the requisite feat. I like how Pathfinder created a unified mechanic (CMB and CMD) for these maneuvers, but there's still some issues. I used to house rule that you only suffered an AoO if you failed in your attempt, and reduced the no-feat penalty to -2. Feats gave you a +2 on the attempt and removed the AoO entirely.

I always thought the impact of size on grapple checks was too great, since the inspirational literature is chock full of mighty thewed warriors choking out giants monsters.

 

[Fifth Element]

It essentially discourages attacking, since the attacking combatant gets only one attack, while the defender on their turn gets their full attack routine.

Very good point. You may get a +2 to hit on your charge, but if the monster gets a full attack afterwards, it encourages you to wait for it to come to you.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I dislike that high level full attack in 3e was descending to futility. +0/–5/–10,–15 . . . Tons of no fun towards the 4th attack, and the math recalculations when buffs or de-buffs were added mid combat are enough to halt combat for a while.

But removing all extra attacks is also not so fun. Swinging extra times on your turn is a sweet boon. There is fun in making an extra attack when you otherwise wouldn't.

That's why I like Trailblazer as a middle ground. You get one extra attack at 6th level, but both attacks are at the same modifier. –2/–2 at 6th, –1/–1 at 11th and +0/+0 at 16th. You get the fun extra attack, without near-numbing math of degenerating modifiers.

 

[Deset Gled]

I don't get the iterative/multiple attack hate.

I don't mind iterative attacks from BAB. Or from Flurry of Blows. Or from TWF. Or from Rapid Shot. Or from natural attack routines.

I absolutely hate it when players try to combine all of these different things together to get the maximum number of attacks per round. The combos (particularly when natural attacks are brought it, or when FoB is combined with TWF) make things needlessly complicated. There have been a number of (IMNSHO) bad rulings by the Sage and/or FAQ that encourage combining a number of these things that really shouldn't be allowed.

Stick to getting your multiple attacks from the more normal routes, and I have no complaints at all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I really liked the Star Wars Revised solution - IIRC they basically removed iterative attacks, but PCs add + half their level to damage with any attack they make.