Discussion on iterative attacks

[S'mon]

For me, multiple attacks are fine, but penalties on iterative attacks suck and are just a way to screw over the poor Fighter even more. Likewise the "no multiple attacks if you move" rule. I really hate how 3e Fighters above 5th level are so nerfed, while the spellcasters get to 5' step back from their attackers and cast away happily - also nerfing the poor Fighter PC trying to take down a spellcaster NPC.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

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.

Well, remember that you can try every combat maneuver without the feat: you just incur in the AOO. The AOO can miss, and not every enemy has combat reflexes. Or ou could be invisible. Or he could be flat-footed for another reason...

I see that 3.x and PF could suffer what I call the "you need improved bathroom feat to make poo" syndrome. But most times being imaginative brings in satisfying solutions.

I agree on grapple. PF managed better that. And remember the advices in the PF GM guide. I always did things like the ones suggested: use ad-hoc combos of skilll use to have PC do awesome things. CMD is great as defense, but evet as set DC. "yes, with a -4" is better than "no" as an answer.

[MENTION=16786]Stoat[/MENTION]:

1)this is quite true, (see above improved bathroom) but not always. In 3.5, trip was a touch attack. The -4 for bolas nonproficiency didn't affected it. One could use weapons groups from UA. Solutions are out there, just look for them.

2) I see your point, but mine were examples. And high level fighter could afford most of the needed feats anyway. And up to 1 category bigger than the warrior, the monster is fair game for maneuvers... not just same size. Undeads like death knights and outsiders like gelugons use weapons too. And giants. And monstrous humanoids. Why people think to humanoids only?

And there is enlarge person if a spellcaster helps you (or you use UMD).

3) Is true that most times is better just nuke the monster.. if the objective is have the monster dead....Maybe it's me, but I find more exicint fights with both big monsters and mooks, so one has always the chance to bully the weaklings

 

[radmod]

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.

This is why I ditch standard initiative and go with simultaneous initiative. With simult you don't get a full attack action if you have to wait for the monster to move to you (except if it steps as part of a full attack).
I agree that FA is not exciting. I'm thinking of when I ask players what they are doing. Some say "I move over here ...", "I cast ...". Meanwhile the full attack person eventually gets bored with saying something fancy and just says, "I swing."

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Short summation: Agree completely with the OP. Full attacks are quick and easy to resolve for me and most non-newbie players I've seen, I seldom take more than a minute full attacking, even when mixing in trips and stuf with them. And no, it's not hard to track the bonuses. You know the first one you swung with? Take 5 off of that. Got another attack. Another 5 off. Not very hard mental gymnastics...

I think that's probably the key - when you can pull it off. With each subsequent attack being 25% less likely to hit, a wave tends to be rare.

People often note that 3E advances attack bonus but not AC, and gripe that it's a clear fault of the system. In actuality, it's like that on purpose, for the very reason you stated. At higher levels, AC just simply doesn't (usually, it can be twinked, of course) keep up with primary attack bonuses. Boosting AC at later levels isn't to avoid gettig hit entirely. It's to avoid iterative attacks and not make yourself easy bait to use Power Attack or Combat Expertise on. And 3E has plenty of beefy low AC monsters at most levels of play, it's not nearly as regimented as 4E in that regard. Plus...touch attack combat maneuvers (or ones with no attack at all, like bull rush). So yes, iteratives CAN be useful, in many circumstances.

Edit: And to add to this, full attacking meant some weapons were completely useless. Like crossbows. Because bows could do a full attack and crossbows couldn't, crossbows were used as nothing more then "the weapon wizards use at level one," and that's really pathetic for a weapon. Or take characters with two weapons. High dexterity, dual blades, you'd envision them dancing around the enemy, twin blades flashing as they dodge and weave, right? Nope. Turns out they just stand there with the enemy and both of them just punch each other in the face like rock'em sock'em robots.

1. Barring Rapid Shot, a feat only dedicated archers will have at all, let alone early on, Crossbow isn't an issue till level 6+. Also, it's a simple weapon and costs much less, making it available to many more classes. Also, it can be fired while prone, so in an archery shoot out, the crossbowman has +4 AC. Also, the Rapid Reload feat.

2. That's what Dervish is for. And as far as "imagining" things, two weapon fighting is not very practical in real life, and I don't think running around flailing your arms would make the situation much better.

That doesn't discourage it though, it just degenerates the battle into "I attack" "He attacks" "I attack" "He attacks" "The wizard is bored and casts Win The Battle."

Yay, internet claims not supported by many people's game experiences!

Third one: Nope. Can't do a five foot step in the middle of a full attack, can't quickdraw during a full attack.
Sixth: Nope. Can't quickdraw on a full attack.

Yes you can. Yes you can. And yes you can, again. Dandu, put up the Obama poster, please?

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!

Or you can obtain pounce...

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

Reminds me of a bodyguard character I had. He was a very cautious lawful type, didn't like to act rashly. Refused to ever take the charge action (if it was necessary to save a comrade, he would have, but it never came up), and often held back from approaching the enemy first. He'd sometimes ready attacks for when someone came near, so he could hit their (charging) AC, get put just before them in initiative from then on, and then next round unload a full attack on their (still lowered by charging) AC to punish them for their brashness. Buffing AC with total defense and similar was also common before the enemy went for the first strike on him. Anything to make it more frustrating for the other side if they acted aggressively first. Fun to roleplay.

On a more serious note, winning in 3e is often most efficient when you eliminate enemies as fast as possible. So I like that there's a built in drawback to being the first to engage.

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.

Do I really need to post links to mid and high CR monsters with low ACs? Or again mention combat maneuvers, as others have?

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.

You make some good arguments, won't disagree with most of it. But I don't think everything is so feat intensive. Plenty of weapons let you trip without provoking, and barring a big monster or someone optimized to using that maneuver, str checks aren't easy to get a lot of variance with, so you have decent odds of winning. With disarm and sunder it's attack rolls, so anything like aid another or flanking that'd help to hit helps them, too. I personally enjoy tripping someone and then disarming them. They have -4 on their melee attack, you have +4. There's lots of cool synergies you can find to help with maneuvers. Bolas don't require a proficiency, -4 to hit on a ranged touch attack isn't too bad, and proficiency does nothing for the actual tripping check.

As far as provoking AoOs, first of all if the enemy's already used one in the round you may as well have at it with combat maneuvers unless he has Combat Reflexes. Secondly, if you manage a superior reach (like say...a reach weapon), you can use maneuvers without the Improved feats without fear of reprisal. My current Guisarme user disarms people from a safe distance on a semi-regular basis w/o the feat.

 

[Dandu]

Yes you can. Yes you can. And yes you can, again. Dandu, put up the Obama poster, please?

No, I can't. This case calls for something much stronger.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1vi-FHSY6g&feature=related"]YouTube - Yes We Can (the song)[/ame]

 

[Runestar]

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.

It's a full round to full-attack, meaning you are rooted in place, also meaning that if you move, you are limited to 1 single attack for crappy damage (compared to a mage firing off a 1-win spell as a standard action).

I believe the dislike is more that the fighter is reliant on the full-attack action for the bulk of his damage output. If he can get it off, it rocks. When he can't, it just sucks.

 

[Psion]

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.

It bothers me. On two counts.

First, I find that players who are a bit less than rapid with their math skills and/or a bit less than rigorous at remembering modifiers (not at all a population limited to noobies) spend an inordinate amount of time resolving them.

Second, players put too much value on the unlikely 3rd and 4th attacks, so it causes a bit of a "pinned in one place effect."

I'm much happier with the dynamic in Fantasy Craft, which has no iterative attacks. And I plan on using the Trailblazer mod outside of that.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I wouldn't mind a mod in lieu of a full attack...if the full attack was still an option.

 

[Starbuck_II]

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.

You mean Saga edition?
Actually, you still have Two weapon fighting, etc but yeah BAB no longer granted extra attacks.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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.

I have to agree. It seems that whenever I consider the arguments against iterative attacks, I find the "hater" doesn't really understand how they work (see Professor Cirno above) and/or suffers from a certain lack of imagination.