Idea for weapons and iterative attacks

[Arkhandus]

If our fighter, Redgar, has a BAB of +12, I can see him trying to strike more frequently with a dagger than a sword, but I find it hard to imagine Redgar find's it easier to hit (or is more effective) with a dagger than a sword... Lots of small hits with a dagger vs a few big hits with a sword? Something in the game mechanics has to explain why Redgar is more likely to use a sword vs a dagger - is the the damage difference enough justification?

Of course. A greatsword, for instance, does 2-3 or 2-4 times as much damage as a dagger, before even factoring in Strength and stuff like Power Attack (2d6 vs. 1d3, or 2d6 vs. 1d4; in EQd20, a dagger does 1d3, IIRC).

The dagger-wielder will only get one or two extra attacks per round, depending on level (and at low level, they won't get any extra attacks), and the last one or two of those attacks will be at a rather low attack bonus.

The greatsword-wielder will be doing around double or triple the damage typically, maybe even quadruple the damage, which will make up for the fewer attacks per round; and will be much more effective in situations where the dagger-wielder's low attack bonus with the iteratives makes him miss half the time.

Also, if they face an enemy with Damage Reduction or need to destroy an object, the greatsword-wielder will fare better since their damage is lumped together in a few big hits, while the dagger-wielder does just a bit of damage each time, which adds up to a similar but slightly lower amount (or much lower if they missed on the one or two extra iterative attacks, which will have a low attack bonus). The dagger-wielder will do little if any harm to the critter with DR or the big tough obstacle that's blocking the path/treasure.

The dagger-wielder won't be more accurate usually; only one or two of his iterative attacks, at best, may be 1 or 2 points higher in attack bonus than the iterative attacks of a swordsman, but one or two of their other iterative attacks will be at a very low attack bonus.

So: A dagger-wielder can be almost as effective, and do better against groups of weak enemies perhaps (assuming the greatsword-wielder doesn't just Cleave through them all quickly), and may do better if his weapon is enchanted with lots of bonus damage (since he'll occasionally hit more often), but even that's uncertain since his typical damage will be lower. A greatsword-wielder will get one or two fewer attacks, but still do much more damage per hit, so he'll still have an advantage but not as drastic an advantage.

 

[Kerrick]

here's an essay/rant on the subject by Sean Reynolds

Yeah, weapon speed was fine for 2E, when you only got 1 or 2 attacks a round, but it'd never work for 3E. My DM used to use the Rifts system, though - instead of getting all your attacks at once, you'd get the first one on your initiative count, the second at +5, etc., and everyone would rotate attacks. He said it worked well, but I never got to see it in action.

So: A dagger-wielder can be almost as effective, and do better against groups of weak enemies perhaps (assuming the greatsword-wielder doesn't just Cleave through them all quickly), and may do better if his weapon is enchanted with lots of bonus damage (since he'll occasionally hit more often), but even that's uncertain since his typical damage will be lower. A greatsword-wielder will get one or two fewer attacks, but still do much more damage per hit, so he'll still have an advantage but not as drastic an advantage.

Right.. it's just like I showed in my initial post:

How does this play out in damage potential? Well... I totalled up the average damage for each weapon type:

Light weapons: 2.6 damage/attack average, or 10.4 points/round.

One-handed weapons: 3.8 damage/attack average, or 11.4 points/round.

Two-handed weapons: 5.2 damage/attack average, or 10.4 points/round.

All the weapon types do more or less the same amount of damage, all things being equal.

 

[Winterthorn]

... All the weapon types do more or less the same amount of damage, all things being equal.

I like your brainstormin'. But a new thought cropped up today comparing figthers with daggers vs fighters with greatswords: all get their 2nd iterative attack at the same level, 6th, but the greatsword-wielders will never get any more iterative attacks beyond that point!

Redgar w dagger @ 1st lvl: 1 attack (2.6 dmg/round)
Redgar w longsword @ 1st lvl: 1 attack (3.8 dmg/round)
Redgar w greatsword @ 1st lvl: 1 attack (5.2 dmg/round)

Redgar w dagger @ 6th lvl: 2 attacks (5.2 dmg/round)
Redgar w longsword @ 6th lvl: 2 attacks (7.6 dmg/round)
Redgar w greatsword @ 6th lvl: 2 attacks (10.4 dmg/round)

Redgar w dagger @ 11th lvl: 3 attacks (7.8 dmg/round)
Redgar w longsword @ 11th lvl: 3 attacks (11.4 dmg/round)
Redgar w greatsword @ 11th lvl: 2 attacks (10.4 dmg/round)

Redgar w dagger @ 16th lvl: 4 attacks (10.4 dmg/round)
Redgar w longsword @ 16th lvl: 3 attacks (11.4 dmg/round)
Redgar w greatsword @ 16th lvl: 2 attacks (10.4 dmg/round)

Redgar w dagger @ 20th lvl+: 4 attacks
Redgar w longsword @ 20th lvl+: 3 attacks
Redgar w greatsword @ 20th lvl+: 2 attacks

So some observations:

1) Redgar's BAB may improve while wielding a greatsword, but he'll never improve his basic average damage after 6th level with that weapon (except by feats, magic, etc).
2) The balance of damage between weapon types seems to occur only by the time Redgar reaches 16th level. In other words, at 6th he'll be a powerhouse of destruction wielding a greatsword over wielding a longsword or dagger. At 11th Redgar could wield a longsword or greatsword with almost equal efficacy. By 16th level he can choose between all three weapon types with little concern for the damage potential - all other factors being equal.
3) Nothing but BAB, potential Str score change, feats or magic will alter things between 16th and beyond (but that is not necessarily a problem).

Given the above, is this the outcome you were looking for?

Or should there be a shift as to which level the greatsword-wielders get their 2nd iterative attack (say at 11th rather than 6th) to keep things reasonably balanced across the levels from 1st to 16th? (And likewise those one-handed weapon-wielders would get their 2nd and 3rd iterative attacks at later levels than light weapon-wielders.) I'm thinking balance shouldn't occur just at end points but should be consistant throughout class progreesion(within reason).

I would propose this additional rule:

One-handed weapons gain their 2nd iterative attack (still -5 to BAB) at 9th level, and their third iterative attack at 17th (still -10 to BAB). (Rounded off to odd levels to make up a bit for being slightly better in avarage damage than light weapons and two-handed weapons. 8th and 15th would have been too early.)

Two-handed weapon gain their 2nd iterative attack at 11th level (still -5 to BAB).

Thus the cumulative -5 per iteration is no longer firmly tied to the BAB value.

Effective number of attack iterations per weapon type:
-1-lvl: 1 (light), 1 (one-hnd), 1 (two-hnd)
-2-lvl: 1, 1, 1
-3-lvl: 1, 1, 1
-4-lvl: 1, 1, 1
-5-lvl: 1, 1, 1
-6-lvl: 2, 1, 1
-7-lvl: 2, 1, 1
-8-lvl: 2, 1, 1
-9-lvl: 2, 2, 1
10-lvl: 2, 2, 1
11-lvl: 3, 2, 2
12-lvl: 3, 2, 2
13-lvl: 3, 2, 2
14-lvl: 3, 2, 2
15-lvl: 3, 2, 2
16-lvl: 4, 2, 2
17-lvl: 4, 3, 2
18-lvl: 4, 3, 2
19-lvl: 4, 3, 2
20-lvl: 4, 3, 2

I'm now wondering: how will this alter the Two-Weapon Fighting feats?

That was just more of my 2 cents. Whether this is a practical change is something I'll have to play-test with my players

 

[Kerrick]

Given the above, is this the outcome you were looking for?

No, not really... and not something I had considered, frankly. Course, epic levels is when they start dealing huge amounts of damage (all types) - we had a barbarian/Frenzied Berserker (?) who could dish out 400+ point of damage a round while raging, using a greataxe, IIRC - it was a few years ago.

Your solution looks similar to what EQ used. The problem there is that if you get disarmed in the middle of combat, you'd have to shift gears and figure out how many attacks you get with the new weapon, whatever it may be (at least it seems that way to me; it might be easier in actual play).