Iterative Attacks

[pogre]

As a DM I like it.

I ran several campaigns into the epic levels and iterative attacks annoyed me.

I did have one player who loved rolling handfuls of dice though. He played a high level rogue and relished rolling a few d20's and bucketloads of d6's. I'll have to ask him what he thinks.

He really, really wants to go back to 3.X and I cannot help but think that bucketloads of dice are part of the reason.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I come up with an average loss of 7.5% across the entire to-hit range with 4 attacks, which is half of what you're getting.

It looks like we're using the same methodology-- but I wonder if you're stopping your chart earlier?

I started from the last attack and worked backwards-- cases where you can successfully hit "By 15 or more" on a natural 2.

My chart runs from AC-attack bonus = -13 to +20.

I am perfectly capable of user error, I'll tell you that.

(It's certainly curious that you're getting exactly half what I am getting.)

EDIT 2: Found it. I'm also counting x1.05 for crits. Backing that out, and shortening the chart down to just natural 2 on the first attack, accounts for the difference. We also have a slightly different method for expecation-- I am using long form permutations, but that accounts for a difference in the hundredths of points.

So to reiterate: Your methodology looks fine. An across the board drop in damage won't work for me, but if it works for you, it seems at least you're thinking it through solid.

 

[Gantros]

Thanks for checking Wulf, glad to hear my stats skills haven't completely atrophied yet I was only averaging from 0 to +20, so that explains our different averages. If I extend the range to -13, the average variance drops to -4.4%.

By the way, if you want the level of success method to exactly match the expected damage from the RAW in all cases, there's a simple fix - just add the rule that if you roll a natural 20, you always get the max damage multiplier, regardless of how much you beat the AC by.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I did have one player who loved rolling handfuls of dice though. He played a high level rogue and relished rolling a few d20's and bucketloads of d6's. I'll have to ask him what he thinks.

He really, really wants to go back to 3.X and I cannot help but think that bucketloads of dice are part of the reason.

Bucket loads of dice are fun - especially for damage (soem people are hopeless when it comes to adding them up, though). For a rogue, they won't get as many iterative attacks so I wouldn't think it would be as big of a deal as it is for a fighter...

 

[roguerouge]

Since the existence of scrap paper and the concept of pre-rolling eliminates many of the math concerns in my campaigns that so many people are on about, my only problem with iterative attacks is the loss of a move action to use them. I wouldn't change how iterative attacks work except for that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks for checking Wulf, glad to hear my stats skills haven't completely atrophied yet

If you have stats skills, you're ahead of me. I keep "Probability For Dummies" near at hand.

I actually used the "long form" probability for four attacks, just to be thorough and make sure I had set up the probability problem correctly. You might chuckle to see my spreadsheet-- for a four attack sequence, I calculate each of the 16 possible combinations (1-4-6-4-1) to double check that it occupies the correct proportion of the 160,000 total outcomes.

Yeah, long form.

By the way, if you want the level of success method to exactly match the expected damage from the RAW in all cases, there's a simple fix - just add the rule that if you roll a natural 20, you always get the max damage multiplier, regardless of how much you beat the AC by.

Cool, I'll check that. I wouldn't mind putting that option up against others in a poll. That's very useful.

Walk me through that in the case of criticals.

If you roll a natural 20, you automatically get the full "iterative attack" multiplier. You also score a critical threat-- does the confirmation roll also enjoy the same benefits on a natural 20? In other words, does a 20 followed by a 20 score the full iterative multiplier, with the "base damage" equal to your critical damage roll?

I think your expectation might fall off against weapons with wider threat ranges (19-20, 18-20) that benefit from multiple rolls.

Nice contribution to the thread overall; I am much obliged.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Since the existence of scrap paper and the concept of pre-rolling eliminates many of the math concerns in my campaigns that so many people are on about, my only problem with iterative attacks is the loss of a move action to use them. I wouldn't change how iterative attacks work except for that.

I looked at the idea of allowing multiple attacks even while moving. The problem with that is that it actually punishes the PCs in the long term. They fight a lot more monsters with multiple attacks, often a lot earlier than they themselves have multiple attacks.

The ability to keep on the move and not stand toe to toe with a troll is pretty important in mitigating the effect of its Rend. Same for giants, same for dragons. Mobility helps the PCs more, I think.

 

[roguerouge]

Gantros: my DMs typically don't tell me the AC of what I'm attacking. So doesn't this undermine the time-saving practice of pre-rolling? In your system, I have to ask if each attack hits and by how much. Once I know that, I have to multiply the damage to that hit and write that number down. I do this for each of the four attacks and then sum all that damage that's been multiplied (or not). In the RAW way, you pre-roll your attacks and damage. Then you ask your DM, "Does a 36 hit? No? Does a 39 hit? Yes!" Then I add all the damage from the attacks that hit AC 39 or better and announce the damage and the number of hits. I feel like the multiplication under your system would slow things down at high levels just a bit.

 

[roguerouge]

I looked at the idea of allowing multiple attacks even while moving. The problem with that is that it actually punishes the PCs in the long term. They fight a lot more monsters with multiple attacks, often a lot earlier than they themselves have multiple attacks.

The ability to keep on the move and not stand toe to toe with a troll is pretty important in mitigating the effect of its Rend. Same for giants, same for dragons. Mobility helps the PCs more, I think.

Shoot. You're right. Maybe that's a good feat to design then, which at least limits the access to monsters.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Gantros: my DMs typically don't tell me the AC of what I'm attacking. So doesn't this undermine the time-saving practice of pre-rolling? In your system, I have to ask if each attack hits and by how much.

I have my issues with Gantros' solution (though they are slowly eroding) but I am going to back him up here-- tangentially.

One of the things I mention in in my advice for speeding up play is to dispense with the "AC is secret!" mentality.

My players are smarter than the average bear-- well, mostly, except for the fact that they can't add up bonuses quick enough to suit me. But they add them up between rounds, and they keep notes, and so within about 3 rounds they have the monster's AC pegged to within a couple of points, anyway.

(EDIT: Tangential note. I expect my players to do this-- what I did not expect was that the ringleader behind these careful meta-gamey notes was the LARP'er chick at the table. We're going to miss her, and her "I rage, and I shift, and I power attack for everything I can!"-- graduate school stole her away from us. )

Just dispense with the false suspense: Tell the PCs what the AC is.

The gain you get in a smooth running game far outstrips the benefits of "secret AC."

Shoot. You're right. Maybe that's a good feat to design then, which at least limits the access to monsters.

Two very quick comments, admittedly without a lot of thought behind them:

1) I have no problem with PCs being able to do things the monsters can't, and vice versa.

2) There are existing feats that are similar-- Superior Cleave (Oriental Adventures) lets you take a 5 foot step after you drop an opponent. I could certainly get behind a similar feat-- or, frankly, a blanket permission-- that allows a fighter to move after dropping an opponent, provided he has not moved yet. Basically, allow you to break up your full attack at any point, with one move, provided that such movement wouldn't otherwise provoke an AoO.

But not attack -move a bit - attack -move a bit more - attack, etc.

Hmm... The levels of success method breaks such a solution. Gantros, do you allow the attack multiplier if the combatant has moved?

And while I am thinking of it, do you do anything different with multiple attacks? (Claw/Claw/Bite routines and the like.)