No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[Baby Samurai]

Iterative attacks are apparently there to balance melee types against caster types (poorly). And the part about a wizard being able to do more damage and still able to take a move action is my problem. The problem with the full attack is that it encourages melee types to very unexcitedly get to a position where they can full attack, and then just stand there and hammer away until they or their enemy drops – lame.

Two cool things about Saga is that they have changed the withdraw action to a move action, but you can only move half of your speed and you must withdraw to a non-threatened space. They have also replaced iterative attacks with bonus damage to your attack (half of your CL rounded down). You can still can get more than one attack with things such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Cleave, Rapid Shot etc, just no more iterative attacks. I just think unless an 11th level ranger can get a full attack, he gets 1 measly attack, but if he suddenly gets to make a full attack he leaps up to 6 attacks is really unbalanced, unrealistic and too disparate.

How would implementing the Defence bonus from UA on top of armour and using the damage bonus of half your CL (from Saga) balance the loss of iterative attacks?

…Or something else entirely?

 

[hong]

The flipside of full attacks is that they _also_ encourage the target to get out of range of a full attack, lest they suffer the consequences.

Get Bo9S and use strikes. They let you deal gobs of damage without having to stand there and bash away.

 

[Darklone]

Well, it does make TWF much more interesting. Yet I still think it screws melee types and archers a lot.

Looking at a TWF dude with BAB 16... his first four attacks usually have a pretty nice chance to hit, causing easily more than 100 points of damage (taking into account energy bonus damage or sneak attack and/or str and/or magic bonuses and other stuff). A measly +8 or +10 to damage for only one or two attacks screws him horribly.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Get Bo9S and use strikes. They let you deal gobs of damage without having to stand there and bash away.

I have that book, but I'm thinking of non-initiator classes.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Looking at a TWF dude with BAB 16... his first four attacks usually have a pretty nice chance to hit, causing easily more than 100 points of damage (taking into account energy bonus damage or sneak attack and/or str and/or magic bonuses and other stuff). A measly +8 or +10 to damage for only one or two attacks screws him horribly.

I totally agree with that, I just think the difference between an attack (standard action) and a full attack (full round action) is too disparate at higher levels

Maybe a bigger/different bonus damage to your attack?

 

[Flynn]

Baby Samurai,

It is my opinion that the UA Defense bonus simply defines the lower limit of AC for D&D characters, once it gets implemented. It does not work as Defense does in D20 Modern, where the value is additive to the AC. Instead, if I am reading this correctly, the UA Defense bonus takes the place of the armor bonus of the armor worn, if the Defense bonus is higher. Therefore, it simply affects AC, which doesn't impact a character in regards to their own iterative attacks.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm

Now, if you are going to go with the D20 Modern approach to Defense bonuses (where the bonus adds to AC in addition to the armor bonus), then you should use D20 Modern numbers, which are significantly lower than those found in UA but meet your statement of "Defence bonus from UA on top of armour". I would not add the UA bonus on top of armor, as it is designed to replace armor instead.

Okay, with that out of the way, I've come to figure out that, on average, a series of iterative attacks with normal stat advancement, average magic weapons per the Magic Item Compendium, and no feats (such as TWF, Wpn Focus or Wpn Specialization) produces an average damage bonus increment of 3/4 heroic level instead of 1/2 heroic level.

Other things to consider: This approach should allow you to continue to use the monsters as written (except that you'll want to remove their iterative attacks as well.) Their multiple natural weapons can remain, since they aren't iterative. If you played 1st or 2nd Edition, I'm sure you remember the old claw-claw-bite routine of various creatures against characters that only had one attack a round, so the game is, in my opinion, still balanced with that increase.

Here's where some people may have problems with the additional bonus damage concept: With iterative attacks, you might miss the first time and hit the rest, for at least a little damage. With single attacks a round, if you miss, you miss. Period. No make-ups. That's also why I don't mind using the 3/4 improvement instead of the 1/2 improvement.

Additionally, though it most likely doesn't apply to you, I use Grim Tales' action points. Since I've had lots of players emulate the Heroic Surge feat in my GT game to get an extra attack a round by spending an action point, I'm going to follow in GT's footsteps (much as True20 has done), and allow an action point to grant a second attack, even though there's not a Heroic Surge feat to emulate in D&D. The number of action points regulates that extra attack in itself, since that's a resource that gets spent over the course of the session for other things such as confirming criticals. (I don't use threat checks, but confirm all criticals through action points as per GT.) I'm okay with that, because it doesn't delay the game, and the PC is spending an action point to get that extra roll.

(FYI, in case you're wondering, GT action points are renewed, at least for my games, on a session basis. You can elect to renew them on a level basis, per the standard, or even never, but I like the cinematic quality I get from session-based action point renewal.)

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Veril]

The very simplified math:

Assuming a fighter has a 75% chance to hit a typical foe with their primary attack at each level. at 6th, they get a 50% chance to hit a foe. So now their total damage is 125% of average damage. at 11th they add another attack, at 25%, so damage rises to 150%

at 5th an 18 str fighter with a +1 specialised bastardsword does 9.375 damage on average.
At 6th level this rises to 15.625.
At 10th level this rises as he will have more feats and a better weapon, and stats giving another +4 base damage and and aother +20% to hit leading to abour 28
damage, and at 11th with another attack rising to 34.65.

look at the average damage increases for gettng another attack: it's about +6.

You could kind of simplify this into giving people some extra melee damage equal to their base attack bonus.

Standard attack: as per now, unchanged.
Full attack: bonus damage equal to your attack bonus.

It's not quite right, but as a rough and ready solution it would work. I'm thinking of adopting it to speed up gameplay.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Baby Samurai,

1.) It is my opinion that the UA Defense bonus simply defines the lower limit of AC for D&D characters, once it gets implemented. It does not work as Defense does in D20 Modern, where the value is additive to the AC. Instead, if I am reading this correctly, the UA Defense bonus takes the place of the armor bonus of the armor worn, if the Defense bonus is higher. Therefore, it simply affects AC, which doesn't impact a character in regards to their own iterative attacks.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm

Now, if you are going to go with the D20 Modern approach to Defense bonuses (where the bonus adds to AC in addition to the armor bonus), then you should use D20 Modern numbers, which are significantly lower than those found in UA but meet your statement of "Defence bonus from UA on top of armour". I would not add the UA bonus on top of armor, as it is designed to replace armor instead.

Okay, with that out of the way, I've come to figure out that, on average, a series of iterative attacks with normal stat advancement, average magic weapons per the Magic Item Compendium, and no feats (such as TWF, Wpn Focus or Wpn Specialization) produces an average damage bonus increment of 3/4 heroic level instead of 1/2 heroic level.



2.) Other things to consider: This approach should allow you to continue to use the monsters as written (except that you'll want to remove their iterative attacks as well.) Their multiple natural weapons can remain, since they aren't iterative. If you played 1st or 2nd Edition, I'm sure you remember the old claw-claw-bite routine of various creatures against characters that only had one attack a round, so the game is, in my opinion, still balanced with that increase.

Here's where some people may have problems with the additional bonus damage concept: With iterative attacks, you might miss the first time and hit the rest, for at least a little damage. With single attacks a round, if you miss, you miss. Period. No make-ups. That's also why I don't mind using the 3/4 improvement instead of the 1/2 improvement.



3.) Hope this helps,

1.) Gotcha – will use Modern defence rules to stack with armour etc. Will definitely look into your 3/4 CL damage bonus action.


2.) Yes, I do remember the old days, and I definitely want to keep monsters as is, except, of course, removing their iterative attacks.


3.) Immensely – many thanks. If only more people were as helpful as you.

 

[Baby Samurai]

You could kind of simplify this into giving people some extra melee damage equal to their base attack bonus.

Standard attack: as per now, unchanged.
Full attack: bonus damage equal to your attack bonus.

That is a cool idea, but I'm avoiding the having to stand there like a schmoe just to get some extra damage.

 

[EvilGM]

How would you handle the loss of combat options based on attacks, such as disarm, sunder, and trip? You're removing the ability to perform multiple of these in a round, or even one of them coupled with a regular attack.

Granted, the character could still perform them, but that would be their attack for the round.