No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[Baby Samurai]

Umm, Baby Samurai, calculating average damage per strike is not done that way. You multiply the percent chance to hit by the average damage to find the damage for that strike.

I told you I wasn't Math Boy.

So, due to your analysis, do you think multiplying the base weapon damage by the number of attacks you have is the best way to go to make up for the loss of iterative attacks/simulate average damage?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Let's see.... New numbers inserted:

Variant I: Multiply base weapon damage by the number of attacks the character would have under the standard system (BAB +11 = base weapon damage x 3 etc).

Variant II: Add BAB bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11 to damage)

Variant III: Add BAB and iterative bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11, +6, and +1 to damage)


Examples:


11th level fighter, 18 Str, +1 greatsword: vs. AC 24 (that is, 65 % chance of hit)

Standard: Melee +1 greatsword +16/+11/+6 (2d6+7) – average damage on one hit: 9,1, average damage on two hits: 14,7, average damage if all three hit: 16,8

Variant I: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (6d6+7) – average damage: 18,2

Variant II: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+18) – average damage: 16,25

Variant III: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+25) – average damage: 20,8




20th level fighter, 20 Str, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, +5 greatsword vs. AC 33 (95 % chance of hit) :

Standard: Melee +5 greatsword +32/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+16) – average damage on one hit: 21.85, average damage on two hits: 37,95, average damage on three hits: 48,3, average damage if all four hit: 52,9

Variant I: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (8d6+16) – average damage: 41,8

Variant II: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+36) – average damage: 40,85

Variant III: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+66) – average damage: 69,35

 

[Flynn]

I told you I wasn't Math Boy.

So, due to your analysis, do you think multiplying the base weapon damage by the number of attacks you have is the best way to go to make up for the loss of iterative attacks/simulate average damage?

In my opinion, that is the approach by which the averages tend to work out the best, over the range that I have reviewed. YMMV. Sorcica's spreadsheet may actually provide a better estimate on that.

However, the more I think about it, the more I am considering that I may go with adding BAB to damage, just because it's easy for the players to remember and it doesn't require any added complications when calculating critical hits, etc.

Greater accuracy versus ease of use.... which to take?

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

Let's see.... New numbers inserted:

Variant I: Multiply base weapon damage by the number of attacks the character would have under the standard system (BAB +11 = base weapon damage x 3 etc).

Variant II: Add BAB bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11 to damage)

Variant III: Add BAB and iterative bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11, +6, and +1 to damage)


Examples:


11th level fighter, 18 Str, +1 greatsword: vs. AC 24 (that is, 65 % chance of hit)

Standard: Melee +1 greatsword +16/+11/+6 (2d6+7) – average damage on one hit: 9,1, average damage on two hits: 14,7, average damage if all three hit: 16,8

Variant I: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (6d6+7) – average damage: 18,2

Variant II: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+18) – average damage: 16,25

Variant III: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+25) – average damage: 20,8




20th level fighter, 20 Str, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, +5 greatsword vs. AC 33 (95 % chance of hit) :

Standard: Melee +5 greatsword +32/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+16) – average damage on one hit: 21.85, average damage on two hits: 37,95, average damage on three hits: 48,3, average damage if all four hit: 52,9

Variant I: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (8d6+16) – average damage: 41,8

Variant II: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+36) – average damage: 40,85

Variant III: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+66) – average damage: 69,35

Right on, thanks for that!

So, my burning question to your almighty wisdom, which is the best variant to go with?

 

[Baby Samurai]

However, the more I think about it, the more I am considering that I may go with adding BAB to damage, just because it's easy for the players to remember and it doesn't require any added complications when calculating critical hits, etc.

I think I agree that adding BAB (my Variant II) is the best way to go, but I want to hear what Sorcica thinks.

 

[Flynn]

I think I agree that adding BAB (my Variant II) is the best way to go, but I want to hear what Sorcica thinks.

Whichever route you decide, Baby Samurai, in your games, are you going to make it a standard action to get the extra damage (i.e. it happens all the time), or will it require a full-round action (standard+move) to get the extra damage?

The first more appropriately reflects the iterative attack principle, while the second is just simply easier all the way around, but isn't as consistent with the standard rules.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

Whichever route you decide, Baby Samurai, in your games, are you going to make it a standard action to get the extra damage (i.e. it happens all the time), or will it require a full-round action (standard+move) to get the extra damage?

I think to keep it as seamless as possible, the best way to go is to take a full attack action to gain the extra damage, just like you have to take a full attack action to get iterative attacks.

Though I am tempted to let characters get the extra damage and monsters their full array of natural attacks as a standard action, though this would greatly change the tactics of the game.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Let's see.... New numbers inserted:

Variant I: Multiply base weapon damage by the number of attacks the character would have under the standard system (BAB +11 = base weapon damage x 3 etc).

Variant II: Add BAB bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11 to damage)

Variant III: Add BAB and iterative bonus to damage (BAB +11 = add +11, +6, and +1 to damage)


Examples:


11th level fighter, 18 Str, +1 greatsword: vs. AC 24 (that is, 65 % chance of hit)

Standard: Melee +1 greatsword +16/+11/+6 (2d6+7) – average damage on one hit: 9,1, average damage on two hits: 14,7, average damage if all three hit: 16,8

Variant I: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (6d6+7) – average damage: 18,2

Variant II: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+18) – average damage: 16,25

Variant III: Melee +1 greatsword +16 (2d6+25) – average damage: 20,8




20th level fighter, 20 Str, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, +5 greatsword vs. AC 33 (95 % chance of hit) :

Standard: Melee +5 greatsword +32/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+16) – average damage on one hit: 21.85, average damage on two hits: 37,95, average damage on three hits: 48,3, average damage if all four hit: 52,9

Variant I: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (8d6+16) – average damage: 41,8

Variant II: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+36) – average damage: 40,85

Variant III: Melee +5 greatsword +32 (2d6+66) – average damage: 69,35

My number are diferent from yours: STR 20 in 20th level is very low.

20th level fighter, 26 Str, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, improved critical, +5 greatsword. Vs AC 33:
Standard: Melee +5 greatsword +35/+30/+25/+20 (2d6+21, crit 17) - Average damage: 97,44 (including criticals)

Variant I: Melee +5 greatsword +35 (8d6+21 crit 17) – average damage: 55,86 (including criticals)

Variant II: Melee +5 greatsword +35 (2d6+41 crit 17) – average damage: 54,72 (including criticals)

If the AC was 36 the diference is lower.

But what I'm thinking is give +(half the level) to any weapon damage (like the saga edition) and multiply the base damage by (1/5 of the bab) if full attack, so:
Melee +5 greatsword +35 (10d6+31 crit 17) – average damage: 67,26 (including criticals)

 

[Kestrel]

I like the BAB added to damage option, but it seems like it would shaft someone with sneak attack damage. Did I skim the posts too much and miss something?

 

[Flynn]

I like the BAB added to damage option, but it seems like it would shaft someone with sneak attack damage. Did I skim the posts too much and miss something?

Nope, it hasn't been discussed yet, to my knowledge. Essentially, though, there are two possibilities with sneak attack that apply here:
1) conditions where only the first attack gets the bonus sneak attack damage; and
2) conditions where all attacks get the bonus sneak attack damage.

If it's the first possibility, then just adding the sneak attack damage works. They would have only gotten the damage once anyway.

If it's the second possibility, then you have do come up with a way of handling it. I currently am planning on ignoring this possibility and handle all sneak attack situations as if they were the first option.

However, that doesn't address your concerns. Here's a possible solution that might:

Based on the average percent chances of hitting, you could count the number of attacks that would have struck with sneak attack damage, then multiply the number of dice by the appropriate modifier below (round all fractions down, if you want to follow v3.5 logic, or round off if you want to give sneak attacking assassins a break against your PCs):
1 attack = x1
2 attacks = x1.5
3 attacks = x1.8
4 attacks = x2.1

Alternately, you could use different dice and it would work out pretty well. Do the same as above, except that you should replace each 1d6 of sneak attack with the following:
1 attack = 1d6
2 attacks = 1d10
3 attacks = 1d12
4 attacks = 2d6

I don't want to have to track it myself, but this would cover your bases pretty well if you want to for your game.

The same could be used for weapons that deal additional energy-based damage.

Hope this helps,
Flynn