No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[Baby Samurai]

-I agree with only applying the crit to the base weapon damage, before BAB multiplier increases.


-They don't use hitpoints, and they rewrote the monsters, so their solution ultimately doesn't apply to our desired approach.

-Right on.

-Totally, absolutely not – thanks for filling me in.


Well, I'm off for the weekend, thanks again for all your help, Flynn, and hopefully catch you next week.

Take care and beware of devious midgets,





Baby Samurai

 

[airwalkrr]

Your idea isn't bad. I wouldn't mind playing with it. Here is some food for thought though. I prefer to use AD&D-inspired rules for bonus attacks. It both reduces the total number of attacks made and makes attack bonus calculation simpler. At +6, +11, and +16, the character gets an additional half of an attack. At +6 the character gets 3 attacks every 2 rounds at his highest attack bonus. The character gets 1 attack the first round and 2 attacks the second if he uses a full attack action in two consecutive rounds. At +11, the character gets 2 attacks every round at his highest attack bonus. At +16, the character gets 5 attacks every 2 rounds at his highest attack bonus.

I find this system vastly superior to the 3.5 system. If you hadn't considered it before, it might give you what you are looking for.

 

[Terraism]

I've been toying around with this idea for some time - mostly because iterative attacks, conceptually, don't make sense to me. Well, that, and I hate that higher-level characters stand to lose so much by not full attacking, while it matters not a whit to BAB<6 folk.

At low levels, we accept that the attack roll isn't actually the only swing made each round. It's just representative of an attack that actually does damage. At higher levels, however, it seems that the representative nature of the attack roll is discarded, inasmuch as more than one can be made on a full attack. Not only are the attack rolls suddenly more apt to represent actual swings, the benefit of making additional attacks helps reinforce the "stand and swing" complaint often made about d20 combat.

So I like this thread. I'd known for some time I didn't particularly like how iterative attacks worked, but I had real idea for how to replace them. Based on what's been discussed here, I believe the following to be true:

Having a single stronger attack as opposed to iteratives weakens combatants when...

• ...there are many low-AC opponents who can be one-shotted.
• ...the target's AC is high enough that even a primary attack will only hit on a 20.
• ...the combatant's damage modifiers to his roll are exceptionally high.

This strengthens combatants when...

• ...targets have an AC in such a range that the primary attack is likely to hit, but others are not.
• ...there are many low-AC opponents who don't die in a single shot.
• ...the battlefield environment emphasizes mobility.
• ...individual attacks normally do little damage and the target has DR.

Generally speaking, I'm okay with the weakening - I try not to throw such high-AC foes at my players that specialized combatants still can't hit them, so that's negligible. Similarly, one-shottable mooks I usually just handwave unless they are using gang tactics that would make them a meaningful threat. On the plus side of removing iteratives, however, is the heavy "the battlefield emphasizes mobility" endorsement. While I can't be sure, it seems that strengthening single attacks may push combatants to more creative use of the battlefield. Plus, it generally means less dice. (Yes, yes, I understand it's geeky to want to roll many dice. But iterative attacks can get lengthy. )

So, these in mind, I sought to put together a system in which the bonus to a single attack adequately replaced (in my mind) the damage benefit of iterative attacks. While I liked the simplicity of the "add BAB to damage" mechanic suggested earlier, my initial tests showed that it wasn't performing quite up to par. After running some numbers, I think the idea works - provided you adjust the damage bonus using the modifiers for strength bonus to damage (x.5 for light weapons, x1.5 for two-handed weapons.)

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet (1997-2007 compatible) where you can see the average damage breakdown versus varying ACs with and without iteratives. Attack and damage amounts can be easily adjusted to test how different characters would be affected.

As a closing, various other combat maneuvers (especially repeat grappling) would, of necessity, be changed in this system, though I haven't fully examined them yet. Also worth considering would be natural attacks - as they're not giving anything up, they may not need changes, but it's probably worth investigating to be certain.

Here's to hoping I didn't post to the thread *after* it started dying. Hate to get the blame for killing yet another good thread.

[Edit] Oh, as a sidenote. The spreadsheet should be handy even if you disregard the columns pertaining to the non-iterative ruleset and are just looking to determine which sort of changes to an existing character's combat capabilities would provide the greatest adjustment.

 

[Flynn]

Terraism,

Very nice work on the spreadsheet. I am very impressed! That probably gives the best snapshot of a character for comparison purposes that I've seen yet. Much better work than my own.

No, I doubt that you have joined a dead thread, but please know that Baby Samurai probably won't be on again until Monday or Tuesday (given one of his previous comments about the weekend, either here or on one of the other related threads).

Does your spreadsheet test the concept of increasing base damage, as my latest suggestion? While my spreadsheet seems to indicate that it's a good idea, I would appreciate seeing validation or invalidation through someone else's work. If my idea works, then there's no need to worry about changing the bonus damage adjustment as per the Str modifier as you suggested.

Also, I really like how you've captured the basic Pros and Cons of using non-iterative attacks versus iterative attacks. Although I hadn't considered the mobility issue, your post did bring that realization to mind. I definitely hope I see more of that kind of action in my next campaign.

Thanks For Joining Us,
Flynn

 

[Terraism]

Very nice work on the spreadsheet. I am very impressed! That probably gives the best snapshot of a character for comparison purposes that I've seen yet. Much better work than my own.

Thanks. I'm quite possibly overly-fond of Excel, and it may show in things like this.

No, I doubt that you have joined a dead thread, but please know that Baby Samurai probably won't be on again until Monday or Tuesday (given one of his previous comments about the weekend, either here or on one of the other related threads).

Yes, I saw his comment. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek; I have this bad habit of just observing the interesting threads until I come up with what I find to be a foolproof solution... at which point the participants have already found theirs, packed their bags, and gone home. :S

Does your spreadsheet test the concept of increasing base damage, as my latest suggestion? While my spreadsheet seems to indicate that it's a good idea, I would appreciate seeing validation or invalidation through someone else's work. If my idea works, then there's no need to worry about changing the bonus damage adjustment as per the Str modifier as you suggested.

It doesn't as of the one posted above, but it's easy enough to test. Attached is an updated version of the spreadsheet that has a saved value for adding a flat damage die (adjustable) per iterative attack. As far as adding the base weapon damage based on iteratives (not multiplied on a crit) that's easy enough to do by just manually inputting the base damage into the "Non-Crit Damage" section, in whatever amount is appropriate to the current BAB. (I could add another set of fields to calculate it, but... nah. )

As a sidenote, however, having ran some tests with that (Ftr6 with Str18, a +1 greatsword, Weapon Focus & Specialization, again at 11 and 16 with appropriately adjusted values; Rog8 with 14 Str & 18 Dex, +1 rapier, Weapon Finesse & Focus, again at 15 with a +1 flaming keen rapier), the numbers are coming out slightly further away from the core values by adding the base damage die (not multiplied on a crit) per iterative given up. Not hugely so, but enough that it's at least not seeming to be a significant improvement over the +BAB system, especially given the added complexity.

It's also worth noting that it does a very poor job of preserving the balance of people who use a low-damage weapon with many bonuses (dagger-wielding halflings with sneak attack come to mind; for an 8th level halfling rogue with a 1d3 dagger, average damage/round in core, versus opponents from AC10-AC30 is 20.63. In this system, it's 13.55. A 35% drop. In the BAB system, it's 16.61, which is only a 20% drop.)

Now, the Spycraft style ruling of allowing an attack with each action per round would notably improve damage over a core full attack from BAB 6-10. After that, not so much. Personally, while I like Spycraft and find it an improvement over core iteratives, I still prefer not to use the system - mostly because, as mentioned, a lot of my reason for doing this is to offer strong incentive for people to use their move action to move, and being able to use it for more damage strongly opposes that.

Also, I really like how you've captured the basic Pros and Cons of using non-iterative attacks versus iterative attacks. Although I hadn't considered the mobility issue, your post did bring that realization to mind. I definitely hope I see more of that kind of action in my next campaign.

Thanks again. It seemed important to come up with an actual list of reasons why this variant is even worth pursuing before dumping a lot of time into it. Plus, the friend I tend to bounce ideas off of needed some persuading, so I sorta already had it by the time I went to post.

As for as movement, while I've been trying to increase its role in my current game by making battlefields more interactive, it's still been an uphill battle versus the massive allure of around 60% more damage.

Thanks For Joining Us,
Flynn

Glad to.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Now, the Spycraft style ruling of allowing an attack with each action per round would notably improve damage over a core full attack from BAB 6-10. After that, not so much. Personally, while I like Spycraft and find it an improvement over core iteratives, I still prefer not to use the system - mostly because, as mentioned, a lot of my reason for doing this is to offer strong incentive for people to use their move action to move, and being able to use it for more damage strongly opposes that.

This was what I was looking for, when asking about Spycraft.
What would need to be done about the damage system suggested earlier in this thread if combatants have the option of two half actions, and not as in SW SAGA, one move, one standard and one swift?
I too would like that combat was more than stand still, full attack swing till the end. So I see the problem with two half actions. It's just that Spycraft has so many cool feats and martial arts and a supplement for profiency based combat tricks coming out and....

But are we right now talking abiut a damage system where characters have a move action, a swift action and a standard action with increasing damage? If so we need to consider the much greater damage output while still being mobile in our assesment of core vs. our system.

This thread's still looking good!
But maybe a status. What's the current system? A muLtiplication of base weapon damage, and crits add the crit's normal core rule effect?

 

[Flynn]

This was what I was looking for, when asking about Spycraft.
What would need to be done about the damage system suggested earlier in this thread if combatants have the option of two half actions, and not as in SW SAGA, one move, one standard and one swift?

While that was not originally in the scope of this discussion, I'm sure that there are people who wouldn't mind throwing in their opinion on that. Personally, I think that Spycraft requires very little change, because of the way NPCs are generated. The stats are already in line with the system, so all you need are monsters statted under the Spycraft NPC system. Given that Crafty Games is supposed to be coming out with a fantasy variant at some point, you may not have long to wait for that. Otherwise, you may have to do some translating on your own until that happens.

I too would like that combat was more than stand still, full attack swing till the end. So I see the problem with two half actions. It's just that Spycraft has so many cool feats and martial arts and a supplement for proficiency based combat tricks coming out and....

I can understand. That's why I'd rather point to the publisher's fantasy variant that was rumored to be coming at some point. Else, my solution is to stat everything into their NPC system and then use the Spycraft system as written.

But are we right now talking about a damage system where characters have a move action, a swift action and a standard action with increasing damage? If so we need to consider the much greater damage output while still being mobile in our assessment of core vs. our system.

Actually, we're talking about porting the Saga Edition concept of no iterative attacks into D&D, where characters don't necessarily have swift actions (unless the DM uses them in his games because he allows psionics).

This thread's still looking good!
But maybe a status. What's the current system? A multiplication of base weapon damage, and crits add the crit's normal core rule effect?

Looks like you have my conclusions down. However, to be fair, there probably is no one true way to handle this situation. So feel free to find a way that works for you. You might also enjoy reading the thread that spawned this one:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195546

Hope This Helps,
Flynn

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Actually, we're talking about porting the Saga Edition concept of no iterative attacks into D&D, where characters don't necessarily have swift actions (unless the DM uses them in his games because he allows psionics).

I guess my question should have been: Then what are full attacks for now?

On another note: I like your rule on Power attack. However, it seems to me that an extra weapon die of damage for a -2 to attack deviates from the +1 damage die per iterative attack assumption. Shouldn't PW be an extra die of damage for a -5 penalty (and allowing it's use even when BAB is less than +5)?

 

[Flynn]

I guess my question should have been: Then what are full attacks for now?

There are those that would like to reserve the bonus damage for full attack actions. Others want to follow the Saga Edition and not worry about it. Me, I'm in the second camp, but truth be told, there's a lot that makes sense in reserving it for the full attack actions. I feel it's a matter of personal choice.

On another note: I like your rule on Power attack. However, it seems to me that an extra weapon die of damage for a -2 to attack deviates from the +1 damage die per iterative attack assumption. Shouldn't PW be an extra die of damage for a -5 penalty (and allowing it's use even when BAB is less than +5)?

My resolution to the non-iterative attack is to multiply the base weapon damage by some factor. Power attack differs in that it allows only one die to be added. This is the same thing for most weapons, but for things like the great sword, it's only an additional d6. This is just a clarification.

To address your comment, think of it this way: If the average person gets an extra die per iterative attack (or +1 die per -5 BAB), then a feat should give you something better. Here's a feat that essentially lets you act as if you got an extra die for a -2 BAB, a step up in some ways from the normal situation.

For two-handed weapon use, it's normally -1 on the attack roll per +2 damage. I wanted to make it a standard effect, so I chose a -2, to get +4 damage. When reading about Saga Edition adding a die of damage for a -2 penalty, I decided that +4 was close enough to an extra die, and decided to go with that instead. Rather than create a new feat like SECR's Mighty Blow, I just modified Power Attack to make it more than a stepping stone feat, as I usually see it used in my campaigns. Since then, I've read in someone's house rules of a similar approach, and thus found some personal validation in my decision.

You are free to change it to fit your campaign model as you see fit, though.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

This is the same thing for most weapons, but for things like the great sword, it's only an additional d6. This is just a clarification.

I understood it as an extra addition of the base weapon damge. That is PW with longsword + 1d8 dam, PW with bastard swords +1d10 dam and PW with greatsword +2d6. Is this incorrect? (If +1d6 is what's added for great swords, great axes become much more powerful).

Hope this helps,

Sure does.
Really enjoying this thread