No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[ValhallaGH]

I'm kicking around a variant that you may want to try. Changing iterative attacks.

Basically, characters get a second attack (as part of a standard attack action) when their BAB hits +6, but they get no more iterative attacks. This way they have no loss of combat power for using their move action to move, intimidate, or brag in the middle of a combat; also, it will reduce the per round damage output, lengthening fights so that cool monsters actually get the time needed to be cool.

Full-attack actions will still be required for feats that grant extra attacks (Rapid Shot, Two Weapon Fighting). Though TWF may be a special case. I'll probably let a character use either both weapons or one weapon with the iterative as a standard attack action, but if they want iterative attacks and off-hand attacks then they'll have to full-attack.

In case it's unclear, I haven't tested this yet. Also, I do realize that it's not the solution you're looking for. That said, you may find it to be a useful option to consider.

Best of luck, and I'm watching this thread with interest.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Hey everyone!

Well, I'm back from my weekend of debauchery, but I have been mulling over this no iterative attacks business with great interest. On Saturday at a garden luncheon, I suddenly got a glazed over look in my eye as I started thinking about everything we've come up with so far.

So here are my current thoughts:

I'm still on the fence as to whether the bonus damage (base weapon) should only be applied when the character makes a full attack, or whether I should drop the full attack and just let a character apply his bonus damage on a standard action/attack. The only problem with this change is that now a dragon could claw, claw, bite, wing slap, tail sweep as a standard action. It would also make feats such as Dual Strike and Two-Weapon Pounce obsolete, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

And how would weapon enchantments like flaming work, would we multiply the bonus energy damage (1d6) just like the base weapon damage?

 

[Baby Samurai]

Someone on the WotC boards suggested keeping standard action/attack the same, but multiplying the base weapon damage and bonuses by the number of iterative attacks you would normally receive.

So, as an example, which do you think is the best way to go (see below)?

11th level fighter with an 18 Str and a +1 greatsword:


1.) Standard full attack +16/+11/+6 (2d6+7/19-20)

2.) Variant I full attack +16 (6d6+7/19-20)

3.) Variant II full attack +16 (6d6+21/19-20)

4.) Variant III full attack +16 (2d6+7 x3/19-20)

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I'm still on the fence as to whether the bonus damage (base weapon) should only be applied when the character makes a full attack, or whether I should drop the full attack and just let a character apply his bonus damage on a standard action/attack. The only problem with this change is that now a dragon could claw, claw, bite, wing slap, tail sweep as a standard action. It would also make feats such as Dual Strike and Two-Weapon Pounce obsolete, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

For the critters, a solution could be to let the primary attack get multiplied damage as we've been considering. Then let the critter have the additional attacks with a full attack as per core rules. This means the critter has to decide between mobility or a range of less powerful attacks. Plus, IMO, it's just cool when the critter will be able to attaclk multiple PCs in a way the PCs no longer are able to.

But for characters, we need to decide if we still want melee to a hack contest where the fighters just stand there full attacking, or we want them to be more mobile (and capable of dealing out fair damage).

And how would weapon enchantments like flaming work, would we multiply the bonus energy damage (1d6) just like the base weapon damage?

Well, if damage dice get multiplied, so should energy damage. (IMO)

What about attacks of opportunity? I guess these would only deal 'normal' damage?

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) IMO, it's just cool when the critter will be able to attaclk multiple PCs in a way the PCs no longer are able to.

2.) But for characters, we need to decide if we still want melee to a hack contest where the fighters just stand there full attacking, or we want them to be more mobile (and capable of dealing out fair damage).

3.) Well, if damage dice get multiplied, so should energy damage. (IMO)

4.) What about attacks of opportunity? I guess these would only deal 'normal' damage?

1.) I think so too.

2.) Exactly, but if we take away the full attack action, than we have the problems mentioned above (obsolescence of pounce/Dual Strike etc, and monsters getting their full array of attacks as a standard action/attack)

3.) Agreed

4.) Good question, I guess as you said, normal non-multiplied damage.

 

[Flynn]

I'm still on the fence as to whether the bonus damage (base weapon) should only be applied when the character makes a full attack, or whether I should drop the full attack and just let a character apply his bonus damage on a standard action/attack. The only problem with this change is that now a dragon could claw, claw, bite, wing slap, tail sweep as a standard action. It would also make feats such as Dual Strike and Two-Weapon Pounce obsolete, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If using more than one weapon (or more than one natural attack source), then the range of attacks is still a full-attack action in my book. That's the only way I've found to feel comfortable with the dragon's attack sequence, TWF, etc.

And how would weapon enchantments like flaming work, would we multiply the bonus energy damage (1d6) just like the base weapon damage?

I hadn't planned on multiplying it with the base weapon damage, but I can see your point. It is something to consider.

3.) Variant II full attack +16 (6d6+21/19-20)

4.) Variant III full attack +16 (2d6+7 x3/19-20)

To me, these are the same, as I don't multiply damage results when I see them listed as such, but rather roll for each set. It took me a moment to realize what you are getting at, and I would advice Variant II for consistency with the game's current implementation on multiples.

Hope that helps,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

For the critters, a solution could be to let the primary attack get multiplied damage as we've been considering. Then let the critter have the additional attacks with a full attack as per core rules. This means the critter has to decide between mobility or a range of less powerful attacks. Plus, IMO, it's just cool when the critter will be able to attack multiple PCs in a way the PCs no longer are able to.

Natural attacks for monsters are not iterative attacks, and so should not be multiplied. ONLY iterative attacks should be multiplied. Multiple attacks should not.

Well, if damage dice get multiplied, so should energy damage. (IMO)

For consistency's sake, you're probably right. I'm still thinking about it, though.

What about attacks of opportunity? I guess these would only deal 'normal' damage?

They should do whatever you decide a standard action should do. If you don't have to take a full-attack action to get the multiplier, then AOOs should be multiplied, too. If you have to take a full-attack action to get the multiplier under your implementation of this system, then AOOs do not get the multiplier.

This is the most logical approach in my eyes, and keeps it consistent with the rest of your implementation.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) If using more than one weapon (or more than one natural attack source), then the range of attacks is still a full-attack action in my book. That's the only way I've found to feel comfortable with the dragon's attack sequence, TWF, etc.



2.) It took me a moment to realize what you are getting at, and I would advice Variant II for consistency with the game's current implementation on multiples.

1.) So you think we should keep the full attack action, and that you should still multiply the damage (by number of attacks) when attacking as a standard action? For a greatsword wielding fighter, that would make no difference if he chose a standard attack of a full attack (he would get the same damage).


2.) So do you think it is a good idea to multiple the static bonus as well as the base weapon damage as in my variant II, or to just multiply the base weapon damage as we discussed last Friday?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Natural attacks for monsters are not iterative attacks, and so should not be multiplied. ONLY iterative attacks should be multiplied. Multiple attacks should not.

Good point.
But this seems to indicate that multiplication requires full attack, i.e. if the critter can only fullfill it's damage potential by full attacking, then this should apply to characters as well.
The other solution is to let the critters' primary attack get multiplication as a standard attack and then let it have the option of additional (normal) attacks, as I suggested.

They should do whatever you decide a standard action should do. If you don't have to take a full-attack action to get the multiplier, then AOOs should be multiplied, too. If you have to take a full-attack action to get the multiplier under your implementation of this system, then AOOs do not get the multiplier.

This is the most logical approach in my eyes, and keeps it consistent with the rest of your implementation.

Agreed.

Next question: Damage Reduction (difficult one )

 

[Baby Samurai]

Next question: Damage Reduction (difficult one )

Damn you!

Again – good question…thinking…thinking…