No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[Baby Samurai]

* I want faster combat, and I don't want to have to change the monsters as they are written (except for changing the iterative attacks of weapon-yielding monsters, of course.)

Mobility is not nor has ever been part of my particular equation, but is merely a byproduct of my decisions to make these three reasons come into being.

So you plan on keeping the full attack action?

See my post above – what do you think?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Bu this brings up the problem of a roper getting to make 10 strand attacks as a standard action, or a mindflayer attacking with all 4 tentacles as a standard action etc.

Well, not actually.
My idea was to have a monster's primary attack follow the rules we've been discussing. So a dragon bites for xd8 (x = BAB multiplication) + modifier damage. The dragon can also choose to full attack. That still gives it a powerful bite and a series of less powerful claw and wing attacks. So it has to decide if it wants to stay put and full attack or bite once and be on the move.
I realise this rewards the dragon quite a bit. The only way to avoid this (IMO) is to make iterative attack multiplication dependant on full attack (and thus less movement).

It might be cool, and give everything more mobility and add a better sense of movement in combat.

Indeed, and seems to be what SW Saga strives for. Who knows, it might even be where 4th Ed. is headed.

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) The only way to avoid this (IMO) is to make iterative attack multiplication dependant on full attack (and thus less movement).


2.) Indeed, and seems to be what SW Saga strives for. Who knows, it might even be where 4th Ed. is headed.

1.) This is what I'm doing…for now.


2.) Oh, I'm sure that Saga is a testing of the waters for The Edition That Shall Not Be Named.


So if we project well, we could be playing 3.75.

 

[Flynn]

So you plan on keeping the full attack action?

See my post above – what do you think?

I do plan on keeping the full attack action, for multiple reasons, not just iterative attacks. As to your post above, it looks like a very viable option, and things like the roper and dragon, etc., will benefit greatly from the ruling, but I don't think it's a big problem. (Remember, in 2nd Edition, it wasn't a problem, just something you dreaded facing as a PC.)

My suggestion: Get some players together, and run a few of these "problem child" encounters as part of a test run of the system. Only when you're at the table are you going to see some of the potential problems you'll run into using this system.

Please share with us what you find out,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

My idea was to have a monster's primary attack follow the rules we've been discussing. So a dragon bites for xd8 (x = BAB multiplication) + modifier damage. The dragon can also choose to full attack. That still gives it a powerful bite and a series of less powerful claw and wing attacks. So it has to decide if it wants to stay put and full attack or bite once and be on the move.
I realise this rewards the dragon quite a bit. The only way to avoid this (IMO) is to make iterative attack multiplication dependant on full attack (and thus less movement).

Well, I've stated my opinion on this matter above, and I'd simply point once again to the rule being discussed: you multiply the base damage by the number of iterative attacks you would get from the standard rules. If the bite gets iterative attacks, then go for it. If not, it's a different rule, and doesn't apply here.

That being said, remember that it is your game, and you can do what you please. As I suggested to Baby Samurai, I recommend that you get some players together and try out a few of these "problem child" scenarios as a test of the system.

Please let us know what you find out,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

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.

As an aside, airwalkrr, I ran the numbers on this system using my spreadsheet, and the resulting damage actually remains fairly close (within a point or two per round, on the average) to that of the 3E iterative attacks, with no damage modifications needed at all. At lower damage ranges, this actually appears to favor the AD&D approach. At the upper end, 3E starts to slide out in front. As an alternate solution, this is an excellent suggestion.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier, and then forgot about it in the ensuing discussion. Thanks for pitching in your thoughts.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) I do plan on keeping the full attack action, for multiple reasons, not just iterative attacks.

2.) As to your post above, it looks like a very viable option, and things like the roper and dragon, etc., will benefit greatly from the ruling, but I don't think it's a big problem. (Remember, in 2nd Edition, it wasn't a problem, just something you dreaded facing as a PC.)

3.) My suggestion: Get some players together, and run a few of these "problem child" encounters as part of a test run of the system. Only when you're at the table are you going to see some of the potential problems you'll run into using this system.

1.) Aside from iterative attacks and monster’s full attacks, why would you need the full attack action? I understand still keeping the full round action for casting certain spells that have 1 round as a casting time etc.

2.) As long as everybody (PC's and monsters) get their full attacks as a standard action, I could see it working out just dandy. I sometimes miss those 1st/2nd edition days…

3.) Definitely, and will let you know the results.

 

[Flynn]

1.) Aside from iterative attacks and monster’s full attacks, why would you need the full attack action? I understand still keeping the full round action for casting certain spells that have 1 round as a casting time etc.

Things like Coup De Grace; Reload a Heavy Crossbow; Run; Two-Weapon Fighting; Withdraw...

2.) As long as everybody (PC's and monsters) get their full attacks as a standard action, I could see it working out just dandy. I sometimes miss those 1st/2nd edition days…

Actually, I reread the 2nd Edition combat yesterday, and realized that the concept of multiple attacks were full-attack actions, since you could only move have your move and make a single attack (move action followed by a standard action), or you could throw all of your attacks if you did not move. Just an FYI, not really pertinent to this conversation...

3.) Definitely, and will let you know the results.

Great. Looking forward to it. It might be a few weeks before I can try it out myself.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) Things like Coup De Grace; Reload a Heavy Crossbow; Run; Two-Weapon Fighting; Withdraw...



2.) Actually, I reread the 2nd Edition combat yesterday, and realized that the concept of multiple attacks were full-attack actions, since you could only move have your move and make a single attack (move action followed by a standard action), or you could throw all of your attacks if you did not move. Just an FYI, not really pertinent to this conversation...



3.) Great. Looking forward to it. It might be a few weeks before I can try it out myself.

1.) Speaking of withdraw, they are doing a really cool thing in Saga – instead of the withdraw action being full round, it is a move action, but you can only move half your movement rate and must end in a non-threatened square. You like?



2.) Right on, it's been years since I unknowingly mutilated the 2nd edition rules.



3.) Me too. Well, if you get to try it out first, let me know.

 

[Flynn]

1.) Speaking of withdraw, they are doing a really cool thing in Saga – instead of the withdraw action being full round, it is a move action, but you can only move half your movement rate and must end in a non-threatened square. You like?

The SECR "Withdraw" has potential, and makes sense to me. I will definitely consider it.

Thanks,
Flynn