No Iterative Attacks in D&D

[Baby Samurai]

Personally, I'd suggest the following:

1. In a round where you have used your Standard action to make an attack, you may sacrifice two swift actions to make a second attack with the same weapon.



2.) BTW, could you post a link to the WOTC thread where you are discussing this as well?

1.) But you only have one swift action a round, unless we go Saga style, and let characters trade a Move or Standard action for a Swift.

2.) Of course:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=844688

 

[Baby Samurai]

I say go with Variant I. I think it's more accurate. I'm only going to go with Variant II because it's easier on my players.

But with Variant I (your idea) the players get to roll more damage dice (ala ToB) instead of a higher static bonus, which is more fun.


What do you think of:

Variant IV: Trade a Move action for an additional attack (at full BAB), or to get full array of attacks in the case of monsters.

Variant V: Every character gets 3 actions a round: Standard, Move, and Swift. You may sacrifice a Move action for an Attack action (a sub-category of Standard so you still can’t cast/manifest 2 spells/powers a round). And you may sacrifice a Move or Standard action for an additional Swift action.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

See my response above on that very subject. I'd suggest going with the increase die variant. It's easier on the players that way, and your players don't have to do math.

Plus, it's just plain cool to deal d10s of sneak damage

You may just have to make a decision without concensus. That's okay. Find the people that best support the same goal you are looking for, and weigh their opinions a little heavier. I say go with Variant I. I think it's more accurate. I'm only going to go with Variant II because it's easier on my players.

I really like Variant I as well. But it really penalizes the dagger user, which wouldn't happen so much by core rules (if there's a static bonus, that is).

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

But with Variant I (your idea) the players get to roll more damage dice (ala ToB) instead of a higher static bonus, which is more fun.

The dilemma!

What do you think of:

Variant IV: Trade a Move action for an additional attack (at full BAB), or to get full array of attacks in the case of monsters.

Variant V: Every character gets 3 actions a round: Standard, Move, and Swift. You may sacrifice a Move action for an Attack action (a sub-category of Standard so you still can’t cast/manifest 2 spells/powers a round). And you may sacrifice a Move or Standard action for an additional Swift action.

I think that these variants will just encourage hacking away. As long as the move action opens up for more damage, that is what will happen, IMO.

Maybe if you could sacrifice the swift actionfor either an extra attack (or for more damage)?

 

[Baby Samurai]

1.) I think that these variants will just encourage hacking away. As long as the move action opens up for more damage, that is what will happen, IMO.


2. ) Maybe if you could sacrifice the swift actionfor either an extra attack (or for more damage)?

1.) Agreed – maybe the only way is to remove the Full Attack action entirely?


2.) Exactly - like it!

 

[Thondor]

Considering how often the following has come up, I'd like to suggest something completely different.

I would actually like a system where characters and monsters get their full array of attacks as a standard action, thus giving combat more movement and moving away from standing in one place and hacking, which becomes even more apparent at higher levels (for melee types). At levels 1 to 5 a fighter can move and still get his full attack, but suddenly when he reaches 6th (1st iterative) he's encouraged to not move more than 5 ft. a round and stand there like a schmoe – we must fix this.

Keep iterative attacks. (Yes, I know this is a thread about eliminating them, but aside from the above objection -to which I will propose a solution- the only real criticism I've heard of iterative attacks is that it means more dice rolling. Unless I missed something. Still with my suggestion you could still reduce roles using the AD&D attack varaint ie. BAB 1-5 1attack, BAB 6-10 1 1/2attack, BAB 11-15 2attacks etc.)

Keeping Warriors mobile Variant
I see two possibilities,
1) Warriors Classes (and most monsters) can full attack throughout their move action. They can attack any enemy they can reach in a move action.
2) Warriors Classes (and most monsters) can full attack throughout their move action as long as they only move half of their Base Land speed. They can attack any enemy they can reach in half their move.
This would allow for some serious tactical movement on the part of the warriors. I believe it would help to remedy some of the classic feeling that spellcasters outstrip warriors at higher levels.This would make some feats redundant for warriors under 1) and subpar under 2) : mobility, whirlwind attack (any warrior can now attack whomever he please with his 1st 2nd third and fourth attack), ride-by attack. This would also increase the abilities of TWF. (Although I suppose it would also really helps those with Cleave because of your ability to move between attacks. You'd probably have to limit Great Cleave, say to a number of attacks equal to the characters Str Bonus.)
Moreover if you adopt the all Warrior types are mobile there is much less alterations needed to the rules, characters and monsters. Most monsters should also gain this mobility -- all the monsters that are focus on dealing non "magical" damage. It's a lot less work.
I also believe it is much less potential to be unbalancing as some of the ways of eliminating iterative attacks.
It does make monks much stronger because of their many attacks and because of their increasing base land speed. Helps Barbarians as well for the later reason and hinders warrior classes with 20ft movement (dwarves, gnome, halfling). Could be good could be bad.
Of course if you don't feel that Warrior types need a boost then you could let all classes gain this mobility. Perhaps the better solution is to let Bards and Rogues gain the mobility (after all Iconicly they are the ones ducking and weaving through combat) and restrict only the spellcasters to only being able to move 5ft and full attack.

Anyway, in some ways that was completely changing the topic.

 

[Flynn]

Considering how often the following has come up, I'd like to suggest something completely different.

Keep iterative attacks. (Yes, I know this is a thread about eliminating them, but aside from the above objection -to which I will propose a solution- the only real criticism I've heard of iterative attacks is that it means more dice rolling. Unless I missed something. Still with my suggestion you could still reduce roles using the AD&D attack varaint ie. BAB 1-5 1attack, BAB 6-10 1 1/2attack, BAB 11-15 2attacks etc.)

Having run the numbers, the damage under 2nd Edition iterations as presented above (+1/2 attack at standard iterative jumps but no reduction in attack roll to balance) tends to average out roughly the same as v3.5 iterative attacks. If we had to keep iterative attacks, that would be my personal choice, as it does reduce the number of dice rolled.

However, you are right, Thondor. This is a thread about removing iterative attacks from D&D. I think you'd find a lot of interest if you started a thread on increasing mobility in combat, though. Ordinarily, I'd suggest that you could discuss it here, but I personally don't want the iterative attack stuff coming in and interrupting the flow of the current thread. Is that cool with you?

Of course, since the OP is Baby Samurai, if he's cool with it being here, please disregard this post entirely.

Also, if you do decide to start a new thread, please post the link here, for interested parties to continue the discussion of that particular issue.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Here's an interesting note: In the SECR preview #7, you can see that there's a feat called double attack that lets you strike twice as a full round action, with a -5 on both attacks.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview7

Thoughts?

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

It's late in my part of the world. I will get back to this on Sunday. The SWSE preview double attack feat looks like something we can use (except that it requires two rolls, why not just make the two attacks with one attack and damage roll?).

 

[Baby Samurai]

Here's an interesting note: In the SECR preview #7, you can see that there's a feat called double attack that lets you strike twice as a full round action, with a -5 on both attacks.

So I guess they are keeping the full round action/attack?

And Double Attack is weaker than the standard BAB/iterative action.