Old Gumphrey said:
More consistent and elegant, IMO.
Plus, full round actions will be rarer/harder to come by.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
- Thread starter Baby Samurai
- Start date
More consistent and elegant, IMO.
Plus, full round actions will be rarer/harder to come by.
Flynn
First Post
Baby,
Shouldn't Melee +1 balanced bastard sword +19 (2d8+11/19-20) translate to Melee +1 large balanced bastard sword +19 (2d8+16/19-20) for an 11th level character?
While I doubt that full round actions will be harder to come by (since it's all about PC choices), I do agree with your first point, that it is more consistent. I have a player that does not handle iterative attacks very well because of the ever-changing numbers on the attack roll, and so having to add the same number each time is a time-saver at my gaming table.
Still, I personally won't be using the Double and Triple Attack feats, so I won't be running into the added complications. Otherwise, what's really the purpose of removing iterative attacks? That's my opinion, of course. YMMV.
Hope this helps,
Flynn
Shouldn't Melee +1 balanced bastard sword +19 (2d8+11/19-20) translate to Melee +1 large balanced bastard sword +19 (2d8+16/19-20) for an 11th level character?
Baby Samurai said:
While I doubt that full round actions will be harder to come by (since it's all about PC choices), I do agree with your first point, that it is more consistent. I have a player that does not handle iterative attacks very well because of the ever-changing numbers on the attack roll, and so having to add the same number each time is a time-saver at my gaming table.
Still, I personally won't be using the Double and Triple Attack feats, so I won't be running into the added complications. Otherwise, what's really the purpose of removing iterative attacks? That's my opinion, of course. YMMV.
Hope this helps,
Flynn
Last edited:
Flynn
First Post
Old Gumphrey said:
One spell does not a point prove... For example, consider horrid wilting, a spell that inflicts a d6 per level to EVERYONE in an area so long as they are no more than 60 ft. apart. Same level means that we're looking at 20d6 per person, or an average of 70 points, Fort save for half. Last time I checked, that's at least 35 points against a number of targets, and three targets exceeds the damage given for the barbarian above (two on a bad day for someone not making the Fort save.) Do this to four people, and you've likely more than the Barbarian will do in two rounds. At that level, encounters are lucky to last more than two or three rounds, and the Wizard has other 8th level spell slots. Yeah, the Barbarian can swing all day, but if the enemy drops by round three, his combat abilities are only effective during those three rounds. The Wizard has enough firepower to stay in the fight and dish out massive damage for the duration of the encounter, and can handle multiple encounters before being spent (at which point the group is going to rest up anyway), so I'd definitely say Wizards are more damaging against enemies than warrior-types at high levels.
But that's not what this thread addresses. It simply seeks to find a way to provide similar power for the same character with iterative attacks and without iterative attacks, so that the character doesn't lose anything (or at least lose much) in the translation to a faster, smoother combat system.
Hope this helps,
Flynn
Flynn said:
No, because with the Saga system you add Str x 2 when wielding two-handed.
Str 24 = +14, half character level = +5, and +1 sword = +1.
So, 14+5+1 = +20.
Thondor
I run Compose Dream Games RPG Marketplace
I finaly did start a new thread about increasing combat mobility
If any of you want to check it out you can got here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197956
I'm a lot more confused about what systems you all are planning to use then I was a week ago. Can you all restate what system you'll be using to eliminate iterative attacks?
Baby Samurai - I don't really see the point in allowing double attack and triple attack (I'm with Flynn on this one), seems to be defeating the original purpose of the thread. But then I thought the original purpose was to make things more streamline and more cinematic.
Am I right that what is confounding things lately is how to handle monsters with multiple attacks? I havn't seen a clear consensus on how to deal with that yet. Perhaps you really don't need a way to deal with it. Monsters are different from PC's that's what makes them interesting. If the system you've cooked up to eliminate iterative attakcs really is balanced with iterterative attacks then you really don't have to alter the multi-attack monsters at all. Monsters with one primary attack and those with two (per TWF not Secoundary attacks) should fall under your new system rules if they have an iterative attack. If not leave well enough alone.
For those with one primary iterative and a secondary, shcange the iterative and leave the secoundary alone. (It will be very cool to see the PC's scrambling when they get one attack - admittadly a more powerful one - and the Dragon goes into a Bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail routine)
If any of you want to check it out you can got here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197956
I'm a lot more confused about what systems you all are planning to use then I was a week ago. Can you all restate what system you'll be using to eliminate iterative attacks?
Baby Samurai - I don't really see the point in allowing double attack and triple attack (I'm with Flynn on this one), seems to be defeating the original purpose of the thread. But then I thought the original purpose was to make things more streamline and more cinematic.
Am I right that what is confounding things lately is how to handle monsters with multiple attacks? I havn't seen a clear consensus on how to deal with that yet. Perhaps you really don't need a way to deal with it. Monsters are different from PC's that's what makes them interesting. If the system you've cooked up to eliminate iterative attakcs really is balanced with iterterative attacks then you really don't have to alter the multi-attack monsters at all. Monsters with one primary attack and those with two (per TWF not Secoundary attacks) should fall under your new system rules if they have an iterative attack. If not leave well enough alone.
For those with one primary iterative and a secondary, shcange the iterative and leave the secoundary alone. (It will be very cool to see the PC's scrambling when they get one attack - admittadly a more powerful one - and the Dragon goes into a Bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail routine)
Old Gumphrey
First Post
Flynn said:
I guess you didn't read the part about the Leap Attacking. If we're going to invent an advantageous scenario for the caster it's not hard to invent one for the barb...someone else is standing next to his first target. Cleave. Plus, he still gets iterative attacks in the following rounds.
I didn't include anything extra because this thread isn't about who does more damage, and it's definitely worth examining that a core melee dude can still keep up with a wizard without the use of the saga system. Start talking non-core and melee damage just keeps going up while caster damage doesn't really move too much.
Well I'm pretty sure he's losing a lot. 19/14/9 vs. 9/9/9 is vast. I'd be all for eliminating iterative attacks but nothing in this thread looks like the way to do it.
Yair
Community Supporter
I've only read the original page and the last one, so forgive me if I'm reiterating what has been said.
I see the Full Attack as serving two functions - it creates a "danger zone" around the warriors, encouraging opponents to flee it and the warriors to try to manuever their opponents into it (adding to gameplay), and it allows the warriors to dispatch multiple weak opponents rapidly or to perform elaborate multiple-attack-requiring manuevers (tripping and so on).
I see only one disadvantage to the Full Attack - increasing the number of die rolls, and even more so die rolls with different modifiers (needing to calculate which die hits is much harder).
Given this I think the best solution would be to allow warriors to gain a Great Blow class ability at level 6 (improved at level 11, 16) for extra damage, and to allow all characters the option to make a "Flurry of Attacks" (rather than a single attack) as a full-round action designed to make the character hit a high-AC single opponent for slightly less damage on average than a single Great Blow. For this solution, how do the following numbers sound:
Great Blow: +4 damage at level 6, another +4 at level 12, another +4 at level 16. (+3/4 level)
Flurry of Blows: attack normally (at full bonus), roll damage once and divide between number of attacks (round down); no criticals allowed. (division rounding tends to lower overall damage, and the no criticals too.)
This doesn't solve the issue of allowing attacks to do funny things like tripping. And, most worryingly for me, it is problematic with systems of damage as DR.
I see the Full Attack as serving two functions - it creates a "danger zone" around the warriors, encouraging opponents to flee it and the warriors to try to manuever their opponents into it (adding to gameplay), and it allows the warriors to dispatch multiple weak opponents rapidly or to perform elaborate multiple-attack-requiring manuevers (tripping and so on).
I see only one disadvantage to the Full Attack - increasing the number of die rolls, and even more so die rolls with different modifiers (needing to calculate which die hits is much harder).
Given this I think the best solution would be to allow warriors to gain a Great Blow class ability at level 6 (improved at level 11, 16) for extra damage, and to allow all characters the option to make a "Flurry of Attacks" (rather than a single attack) as a full-round action designed to make the character hit a high-AC single opponent for slightly less damage on average than a single Great Blow. For this solution, how do the following numbers sound:
Great Blow: +4 damage at level 6, another +4 at level 12, another +4 at level 16. (+3/4 level)
Flurry of Blows: attack normally (at full bonus), roll damage once and divide between number of attacks (round down); no criticals allowed. (division rounding tends to lower overall damage, and the no criticals too.)
This doesn't solve the issue of allowing attacks to do funny things like tripping. And, most worryingly for me, it is problematic with systems of damage as DR.
Last edited:
Yair
Community Supporter
My own calculations indicate a difference of as much as 100 hp and more between the average for a single strike and the average for iterative attacks at level 20. The amount varies wildly with the amount of damage dealt in one blow and the opponent's AC; a dagger wielding PC warrior going against a high-AC opponent may gain less than 60 hp damage due to iterative attacks.
The effect of iterative attacks is, really, to multiply the usual attack's damage by some amount, that depends on how difficult the target is to hit (up to x4 if all iterative attacks hit). With AC=13+CR, the multiplier seems to be approximately x1.5 at level 6, x2 at level 11, x3 at level 16.
Imposing such a multiplier will skewer results when facing enemies of different AC - inflicting too much damage on opponents with higher AC and too little on opponents with lower AC. Considering the Full Attack's role as a weapon to chase off big bads from the fighter's vicinity, this is probably the wrong way to balance it. I'd think lowering it to x2.5 at level 16 might work better to not chase off the big bads too much. [An even more gradual progression (x1.5 at level 6, x 2.0 at level 12, x2.25 at level 16) is actually more fitting to my calculations.]
The Full Attack's role in wiping out mooks (of low AC) is better handled differently, by spreading damage across several blows.
Since iterative attacks essentially multiply the usual weapon damage, the effect of iterative attacks in terms of hp is dependant on the weapon's usual damage. A Str 31 Fighter wielding a +5 Greatsword does damage on a succesfull attack that is very different from a Str 9 fighter wielding a non-magical dagger; no single formula (+BAB, doubling the base weapon damage, and so on) can hope to reasonably cope with all this variety. If the usual weapon damage is not multiplied, the only other path is to decide arbitrarily on some bonus damage that represents a "typical" Full Attack and recognize that this will discourage the use of heavy-damage weapons. For a longsword, this seems to be +6 dmg at level 6, +14 at level 11, +37 at level 16, up to +43 to 57 at level 20; this can be approximated fairly well by the easier +5 at level 6, +15 at level 11, and +30 at level 16. [This is slightly too high for a high-AC opponent. It is far short of a Greatsword's bonuses.]
EDIT: I uploaded the excel sheet I did the calculations with; while I'm sure the attack-probability math is wrong, I don't think it substantially changes the results.
EDIT 2:
Changed the number crunching (and spreadsheet) to be more accurate, but the bottom line is still much the same. I recommend multiplying the attacks' damage (not just the base weapon's damage) by 1.5 at level 6, 2 at level 11, and 3 at level 16. This won't be perfect, but it comes very close to making the average damage per round equivalent to a full attack.
As can be seen adding BAB to damage falls very short at high levels (dealing less than half the core-rules damage at level 20).
The effect of iterative attacks is, really, to multiply the usual attack's damage by some amount, that depends on how difficult the target is to hit (up to x4 if all iterative attacks hit). With AC=13+CR, the multiplier seems to be approximately x1.5 at level 6, x2 at level 11, x3 at level 16.
Imposing such a multiplier will skewer results when facing enemies of different AC - inflicting too much damage on opponents with higher AC and too little on opponents with lower AC. Considering the Full Attack's role as a weapon to chase off big bads from the fighter's vicinity, this is probably the wrong way to balance it. I'd think lowering it to x2.5 at level 16 might work better to not chase off the big bads too much. [An even more gradual progression (x1.5 at level 6, x 2.0 at level 12, x2.25 at level 16) is actually more fitting to my calculations.]
The Full Attack's role in wiping out mooks (of low AC) is better handled differently, by spreading damage across several blows.
Since iterative attacks essentially multiply the usual weapon damage, the effect of iterative attacks in terms of hp is dependant on the weapon's usual damage. A Str 31 Fighter wielding a +5 Greatsword does damage on a succesfull attack that is very different from a Str 9 fighter wielding a non-magical dagger; no single formula (+BAB, doubling the base weapon damage, and so on) can hope to reasonably cope with all this variety. If the usual weapon damage is not multiplied, the only other path is to decide arbitrarily on some bonus damage that represents a "typical" Full Attack and recognize that this will discourage the use of heavy-damage weapons. For a longsword, this seems to be +6 dmg at level 6, +14 at level 11, +37 at level 16, up to +43 to 57 at level 20; this can be approximated fairly well by the easier +5 at level 6, +15 at level 11, and +30 at level 16. [This is slightly too high for a high-AC opponent. It is far short of a Greatsword's bonuses.]
EDIT: I uploaded the excel sheet I did the calculations with; while I'm sure the attack-probability math is wrong, I don't think it substantially changes the results.
EDIT 2:
Changed the number crunching (and spreadsheet) to be more accurate, but the bottom line is still much the same. I recommend multiplying the attacks' damage (not just the base weapon's damage) by 1.5 at level 6, 2 at level 11, and 3 at level 16. This won't be perfect, but it comes very close to making the average damage per round equivalent to a full attack.
Code:
Average Damage per Round*
Level / ST V1 V2 V3 My
1 8.52 [B]8.52[/B] 9.17 9.17 [B]8.52[/B]
6 29.5 23.63 22.75 23.63 [B]26.25[/B]
11 48.99 36.45 33.49 40.39 [B]45.31[/B]
16 99.98 56.94 51.47 71.18 [B]101.84[/B]
20 143.45 64.61 63.51 83.22 [B]124.83
[/B]For fighter wielding greatsword; see assumptions in spreadsheet. ST is standard/core, V1 multiplies base weapon damage, V2 adds BAB to damage, V2 adds BAB with iterative to damage, My multiplies damage by 1.5, 2, or 3 (at levels 6,11,16).
Last edited:
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
