Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 3518209" data-attributes="member: 278">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...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...there are many low-AC opponents who can be one-shotted.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...the target's AC is high enough that even a primary attack will only hit on a 20.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...the combatant's damage modifiers to his roll are exceptionally high.</li> </ul>This strengthens combatants when...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...targets have an AC in such a range that the primary attack is likely to hit, but others are not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...there are many low-AC opponents who don't die in a single shot.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...the battlefield environment emphasizes mobility.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...individual attacks normally do little damage and the target has DR.</li> </ul>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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> )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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />[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.</blockquote>

Verification