Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Flynn" data-source="post: 3609824" data-attributes="member: 1836"><p>You seem to be saying the same thing I am: your approach increases the probability to hit more than standard. We both agree on that.</p><p></p><p>I also think we can both agree that the damage increase by adding BAB to damage increases overall damage.</p><p></p><p>Where we differ is that I have found that adding BAB to damage alone comes pretty close to approximating the average damage of iterative attacks. You don't appear to feel that way.</p><p></p><p>I understand that you want to increase the overall damage by also increasing the chance to hit. To me, this approach means that what you are proposing will make your combat suggestion <strong>much</strong> more effective than iterative attacks.</p><p></p><p>I only want to approximate iterative attacks, so I'm okay with just adding BAB to damage. I <strong>do not</strong> want to grossly exceed the output of iterative attacks, and so I would not use your suggestion of adding BAB to the attack roll a second time to increase chances to hit.</p><p></p><p>My numbers support my goal. If your goal is to approximate the output of iterative attacks, then my numbers do not support your goal. I feel pretty comfortable with my conclusions, and they will work for my game. I doubt you will be able to change that, so we may have to agree to disagree at some point. I'm cool with that.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, though, this discussion is pretty mute. In your game, do what you want to do. Give your system a trial run and see if you like the results. If you do, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Use your proposal as you see fit. If, after trying it out, you find that you don't like the results, you are more than welcome to try other approaches.</p><p></p><p>I think you have posted your proposal here in a chance to get some feedback without having to test your idea in actual game play. I've given some feedback to you. Others may or may not post, depending on whether they want to or not. Really, in the end, I think the only way you're going to know if your idea is a good one is to try it out in game play. Again, I would strongly recommend you try your proposal out in a One Shot or something, and then post your observations here. I'd be interested in reading them.</p><p></p><p>Hope This Helps,</p><p>Flynn</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Flynn, post: 3609824, member: 1836"] You seem to be saying the same thing I am: your approach increases the probability to hit more than standard. We both agree on that. I also think we can both agree that the damage increase by adding BAB to damage increases overall damage. Where we differ is that I have found that adding BAB to damage alone comes pretty close to approximating the average damage of iterative attacks. You don't appear to feel that way. I understand that you want to increase the overall damage by also increasing the chance to hit. To me, this approach means that what you are proposing will make your combat suggestion [b]much[/b] more effective than iterative attacks. I only want to approximate iterative attacks, so I'm okay with just adding BAB to damage. I [b]do not[/b] want to grossly exceed the output of iterative attacks, and so I would not use your suggestion of adding BAB to the attack roll a second time to increase chances to hit. My numbers support my goal. If your goal is to approximate the output of iterative attacks, then my numbers do not support your goal. I feel pretty comfortable with my conclusions, and they will work for my game. I doubt you will be able to change that, so we may have to agree to disagree at some point. I'm cool with that. Ultimately, though, this discussion is pretty mute. In your game, do what you want to do. Give your system a trial run and see if you like the results. If you do, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Use your proposal as you see fit. If, after trying it out, you find that you don't like the results, you are more than welcome to try other approaches. I think you have posted your proposal here in a chance to get some feedback without having to test your idea in actual game play. I've given some feedback to you. Others may or may not post, depending on whether they want to or not. Really, in the end, I think the only way you're going to know if your idea is a good one is to try it out in game play. Again, I would strongly recommend you try your proposal out in a One Shot or something, and then post your observations here. I'd be interested in reading them. Hope This Helps, Flynn [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
Top