Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 4799152" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi all! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I haven't been following the 'Road to Pathfinder'. But I would have anticipated one of the goals was simplifying things. To that end why didn't they simplify iterative attacks so that you have a single given attack bonus, and if you want to make two attacks, you take a -5 penalty to hit with both. Want to make three attacks, then its a -10 penalty with all three, etc. It also goes someway to alleviating the (3.5) disparity between martial and spellcaster classes in that at high level, fighters could have maybe 5 or 6 attacks, but the chances are those attacks will only hit 'mooks'.Similarly they could invert Power Attack so that when a Fighter would have had three iterative attacks (for example); instead of taking three attacks at their normal damage, they could choose to take two attacks dealing +5 damage, or one attack dealing +10 damage. This way its not only simpler, but also adds a slight tactical aspect.Incidently, here is my take on revising the Fighter Class from about two years ago.<a href="http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon6a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon6a.htm</a></blockquote>