Why iterative attacks decline?

[Happy Monkey]

I really don't understand why the iterative attacks are at -5 for each new attack.

Off hand, it makes power attack and expertise require a little more decision making I guess. It also lessens the power of higher level characters, especially fighting types.

Flavour-wise it seems fine, but what would the concrete mechanical reasons be.

AD&D 2nd ed. had multiple attacks at the same value.

Thoughts?

 

[Christian]

Easy. Think about a 20th level fighter (BAB +20, high Strength, probably some good magic weapons) and a 20th level wizard (BAB +10, low Strength, no magic weapons to think of). Anything that the wizard can hit with something less than a natural 20, the fighter will only miss on a natural 1. So, anything that would be interesting for the fighter to hit if all of his attacks were at his BAB (interesting as in 'worth rolling the d20 for') will be virtually unhittable for the wizard. OK, maybe the wizard oughtn't be in melee combat, but sometimes it's going to happen ...

So, what they did is, as levels go up, the attack bonuses (for fighting classes particularly) tend to outstrip AC increases. The primary attack for a high-level fighter will be virtual auto-hits. But the fourth attack for that 20th level fighter, at +5, will actually be an interesting roll. That keeps combat interesting for everybody. At least sometimes ...

 

[Drawmack]

Okay rules wise that makes sense but I think to poster is asking for the logical justification of the rule.

Here is the idea, when you roll an attack you are not simulating a single slash with your sword but rather a 3 - 6 second exchange of blows and you are rolling to see if 1 of those blows makes contact. As a character's fighting skills progress they can hit more then once in that amount of time. However, the odds of making additional hits are less then the odds of making the first hit. So the BaB decreases with each attack.

Don't forget also that to use more then one hit is a full round action so it takes 6 seconds. This is the part that doesn't make any sence to me. A first level character cannot attack twice in a round but their single attack only takes half a round. Once their BaB reaches 6 they can take two attacks but that takes a full round. I think it should be that your multiple attacks still only take a single action or that attacks period are always full round actions. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Al]

Mainly to provide some form of 'gradual' progression of combat ability rather than have big steps.

Consider the difference between a 5th level fighter and a 6th level fighter.

At the current, their BAB reads as follows:
5th: +5
6th: +6/+1.

With the constant iterative attacks, that changes to +6/+6. This means that the 6th level fighter not only get twice as many attacks, but that both are at a higher BAB than the 5th level fighter. Not to mention the two extra feats (assuming single-class), better saves all round, more skills and extra HPs. This is meant to constitue a change of just one level (or one CR). Clearly, Wizards regarded this meteoric change in power too great for one single level- so iterative attacks were made to decline.

 

[drnuncheon]

Looking at it from a game-world logic perspective...

There are two things that have to happen for someone to strike a telling blow in melee combat. They have to be ready to strike the blow, and there has to be an opening in their opponent's defense.

Low-BAB characters aren't that good at finding openings in their opponent's defense - so they only get one effective attack per round.

As combat skill rises, not only do they become more able to exploit the openings they see, but they also become able to exploit additional openings - ones that were too difficult for them to try to attack through when they had a lesser skill. Because they're harder to use, though, the blow has a lower chance of connecting, hence the lowered BAB.

J

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Mainly to provide some form of 'gradual' progression of combat ability rather than have big steps.

Bingo. It's true that 2nd edition had multiple attacks at the same attack value, but you also didn't go from getting 1/round to getting 2/round. You went from 1/round to 3 per 2 rounds to 2/round, which was a pain to keep track of and tended to confuse people.

 

[Zhure]

Bingo. It's true that 2nd edition had multiple attacks at the same attack value, but you also didn't go from getting 1/round to getting 2/round. You went from 1/round to 3 per 2 rounds to 2/round, which was a pain to keep track of and tended to confuse people.

To elaborate on what the good Doctor said, an attack rate of 3/2 is very similar to a reduced BAB. Instead of attacking at full BAB one round and full BAB twice next round, you attack at full BAB/reduced BAB every round.

Greg

 

[MThibault]

The even increments of power is important, but Christian's point is worth expanding on.

Because a good BAB increases much faster than AC, at higher levels (starting around level 11, in my campaigns) the fighter or barbarian is almost guaranteed to hit with his first iterative attack. That attack becomes the baseline damage he inflicts in the round. The suspense comes during the second and subsequent iterative attacks.

Attacking in D&D has always been so abstract that it is more of a "gamist" function than a "simulator" function. Even though there are more die rolls now, it is still gamist and needs to be translated into concrete results (i.e. described) in-game. Everyone is going to do this differently, of course.

Just my opinion.

 

[Happy Monkey]

Thanks all, good points noted.

Particularly thank you Christian and Al, the gradual progression and interesting last iterative attacks make a lot of sense.

Again, thanks all.