Okay, so, people get really butthurt about Iterative Attacks.
Frankly, I think they should just basically stuff it and get over it; however, I do think there's some room to play with Iterative Attacks if that's your thing (I've played games where the DM has everyone write their turns down on a card and then pass them in, to simulate the simultaneity of action that a turn is supposed to represent - not perfect in the least, but a kinda neat idea).
This alternate system is pretty simple - it uses the exact same setup as now for highest BAB, but instead of making multiple Attacks all on your turn, you spread them out throughout the round.
When your Base Attack Bonus reaches +6, you gain an additional Attack at your Base Attack Bonus, made on your Initiateive -5. At Base Attack Bonus +11 and every +5 higher, you more additional Attacks, made at a cumulative -5 to Initiative.
For example: If a Fighter with Base Attack Bonus +11 rolls a 13 for Initiative, he makes his first Attack at Initiative 13, his second at Initiative 8, and his third at Initiative 3.
When you can make multiple Attacks in a round, you may hold your Initiative until you reach your lowest Initiative for attacks, and make all Attacks during the same Initiative.
For example: If a Fighter with Base Attack Bonus +11 rolls a 13 for Initiative, he may hold Initiative until Initiative 3, and then make all 3 of his attacks during that Initiative.
---
This would help with people who don't like you making multiple attacks during a turn.
You could even combine this with a rule that you can break up your movement between these initiative ticks, so you could move and attack multiple times.
People don't like iteratives because it adds more complication to the math and time at the table. Having characters use up multiple slots in initiative just makes things more complicated.
I'd prefer maybe something like this.
When a character has a +6 BAB, they can make a single attack that deals double damage when making a full-attack action. They can alternatively make two attacks at a -2 penalty. At +11 BAB and +16, they can perform multiple attacks with penalties or a single attack with increased damage in a similar fashion.
+0 attack
+6 attack (x2 dmg) or 2 attacks -2
+11 [attack (x3 dmg)] or [attack (x2 dmg), attack -2] or [3 attacks -4]
+16 [attack (x4 dmg)] [attack (x3 dmg), attack -2] or [attack (x2 dmg), attack (x2 dmg)] [attack (x2 dmg), 2 attacks -2] or [4 attacks -4]
|
Iteratives were not created the way they are on accident.
There were two conflicting goals, and iteratives bridged the gap: Players should feel like they're getting better as they level (missing/hitting at the same rate is a problem here) and your modifier needs to continue to matter.
Anything that removes iteratives will hit the issue that either (A) people don't feel like their character is getting stronger since the foe's AC and their to-hit grow at a similar rate or (B) the modifier for high BAB characters quickly stops mattering as they simply always hit on a 2 or higher. Or, of course, (C) even more math and headaches.
I'm afraid you can't solve the problem without at least some math. Best case you can lower the PC to one mathing per round by saying that BAB +6 instead gives 2 attacks both at -3, BAB +11 gives 3 at -6, and BAB +16 gives 4 at -9 (each is a separate option, so they can choose 1, 2, 3, or 4 attacks). This means they at least only calculate one number per round, but they still have more attacks. May need to swap that -3/6/9 to something else. I'm not sure where the approximate break-even point is on DPR and I'm too lazy to calculate it, but my unjustified guess says it's close to -3/6/9.
+0 attack
+6 attack (x2 dmg) or 2 attacks -2
+11 [attack (x3 dmg)] or [attack (x2 dmg), attack -2] or [3 attacks -4]
+16 [attack (x4 dmg)] [attack (x3 dmg), attack -2] or [attack (x2 dmg), attack (x2 dmg)] [attack (x2 dmg), 2 attacks -2] or [4 attacks -4]
I... think I get that. Maybe. But there's gotta be an simpler way to express it.
I... think I get that. Maybe. But there's gotta be an simpler way to express it.
Easier way to say it:
Give all martials the Vital Strike feats as an alternate form of attack instead of requiring them to use feats on it or decrease the penalty of each iterative, their choice.
Vital Strike, Power Attack, and Deadly Aim (Combat Expertise, too) should just be a base part of the combat system.
I... think I get that. Maybe. But there's gotta be an simpler way to express it.Easier way to say it:
Give all martials the Vital Strike feats as an alternate form of attack instead of requiring them to use feats on it or decrease the penalty of each iterative, their choice.
I said "on a full-attack action." But Vital Strike or more options for single-attacks would be nice.
|
The "Trailblazer" model was:
• At 6th level, you get a 2nd attack, but both attacks suffer a -2 penalty (-2/-2 instead of 0/-5).
• At 11th level, the penalty drops to -1/-1 (instead of 0/-5/-10).
• At 16th level, the penalty drops to -0/-0 (instead of 0/-5/-10/-20).
Supposedly it actually ups the average DPR and it speeds things up a lot.
I would also consider uncoupling Iterative Attacks from just a +6 BAB. I think I'd make it a class feature of Fighters at 6th level, and maybe other martials, monks and rogues a few levels later. Clerics and Wizards just don't really need it.
That's a lot how 5th Ed did it. Some classes get extra attacks, while most don't. There isn't even BAB, just scaling proficiency bonuses and things the class is proficient in.