Player push back on Removing Iterative Attacks


Advice

51 to 68 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

wraithstrike wrote:
What do you mean by "with a chance"? The way I read it was that one crit was applied to two attacks meaning you get to roll crit damage for two of your attacks, or am I misunderstanding you?

Note:My explanation below assumes the attacker is not falling off the RNG (they can hit on any of the critical threat numbers).

If your attack roll is in the weapon threat range (in this case a 19 or 20), one or two of your attacks *might* crit. There is a 0.1 chance of rolling a 19 or a 20 and threatening a crit.

You make one confirm roll for the entire iterative at your highest bonus. If your confirmation roll is a hit, you get a single critical applied to one of the attacks(in my example above a 7 on the confirm roll hits and thus there is a 0.7 chance of this happening). If your confirmation roll is also a crit, you get a crit applied to a second attack(a 19 or a 20, or 0.1 chance).

Thus, your chance of scoring a crit(s) is as follows
a 0.1(chance to crit)*0.7(chance to confirm)=0.07 chance of scoring at least 1 crit
a 0.1(chance to crit)*0.1(chance to crit on confirm)=0.01 chance of scoring 2 crits
(This means that there is a 0.06 chance of scoring just 1 crit)

In terms of averages, this is mathematically equivalent to:
a 0.07 chance of scoring a crit
another chance of scoring a crit with a likelyhood of 0.01.
This is what I used in my calculations. I didn't really make that clear.
A crit increases the damage of a hit by two times the non-crit damage, so the average increase in damage from crits is as follows
(0.07+0.01)*(15.5*2)=2.48

If we don't assume they are mathematically equivalent we get the following
0.1 chance of a critical threat*(0.6 of hitting but not critting on the confirm*(15.5*2) damage + 0.1 chance of crit confirm*(15.5*2) damage * 2 crits)=2.48 (equal to the above)

Hence taking crit chance into account increases the damage by 2.48.


So removing it nerfs players and to many of the enemy’s even more of a nerf, wouldn’t this help allot of the rocket tag? It looks like I can’t add the rule change just to the enemy’s without making the game easier for the PC's.

Why are so many people focused on rolling, is this not a roleplaying game and not a rollplaying game. I play allot of other systems with static damage and it doesn’t bother me or the other players.

I started running a one ring game, and I liked how combat was fast and streamlined.


Azgara wrote:
So removing it nerfs players and to many of the enemy’s even more of a nerf, wouldn’t this help allot of the rocket tag?

But does not lower damage make for longer combats? And hence more dice rolling?

And I think it is nonsensical to complain about rolling even existing in Pathfinder because other games built with different mechanics exist. Rolling is part of the Pathfinder rules and part of the fun to a certain extent.

Games need ways to take out the he said/she said factor from the advanced game of 'pretend' we are actually playing. Hence they developed rules and quick random number generation systems based on those rules to represent the undeterminable probabilities of random chance.

If you like One rings system then play that. But don't come to a pathfinder board and respond to a pathfinder question that the system is silly because you like one rings system better.


Azgara wrote:

So removing it nerfs players and to many of the enemy’s even more of a nerf, wouldn’t this help allot of the rocket tag? It looks like I can’t add the rule change just to the enemy’s without making the game easier for the PC's.

Why are so many people focused on rolling, is this not a roleplaying game and not a rollplaying game. I play allot of other systems with static damage and it doesn’t bother me or the other players.

I started running a one ring game, and I liked how combat was fast and streamlined.

A big part of rocket tag is casters launching nukes at the start of the first round and the rest of the time being clean up. Lowering DPS of martials isn't exactly solving this. If anything, it exasperates it, because since martials are even less effective casters have to carry the party even more. Plus variance is much higher i.e. the game is swingeyer, meaning that the party has to be even MORE proactive in ending the encounter because they are more likely to be screwed over due to pure luck as the encounter goes on.

Mind you, TWF, THF and charger builds aren't that affected by the new system so long as weapons with a low threat range are used (since there is such a low chance of critting). This means that pouncing barbarians still wreck about as much face, whether on foot or riding BATTYBAT. The classes that get screwed are the ones that rely on getting extra non TWF attacks like the new monk, archers and most natural attack builds (druids can manage fairly well by sticking to forms with a single high damage attack). Some characters basically don't feel the new system and some are wrecked by it.


Gilfalas wrote:
Azgara wrote:
So removing it nerfs players and to many of the enemy’s even more of a nerf, wouldn’t this help allot of the rocket tag?

But does not lower damage make for longer combats? And hence more dice rolling?

And I think it is nonsensical to complain about rolling even existing in Pathfinder because other games built with different mechanics exist. Rolling is part of the Pathfinder rules and part of the fun to a certain extent.

Games need ways to take out the he said/she said factor from the advanced game of 'pretend' we are actually playing. Hence they developed rules and quick random number generation systems based on those rules to represent the undeterminable probabilities of random chance.

If you like One rings system then play that. But don't come to a pathfinder board and respond to a pathfinder question that the system is silly because you like one rings system better.

You have it all wrong, I’m not saying one ring is better, and there are things about that systems I don’t care for. I can say that about every system I have played.

What I wanted to bring over is a much easier and faster combat with keeping all that I love of pathfinder. I wanted to change the spending hours and doing 2-3 combat encounters in a night and having little other.


Azgara wrote:
What I wanted to bring over is a much easier and faster combat with keeping all that I love of pathfinder. I wanted to change the spending hours and doing 2-3 combat encounters in a night and having little other.

Upthread I mentioned a bit on teaching players to handle their turns faster. I am quoting myself here.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeaaah, there's something magical about rolling damage. Mathematically in the long run it's the same as taking averages, but it's WAY more fun.

That being said, your best bet for speeding up play is helping your players learn to play faster. That includes using color coded dice sets.

I've played a TWF Rogue who launched 7 attacks in a turn that took less than a minute. Each attack had a color notated on a little card [Black Primary Hand First Attack, White Primary Hand Haste Attack, Red Off-hand First Attack, Blue Primary hand second attack, etc etc etc] and I'd simply dump a small bucket of dice into my space when launching a Full Attack Action.

"Haste, 39..." I would call out, counting all the d6's and and adding my modifiers while the GM determined hit or miss and calling out the damage dealt if it was a hit "Main Hand 41... off-hand 40... Main..... off.... Main... offf"

Takes some work to finetune the technique but it's not difficult. You do need to declare one attack at a time as I described so if in the middle of your attack you drop a foe but have others in reach [or within a 5' step] you can react accordingly and fluidly carry on the attack. Also because the GM has to subtract DR from each hit as it comes in.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Azgara wrote:
What I wanted to bring over is a much easier and faster combat with keeping all that I love of pathfinder. I wanted to change the spending hours and doing 2-3 combat encounters in a night and having little other.

Upthread I mentioned a bit on teaching players to handle their turns faster. I am quoting myself here.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeaaah, there's something magical about rolling damage. Mathematically in the long run it's the same as taking averages, but it's WAY more fun.

That being said, your best bet for speeding up play is helping your players learn to play faster. That includes using color coded dice sets.

I've played a TWF Rogue who launched 7 attacks in a turn that took less than a minute. Each attack had a color notated on a little card [Black Primary Hand First Attack, White Primary Hand Haste Attack, Red Off-hand First Attack, Blue Primary hand second attack, etc etc etc] and I'd simply dump a small bucket of dice into my space when launching a Full Attack Action.

"Haste, 39..." I would call out, counting all the d6's and and adding my modifiers while the GM determined hit or miss and calling out the damage dealt if it was a hit "Main Hand 41... off-hand 40... Main..... off.... Main... offf"

Takes some work to finetune the technique but it's not difficult. You do need to declare one attack at a time as I described so if in the middle of your attack you drop a foe but have others in reach [or within a 5' step] you can react accordingly and fluidly carry on the attack. Also because the GM has to subtract DR from each hit as it comes in.

Well I think I will add something like using dice of different colors for attacks, I’m going to talk with my players about average damage rule.

Maybe I will do the new action economy systems vs the no Iterative Attacks


I've found the new action economy system isn't very good for martial PCs in most cases either [better mobility, reduced damage.] I'm granting additional partial actions as BAB goes up [which does slow the game down a bit, but I make a point to help my players learn to take turns quickly before we get to higher levels.]

EDIT: note that under my modification Standard Action Spells can still be cast only once per round, but I am incorporating an 'over-cast' mechanic which allows casters to spend move actions casting to very slightly amplify their spells.


The new action economy will not speed up combat. The no iterative attacks will not speed up combat. Speeding up combat will speed up combat.

Letting players know when they are next to start planing their turn.
Having them roll their damage with the attack.
Having the bonuses easily ready for all their different attacks(power, normal, bard-songed, etc)
Limiting their turn to 1 minute or they are delaying.

These ideas would help speed up combat. Changing things to different alternative styles will not speed up combat. Just as much thinking and delaying can go into those as the original.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azgara wrote:

So removing it nerfs players and to many of the enemy’s even more of a nerf, wouldn’t this help allot of the rocket tag? It looks like I can’t add the rule change just to the enemy’s without making the game easier for the PC's.

Why are so many people focused on rolling, is this not a roleplaying game and not a rollplaying game. I play allot of other systems with static damage and it doesn’t bother me or the other players.

I started running a one ring game, and I liked how combat was fast and streamlined.

Well, to hit the last point: from actually putting together a natural attack sequence under this system, it is not fast or streamlined at all. Not for monsters.

To hit the other point: no. It makes rocket tag, as it's seen in the lower levels, worse. In the low levels you get rocket tag because a monster can swing once and, if he lands, take off half your HP. At the high levels this becomes less of an issue, because you get better HP and more AC. A dragon might roll 19, 10, 11, 11, 10, 2 for its six natural attacks, and that'll kinda suck because dragon bites are nasty pieces of work, but it won't kill anything and you have decent odds on dodging the rest. Now if the dragon rolls a 19, he's delivering four attacks instead of one. That's the same swingy nature that we see in low-level combats, made prevalent in all combats until casters hit that magical (ha!) point of "AoE save or die".

The average damage rule is something you should think on. First off, how do you determine average? A d6's average is 3.5, so does he do 3 damage, 4 damage, or do you track decimals? Maybe you alternate 3 and 4, and so he has to keep track of which number he's on. Maybe you set it to 3 and irritate your players because again, you're nerfing them (not by much for most, but Sneak Attackers and Evokers won't be happy).

I think that's a decent way to speed up combat for NPCs (though personally I wouldn't bother, but I'm rolling the attacks of the next monster or group of monsters when they're two or three turns down in the pipeline). And if you can get your players to go for it, cool. But I doubt that they will. They seem to like the combat mechanics just how they are.

The new action economy is different, but it doesn't really speed up play save for new players-- it's easier to pick up, but once you master each one it's no simpler. And that one is a nerf to a bunch of classes; if you check out the thread on it there's some massive houseruling going on to make it work.

Speeding up combat is a noble goal, but doing it without ticking off your players is going to require... yanno, talking to your players. As a player I occasionally get tripped up in debating options and don't have things planned properly, but that's rare and most often happens due to some change on the battlefield that I didn't expect (difficult terrain that the character couldn't see, for the most recent example-- and that was a couple sessions back). For the most part though, I know what my character is going to do. She's only got about four different action sequences, discounting negligible changes like "which swift action buff should I use?" or "which spell should I cast?". And frankly, four is more than most PCs. If I'm a Barbarian, I really have two action sequences: move-attack, or full attack. If I happen to be level ten, I have Charge-Pounce and full attack, which are nigh identical either way. So at the very least, while Willy the Wizard is going I should make at least one attack roll, and hell, roll damage too. Then when my turn comes up, I just do this: "Am I charging? Yes? Okay, I already made my roll and added in my bonus, I'm at a 32. Charging makes that a 34. GM, does a 34 hit? Yes? I already rolled 2D4 and got a five, so 35 damage. Done."

That should take a minute tops. Pre-rolling is a huge time saver, as is group rolling for full attack sequences. Those will do far more than trying to tweak your system, especially when your players don't like the changes.

Liberty's Edge

The best thing for speeding up your combat turn is to do your work when it's not your turn. There are usually at least 5 creatures acting, 3 of which are players, so about 75%+ of your time at the table during combat is idle! Use it! If you get to your turn and you don't know what you're going to do and with what bonus, then that damn well better be because everything just changed 3 seconds ago!

0) Get some scratch paper, you'll need it.

1) Know what you're intending to do on your next turn. If time, think of a backup plan as well. (e.g. "I will power-attack the chieftan with my axe. If he dies, I'll instead go after the closest minion to help mop up.")
1b) As a DM, encourage players who are indecisive to simply pick an option at random from the ideas they currently have. Combat is hectic anyway and people rarely make the optimal decision. Also, make sure the enemies do this as well to both set an example and to keep things fair. No player will feel like they need to rush if the DM always takes 5 minutes for his turns! As both a player and a DM I frequently find myself rolling 50/50 chances between options. (For example: "Well, he could go after the caster to nail that down, or try to finish off the rogue. *rolls die* Rogue it is!")

2) Have your bonuses precalculated for common attack modes. For example: Standard, Rage, Rage + Power Attack; most of the time I don't even both writing down not-power-attack, but everyone has their preferences.

3) If you have a bard or someone who basically always casts a specific buff pre-combat, have that precalculated as well. (I usually have three entries: Normal, Power Attack, Power Attack + Bard.)

4) When you get a bonus or penalty, write it down on a notecard. If the bonus/penalty will last all combat or multiple combats, pre-calculate your resulting AC/attack/saves. Otherwise just apply it if it comes up. This is also a good way to keep track of durations, poisons, bleeds, etc.

5) For the DM: Don't punish players for slightly suboptimal decision making. Doing this forces them to think every decision they make through to an extreme extent. Going from 90% optimal to 99% optimal requires a LOT of extra thought and is usually the source of the slowdown. As mentioned earlier, the best way to encourage this is to also rush a bit with what the enemies do, even if it means bad decisions. And for dumb enemies, stick with the bad decision even if someone brings up a reason why that would be unwise that you had forgotten.


Snowblind wrote:


You make one confirm roll for the entire iterative at your highest bonus. If your confirmation roll is a hit, you get a single critical applied to one of the attacks(in my example above a 7 on the confirm roll hits and thus there is a 0.7 chance of this happening). If your confirmation roll is also a crit, you get a crit applied to a second attack(a 19 or a 20, or 0.1 chance).

I misread that as confirming the crit gets you two crits. I understand now.


To expand on Stabbity's points:

1. The GM should be doing this too, at least in the broad strokes.

1b. Have PCs auto-delay if they're not ready within some timeframe that you're comfortable with. I.E., if the player doesn't have a move within one minute, the next in initiative jumps in front of him, then he's up again.

2/3. This is very easy if you work electronically. I use Excel for my character sheets, and one of the things I did was figure every buff that she can put down, as well as every common buff that another PC can give her, and have on/off triggers for them. I can adjust calculations on the fly with one button easily that way.

I have plans to expand that for some of the more common conditions too (Entangled, Negative Levels, etc.), but I'll need to adjust my layout to make that simple.


Azgara wrote:

So removing it nerfs players and to many of the enemy’s even more of a nerf, wouldn’t this help allot of the rocket tag? It looks like I can’t add the rule change just to the enemy’s without making the game easier for the PC's.

Why are so many people focused on rolling, is this not a roleplaying game and not a rollplaying game. I play allot of other systems with static damage and it doesn’t bother me or the other players.

I started running a one ring game, and I liked how combat was fast and streamlined.

The "rollplaying" thing is never a good defense. The game is actually RP and a combat simulator. Also just because it's that does not mean someone can not enjoy the combat side, and want to be good at it. A lot of rocket tag also comes from casters more than martial so it's really stopping rocket tag all that much if that is what happens at the table.

Another thing is that what works for one system may not work for another. You are over-simplifying the problem. Now if you can streamline things without nerfing the players it won't be as much of an issue. However the game's math is build on iterative attacks, while other systems are not.


Another thing I used to do if I was 100% I was going to attack would be to roll my attack and damage die before my turn even came up. When my turn came around I already had my attack and damage rolls done. If something happened, and I had to move to get my attack in I just used the dice that was keyed to my first attack.

edit:Oh, I see someone has mentioned my idea already.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Azgara wrote:

Hello,

So I was talking with 2 of my players the other day on changes to PF for the next campaign. I want to use the unchained Removing Iterative Attacks rule, as I’m trying to speed up play as much as I can.

I have the 2 I was talk to that didn’t like this idea, they think I’m trying to nerf them, and they want the 3 attack rolls. One was really bad and was calling me a fun Nazi, all I’m trying to do is make the gamer better for everyone.

Any of you math experts help show them that this rule change only speeds up play and doesn’t "Nerf" them. Thanks

Your players are more interested in fun than they are in a speedy game. They don't share your view on what is "better for everyone." Listen to them.

-Skeld


Azgara wrote:
Why are so many people focused on rolling, is this not a roleplaying game and not a rollplaying game.

I would like to point out that these two things are not mutually exclusive. A single person can enjoy both things. This is possible.

Neither are so-called "Power Gaming" (aka, making an effective character) and roleplaying. Some people enjoy both things. This is also possible.

To me it sounds like your players are telling me that the change you are suggesting would affect their fun. This has been echoed in by several in the thread. Personally, I agree. I like iterative attacks and taking that away from martials is definitely a nerf. It should matter less what we think though. My concern would be if you were dismissing your player's opinions, though.

Good suggestions have been given here on how to speed up your game. Action economy changes and removal of iterative attacks isn't the solution to this problem. One other suggestion I would like to offer is the use of initiative cards and assigning the tracking of initiative to one player (even perhaps giving him a small reward for doing so).


Unfortunately, a mathematical proof is usually only persuasive to the kinds of people who don't need it. For those people who trust their gut, the math adds nothing.

So, instead, I suggest you test it.

Build an encounter, and fight it out. Keep track of how much damage everyone does.

Then, fight the same encounter with the new rules. Keep track of damage again.

Then discuss.

51 to 68 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Player push back on Removing Iterative Attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.