| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that has bugged me about 3E since around 2002 (once the 3E honeymoon wore off) is the iterative attacks system.
+16/+11/+6/+1 is just BS. Extra attack at BAB +6,+11,+16 is better IMHO.
5E figured this out, so did 4E, along with the OSR and TSR era D&D.
Its exclusive to 3E, doesn't enhance the game in any way I can think of, is complicated, is not fun, doesn't achieve anything except kick martials in the balls.
Even if you replace BAB with a proficiency system (whatever that number is +6 by level 20, +_10 or whatever) just allow extra attacks at level 5,10, 15 or wherever and if you do something like 5E where fighters end up with more attacks please have the last one come online before level 20 (level 15 or 16).
When AD&D does something better than you mechanically it might be time to do something about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm really hoping its a lot more like starfinder as far as that goes. I think personally it will be close to the action economy system in unchained.
Yeah I'm really hoping its a lot more like starfinder as far as that goes. I think personally it will be close to the action economy system in unchained.
I skipped on PF in 2012 after Ultimate Campaign. No idea what that stuff is. That is what I mean by uncomplicated. I understand Pathfinder mechanically (out of date sure), but for a new person multiple attacks is fairly simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say it's complicated, but it does bog down combat. Looking at the new combat action system I believe that iterative attacks are already not a thing in the playtest, which is good, I like this new system as an answer to iterative attacks.
I wouldn't say it's complicated, but it does bog down combat. Looking at the new combat action system I believe that iterative attacks are already not a thing in the playtest, which is good, I like this new system as an answer to iterative attacks.
I'm not convinced the new combat system is good, jury is still out for me. Its a wait and see.
If this used Unchained action, then TWF or Flurry of blows is pretty awesome.
If you don't remember, it gives an additional attack at -0 (improved gives additional at -5). Since you can move and do 2 attacks at -0, TWFing is pretty nice now.
hmmm...
Scimitar has Sweep and Forceful as weapon qualities.
Sweep apparently reduces the penalty for attacking a 2nd target. This implies of course that there is a penalty for attacking a 2nd target.
Forceful increases the damage if you hit the same target more than once
I forgot to add let martial move+ full attack as an action. If they go with the 3 action round only use iterative attacks if someone wants to try their luck eg a fighter wants to have 3 attacks (level 11 perhaps) and they can use the other actions to make a 4th and 5th attack sure apply a penalty to that.
Make multiatcking at no penalty a core part of the classes though IMHO along with moving.
Not sure how TWF would work in this system, 5E only grants an extra attack if the off hand grants multiple attacks that is probably fine if some form of the two handed weapon +50% strength mod and power attack is in the game.
Yeah the cumulative -5 are here to stay, at least for the playtest, this much is known from the blogs. As KainPen said, the turn will look very much like the Unchained Action Economy rework, where there are no different types of actions anymore.
Rather each character gets 3 actions per turn, and some specific actions, like casting most spells, will take 2 actions or more. Once this system is properly integrated into classes i think it will be good. For the same reason kain mentioned. People will probably only use the first 2 attacks because the one at -10 is unlikely to be worth it and the only reason we make our third and fourth iteratives in PF1 is because we have to go either full or standard attack, so no reason not to make the attacks that are probably going to miss anyway.
For this to work we will need to keep the added bookkeeping of -5s unfortunately.
My solution to this was always to note down on my character sheet the complete attack bonuses with each weapon. And then the versions with power attack etc. Lots of stuff on the paper but little math on the fly
With the >10< critical success system the iterative penalties are practically necessary for the game to have interesting variety beyond "make as many possible attacks". That's one of the main goals P2E has given itself, "a round of combat should be quick and intuitive, but there should be a lot of depth in what a player is capable of".
when critical hits occur for beating AC by 10 (In the new system), the minus 5 and minus 10 to hit will make the next two attacks have lower chances to crit, if it's even possible, compared to a first attack that will comfortably hit and has a fairly good (much better than P1E) chance to crit. Instead, the game will (Ideally, when we finally get the playtest in our hands) try to fill martials with a list of options that they've picked out, so even if the penalty from the additional attacks is too much, you could do something much more productive.
Martials will be strong, they'll have consistent damage with their first attack, such that the less consistent weaker attacks won't be such an issue, removing the penalty with the other systems and mechanics that are being established will mean that each attack will need to be weaker, and make multiple attacks a round more necessary.
This is mostly conjecture and something that's come from trying to piece together everything I can that's been said by paizo staff about the action system and the critical hit system, so we're going to have to wait to see how these "Alternative options" compare and how AC values and attack values scale and just how important every point of penalty is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gods yes the negative for extra attacks needs to die
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just rememebr not all of us have things like unchained.
Just let the idea die, full attack no penalty as an action (hell 5E lets you do this and move between your attacks however you want).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think wanting full BAB on all attacks is short-sighted. You assume the only relevant action to take is just "as many attacks as possible", which is fair in PF1e.
One of the design goals of the second edition is to get rid of "I 5ft and Full Attack" repetitive routine of martials in first edition. The penalties are an incentive to try the other actions as well.
Don't complain the game is boring when you just want 1 action to be the only useful one.
The reason it works in 5e is because Martials can't even do anything else besides attack in the first place. Also their damage per hit is pretty low and this actually lets them hit harder than wizards at all (yay proficiency system).
Martials do need a buff, but not in their DPS. They already do such high DPS with the penalties that they can 1shot BBEGs... Like wtf do you want more?
Don't we already know how this is going to work for the playtest? So if it's a problem, it's one that will probably show up in actual play once we get to test it.
I think wanting full BAB on all attacks is short-sighted. You assume the only relevant action to take is just "as many attacks as possible", which is fair in PF1e.
One of the design goals of the second edition is to get rid of "I 5ft and Full Attack" repetitive routine of martials in first edition. The penalties are an incentive to try the other actions as well.
Don't complain the game is boring when you just want 1 action to be the only useful one.
The reason it works in 5e is because Martials can't even do anything else besides attack in the first place. Also their damage per hit is pretty low and this actually lets them hit harder than wizards at all (yay proficiency system).
Martials do need a buff, but not in their DPS. They already do such high DPS with the penalties that they can 1shot BBEGs... Like wtf do you want more?
Some martials if you know how to min/max do a lot of damage.
Letting them multiattack is simpler, doesn't require a vast amount of knowledge and smooths the game out ie one player knows how to get +20 damage the other player does not.
There is also not a lot of point in dealing +20 damage if things just get +20 hit points. Obviously if martials get multiple attacks at no penalty to hit some things might get tweaked from PF.
Note I am 5 or 6 years behind in my PF knowledge, is a two handed weapon still the best way to do uber damage? We just used core rules, ultimate magic/combat and the APG.
So wait if everyone can make the Same number of Iterative Attacks, and every class has the same BAB(I Know I read this elsewhere on these Playtest Forums).......... Then aren't casters as good as Martials at Martial Combat? What the Actual Heck? I really hope there's Bonuses for Martials to Actual Martial Combat, and then some(cuz Spells are prolly still OP).......
Just pure theorycraft on my part. I think it is well defined, better than in 5e, because is more fun to give everyone the option of 3 attacks from the very beggining, and then give martial classes an automatic penalty reduction.
Base +0 -5 -10
'Martial expertise' at X lvl +0 -3 -5
'Martial mastery' at Y lvl +0 +0 +0
As you can see in the end is almost the same as in 5ed, were martial classes gain an extra attack when they reach a certain level.
So wait if everyone can make the Same number of Iterative Attacks, and every class has the same BAB(I Know I read this elsewhere on these Playtest Forums).......... Then aren't casters as good as Martials at Martial Combat? What the Actual Heck? I really hope there's Bonuses for Martials to Actual Martial Combat, and then some(cuz Spells are prolly still OP).......
Given that effects now key on the threshold by which you exceed or fall short of the target number, accuracy is really quite important now. If the Wizard has 10 less to hit than the fighter any roll on which the wizard hits is a crit for the fighter.
Which is the real reason for the -5 and -10 penalties- without them people would be scoring critical hits too often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be fine with -2 or even -3 but -5 is a bit much.
I would be fine with -2 or even -3 but -5 is a bit much.
I believe certain weapons have an "agile" property that reduces the penalty on subsequent attacks (I think to -3?). So players will get to choose, for example, more accuracy on iterated attacks with a rapier (which is probably agile) but less damage per hit or less accuracy on subsequent attacks with a greataxe (which is very likely not agile) but more damage per hit.
So basically you would be accurate with a dagger then a long sword.
So basically you would be accurate with a dagger then a long sword.
On your second and third attacks yeah, but just as accurate on your first one. So if you have other stuff to do with your three actions a big heavy weapon will do just fine.
Also we're discussing all of this without any reference to feats and class features that will certainly mess with this math. +0/-5/-10 is the modifier progression for a first level character making 3 attacks with no feats or special weapon properties. 10th level characters who build for it can almost surely do better.