Famous's page

5 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Update: I've located some alternate rules similar to what I'm trying to do. More info found here: http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Alternative_Iterative_Attacks_(3.5e_Variant_Ru le)

In a nutshell, when you're at +6 BAB you can make 2 attacks at a -3 penalty, or +3/+3. At +11 you reduce the penalties by 1, in other words attack twice at +9/+9. And finally at +16 BAB you reduce the penalty again by 1 (two attacks at +15/+15). This actually gives fighters the advantage whenever he doesn't need to roll either super low (a natural 2 or 3) or super high (a natural 18 or 19) to hit an enemy.

Two weapon fighting looks like this:

-7 to attacks made with 2 weapons. If the weapon in offhand is a light weapon, reduce the penalty by 1, or -6 penalty.

TWF feat: reduce the penalties for fighting w/ two weapons by 5. In other words, -1 penalty if using a light weapon, or -2 if offhand weapon isn't light.

Improved TWF: When taking a full-attack action, you may take another iterative attack with your off-hand weapon in addition to the one normally taken. This iterative attack is at your highest attack bonus as normal, and is subject to the penalties of fighting with two weapons.

Greater TWF: The penalty to attacks from fighting with two weapons is reduced by an additional one. Thus, the penalty is reduced to -0 when fighting with a light weapon in your off-hand, or -1 when fighting with a one-handed weapon in your off-hand.

So let's assume that we have a 6th level fighter (or a ranger) with 18 Str that's dual wielding a long and short sword. The fighter has the TWF feat. He makes a full attack against a nasty Drider. So his attack penalties are as follows: -3 for his normal attacks, -1 for fighting w/ two weapons one of which is light. So we have +6/+6/+6 plus any magic weapon bonuses, weapon specialization, feats etc. Under the normal system, the fighter's attacks would be +8/+8/+3 (for 2 attacks plus TWF penalties) plus any Str and magic weapon bonuses.

Any thoughts? Thanks!


Da'ath wrote:

This reminds me a great deal of Star Wars Saga Edition rules (SWSE). Is this where you drew inspiration?

Adapting that system's solution to iterative attacks would require you to adapt the penalties. The standard penalty/bonus progression is a bit different from the D&D & Pathfinder iterations of 3.x.

Yes, SWSE is exactly where I got my inspiration.

Thanks everyone for the feedback, I guess DnD 3.5 & Pathfinder are built around the multiple attacks. Martial classes are at a serious disadvantage here. Back to the drawing board lol.


Wasn't sure where else to post this, I apologize in advance if this isn't the correct place . So I'm about to launch my very first Pathfinder campaign via online virtual tabletop (hooray for technology!). As I was setting up my houserules, I started reflecting on all the PnP campaigns I've played over the years (not just D&D but other RPGs from other publishers as well) and one thing they call have in common is that combat takes a long time to get through, especially at higher levels. Most of the time, this is due to having to make excessive attack rolls from multiple attacks. I remember in Star Wars Saga Edition they did away with multiple attacks (there were a few exceptions) and focused on players having mostly just one attack plus several feats/talents etc to boost the overall damage made with your single attack. My question is, would such a thing be viable in Pathfinder? I feel that making multiple attacks slows down combat especially at higher levels where your last few attacks are very unlikely to hit. Iterative attacks are great for mowing through a villain's low AC cannon-fodder henchmen but aren't likely to hit the main villain who will have a high AC, plenty of HP, and spells/magical protection. Maybe I'm spoiled because I've been exposed to other RPGs but I feel that the whole "BAB -5 for multiple attacks" is a glaring weakness of the D&D 3.x system. I'm hoping to streamline the multiple attack process. I realize that I'm basically trying to change something that the whole game was balanced around, but I feel that I'm on to something here.

What I propose is that all players and enemies don't receive multiple attacks anymore. Instead, they will need to make use of some feats to make multiple attacks:

Houserule: Bonus Damage
All players (and villains/monsters with class levels) receive a damage bonus of one-half their level rounded down. This is due to a weapon being more deadly in the hands of a more skilled character. This extra damage is not multiplied during a critical hit, it is a flat bonus added on to every successful melee or ranged attack. This bonus does not apply to spells and is lost if you make more than one attack per round.

Double Strike
You can strike twice in succession.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +6, Proficient with weapon.
Benefit: When making a full attack you may make two strikes as a single attack roll against one or two targets within reach. You take a -5 penalty on your attack roll but deal +2 dice of damage. Divide the damage by two against the target's DR if any. If the attack roll hits both targets, you can divide the damage equally among the two targets.
Special: This feat is automatically granted to any character that meets the prerequisites.

Triple Strike
You can strike thrice in succession.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +11, Double Strike, Proficient with weapon.
Benefit: When you make a full attack you may make three strikes as a single attack roll against one, two, or three targets within reach. You take a -10 penalty on your attack roll but deal +3 dice of damage. Divide the damage by three against the target's DR if any. If the attack roll hits the AC of the targets, you can divide the total damage equally among the targets.
Special: This feat is automatically granted to any character that meets the prerequisites.

>
>
>

Another way to gain multiple attacks would be through dual-wielding. However, I don't want to use the TWF/Improved TWF/Greater TWF feats from Pathfinder as they contradict the whole theme of trying to keep attacks down to a minimum. I was thinking something along these lines:

Two-Weapon Fighting
You are adept at fighting with two weapons and double weapons.
Prerequisite: Dexterity 15, Base Attack Bonus +1, Proficient with weapon.
Benefit: You may attack with two weapons or with both ends of a double weapon during a full attack at a -5 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
Normal: If you take a full attack action to make more than one attack on your turn, you take a -10 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
Special: You cannot combine Double Strike or Triple Strike with this feat.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
You are an expert at fighting with two weapons and double weapons.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15, Base Attack Bonus +6, Two-Weapon Fighting, Proficient with weapon.
Benefit: You may attack with two weapons or with both ends of a double weapon during a full attack at a -2 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
Normal: If you take a full attack action to make more than one attack on your turn, you take a -10 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
Special: You cannot combine Double Strike or Triple Strike with this feat.

Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
You are a master at fighting with two weapons and double weapons.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 17, Base Attack Bonus +11, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Proficient with weapon.
Benefit: You may attack with two weapons or with both ends of a double weapon during a full attack with no penalties.
Normal: If you take a full attack action to make more than one attack on your turn, you take a -10 penalty on all attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
Special: You cannot combine Double Strike or Triple Strike with this feat.

>
>
>

As you can see here, you are incentivized to make a single, accurate attack most of the time. You generally don't want to make multiple attacks against someone such as the main villain who has a high AC. When dealing with cannon-fodder lackeys of the main villain, multiple attacks are a great way to speed through the more menial battles, especially if using the 1HP monster rules as found in 4th Ed. Also note that monsters/villains will generally be restricted to one attack per round as well, although they will have access to double/triple strike too. If you have to make multiple attacks it is resolved with a single attack-roll albeit at a steep penalty. Because it's treated as one attack roll, you only apply your strength modifier ONCE. Also, magical weapon enhancement damage (such as flaming/frost/shocking etc) is also only applied once even during multiple attacks. Precision-based damage such as sneak attacks are also only applied once per round. Damage from double/triple strike has to be divided in whole points as equally as possible, so for example if a fighter uses dual-strike against two ogres and rolls a total of 11 points of damage, one ogre takes 6 points of damage and the other takes 5. If a player were to use dual strike against a target that has DR and hits the creature with both attacks, you divide the damage by two and compare both to the DR. So if a creature had DR 3/- and took 10 damage from double strike, it would be compared as two 5hp attacks (each being reduced by 3 so ultimately the creature would only take 4 damage). Alternatively, if a character were to use triple-strike against a creature with DR of say 15/+1 (and didn't have a magical weapon), and rolled a total of 24 damage, you would divide that by 3 which comes to 8 damage per strike, which wouldn't make a scratch on the creature.

Note that when using normal dual-wielding, all the normal rules apply (EX: full strength bonus on main hand, 1/2 strength bonus on off-hand, each weapon can be magically enchanted and both attacks are tracked with two separate attack rolls etc). The one main advantage of dual-wielding is being able to completely get rid of all attack penalties once you have Greater TWF, which to me is a fair trade compared to what the feats do in the book (Eg: by time you have greater TWF, you'll have 6 attacks but only 2 or 3 actually have any chance to hit).

The one real weakness of these rules are critical hits. A smart player will grab a great-axe (or any other x3 crit weapon) and attempt to triple-attack. If he scores a critical hit, he will end up dealing 1D12 x3= 3D12 base weapon damage plus 3 dice from triple strike for a total 6D12 damage + strength and a half modifier + his weapon's magic enhancements. I can easily see 50+ points of damage occur this way.

I apologize if this was a long-winded post, I just wanted to touch base with the community at large and get some opinions. Is what I'm doing viable, or are there better ways to streamline combat?


Sara Marie wrote:
Cpt_kirstov wrote:
Also 70 cents times 100,000 books is $7000.00 - thats prolly the cost of another piece of art. (Note I do not know what paizo pays for art)
Just to point out, $0.70 times 100,000 books is $70,000 which would be one heck of a nice piece of art ;)

Not to argue or be a troll, but that's assuming that ALL the transactions are done via American Express. According to the Nilson Report (they monitor how much of the charges are on Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover etc), in 2012 Amex accounted for approximately ~11% of all credit card transactions worldwide. That figure varies by market but it's a good rough idea. So you figure that only about 10% of Paizo's transactions might be Amex. So doing some more number crunching, out of 100,000 books sold annually, only 10,000 would be bought using Amex. Assuming that each book averages at about $30 (the Core Rulebook costs $50, however all the supplementary books cost ~$40/each, and then there's the PDFs which go for $10 each). So 10,000 books times $30 each gives us $300,000. Normally, using Visa/Master/Discover, Paizo would pay approx 2% of that $300K that was processed on credit cards, or $6,000. However because those 10,000 books were bought using Amex, Paizo would instead pay about 3%, or a total of $9,000. In other words, we're talking a $3,000 difference. Yes, I know that 3 grand is a sizeable chunk of cash we're talking about, no matter what way you look at it. The only thing I wish to point out is that also according to the Nilson Report, people with Amex cards spend about 3-4x a month more than people do using their other cards (we're talking ~$700/MO on Amex, vs $200/MO on Visa/Master/Discover). I can attest to those figures being accurate because the other night I was about to buy $100 worth of Pathfinder books but only ended up spending $20 because my Amex wasn't welcomed. My point is, that extra $3,000 will likely be made up and then some by us Amex card holders that start out wanting to buy one book but end up buying 5 books instead. The only question I pose is, has Paizo as a company actually tried accepting Amex? On paper it sounds like a horrible deal, however in practice it can be highly lucrative and rewarding, not only for us Amex customers but also to Paizo as a business.

Once again sorry I don't mean to be a troll (I'm probably sounding more and more like one with each post), Paizo as a company has the predicament of balancing its interests vs the customer's interests and I respect that. I just hope some day Amex be given a fair shot.

@Cpt_Kirstov I've yet to see an instance of Amex forcing a business with sufficient proof to credit a cardholder (especially a hotel with a receipt, imprints, and video footage!). Maybe things have changed over the last few years and the hammer has been brought down on customers trying to get away with "murder." Not sure, all I know is that in my own personal experience I have had to turn away many people disputing "unauthorized" transactions (most of the time they honestly forgot, gotta love the senior citizen ;-).


I don't mean to be a troll however I feel very strongly about this matter. Let me first state that I am an employee of American Express and I am NOT speaking on behalf of the company nor am I compensated in any way. What I'm about to say are my own unbiased words and DO NOT represent American Express in any way/shape/form.

First and foremost, one of the largest complaints against accepting American Express ("Amex") cards is the merchant processing fee. Online research reveals that Visa and Mastercard charge approximately 1.6%-2% of each transaction. Discover also has a rate of about ~2% for e-commerce. Amex charges 2.89% or more ( up to 3.2%, depending on merchant size and volume you may get a lower rate). So we're talking about at MOST an extra 1.5% difference (probably closer to 1% difference). So if someone buys the Pathfinder Core Rulebook using Amex ($50 value), Paizo would be charged approximately an extra $0.70. That's hardly "exorbitant."

I understand that extra difference adds up over the long run, however people with Amex cards (like myself) tend to spend much more money. Amex typically targets the affluent for their credit cards. My only other card is a debit card which I hardly use. The other night I loaded up my e-cart on Paizo's website with over $100 in products that I was excited to buy. After I found out that Paizo wouldn't accept my Amex I had to use my debit card. I ended up only being able to get less than $20 in books. It wasn't a great experience nor a good way to foster loyalty.

Speaking of loyalty, I am a loyal customer. Any business that will accept my Amex card are businesses that I frequent. I feel that it's a very bad business practice to dictate to the customer how he/she can or can't pay simply because the business wants to save itself a few bucks. Isn't it better to build a loyal customer base even if it costs you some money upfront vs saving a few bucks but losing even more in the long run? To me, I'd rather spend a little extra to ensure that I have a returning customer that tends to spend more on his Amex.

Another complaint that I've seen here is that Amex "forces" you to credit back the customer in a dispute (aka charge-back). Nothing could be further from the truth. Many times, it's simply because the merchant doesn't clearly spell their refund/return policies. Think about it from a legal perspective, most businesses have policies/signed waivers etc in place to make sure they don't get sued in court. Same concept here. I work in Customer Service and there have been plenty of times where I've had to tell our Cardholders "Sir/Ma'am, the merchant's policies are very clear and you agreed to it. We can't make them refund you" even though afterwards some might kick and scream about how "unfair" it is. Amex takes care of its merchants just as much as it takes care of its cardholders.

Sorry if this is a long post, and once again I'm not trolling. Paizo must keep its own interests at heart. My objective is to provide a clearer perspective on the consequences of accepting (or not accepting) Amex cards. To me it just makes sense to accept Amex as the customers will return frequently and spend more money. But I digress. Paizo, great job with Pathfinder, keep up the excellent work!!