Lisa posted elsewhere that feedback should come in discrete chunks, so I'm going to start a separate thread for each broad topic I've noticed on first readthrough, i.e., Iterative Attacks, Hit Points, Spell Suggestions, and Skill Check Totals. Here's thread #1. :)
Iterative attacks for BAB should be removed. SWSE's model of a single attack that gains a bonus of +1/2 character level to damage works out to very similar math, while simultaneously speeding up combat (no more rolling a bazillion dice for one character's turn) and creating a more dynamic, movement-based encounter.
-The Gneech
I've got no suggestions on the math, but readily agree that iterative attacks should be removed. I've noticed in one of my groups that they tend to be difficult for the players to understand, they slow play down, and they seem to benefit the monsters much more than the PCs.
Thirded. Down with iterative attacks.
Me and my group like them really and would not like to see them go
|
I had considered, but not playtested, a variation where a character lost iterative attacks, but for each five points by which he exceeded the targets AC, he added another die of damage equal to the base damage of the weapon.
So if a Fighter with a +1 Longsword and a Strength 18 scored an attack of 26 against someone with AC 16, he'd 'hit by 10' and get to add +2d8 damage to his 1d8+5 normal damage.
Instead of 'more attacks,' the Fighters in particular would get 'better attacks.' As with other sources of bonus damage, such as Sneak Attack dice, they would be added *after* any sort of Critical multipliers.
One vote for keeping iterative attacks here... my players have never found them confusing, nor have they slowed the game down over much... (I find it hard to belive that they could tend to favor monsters over player characters, as the majority of monsters use natural attacks on which itarative attacks are not allowed anyway).
Removing iterative attacks would be a major change. I think it'd be an improvement, but it would involve changing the whole rest of the game around it. I think the point of Pathfinder is that it's still readily compatible with the wealth of 3.5 material we have.
The only problem I've had with iterative attacks is that at 20th level you're rolling an awful lot of dice. You feel like a champ but your turn lasts fifteen minutes. The last attack, being made at -15, also has this annoying habit of missing a lot (unless you did like me and munched your attack score really high).
I have to support losing iterative attacks. They're a neat way to hold-over 1e/2e attack rules, but they're an unnecessary addition to the turn as a whole.
|
|
Count me in on the banishment of iterative attacks. While getting to roll more dice can be fun, the success level of iterative attacks from my perspective makes them not that helpful to characters. You're basically -25% to hit on the second attack, -50% on the third,... If you're fighting things of a CR near the party's avg level and not playing an uber min/maxed character, you're probably only going to hit on the first and possibly second attack unless you get lucky and roll a "natty 20" on one of the later attacks. I also never liked the idea of sorcerer/wizards gaining additional attacks at higher levels. Guess it's a hold-over from 1e/2e where only a fighter-type class was able to gain multiple attacks in a round.
While we're on the subject of attacks, I'd like to see a little more love given to the two-handed fighting style in Pathfinder RPG. It just seems with 3.5 that all fighter types walk around with a two-handed weapon because they get the max Str adj to dmg with none of the penalties associated with two weapon fighting. Even with a light off-hand weapon and the two-weapon fighting feat you're -2 (or -10%) on every attack - the best case scenario. Maybe having Dex offset these penalties like in 1e/2e is a possibility, or allowing full Str mod to dmg on both weapons to give it an advantage over a two-handed weapon to justify the associated penalties?
|
I would like to see the loss of iterative attacks be an option. Having it all be one big attack instead of several progressively worse ones would help a lot once you get into the teens.
Another thought is to change the number of iterative attacks and/or at what level they are acquired. Maybe you get your first one at +11, so no one ever has more than two. This would require compensation in terms of damage, but that could be balanced out. Or maybe martial classes get 2 or 3 attacks at most and everyone else does not?
Maybe the spread is different. Monks drop to -2 between (unarmed) attacks. Fighters/Barbs are -3. Other classes are -3 or lower?
I'm against them as well. They tend to make the most logical action a Full Attack, most of the time, thus freezing the battlefield and take too much time before the next person can take his turn.
The 1/2 bonus by level, as in 4E, doesn't matter to me. A single BAB progression table would also serve, provided that the original bonus by Class is small, and can only increase through Feats and Abilities, thus decreasing the gap between characters' attack bonuses at high level.
From a flavour point of view I like the idea my character gets a second attack (perhaps at a different opponent)as it gets better. This may be a hang over fron 1st ed where fighters got 3 attacks per 2 rounds at 7th level then 2 attacks per round at 13th and higher (no reduction in to hit).
I do agree however that the fact you cant get it unless you stand there (or take a 5'step) does casue combat to become more stationary. But it also means on a tactical level you can make a decision based on avoiding multiple attacks. ie the wizard never stands so the bad fighter can get there in a 5' step.
|
Iterative attacks are not necessarily needed for most classes, but for the FIghter, it is almost imperative.
WHat makes the FIghter unique of all the classes is his self sufficiency without magic. The Rogue has Sneak Attack to add to his damage, the Paladin has Smite, the casters have spells with potentially a dozen dice of damage.
But the fighter gets a single d8+ strength.
By mid-levels a Fighter becomes a useless class as all other are able to deal substantially more damage than the fighter.
A 7th Lvl Rogue with Strength 12 and Sneak Attack and Long Sword is able to deal an average damage of 17 points without Sneak attack he does 5 points
A 7th Lvl Fighter with Strength 16 and Long Sword is able to deal an average of 7 points.
A 7th Lvl WIzard is able to cast a Fireball for 21 points.
Granted the Wizard has limited Fireballs, and the Rogue has limited opportunities for Sneak Attack, but the Fighter is not able to substantially offer more offensive capability, and will frequently find himself overshadowed by every other class in the game.
I have played a 20th level FIghter with Power Attack and have never been the cause of slow combat. More frequently it is the Wizard or Cleric flipping through the book trying to make a selection from their 36-44 spells that slows down play.
So I suggest instead of removing iterative attacks, we reduce the number of spells casters get in order to speed up play.
:)
I, too, am really tired of iterative attacks... but I don't think you can take them out and be backwards compatible.
Though Bo9S tried, but honestly you quickly hit an 'I almost always hit' iissue, since as far as I can tell you're supposed to hit on your early attacks and miss on your later attacks, with iterative, so with just one attack... hit, hit, hit, hit...
I would like to see the loss of iterative attacks be an option. Having it all be one big attack instead of several progressively worse ones would help a lot once you get into the teens.
Another thought is to change the number of iterative attacks and/or at what level they are acquired. Maybe you get your first one at +11, so no one ever has more than two. This would require compensation in terms of damage, but that could be balanced out. Or maybe martial classes get 2 or 3 attacks at most and everyone else does not?
I like this approach. It keeps the flavor of the old school and allows a little extra for combat types. AD&D only gave extra attacks to fighters if I remember correctly. A wizard won't ever see that extra attack, nor should he/she. Also it is a little more, dare I say "realistic", for a 6 second combat round.
Iterative attacks for BAB should be removed. SWSE's model of a single attack that gains a bonus of +1/2 character level to damage works out to very similar math, while simultaneously speeding up combat (no more rolling a bazillion dice for one character's turn) and creating a more dynamic, movement-based encounter.
-The Gneech
SWSE does not so much remove iterative attacks as replaces them with feats that allow for iterative attacks, and then gives more feat slots to fill.
A 20th level human in SWSE has 18 feat slots to fill. A normal 3.5 non-fighter has only 8 slots. It is very easy for a SWSE character to get iterative attacks (all of which get the damage bonus).
While replacing iterative attacks with combat feats that allow them is possible, I think doing so would weaken the fighter compared to other classes.
|
|
As a case against iterative attacks leading to a static combat.
In fact, as a Fighter it is not uncommon for me to to trade some BAB to Combat Expertise and to Power Attack and then attempt an Improved Disarm.
For example I get 3 attacks at level 15 (+15/+10/+5)
For my attacks I decide to forego my third attack. I have +10 BAB worth of points to play with.
I choose to remove 3 points from the BAB using Combat Expertise, and apply them to AC as a dodge bonus. I remove 6 points from my BAB using Power Attack and apply them to Damage.
My First attack I attack at +6 to hit, have +3 to AC until my next turn and should I hit apply an extra 6 points of damage.
For my second attack I decide I want to disarm the opponent. I have a +1 to attack and still have that +3 to AC but he doesn't get an AoO because I have Improved Disarm. If I win an opposed roll he is disarmed.
So, while I did not actually move more than 5 feet that round I increased my AC, increased my damage, and disarmed my opponent. Hardly a static round.
Now the logical thing the opponent would do is NOT stand there, but use the Withdraw maneuver and move up to 2x his move away from me.
On my turn I have to choose whether to follow and loose my attacks or find another opponent.
Hardly a static combat. In fact without the iterative attack that combat would have very likely become a standstill slugfest.
|
|
I am another vote for at least modifying, if not getting rid of, iterative attacks. Personally, I think something like the SWSE method where level or a portion thereof adds into damage would be great, maybe a combat feat (that can not be taken more than once) to allow an extra attack, and then something for fighters to get an extra attack or two on top of that would be about perfect.
It would keep fighters "on top" in terms of melee damage, give other classes the ability to get one more attack via a feat if they want it, and the damage from your level would make sure that damage scales a little bit at least. As it stands now, the iterative attacks in 3.X get a bit cumbersome after a certain point. Anything that speeds up combat, and makes it seem more active, is a plus to me.
I like this as a compromise. However, if the goal is to speed up combat, I still think iterative attacks are a minor speed bump compared to endless spells.
Cut the number of spells before iterative attacks.
|
|
yeah, I can see other non melee classes without the iterative attacks.
For me it is not the number of attacks per round, or the number of spells available per round, it is that as you get higher the casters get literally dozens of spells to choose from.
Truly, when we were playing at 20th level and I had 5 attacks my attacks took a few moments to finish. But the cleric could literally take 10 minutes to pick out that one spell he was going to use. Then the wizard was next and he takes 10 minutes to find his one spell. Then the Rogue gets in her attacks and is done in seconds, then back to me real quick. Twenty Five minutes for a round; five for two melee characters and twenty for the two casters.
While I had 5 attacks the casters spend disproportional amount of time in combat.
Is this not a problem for others? Do others find that casters are able to choose from dozens of spells more quickly than a few attacks can be resolved?
|
|
yeah, I can see other non melee classes without the iterative attacks.
For me it is not the number of attacks per round, or the number of spells available per round, it is that as you get higher the casters get literally dozens of spells to choose from.
Truly, when we were playing at 20th level and I had 5 attacks my attacks took a few moments to finish. But the cleric could literally take 10 minutes to pick out that one spell he was going to use. Then the wizard was next and he takes 10 minutes to find his one spell. Then the Rogue gets in her attacks and is done in seconds, then back to me real quick. Twenty Five minutes for a round; five for two melee characters and twenty for the two casters.
While I had 5 attacks the casters spend disproportional amount of time in combat.
Is this not a problem for others? Do others find that casters are able to choose from dozens of spells more quickly than a few attacks can be resolved?
I like you're fifteenth level attack round above. I don't know how good it would be against anyone with any AC... It's certainly exciting, though!
As to this question, it generally comes down to how hard the DM is on people. If he lets your casters get away with it (or if no one in the party minds) then I it will happen. If it's a problem, your group just needs to come up with something to *make* the casters choose. Egg timer, loss of turn, etc. I've played a high level caster and for me I usually had 4 or 5 spells "on deck" and would pick one when my time came up. Getting through all the effects a high level spell can have is a completely different can of worms. Books like Complete Mage added at will abilities for wizards. I know it has helped a lot for our group to have reliable damage from our caster with no complicated effects. He can basically sit back and lob damage and bring out the funky spells as necessary.
In order to remove iterative attacks without breaking compatibility and balance you would have to solve two problems.
1. Provide a method for attacking multiple creatures with one attack
2. Compensate for the lost damage due to fewer attacks
The first is straightforward; create a whirlwind feat or similar. The second is more a matter of mathematics.
Consider a sixth level fighter gains his first iterative attack at -5. He's fighting three hypothetical classes of opponents: easy (can hit on a natural roll of 6), okay (hit on an 11) and hard (hit on a 16). The damage output gained from our new attack goes something like this:
Easy: +66%
Okay: +50%
Hard: +20%
At eleventh level he gets his third attack. His two bonus attacks don't give as much a gain:
Easy: +100% (33% increase from third attack)
Okay: +60% (10% increase)
Hard: +40% (20% increase)
Now consider sixteenth, when he gains his fourth:
Easy: +106% (6% increase from fourth attack)
Okay: +70% (10% increase)
Hard: +60% (20% increase)
Thus, while common sense suggests that four attacks means four times your damage, in reality you're only getting little over double damage at best, little over 1.5x damage at worst.
Even if you gave characters a progressive damage boost, you're still oversimplifying because of single attacks, charge attacks, attacks of opportunity, and so on, which don't benefit from "full attack". Consider also critical hits, damage reduction massive damage, which are affected by increased per-hit damage, and two-weapon fighting which needs significant change.
I love iterative attacks. The one attack is the 4th edition way of doing things.
If you want that, go play it. But truthfully, removing iterative attacks in this edition radically eliminates the fighter from any sort of useful ability.
|
|
I think loosing iterative attacks is way too far from what the designers want to do.
If they loose iterative attacks, then for every 3.x adventure the DM has to recalculate every single NPC for every single combat.
Truthfully, how many DMs want to do that? We want things easier, not harder.
I think the consensus is that it is not iterative attacks that waste combat time, but the players themselves.
I also think, that if you look at the round I posted above, you will see iterative attacks do not encourage static combat. Lazy players encourage static combat. It is easier to place your minis in one place and just hack than have to think about moves. Face it how many people USE the Withdraw maneuver? Not many because it means people have to think about the combat. It's just easier to stand there.
Next time the DM has you hosed, use Withdraw and watch him and everyone else at the table try to use AoO or say you can't do that.
Now truthfully, I don't REALLY mind casters having iterative attacks. Let's face it, if the Wizard is resorting to his knife attacks, the party is screwed already. It's time for everyone to use Withdraw at that point. :)
|
|
I find iterative attacks, and the fact that they need a full round attack action to be performed, something that should not be dropped from the rules.
Math involved and damage performance aside (both of them not treally bothering to me and my players), the concept on the whole makes perfect sense.
At the same time, I'm with the guys who ask for a more dynamic, move free or roll free kind of big attack for the tank guys.
So I think it would be a good idea to develop three options, in the spirit of combat maneuvres, all of the available for characters who have a good enough BAB:
- iterative attacks, nothing changed; backwards compatibility, maximum flexibility.
- move action, reduced speed, and single big attack with great attack modifiers and equal high damage potential.
- iterative attacks, just performed at a player designed variable malus to the roll; the same value (following the idea of Power Attack or Combat Expertise) translates into a move value the character can do. This is the most complicated option as it needs to take into consideration AoO, feats such as Mobility, armor penalties, etc. but at the same time offers great tactical adaptability.
Obviously, these basic ideas must be further developed and tested, but I think that offering players a plethora of different styles and options to choose from (basing on personal preferences an situational use) is a useful implementation, keeping both the simulationist detail and offering a quicker and effective type of alternative.
|
|
Well duh! Hit me other the head with a battle axe!
If the problem is the Full-Round action limiting movement, how about a feat that allows a Full Attack combined with some movement option, maybe half your Speed, or up to your speed, but each attack must be delivered from a different space.
Both options then become available to suit the situation.
Hey I like that!
Mobile Tank Feat
requirements: Combat Expertise, Dodge, Power Attack
benefit: You can move up to your normal Speed in combat while using the Full-Attack maneuver. Each attack must be delivered from a different space. Movement may still provoke Attacks of Opportunity.
This could be modified to require 2 spaces per attack, or may limit movement to 1 space per available attack.
my group loves em I love em there a core part of 3e I do not wish to see them go
I think that the best implementation of both keeping iterative attacks and making combats more mobile is the above suggestion of letting martial characters (fighter for example) make a full-attack as a standard action. This also means that they get more options, stay useful and combative and does not require and "backwards incompatability".
I think that the best implementation of both keeping iterative attacks and making combats more mobile is the above suggestion of letting martial characters (fighter for example) make a full-attack as a standard action. This also means that they get more options, stay useful and combative and does not require and "backwards incompatability".
that's a good idea and in that way you don't have to be to worried your 'chain of event feats' wil become broken.
|
|
no no no no no....kill that chain of events stuff! That sucks worse than 2nd Edition!
There was nothing wrong with Combat Feats to begin with.
If you want to find a way to make combat static, require that only one feat be used at a time and certain feats require other feats to be used first.
This is the surest way to make melee characters boring and not worth ever playing. "Hey, you know all those really cool feats you have? Yeah, you will never get to use them. Ha-Ha jokes on you!"
It is like making a wizard cast Create Fire in round one, then round two the wizard must cast Shape Fire, and then and only then can the wizard cast Fireball in the third round.
What possible sense is there behind it?
I love iterative attacks: especially the look on my players' faces when they discover their opponents have them...
KEEP 'EM!
(but let the tanks move around as well as get them)
no no no no no....kill that chain of events stuff! That sucks worse than 2nd Edition!
There was nothing wrong with Combat Feats to begin with.
If you want to find a way to make combat static, require that only one feat be used at a time and certain feats require other feats to be used first.
This is the surest way to make melee characters boring and not worth ever playing. "Hey, you know all those really cool feats you have? Yeah, you will never get to use them. Ha-Ha jokes on you!"
It is like making a wizard cast Create Fire in round one, then round two the wizard must cast Shape Fire, and then and only then can the wizard cast Fireball in the third round.
What possible sense is there behind it?
Well, there is sense behind that reasoning as well, just look at games like GURPS or Ars Magica. But enough about that.
A "standard action full-attack" for warriors of all kinds would mean that at the mid-levels, those "build-up attacks" are easy to set up. However, I still think that build-ups isn't the way to go. But, if they keep it, make sure to add "standard action FULL ATTACK" in there. Makes fighters much more feasible.
I'm all for keeping iterative attacks - if only for the reason already cited above: Recalculating NPCs from published adventures would be additional work.
The option of having a fighter full-attack as a standard action sounds good in theory, but is this really balanced? Maybe someone with more math-fu than me can work this out.
|
I say keep the iterative attacks but instead of making a build-up attack a standard action just make it part of an attack (or at least make some of them usable as part of a full-attack action).
For example:
Say a fighter has three attacks around. Okay, he uses the first attack to execute an Overhand Chop, his second attack to execute a Backswing, and then uses his third attack to execute a Devastating Blow.
Of course, this could get pretty powerful fairly quickly if it's not mediated in some way (say, force them to stick to only one 'chain' or maybe only let them execute two in a round).
---
Another option would simple be to let them use one as the first attack in a full-attack action.
The multiple attack mechanic has been part of D&D for generations, and is a quite satisfactory method of handling higher level play. The problem comes in where simply getting "2 attacks" at 6th (or any) level is a really jarring doubling of your offensive potential. Various strategies have been employed including giving out attacks at penalties (the 3.x way), or giving out attacks that happen every other round (the AD&D way).
The 3.x way has the drawback that the bonus attacks make very little difference past the first. Also, there's more than two attack bonuses to remember, which makes it more work than it is worth. There are a number of possible solutions:
1> All iterative attacks are at a flat -5 penalty. You can take a feat (multiattack) to drop that penalty to -2, and another feat to drop it to -0. Thus, players only have two attack bonuses to remember: Primary Attack and Bonus Attacks. Also, the Bonus attacks would actually matter at all levels.
2> Iterative attacks increase by +2 when your BAB increases until they catch up with your primary attack, then you get a new iterative attack. In this way the progression of attack potential is relatively smooth from level to level. Unfortunately, it's also kind of hard to explain the transition of:
+6/+1
+7/+3
+8/+5
+9/+7
+10/+9
+11/+11/+6
-Frank
Just another thought... this is the Pathfinder RPG and the Pathfinder APs max out around level 15 or so. Most players would only have 2 iteratives, a couple would have 3. Not so big a deal at that point.