I’m in favor of keeping iterative attacks.
But, I’m more interested in doing less math as well. I think the real problem with iterative attacks is you had to recalculate your chance of hitting with each die roll. This lead to the problem of hitting once and rolling a bunch of dice that never hit anyway.
If you make every attack have the same chance to hit you can roll all of your dice at the same time and count the hits and misses then roll all of your damage at once, a little bit like a dice pool system.
It is funny though that every who wants them gone, are not asking that wizards give up all of the spells that do more then one die of damage, after all doesn’t that slow things down too.
Also for a full move you could simply make a rule in which you only give up one attack extra to make a full move, but can always attack once.
So a 10th level fighter can perform a full move and attack twice, or stand still and attack three times. A feat can allow to move for free, but it’s not available till high levels (+11 bab requirement).
Please keep iterative attacks. I've never found them difficult to comprehend and a little preparation speeds them up signficantly. Know each total bonus and roll damage dice with the attack roll. I've even seen people use color coded d20 and damage dice so they can do it with big fistful of dice (very satisfying!).
Plus, I think it would be a big backwards compatibility issue. Ease of compatibility is a strong selling point for Pathfinder. The more work needed to convert existing 3.5 material to Pathfinder the less interest I'll have, and I imagine I'm not the only one in this boat.
Lots of people keep referencing Star Wars Saga in various threads regarding Pathfinder rules. SW Saga seems to have much more in common with 4E than 3.5. Not to be a jerk, but if the major changes of Saga are what really, really appeals to a gamer it seems to me that 4E might be a better choice for that style of gameplay. IMHO, Pathfinder should be about rounding off the rough edges of 3.5 not creating a clone of 4E.
|
Lots of people keep referencing Star Wars Saga in various threads regarding Pathfinder rules. SW Saga seems to have much more in common with 4E than 3.5. Not to be a jerk, but if the major changes of Saga are what really, really appeals to a gamer it seems to me that 4E might be a better choice for that style of gameplay. IMHO, Pathfinder should be about rounding off the rough edges of 3.5 not creating a clone of 4E.
Agreed.
As was mentioned previously, allow the +1BAB/level classes to full attack as a standard action. Add in the loophole closer that your BAB has to equal your character level to do so. This will keep munchkins from picking up a level of fighter/ranger/stompadin so that their rogue can charge around madly stabbing things.
Don't change the itterative attacks. It would ruin backwards compatability, and it's not that bad of a mechanic.
There have always been and will always be house rules. For folks that hate itterative attacks use a different mechanic (some good suggestions on this thread to that effect).
Lots of people keep referencing Star Wars Saga in various threads regarding Pathfinder rules. SW Saga seems to have much more in common with 4E than 3.5. Not to be a jerk, but if the major changes of Saga are what really, really appeals to a gamer it seems to me that 4E might be a better choice for that style of gameplay. IMHO, Pathfinder should be about rounding off the rough edges of 3.5 not creating a clone of 4E.
As a prominent SWSE mentioner, I don't think you're a jerk. :) However, I also have big problems with 4E and don't want to go that way. Like I've said elsewhere, if 4E had been a Saga-ized version of D&D, I would have been all over it. But it's very much not that from what I've seen. They've blown away all sorts of classic traditions, revised the default universe to a point that existing settings needed an apocalypse (or -another- apocalypse, in the case of FR) for it to make sense, added all sorts of weird baggage about races and monster mechanics, and so forth.
My group uses the "multiple color-coded dice all at once" method. The fighter/barbarian types all have pre-made cheatsheets for their various attacks (basic attack, full attack, full attack with power attack maxed out, full attack with expertise maxed out, full attack with both power attack and expertise maxed out, etc.). We've gone through all sorts of machinations to speed things up, and iterative attacks still come back as one of the big "speed bottlenecks" of high-level play, which is why I'm so keen to find a workable replacement.
I readily admit that part of it is also the interaction with buffs/debuffs -- and as I've posted elsewhere I'm very keen to minimize those as well. It's not just the "rolling lots of dice" about iterative attacks that's the problem, it's all the figuring that has to be done -around- the dice rolling.
-The Gneech
|
I've been watching this discussion on iterative attacks for a while now, and I've enjoyed the pros and cons brought up here.
As an old school gamer, I can honestly say that I'm for keeping the iterative attacks.
You see, I remember what it was like when back in the day every class only had one attack to make in a round. Sure, the rounds went by faster, but the players of the fighting classes were also upset at the fact that they could only do one thing in a round. Then came the ability to make more attacks in a round and that option was had only by the fighting classes.
That's what I think should be done. Make it so that the fighters, barbarians, monks, paladins, etc. have iterative attacks. If any other class wants to gain that ability, let them dip into fighter for a few levels. That's the way we did it back in the day.
Losing iterative attacks shatters backwards compatibility. Like it or not, combat in 3.5 is built around the concept of iterative attacks. Creature HP is balanced towards it, creature attack sequences are balanced towards it, and spells are balanced towards it.
Lots of people keep referencing Star Wars Saga in various threads regarding Pathfinder rules. SW Saga seems to have much more in common with 4E than 3.5. Not to be a jerk, but if the major changes of Saga are what really, really appeals to a gamer it seems to me that 4E might be a better choice for that style of gameplay. IMHO, Pathfinder should be about rounding off the rough edges of 3.5 not creating a clone of 4E.I readily admit that part of it is also the interaction with buffs/debuffs -- and as I've posted elsewhere I'm very keen to minimize those as well. It's not just the "rolling lots of dice" about iterative attacks that's the problem, it's all the figuring that has to be done -around- the dice rolling.
-The Gneech
I'm with you on buff/debuff. If anything needs to be streamlined, it's how buffs work. Keeping track of multiple layered buffs at high levels is a headache, iterative attacks or no iterative attacks.
But taken in buff vacuum, I'm still in favor of iteratives.
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.
(SNIP)
I think the consensus is that it is not iterative attacks that waste combat time, but the players themselves.
Agreed!
In our group we've never had a problem with iterative attacks. If you have three attacks, you roll three dice. Either call it by colour (e.g. "red for my highest attack bonus, then blue, then the black dice as it's my lucky 20 sider!") or read the results left from right, based on where the dice fall.
When we've gamed with other groups though, boy do they make work for themselves! Rolling them one at a time, rolling loads of dice but not stating which die represents what, etc.
3.x is, at the core, a very simple mechanic that even numerically blind, dyslexic 'ole me can handle. I've never had too much trouble running games with hasted demons with 4 arms and extra attacks coming out of his Buster Keaton, and my last character was a shield-bashing/2 weapon ranger - again lots of different attacks per round. The problem is unprepared players, not the system.
Our group considers it a common courtesy, out of respect for the DM (who probably put hours of preparation in, or at the very least shelled out for the adventure!), to have your most common attacks/spells/etc. all worked out ahead of time so EVERYONE can just roll the dice, have fun and not let the game get bogged down.
Removing iterative attacks is (or at least should be) way too much of a departure from 3.X for 3.P to go down that route.
I hope! ;P
Peace,
tfad
I prefer keeping the iterative attacks. My players enjoy them and it keeps the cinematic mood of seeing the fighters swinging against a number of foes.
While the whole 4e "on hit per turn unless you use a power" may speed the game up for all, it just does not make sense (like so much 4e).
And yes - the slow part comes with the player who must roll every die one at a time and on top of that can't count for _______.
I tell my players - roll all your dice at once - d20's for hits and damage. But I have one who just never will. When he does not play - the rounds fly by.
Director of Games
|
After a quick tinkering, I came up with this possible solution, keeping in mind the backwards compatibility issue:
- Iterative attacks stay as they are in the SRD. This means a +11 BAB equals to 3 possible attacks (+11, +6, +1) and is a full round attack.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain extra damage bonus equal to their STR modifier. Let's just call it "Combat Adaptation" or any other useful name.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain an extra move action of 10 feet per attack lost. This extra movement causes an AoO, and can be performed at any time before or after any remaining attack.
trim.....
Golem101... You are on to something here. An option would be to add feats that allowed you to take these sorts of actions (or something similar). Lets say take a look at the following possibility...
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.
You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
I'm all for nuking the iterative attacks. They are cumbersome and the benefit of each additional attack is worth significantly less than the previous one.
Giving a static bonus to damage that roughly equates to the iterative damage would a blessing. Maybe some of you enjoy tons of extra rolling but my players are casual gamers at best and doing 2-3 attacks per round (3-5 with haste and cleave) all with different attack bonuses is confusing.
The static bonus you mentioned of 1 pt for every 2 levels sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
As for backwards computability... if the static bonus is close to being equivalent to the average damage from iterative attacks then you can just play the stat blocks. If an existing NPC has iterative attacks you can just play it as written, similarly if a player wants to continue using them you could allow it (I actually have one of each).
The other thing people like using iterative attack for is hitting multiple targets in a round. It seems to me that the new versions of cleave and great cleave enable this in a much more elegant way. With great cleave you can just keep smacking until you miss.
|
I think Golem101 is on to something too. I don't remember who said it but to have a little more mobility actually helps a more. Being able to move 10 feet in a round and still use your full attack option isn't over powering. Maybe divide that movement between three attacks.
Ex. I have a level 11 fighter. I take this feat that gives me an extra 5 foot step a round if I am using my Full Attack option.(just a quick option I could think of) So lets say there are four enemies around in the area.
-1-2-3-4-5-6
a- - - - - -
b- -x- - - -
c-x- - - - -
d- - -F- -x-
e- -x- - - -
f- - - - - -
All the other enemies are atleast 5 feet away from him because the last round he charged this one. So this round he can choose to take his full round action. He first attacks the one in E2 takes a 5 foot step into D4 and attacks the one in D5 then takes a 5 foot step into C4 to attack the one in B3. This is an idealized example but I think it demstrates my point that a fighter would work better with mobility than with dropping his attacks. Plus the fighter would have more options at that point. He could take his second 5 foot step into C5 and make another Attack against monster D5. That would effectively give him a shield against the new big monster that would be entering the fight. This is just my take on it.
After a quick tinkering, I came up with this possible solution, keeping in mind the backwards compatibility issue:
- Iterative attacks stay as they are in the SRD. This means a +11 BAB equals to 3 possible attacks (+11, +6, +1) and is a full round attack.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain extra damage bonus equal to their STR modifier. Let's just call it "Combat Adaptation" or any other useful name.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain an extra move action of 10 feet per attack lost. This extra movement causes an AoO, and can be performed at any time before or after any remaining attack.
trim.....
Golem101... You are on to something here. An option would be to add feats that allowed you to take these sorts of actions (or something similar). Lets say take a look at the following possibility...
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
This is the kind of thing I'd really like to see in the game. It reminds me of Iron Heroes, where players take combat challenges to gain additional useful effects (like damage/mobility or other nifty effects).
More like that I say!
Although I like the idea of integrated optional rules for the differing tastes of gaming groups, I think some sort of compromise would be better in this situation.
In any case regardless if iterative stay, which I think they should, there is still the issue of the math involved, as well as the last die roll always missing. The best way to clear that up is with the same bonus to hit on every die.
And no offence, but I don’t think requiring a warrior type to spend a feat for everything he does is a very elegant design, a wizard doesn’t have to spend a feat every time he learns a new spell.
John Robey: I've really enjoyed your SWSE conversion doc "Sword and Sorcery Saga". Very nice.
Thanks much! :)
-The Gneech
Golem101... You are on to something here. An option would be to add feats that allowed you to take these sorts of actions (or something similar). Lets say take a look at the following possibility...
I don't mind where this is going - but I would say you should not have to buy a feat to do this.
I would prefer a rule that says anyone can just use their extra attacks to either add to damage of the first attack OR gain extra movement (5-foot steps w/no AO). This reflects that those with high BAB are so efficient they are making any number of actions during a round not just hitting. Kinda dumb when you take a full attack option when fighting one opponent and your first hit drops him. The rest of your attacks are wasted. If I could drop my foe and then move 5 feet for every extra attack I have left - I can be more useful.
Another useful option is to be able to push your opponent instead of hitting them. Say I get three attacks, if I hit with my first, I instead use my next two attacks to "push" my opponent back in 5-foot step increments per extra attack I spend. This again adapts to the 4e idea of lots of tactical movement, but is easily adapted to a 3.5 game.
And keep in mind - how would a rule change here affect extra attacks from feats (e.g. rapid shot), spells (e.g. haste), and two-weapon fighting?.
BTW - I would also like to see some spells like say acid arrow (or any with a ranged touch attack) get the benefit of multi-attacks. Why should a wizard get one shot with a ranged touch attack, while the ranger next to him is getting three shots off with his bow? I know scorching ray already accounts for multiple shots but it is based on level not BAB- but I think most ranged touch attacks that emulate a normal ranged attack and have no saving roll (like disintegrate, which should remain a 1 shot/spell) should benefit from high BAB's.
After a quick tinkering, I came up with this possible solution, keeping in mind the backwards compatibility issue:
- Iterative attacks stay as they are in the SRD. This means a +11 BAB equals to 3 possible attacks (+11, +6, +1) and is a full round attack.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain extra damage bonus equal to their STR modifier. Let's just call it "Combat Adaptation" or any other useful name.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain an extra move action of 10 feet per attack lost. This extra movement causes an AoO, and can be performed at any time before or after any remaining attack.
trim.....
Golem101... You are on to something here. An option would be to add feats that allowed you to take these sorts of actions (or something similar). Lets say take a look at the following possibility...
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
This is not a bad idea at all it works for both groups the people who want to keep these attacks and thouse who want to get rid of them
|
|
Iterative attacks are to a point rather cumbersome. If they tapped out at 3 attacks that would be manageable. Classes like the ranger with their two weapon styles/hosts of modifiers become a bit of a slough even around 10th level or so. Throw in items like shocking bursts or other such things and you end up with two fists full of dice. You can colour code all you like its still a pain.
It seems rather abitrary but three attacks max as a full round action would keep things easier. I'm not sure how that would affect compatibility though and or game balance with pre-existing 3.5
|
|
As an addendum to the idea of limiting to three atks, Two Weapon Fighting feat could remain the same but Improved and Greater Two Weapon could simply confer a +2 atk bonus to your second and third atks respectively. In the case of a ranger you'd still have four atks (extra off hand) but not 6. Much more wieldy for play.
I also like the idea mentioned by earlier posters of being able to give up an iterative atk for a move action (or maybe 1/2 of normal movement).
At first I was in favor of removing iterative attacks because they slowed down the game. (And since I don’t play a fighter it wouldn’t affect me that much.) 
However, that would be incredibly unfair to the fighter and similar classes. If iterative attacks are removed then they must, absolutely must, be replaced with something of equal or greater value.
But I think that keep or not keep is the wrong question. What should be done is to give fighters a reason to do something else instead.
Golem101’s idea does just that – But it shouldn’t be limited to just extra damage.
Some ideas:
1 attack
 extra 5’ step
 10’ movement
 +1d10 damage (or strength bonus added again)
 limited move equivalent actions
2 attacks
 strength bonus added again to hit for remaining attacks
 5 points of DR
 +5 AC
 second wind – gain 25% hp back (1/encounter)
 maximize damage dice rolled
3 attacks (or 4 attacks)
 SR equal to BAB (your skill in weapons allows you to deflect incoming magic)
 5 points of bleeding damage per round to your target (or 1 point that stacks)
 +1d6 ability damage
 maximize and empower damage dice rolled
I’m sure other people will come up with other ideas.
Each attack category would be a feat (called Meta-Attack feats) with the appropriate BAB prerequisite.
These would give fighters a lot more options in everyday fights and allow a tactical response to specific opponents (eg. Choose DR if fighting a something with lots of attacks but low damage or choose +5 AC against something with 1 attack but hits really hard.)
I don't think that iterative attacks should be done away with, but I do think that there should be feats that take up full round actions that allow a character with iterative attacks to "pay for" extra effects by giving up those iterative attacks. For example, a fighter might give up his iterative attacks in at "Precision attack" that allows for a bonus to hit based on the number of iterative attacks he has, or a "Consolidated attack" that does more damage when he gives up his iterative attacks, based on how many he has.
|
Lose Iterative Attacks, Keep Multiple Attacks
I've always found that the biggest problem with iterative attacks is the fact that each successive attack is less effective. Its so anti-climatic to roll the the fourth iterative attack--it either misses or hits on a twenty.
My solution is to use get rid of the iterative attacks in the noramal BAB progression and istead add in balanced multiple attacks with the same attack modifier through feats, like this:
Dual Attack (Combat)
Prerequisites: base attack bonus +6
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you can make two attacks with the same weapon. Take a -2 penalty to all attacks until the beginning of your next turn.
Triple Attack (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dual Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you can make three attacks with the same weapon. Take a -5 penalty to all attacks until the beginning of your next turn.
Supreme Attack (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dual Attack, Triple Attack, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you can make four attacks with the same weapon. Take a -8 penalty to all attacks until the beginning of your next turn.
This approach is similar to the approach used in SWSE, but with a few key differences:
- the penalties are not as large and make the attacks do approximately the same amount of damage as the previous iterative attacks.
- it's not tied to a specific weapon.
The nice thing about this approach is that its nicely backwards compatible. If you have an NPC opponent who has iterative attacks under the old rules, you can quickly convert him to using these rules by giving him the appropriate feats. And because Pathfinder gives more feats, you don't have to redistribute any of the NPCs other feats.
Its also very flexible--against high AC opponents, you can make 1 or 2 attacks at low penalties while against low AC opponents you can make 3 or 4 attacks with higher penalties.
It also means that other feats can be more effective--you don't have to sacrifice your 3rd and 4th attacks to make your power-attacking first attack deal the maximum damage.
I am in favor of keeping iterative attacks, but making them a standard, not full-round action. IMO, one of the things that added to the power of full-casters in 3.x (compared to 2nd and 1st editions) was the inability of a warrior-type to move and make his full allotment of attacks.
I am in favor of keeping iterative attacks, but making them a standard, not full-round action. IMO, one of the things that added to the power of full-casters in 3.x (compared to 2nd and 1st editions) was the inability of a warrior-type to move and make his full allotment of attacks.
Hum that is a good ideal really wonder how unbalanced that would be over all.
|
|
Golem101... You are on to something here. An option would be to add feats that allowed you to take these sorts of actions (or something similar). Lets say take a look at the following possibility...
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Whoa! It's nice to see that my humble suggestion is so much taken in consideration by the developers and the community. Thank you all.
While I'm not so good in considering all the possible implications in this iterative attacks variant approach (the two weapon fighting stuff and the spells that use BAB stuff are excellent critiques), I still think that having feats - both taken as bonus in the class career or not - that help in speeding up combat or just give more flexibility depending on the situation is an opportunity to good to be missed at this stage of the alpha rules discussion.
More tinkering and fine tuning is in order to get things straight and to smooth out relations with other feats (Cleave, Mobility and Spring Attack are the ones that come to mind), but we're here to help and analyze options to have an overall better game.
As a basic concept/guideline, I'd prefer having these feats as bonus in the more martial oriented classes (fighters first, the barbarians, paladins, etc.) thus reinforcing the idea of individual styles.
It's a good time to be a Paizonian.
Golem101... You are on to something here. An option would be to add feats that allowed you to take these sorts of actions (or something similar). Lets say take a look at the following possibility...
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
That's a neat idea, but I'd rather see it done as Combat Options more than feats. Or maybe have the actual iterative attacks be the feats (it certainly takes more training to swing a sword effectively three times in a 6-second span than to swing it once with extra force).
Maybe, under Full-Round action:
Full-attack: you can perform extra attacks, at lower accuracy.
Running Attack: you can move your speed and attack. You gain a bonus to your speed equal to your BAB-1 (round down to the nearest multiple of 5; so +5 feet at BAB +6, +10 feet at BAB +11, up to +15 at BAB +16).
Devastating Attack: you swing your weapon with extra strength. Make a single attack. If your base attack is at least +6, add twice your Strength modifier to damage. If it is at least +11, add three times your Strength modifier. If it is at least +16, add four times your Strength modifier.
|
|
That's a neat idea, but I'd rather see it done as Combat Options more than feats. Or maybe have the actual iterative attacks be the feats (it certainly takes more training to swing a sword effectively three times in a 6-second span than to swing it once with extra force).
Maybe, under Full-Round action:
Full-attack: you can perform extra attacks, at lower accuracy.
Running Attack: you can move your speed and attack. You gain a bonus to your speed equal to your BAB-1 (round down to the nearest multiple of 5; so +5 feet at BAB +6, +10 feet at BAB +11, up to +15 at BAB +16).
Devastating Attack: you swing your weapon with extra strength. Make a single attack. If your base attack is at least +6, add twice your Strength modifier to damage. If it is at least +11, add three times your Strength modifier. If it is at least +16, add four times your Strength modifier.
An excellent alternative!
This way, the three options you listed can also be allowed at different levels depending on class, giving a way more distinctive feeling to each one of them (the more training focused fighters gain Full Attack at 6° level, while raw strenght barbarians gain Devastating Attack at the same level, and so on).
A few feats (even included in the various class bonus lists) can handle more versatility - switching between different types, improving a single style of attack, combining these new options with existing feats such as Cleave or Two-Weapon Fighting, etc.
Iterative attacks really slow down the game at higher levels. I have several two weapon fighting characters and having 5 attacks each round, with possible sneak attack damage on each one can get crazy. It takes one character 5 minutes just to work through his attacks...
That's a neat idea, but I'd rather see it done as Combat Options more than feats. Or maybe have the actual iterative attacks be the feats (it certainly takes more training to swing a sword effectively three times in a 6-second span than to swing it once with extra force).
Maybe, under Full-Round action:
Full-attack: you can perform extra attacks, at lower accuracy.
Running Attack: you can move your speed and attack. You gain a bonus to your speed equal to your BAB-1 (round down to the nearest multiple of 5; so +5 feet at BAB +6, +10 feet at BAB +11, up to +15 at BAB +16).
Devastating Attack: you swing your weapon with extra strength. Make a single attack. If your base attack is at least +6, add twice your Strength modifier to damage. If it is at least +11, add three times your Strength modifier. If it is at least +16, add four times your Strength modifier.
Adding in combat maneuvers to handle some flexibility with iterative attacks is just fantastic. While feats do allow for some easy customization for fighters you would still have the glut of attacks piling up on rogues, rangers, paladins, barbarians etc.
My edits would only be to the Running Attack option, and I think we might be saying the same thing:
Running Attack: You can give up additional mainhand/primary attacks to gain more mobility in combat. Effect: You may forego any number of your allotted extra mainhand/primary attacks in one round to gain an additional 5ft of movement per attack sacrificed. Extra mainhand/primary attacks allotted at maximum base attack bonus are not elligable for this option.
My reasoning for adding the stipulation on extra attacks at maximum base attack bonus is to avoid abuse by hasted attacks or other supernatural effects/spells. I think it is also important to specify that only mainhanded/primary forms of attack are eligable to avoid abuse by players and monsters that have multiple weapons/arms/tentacles from going hog wild.
I'm liking the idea of trading in iterative attacks for various things (more damage, small movement, etc). I'm also in the camp that thinks these should be combat options and not feats.
My players have always looked forward to getting their iterative attacks and the math has never seemed that difficult.
It isn't the math for me so much as that it requires a full attack and therefore that means a very immobile action scene. Making the game mobile is very important to me. But why move when I can stand still and do twice or three times as much damage?
SWSE and 4e have made the right move in kaing the game more mobile. That is one thing I do like. I hope that Paizo also encourages this style of game.
The fix for this is less the removal of iterative attacks and the introduction of additional tactics/options that are as attractive as the additional attacks. Combat maneuvers, skill tricks/stunts, etc.
(See Iron Heroes, Conan RPG, Book of Iron Might, etc. for alternatives that work with iterative attacks rather than just replacing them.)
Edit: OOPS, it looks like I'm echoing what some of the later posters have said. Great minds must think alike!
|
|
Perhaps the "solution" is simply this:
Characters with a high BAB may make multiple attacks as a standard action by reducing their chance to hit. A character may gain one additional attack for every 5 point reduction in BAB. BAB may not be reduced below 0 in this fashion.
Thus, a character with a +12 BAB could make one attack at +12 or two attacks at +7 or three attacks at +2.
This way multiple attacks are kept in much the same fashion as the original rules, but as an option instead of a given. This way there is no diametrically opposed situations where a big opponent will possibly be hit by the +12, but almost never by the +2, and minor opponents could be hit with just the +2, but the +12 is really overkill.
Plus, it will be easier to handle the rolls at the table since the BAB for all multiple attacks will be the same instead of in 5 point increments.
And the overall reduction to multiple attacks would be balanced by making it a standard action instead of a full action to use; it's a standard action to attack once at +12 or twice at +7.
Might be worth considering.
It is, it IS. Thanks!
|
|
After a quick tinkering, I came up with this possible solution, keeping in mind the backwards compatibility issue:
- Iterative attacks stay as they are in the SRD. This means a +11 BAB equals to 3 possible attacks (+11, +6, +1) and is a full round attack.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain extra damage bonus equal to their STR modifier. Let's just call it "Combat Adaptation" or any other useful name.
- Martial classes can give up any number of extra attacks (keeping 1 as a minimum) to gain an extra move action of 10 feet per attack lost. This extra movement causes an AoO, and can be performed at any time before or after any remaining attack.
trim.....
I agree. And the effects don't have to be limited to increased damage or movement. Depending on the number of extra attacks given up, the martial class could slow down opponents, blind them, etc.
I was already working on something similar. Let me finish them and I'll post what I've got.
One of the real power killers for a fighter is their dependency on iterative attacks to deal damage at higher levels. Having a fighters mobility in combat increase at certain levels would do a lot to correct this. (5' step becomes a 10' step at X level, 10' step becomes 15' step at X level) would do a lot to fix that issue.
|
|
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead DesignerWhoa! It's nice to see that my humble suggestion is so much taken in consideration by the developers and the community. Thank you all.
Here's my stab at the idea. Was already in the works when it was suggested here:
Martial Mastery
At sixth level and higher, fighters can, in lieu of their additional attacks, inflict conditions on a successful hit. Thus, a sixth level fighter, instead of rolling his second attack at +1, would state at the being of his turn he'd be using martial mastery. He'd then roll his first attack at +6 and, if it hits, applies the martial mastery condition.
The condition and its effects vary depending on the number of iterative attacks sacrificed.
One iterative attack:
Dazed. The creature hit must make a Fortitude save versus (DC = 10 + damage inflicted + 1/2 fighter's level) or be dazed. The effect last until the end of the fighter's next turn.
Two iterative attacks:
Paralyzed. The creature hit must make a Fortitude save versus (DC = 10 + damage inflicted + 1/2 fighter's level) or be paralyzed. The effect last until the end of the fighter's next turn.
Three iterative attacks:
Fighter Smash! Fighter automatically scores a critical threat. Roll to confirm. If failed, roll damage as normal. If successful, the weapon's critical multiplier is multipled by two (i.e., x2 to x3, etc.) and ALL variable damage is maximized. The creature must then make a Fortitude save versus (DC = 10 + damage inflicted + 1/2 fighter's level) or suffer the effects of being disabled until the end of the fighter's next turn.
|
|
Perhaps this could be a way to go....
Heroic Surge
Benefit: The character may take an extra move action or attack action in a round, either before or after the character's regular actions. The character may use Heroic Surge a number of times per day depending on his or her character level (as shown below), but never more than once per round.
Character Level Times per Day
1st-4th 1
5th-8th 2
9th-12th 3
13th-16th 4
17th-20th 5
it's from the D20 Modern SRD and has great potential, even if it can't be used as is.
Comments?
|
|
Perhaps this could be a way to go....
Heroic Surge
Benefit: The character may take an extra move action or attack action in a round, either before or after the character's regular actions. The character may use Heroic Surge a number of times per day depending on his or her character level (as shown below), but never more than once per round.
Character Level Times per Day
1st-4th 1
5th-8th 2
9th-12th 3
13th-16th 4
17th-20th 5it's from the D20 Modern SRD and has great potential, even if it can't be used as is.
Comments?
uggg...never could get spacing right....