|
This is getting into a lot of work. To simplify it, let us try to find out what we want to gain by giving up the Iterative attacks.
What I have heard so far:
More Mobility
To Deal more Damage
To Hit more often
I know this isn't everything but these are the loudest. If you want to add to this list go for it.
I will add these.
More Defense
Counterattacks
I think that people are getting on the right track with how to resolve iterative attacks. Simple movement is *huge*; there's a reason a lot of powerful melee builds work off of pounce of some kind or another. There's a simple reason: Melee combatant A wins intiative and charges, dealing some damage. Melee combatant B retaliates with a full attack, killing melee combatant A. But if A had pounce, A stands a good chance of jumping the gun and outright killing B.
Something else I noticed reading through the Pathfinder rules was that they *drastically* lowered the amount of damage that can be added with Power Attack. In my mind, I think this was a mistake. Melee combatants, especially at high levels, had problems with simultaneously hitting and dealing enough damage to harm enemies (since, while spellcasters are much better at controlling a battlefield, melee characters are where its at as far as dishing out the damage goes). Iterative attacks were part of the problem, as each added attack effectively did less damage due to its decreased chance to hit. Also, Power Attack didn't exactly help, either, as you had to decrease your hit chance (thus basically lowering your damage) to increase your damage. The only real solution for a melee character was to beef up his attack bonus to such an absurd level that he would be assured of hitting even while power attacking. A lot of these methods were pretty messed up (Festering Anger, polymorph, frenzied berzerker, pounce+shock trooper, etc.), and, while solving the problem for that given fighter, still meant that without a lot of effort, a fighter had a hard time just hitting things in melee and doing credible damage.
So, melee classes need to see their average damage raised, probably by more than seems rational at first, to be able to hack it against those high level monsters. This can be done in a few ways, thought I think adding a mobile full attack with less penalties than in 3.5 would be huge. Also, the power attack mechanic needs to be changed from the current paradigm (attack bonus for more damage). Fighters should have to sacrifice something else for more damage, potentially hit points or AC, that way they will not be shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to actually dealing that damage.
|
Still, there are plenty of ways to speed up combat at the Table, rather than in the mechanics.
Rez
When a creature has concealment or an incorporeal miss chance, roll all the miss chances first, then roll the attacks.
"First one misses, possible, possible, miss... OK, roll your second and third attack."
or "Miss, miss, miss, miss; guess you swing wide with the lot. Never mind."
|
This is getting into a lot of work. To simplify it, let us try to find out what we want to gain by giving up the Iterative attacks.
What I have heard so far:
More Mobility
To Deal more Damage
To Hit more oftenI know this isn't everything but these are the loudest. If you want to add to this list go for it.
I will add these.
More Defense
Counterattacks
Less die rolling. That's my only thing.
I'd like for iterative attacks to be replaced by a Fighter ability that allows them to add one extra die of base damage for every four or five points he exceeds the targets AC.
So Bob the 10th level Fighter is using a Longsword (d8) and gets a 26 to hit the dude with AC 16, he gets to add +2d8 to whatever damage he's doing. This damage, like Sneak Attack dice, is not multiplied in the event of a Critical Hit, nor are other damage bonuses from weapon enhancement, Str, etc. multiplied.
Normally the increment that he has to exceed AC by would be every five, but if he specializes in a weapon, it drops to every four when he attacks with that weapon.
Bonuses to hit suddenly become a big deal for a Fighter, as the better chances he has of blowing past the targets AC, the better chance he has of doing extra dice of damage (and bigger damaging single hits help a lot in bypassing DR).
Options;
1) The exact number could be tweaked for balance. Make it start at /4 and then increment to /3 for specialists, if the /5 bit doesn't seem beefy enough to warrant the loss of iterative attacks (as an iterative attack, if it hits, does get to add other bonus damage, like enhancement, Str, etc.).
2) This system encourages Fighters to load up on the biggest base damage weapons they can get their hands on (such as Greatswords). If Bonus damage from Str and / or magical weapon enhancements multiplies as well, a dual-Short Sword-wielding or Rapier-using 'light' Fighter wouldn't necessarily feel pressured to switch to a Greatsword to optimize those base weapon damage dice. (Extra dice from Sneak Attack, Skirmish, etc. should not be multiplied in this way. Criticals should not multiply these additional dice either, simply stack on in typical 3.5 'multiplying multipliers' fashion.)
Note that the Fighter could still get multiple attacks using Two-Weapon Fighting, or some other means through a Feat or something, but those would follow the 3.5 rules and require Full Attack options. The (potentially) big-damage single hits would be Standard attack options, and the Fighter could make a full move, or even Charge, and roll well enough to be getting extra dice of damage.
|
|
I think that people are getting on the right track with how to resolve iterative attacks. Simple movement is *huge*; there's a reason a lot of powerful melee builds work off of pounce of some kind or another. There's a simple reason: Melee combatant A wins intiative and charges, dealing some damage. Melee combatant B retaliates with a full attack, killing melee combatant A. But if A had pounce, A stands a good chance of jumping the gun and outright killing B.
Something else I noticed reading through the Pathfinder rules was that they *drastically* lowered the amount of damage that can be added with Power Attack. In my mind, I think this was a mistake. Melee combatants, especially at high levels, had problems with simultaneously hitting and dealing enough damage to harm enemies (since, while spellcasters are much better at controlling a battlefield, melee characters are where its at as far as dishing out the damage goes). Iterative attacks were part of the problem, as each added attack effectively did less damage due to its decreased chance to hit. Also, Power Attack didn't exactly help, either, as you had to decrease your hit chance (thus basically lowering your damage) to increase your damage. The only real solution for a melee character was to beef up his attack bonus to such an absurd level that he would be assured of hitting even while power attacking. A lot of these methods were pretty messed up (Festering Anger, polymorph, frenzied berzerker, pounce+shock trooper, etc.), and, while solving the problem for that given fighter, still meant that without a lot of effort, a fighter had a hard time just hitting things in melee and doing credible damage.
So, melee classes need to see their average damage raised, probably by more than seems rational at first, to be able to hack it against those high level monsters. This can be done in a few ways, thought I think adding a mobile full attack with less penalties than in 3.5 would be huge. Also, the power attack mechanic needs to be changed from...
This thread really has gotten me to thinking about the whole Base Attack mod and iterative attacks. One thing I'm contemplating in my campaign is to wipe out iterative attacks - with a standard action you may make a single attack. I would also make a change to full attack where when making a full attack you would gain an additional attack at your full base attack bonus. This would make full attack meaningful at low levels (right now it is not very meaningful because until a character hits at least 6th lvl they only get one attack (unless you take two-weapon fighting, Manyshot feat, or some other feat that gives you an extra attack of some sort)). Finally, I would create a feat(s) that allow for extra attacks with a standard or full attack action. The prereq would be based on Base Atk Mod so fighter-type classes would qualify most easily (probably +8 for Extra Attack feat and +16 for Improved Extra Attack). Using this methodolgy, a 16th lvl fighter with both feats would gain 3 attacks at full atk mod w/ a standard action and 4 attacks w/ a full atk action. I believe this would make straight fighter-types more capable of holding their own in higher level play. Since all attacks gain full atk mod, I would probably return Power Attack to 3.0 version with a 1 for 1 exchange on to-hit & damage.
Keep Iterative Attacks.
What is with the posts to get rid of Iterative attacks and change the magic system? You might as well go 4e if you're gonna do that. The thing that has attractied me to Pathfinder is the fact that ti is still 3.5 with some updates. Changing magic and Iterative attacks makes Pathfinder in-compatable with 3.5.
|
|
Keep Iterative Attacks.
What is with the posts to get rid of Iterative attacks and change the magic system? You might as well go 4e if you're gonna do that. The thing that has attractied me to Pathfinder is the fact that ti is still 3.5 with some updates. Changing magic and Iterative attacks makes Pathfinder in-compatable with 3.5.
What about removal of iterative attacks is non-3.5 and what is the fascination with iterative attacks? To me, they are nearly a complete waste - each iterative attack basically means a -25% chance on your ability to hit. Basically at high levels only the first attack or two are going to hit in most instances - why have this rule in that causes the rolling of meaningless dice? Granting extra attacks at full base atk makes more sense, but this can't just replace the iterative attack rules because then it tips the balance too far in the opposite direction. A return to something akin to the 1e/2e rules where specialized fighters were the only ones who gained extra attacks makes sense. Other classes really aren't missing out that much - wizards and sorcerers hardly make use of iterative attacks and the change makes fighters better in battle than clerics which might make the fighter class viable again (current rules allow for a cleric build that can outshine a fighter in battle pretty easily plus have the added capability of spellcasting). Feats grant a good solution to the issue of extra attacks - fighters main boon is the number of feats they get. Now they can apply some of these feats to actually make themselves better in combat than other classes.
I vote in favor of a conservative approach here as well--keep iterative attacks for better backwards compatibility.
Organized players of fighters will have their dice in hand and be ready to roll on their turn. If you're playing such a character, get a different colored set of dice for each attack and designate a color order. You can roll all of those iterative attacks in one big dice-gasm--miss chance, attack and damage. The only time you should need to roll again is if you threaten a crit.
I really don't think the iterative attacks ought to slow the game down that much.
I also don't think they lead to static combat--five and ten foot passageways lead to static combat. If you want dynamic combat, set up battlefields (and enemy forces) conducive to it. Fighters won't stand in one spot to get their full attack if their enemies are swooping out of the air or riding by launching arrows from horse/griffon/worg-back. Nor will they if the enemy outflanks them and gets to the party spellcaster. But all this requires space to maneuver. Sometimes it's cool to set up terrain for a defensive battle, but if your dungeon is starting to look like Battle of the Somme-style trench warfare, it's time to create a nice big 100 foot wide cathedral vault or take the adventure outdoors and have a running battle, picking up tac-tiles and putting them down as the battle moves.
|
|
If you want dynamic combat, set up battlefields (and enemy forces) conducive to it. Fighters won't stand in one spot to get their full attack if their enemies are swooping out of the air or riding by launching arrows from horse/griffon/worg-back. Nor will they if the enemy outflanks them and gets to the party spellcaster.The problem isn't that fighters don't have incentives to engage in dynamic combat. The problem is that fighters suck when engaging in dynamic combat. Fighters rely on their iterative attacks to be effective, and the minute they have to start moving around the battlefield, they lose their biggest advantage. The ability to hit a single opponent once per round for 20 or 30 points of damage is worthless at higher levels.
Incidentally, I agree with you that the removal of iterative attacks is not the answer. (And if I'm not mistaken, Jason Bulmahn indicated earlier in this thread that the removal of iterative attacks is not an option.) However, I do think something should be done to allow higher-level fighter-types to make more than one attack per round without having to stand in place to do it.
My suggestion given further back in the thread does give fighters an advantage by allowing extra attacks as part of a STANDARD action and having these extra attacks be at full base atk mod. That way the fighter isn't nerfed when he has to move across the battlefield and it makes winning initiative meaningful (a prior post gives the example of a fighter winning init, charging and attacking once while the enemy he charged gets a full attack on his init against the fighter who because of charging also has an AC penalty).
I really don't see iterative attacks as core 3.5 - the underlying core rule is really Base Atk Bonus, which would not change. I remember picking up the 3.0 PHB and paging through the first time. My first reaction was "Hey, clerics and wizards get additional attacks at higher levels - that doesn't seem right". Iterative attacks still don't make sense to me - fighters don't gain spellcasting or even the ability to use scrolls/wands; why give other classes an ability that was exclusive to fighters in earlier (1e/2e) editions?
|
|
I'm all for keeping Iterative attacks despite there supposed ineffectualness. I know first hand that if there were no minuses to the other attacks, Fighters would become too powerful. Now I haven't played 2nd but I remember in ther rules that fighters gain up to 2 attacks a round at their THACO but that took some leveling. I say keep the Iterative attacks but come up with some feats that help fighters move in combat, deal more damage, and possibly get more attacks without severe penalties.
So basically in my estimation there are a few things that could make full attacks better-more of the attacks could happen at the same attack bonus and the overall attack bonus could be higher. If they were at the same attack bonus, then more attacks could be rolled simultaneously as they are essentially identical, without having to do seperate math for each of the attacks. Keeping these bonuses as feats also helps to edge out the clerics and gishes (I have some old characters I'm crying for, but it had to be done). Here's some ideas:
Hummingbird Strike
You have trained yourself to be able to react to changes in an opponent's defensive posture in an instant, changing momentum and direction at will.
Prerequisite: BAB +11
Benefit: Reduce the penalties for iterative attacks by 5. This means that the penalties for your attacks should be -0/-0/-5
Mongoose Strike
Like the mongoose, you have learned to use your speed and accuracy to strike faster than the eye
Prerequisite: BAB +16
Benefit: Reduce the penalties for iterative attacks by 10. This means that the penalties for your attacks should be -0/-0/-0/-5.
Butterfly Float (Combat)
With ease and grace, you maneuver around enemies and obstacles in the battlefield.
Prerequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: You may take an additional 5-foot step this round.
Bee Sting (Combat)
You have learned to avoid notice and harm until you are ready to strike.
Prerequisite: BAB +6, Dex 13, Butterfly Float
Benefit: If you did not start your turn next to an opponent, the first attack you make against them during your action treats them as flat-footed.
Hawk Dive (Combat)
When it is time to strike, you strike without warning or mercy.
Prerequisite: BAB +11, Dex 13, Butterfly Float, Bee Sting
Benefit: As a free action this round you may move up to your speed. You can only move once per round with this feat.
Some other notes on combat: Razor Sharp Chair Leg is *way* too good. Sure, it uses up your combat feat for the round, but at level 20 you should not have access to an 18-20/x3 weapon, potentially 15-20/x4 at level 20. And more importantly, if you do have access to such a weapon, it should not be an improvised weapon because thematically it's just silly.
All of this talk about full attacks and iterative attacks may be obliviated by the existence of the Devastating Blow feat. This feat just plain rocks; when I was trying to come up with a practical, powerful fighter build under Pathfinder, I kept coming back to this. If you grab a high threat multiplier weapon (Like a scythe or goliath greathammer) and run around doing this you will deal, most likely, more damage (250 or more at 20th level) than a full attack would deal. Now, it is damn powerful to grab a high threat range weapon, grab improved critical or keen, and go to town on people (maybe add the maiming weapon enhancement into the mix for more fun). But you will still have the problem of dealing with the really low attack bonuses on the later attacks, whereas with devastating blow all of the damage is delivered via your highest attack bonus, *and* you get to move if you want (or draw your weapon without quick draw, or get up off of the ground, or whatever).
So I guess at this point, most of the stuff relating to full attacks and iterative attacks is on the table. What way *should* the combat system be balanced?
I'll come to your first bit last fella, if that's ok by you?
At the same time, our 'warriors' are hacking away, hitting with 4 attacks per round, and easily capable of delivering 100 damage per round, yet none of the three has the benefit of a full BAB history.
Umm... we have 3 attacks per round. Or at least, I do... nearly 4 though.
My job seems to be to deliver them to the objective, smash the scenery up, dispel harmful spells, and identify the loot. Damaging the enemy is not a worth the attempt unless they're in my face, or as a side effect of killing themselves on my defences (Moltenwing in one round!).
Well, it's not quite like that is it? You are missing out all the options of your non-combat spells that are not movement or Identify related. I can guarantee you that you've done some great stuff with Unseen Servant and Protection from Energy, for instance, and as for your combat spells, you aid the flow of battle (Force Cage) and put down covering fire (Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, Disintegrate). You do yourself a diservice, but I know you just feel inferior because I'm so gosh-darned brilliant :-)
This is not a rant against my group or campaign, but I simply cannot relate to the statements that 'iterative attacks are useless', or 'fighters cannot contribute at high level'.
It better not be! I can see what you're talking about, but you are missing some points here - the reason we can cut it is precisely because we are not fighters, or single classed paladins or rangers. We have optimized (for good or ill) because we appreciate that a high level martial character with no second string will be really stuffed without having some groovy wondrous items or friendly mages/clerics who cast stuff on him. I'm okay because really I'm a cleric, and we all know clerics rock. Lia is okay because her player's husband has optimized her for this campaign specifically, and DeMargo is okay because he's got cheese coming out the wazoo. We are not standard fighters, so please don't use us as examples. Ta. Now onto your first point and my last reply.
The 20th level caster who uses a 6th-level slot to deal 70 damage in an area...sounds good, until you factor in Spell Resistance, Spell Turning, Counterspelling, Energy Resistance, saves for half damage, Evasion, etc.
Sure, you can kill rooms full of mooks who are many levels beneath you, but you shouldn't really be facing them, or gaining xp for defeating them.
A creature rated as appropriate to your caster level is often very difficult to even effect.
I hope that you also appreciate that stuff like Stoneskin, Fire Shield, Displacement, Blur, Iron Body, Anti-Magic Field, Telekinesis, DR, etc. etc. all stuff up a fighter's chance of doing those 4 hits for 100 damage fairly severely. So, to paraphrase and modify your comment "A creature rated as appropriate to your fighter level is often very difficult to even hurt."
Unless you're me, of course :-)
My suggestion given further back in the thread does give fighters an advantage by allowing extra attacks as part of a STANDARD action and having these extra attacks be at full base atk mod. That way the fighter isn't nerfed when he has to move across the battlefield and it makes winning initiative meaningful (a prior post gives the example of a fighter winning init, charging and attacking once while the enemy he charged gets a full attack on his init against the fighter who because of charging also has an AC penalty).
I think that goes too far the other way - what if we use dire charge as a model? Dire charge is a currently-epic feat that allows a fighter to make a full attack during a charge. How about making dire charge a non-epic fighter-only ability, and turn "full attack as a standard action" into an epic feat? (Make that standard charges only, not partial charges. And maybe Barbarians should get some of this too?)
I like the idea of all the iterative attacks being at the same bonus level - so you can attack once at +BAB or attack multiple times for +BAB - X. X could be -2 (as in a monster with improved multiattack), -4, -5... Not everyone is a well-organized player, and not everyone is good with math in their head.
Hm - what do you think about giving fighters the ability at level 6 to make two attacks at -2 BAB, and letting everyone else make iterative attacks at -5 BAB? That way, your cleric/druid/ranger/paladin/high-level and desperate wizard can attack multiple times a round, but only against low-AC opponents.
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.
My thought on this is that iterative attacks shouldn't be removed unless there's a way to get them back. Taking them out severely curtails damage output potential for the sneak attacking rogue and the monk.
And, taking them out interfere's with backwards compatibility.
I still like suggestions earlier in the thread talking about trading in iterative attacks for other things. I'd like to see these as part of the rules for everyone and not as feats mainly because the purpose of this thread is discussing the removal (or keeping) of iterative attacks. So, instead of removing them and messing with 3.5 compatibility, you allow options. Something like this:
Iterative Attack Options
As part of a full attack action, you may sacrifice one iterative attack to gain one of the following during your round:
- An extra movement of up to 1/2 your normal movement rate
- A bonus to damage equal to your Strength bonus on all other attacks
- A +2 dodge bonus to AC
I'm unsure what to do about two weapon fighting people with 7 attacks at high level having these options. Should they give up an attack with each hand to utilize one of the options?
I'm unsure what to do about two weapon fighting people with 7 attacks at high level having these options. Should they give up an attack with each hand to utilize one of the options?
I think a simple blurb limiting these combat options to primary/mainhand attacks would keep dual weilding combatants from abusing the intention of the options. It would also be important to note that these options do not stack with the multi-attack feat just to keep those many tentacled/armed monstrosities we all love from going absolutely bananas in one round.
I really like the idea of expanded combat options so that anyone with iterative attacks can take advantage of the mechanics instead of limiting it to fighters or other classes with enough bonus feats to absorb it all.
I still like suggestions earlier in the thread talking about trading in iterative attacks for other things. I'd like to see these as part of the rules for everyone and not as feats mainly because the purpose of this thread is discussing the removal (or keeping) of iterative attacks. So, instead of removing them and messing with 3.5 compatibility, you allow options. Something like this:
Iterative Attack Options
As part of a full attack action, you may sacrifice one iterative attack to gain one of the following during your round:
- An extra movement of up to 1/2 your normal movement rate
- A bonus to damage equal to your Strength bonus on all other attacks
- A +2 dodge bonus to AC
I'm unsure what to do about two weapon fighting people with 7 attacks at high level having these options. Should they give up an attack with each hand to utilize one of the options?
When attacking with two weapons, those attacks aren't considered iterative attacks are they?
I probably should know this but if you have an 11th level fighter with two weapons how many attacks does he get in one round? 4? Are all 4 considered iterative attacks or are only 3 of them considered iterative attacks?
|
|
When attacking with two weapons, those attacks aren't considered iterative attacks are they?
I probably should know this but if you have an 11th level fighter with two weapons how many attacks does he get in one round? 4? Are all 4 considered iterative attacks or are only 3 of them considered iterative attacks?
3 of them are iterative attacks (following the BAB progression), the other is an offhand attack.
This said, it would be nice to specify in clear, bold letters, that dual wielding characters or multi-armed/tentacled critters can't abuse the options from multiple attacks done within a single round. Just to be sure.Back IT: I think that the variants for iterative attacks should be limited to extra movement or extra damage, regardless of the feat or class option approach.
The various effects such as temporary blindness, ability score damage, etc. should be introduced as combat maneuvers based on the excellent CMB concept, as they differ quite a lot from the basic frame and deserve a specialized development.
Better yet, having the freeform combat maneuvers from The Book of Iron Might worked into the CMB for creating a really flexible and cinematic combat system...
I have a hard time envisioning many scenarios where this would work. Perhaps if the BAB+12 character greatly outmatched his opponents. Against an evenly matched opponent, this would likely just mean 3 misses.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.
That's kind of the point. By the original rules, that last +2 attack (of the +12/+7/+2 group) would be pretty much a waste of game time against an evenly matched opponent.
Consider if the character needs to roll a 10 or better to hit with his +12 bonus (55% chance of hitting). The +7 attack has a 30% chance of hitting and the +2 attack is only going to hit on a 20 (5%). The player has to take the time to roll and determine what happens on that third attack because 1 in 20 times it will hit anybody, even if 19 out of 20 times, it's just taking up game time dealing with it (in fact, the 20 result is easiest and fastest to deal with).
But when facing lower-level opponents, the reverse is true. Consider if the character needs a 10 or better to hit with his +2 bonus (55% again). He has an 80% chance of hitting with the +7 attack and only misses on a natural 1 with the +12 attack. The +12 attack is now the somewhat pointless roll as the result only changes 1 in 20 times.
The key to remember with what I proposed was that multiple attacks were now all standard actions instead of the full action normally required for iterative attacks.
The character still attacks once at his normal BAB as a standard action, but he can now make multiple attacks also as a standard action. So instead of three attacks at +12/+7/+2 as a full action where the +2 may be pointless, he could make two attacks at +7 as a standard action or one at +12 (trading one 55% chance to hit for two 30% chances to hit going by the example above).
And if facing the lower-level opponents, he could go for two +7 attacks or three +2 attacks (trading two 80% chances to hit for three 55% chances to hit) or he could go for the nearly guaranteed single attack at +12.
The thing is, all the options are still a standard action with all the flexibility that allows. And even though the chance of hitting is lowered, the chance is exactly the same for all attacks, so while players could roll multiple d20s to determine the attacks, they don't have to differentiate between them because they all use the exact same modifiers.
I think it would just be faster and more dynamic play all around. Plus, as someone else mentioned, the iterative stats in older books still work as a listing for 1 attack/2 attacks/3 attacks bonuses.
Then, instead of a Full Attack Full-Round Action being required to use an ability of a character (multiple attacks), it could just provide an option as it does with fighting defensively. In fact, what if it simply provided the opposite option of fighting offensively like so...
Fighting Offensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight offensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a –2 penalty on AC in a round to gain a +2 bonus to all attacks for the same round.
So the fighter with the +12/+7/+2 progression with this option and the multiple attack rules above could use a full-round action to make one attack at +14, two attacks at +9, or three attacks at +4.
And it doesn't have to just be melee; that could also work for the archer who takes a Full Attack to better aim his shots.
Anyway, just a consideration that I think fits both backwards compatibility and game play.
|
|
At the same time, our 'warriors' are hacking away, hitting with 4 attacks per round, and easily capable of delivering 100 damage per round, yet none of the three has the benefit of a full BAB history.
Umm... we have 3 attacks per round. Or at least, I do... nearly 4 though.
You have 4 when you're hasted; but I suppose the extra attack isn't really iterative, since it's at full bonus, so yes, I agree.
You are still the Lord of Hack.
Has anyone brought up the fact that iterative attacks at higher levels are useful for special attacks like Disarm, Sunder, or Grapple? Personally, I have no problem with the current system and just fear you folks are going to change 3.P into another 4E.
|
|
I love how we did attacks in SAGA (though my originally version called for adding your base attack bonus, rather than half your character level, to your damage for the one attack you did get.) However, it was a big change, and I personally think it goes too far in terms of backwards compatability.
My only real issue with iterative attacks in 3.x is that your thrid or forth attack is unlikely to hit in high-level play, which is already slowed down by high-level abilities.
My personaly proposed fix is to simply say "Iterative attacks are at -5 from your base attack bonus." Thus if you get four attacks instead of being at +20/+15/+10/+5, you get +20/+15/+15/+15. This is clsoer to how monsters work, doesn't affect play at all until someone has a +11 base attack bonus, and rewards the full attack bonus characters at higher levels. It also can make things like two-weapon-fighting easier ("When fighting with two weapons, do not make a primary attack. Gain two additional iterative attacks. One of these attacks must be taken with your secondary weapon.") and can tie into flurry of blows.
Then, if you want, you have a few feats the reduce the -5 iterative penalty to -4, then -3.
All this while reducing the math (all attacks after the first are at the same number), and making sure if someone actually has three or four attacks a round, the last two might mean something.
Has anyone brought up the fact that iterative attacks at higher levels are useful for special attacks like Disarm, Sunder, or Grapple?
Seems to me, it's not unreasonable to expect multiple attacks to be useful overall without requiring any qualifiers. In my opinion, Disarm, Sunder, and Grapple should be options, not ways to make an attack "useful" because it's not useful as an actual attack in and of itself.
Personally, I have no problem with the current system and just fear you folks are going to change 3.P into another 4E.
Us folks aren't going to change anything. Everyone here is just going to voice their opinions and ideas, and Paizo will make the decisions on the system.
It's the difference between having a voice and having a choice. Everyone has a voice about the rules, but only Paizo has a choice in what goes in.
But everyone has a choice in how they play the game and what rules they use after they get the book Paizo makes. Yes, that's a "freedom" gamers have always had, but I think understanding that difference highlights what Paizo has done here. Gamers have always had that choice in games, but how many times have they been given a voice in the creation of the game?
This isn't going to be anyone's perfect game because in a world filled with individuals, the idea of anything fitting any two people perfectly are the kind of odds no gamer wants to see in a system. ;)
So while the Pathfinder RPG will still result in, "I'm gonna have to house rule that," it may also contain instances of, "Hey, they did what I said on that... cool." Whether that's changing iterative attacks or not (or something entirely different), it should be significant alone that the voice of the fans was considered and more importantly, sought out in the production of the game.
Hmm, got all ranty and off-topic there. Sorry.
Fair enough, Jester. I just didn't see anyone mentioning iterative attacks in the same breath as optional attacks and wanted to ensure folks understand the impact of having additional chances to disarm your opponent. I've found most players forget about these options despite their huge impact on a fight.
So is it better to create options through feats (benefits fighters to a greater extent) or to just make them available to everyone when they gain iterative attacks?
I lean more towards feats because of the distinctiveness that it can offer fighters.
The only problem here Nas is that any other class that gets itterative attacks will have to sacrifice other feats they could chose for viability in other areas designed for their class for the combat options. Maybe that is a good thing, as the fighter is fairly broken at higher levels?
But I think a good mix is what is needed. Add some combat feats that fighters can pick from to make them shine at higher levels. But have a mobility option (give up extra attacks for movement) and front loaded damage option (give up extra attacks for a damage buff)that anyone can benefit from provided they have a base attack bonus that allows for extra primary/mainhand attacks.
I think there are steps Paizo can take to make sure everyone gets what they need without changing the rules fundamentally. Judging by the 4pages of responses to this corner of the 3.5 rules, I think it does point towards something being done though. Only time and playtesting will tell though.
I don't agree that "something needs to be done".
Frankly, I'm for changing as little as possible. I have three boxes full of 3.5E books, and if the Pathfinder RPG is so different from 3.5E that I have to redo all of that material in order to use it, why would I bother?
Seriously, have that many people *really* had a problem with iterative attacks? Really? I have 4 colored dice, representing 4 attacks. I roll them all, and resolve the attacks. The only time I end up spending much time on iterative attacks is when I've got something with 6 tentacles and Improved Rapidstrike. Still no big deal, it doesn't take that long to roll 9 attacks.
I have a far larger issue with the spellcasters. Few and far between are the players who know what they're going to cast when it's their turn. Play at epic levels where they have Multispell three times and you've got casters who spend 30 minutes leafing through books reading spells.
I can understand the frustration with something like grappling (not that I agree there either, frankly, even when you throw the most broken feat in the system, Close Quarters Fighting (Complete Warrior) in the mix), but at some point it just becomes a matter of "Hey, them's the rules, just learn them already."
|
|
Has anyone brought up the fact that iterative attacks at higher levels are useful for special attacks like Disarm, Sunder, or Grapple?
It has been mentioned, yes, but I don't know if anyone took any notice.
It's a totally valid point; if you think that your last attack bonus is weak, why not use it for a maneuver that just requires a roll vs touch AC?
Has anyone brought up the fact that iterative attacks at higher levels are useful for special attacks like Disarm, Sunder, or Grapple?It has been mentioned, yes, but I don't know if anyone took any notice.
It's a totally valid point; if you think that your last attack bonus is weak, why not use it for a maneuver that just requires a roll vs touch AC?
I think that when it comes to mid through high level encounters the monsters you go up against don't translate well to being disarmed, sundered or grappled.
Sure going up against another fighter type monster (ogre, giant, human npc etc.) these combat maneuvers can be used effectively. Going up against an owlbear, ankheg, otyugh, or dragon what commonly effective use is disarm, sunder or grapple?
Down with iterative attacks! at least the 3.0 model for them
backwards compatibility is not really a problem (look at the substitute fighter from the PHB 2, a paragraph fixes everything) easy changes can be made that dont touch much at all (you may have to ignore iterative attack listings for npcs, but you dont have to change anything)
look, we could take a page from 2nd ed and have fighter have a chance to have multiple attacks at first level (if a fighter want to make an additional attack he subtracts 3 from all his attack rolls, per additional attack roll. so even at first level he can make one attack at +1, two attacks at -2 and three attacks at -5 etc etc. at high levels its makes for having one good hit (against hard to hit foes, and combined with power attack, against foes with good DR) two attacks wit ha decent chance to hit normal foes (plus the ability to use one or both as combat maneuvers) and anything past that takes care of mobs of lesser foes
I dont know how I would like non fighters to have access to this, probably would need to gain the option when the iterative would naturally give them bonus attacks.
Two weapon fighting should be changed slightly too. but thats a different discussion...
Umm... we have 3 attacks per round. Or at least, I do... nearly 4 though.You have 4 when you're hasted; but I suppose the extra attack isn't really iterative, since it's at full bonus, so yes, I agree.
You are still the Lord of Hack.
You've just proved my point. I only get hasted by other characters. Namely you (and Sal?) I don't have that ability just for myself (and you can't count Righteous Wrath of the Faithful coz it's much higher level, and marginally less utilitarian).
But I agree I am the Lord of Hack. 3 times a day for about 20 rounds each time :-)
I want to see iterative attacks stay. The only thing I see wrong with the current incarnation of Iterative attacks is at the high levels, particularly 16th and above. My group is currently running the Age of Worms Campaign and we are just finishing up "The Library of Last Resort." This is what I notice:
The 4th attack gained at 16th level, is almost pointless, usually needing a 17+ to hit, but often a perfect 20. I see this both from the PCs' as well as monsters. This is especially true with the two-weapon fighter and the ranger with rapid shot.
What I also notice is that it isn't the actual attack rolls that slow down gameplay, because the math really isn't that hard. It's what happens afterward... figuring out damage. Does Axiotmatic apply? Electric? Holy weapon damage? Damage reduction? Feats such as Point Blank Shot, the +1 to attack from prayer, etc. need to be remembered as well.
Also, I find that the spell casters take up just as much time and often more figuring out just the right spell to cast than the warriors (the party consists of 1 sword and board fighter, 1 two-weapon fighter, 1 ranger, 2 clerics, and 2 wizards.) The sword and board fighter consistently resolves his round the swiftest, not so for the two-weapon fighter if he decides to make a full attack (with 7 attacks). But in our group, it's looking up the effects of spells and rules such as grapple, cover, trip, etc, that take up the most time, not iterative attacks.
In summary, I'm for Iterative attacks, but would like to see a drop of the last one gained by all classes. This would look like (at 20th level):
Good BAB: +20, +15, +10
Average BAB: +15, +10
Poor BAB: +10
I'm also for more movement during a full attack action. I think the simplest rule is most effective: you can move your normal speed and make all attacks you are entitled to based on your BAB. You would still suffer from attacks of opportunity (and keep the 5' step useful), yet most if not all current feats would remain viable (such as spring attack and mobility). Some might require minor rewording. The only one I can think of that becomes almost useless is Shot on the Run, which I didn't see that much use of anyway.
I'm still not getting it. Here's why. Ok, my final attack starts at a base +1. Then you add Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Mastery. So it's up to +5. Then add in the +3 or greater weapon I'm using, my strength which is usually +4 or greater, and the +4 Belt of Giant Strength that just about every lvl 16+ fighter owns. Now I'm up to +16 for my weakest hit. Even if I'm a 2-weapon fighter, I'm still hitting at +14. This doesn't take into effect any Bless, Aid, or Divine Favor spells being cast.
|
by the circunstances, I do vote in favor of the iterative atacks, but may it be another solutions, one already mecioned is the way it was treated in 2e, only melee-combat oriented clases get extra atacks, but they get it whit out penalizations!!
To the paizo team from VENEZUELA thankyou soo much for doing this!!!!!
Personally, I really like the options I have heard in this thread for iterative attacks. They allow the same variety and boost that the various divine combat allow clerics and paladins. I agree those options should not become too broad in their scope though. I think limiting them to:
1) trading an itertative attack for extra damage
2) trading an interative for an extended move (10 foot adjust without provoking an attack of opportunity
3) trading an interative attack for a boost to AC
4) trading an interative attack for an attack bonus to the highest BAB (represnting the patient strike...waiting for that perfect opening in the opponents defenses).
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Simply increasing the attack bonus on iterative attacks to within five of the primary and giving melee classes some ability to move a distance in the same round they full attack would be sufficient. I posted some feats earlier which addressed this very issue.
1: you cant remove it and maintain maintain 3.x compatability
2: you need to give players reasons to move like for every 10ft you move you gain a ac bonus, and can charge next turn.
3: power attack and other base attack trading feats should be explored for fighters sake, sudden strike and skirmish should also be looked at as possible fighter abilities to off set the damage curve.
Removing it simply is not an option, but working with it to create a improved version is. You can turn this into extra action per round inplace of attacks. For every attack you have you can trade in for a move action (or some other minor action). This would allow for greater maneuver on the grid.
Also consider cleaning up actions themselves, which has become a mess.
How about gaining a second attack at +10 BAB. The second attack has the same modifiers as your first attack. You get multiple attacks, but you don't have to keep track of different attack bonuses.
I have homeruled that as an emergency backup, the caster can pay ability score points as ability damage equal to the spell level. It all has to come from the same stat, but the caster can choose which one. If any of them fall below 6, the caster is fatigued, below 3 caster is exhausted, 0 is either death or disabled.
Wizard burns too many spells = party carrying wizard on shoulders.
Personally, I really like the options I have heard in this thread for iterative attacks. They allow the same variety and boost that the various divine combat allow clerics and paladins. I agree those options should not become too broad in their scope though. I think limiting them to:
1) trading an itertative attack for extra damage
2) trading an interative for an extended move (10 foot adjust without provoking an attack of opportunity
3) trading an interative attack for a boost to AC
4) trading an interative attack for an attack bonus to the highest BAB (represnting the patient strike...waiting for that perfect opening in the opponents defenses).-Weylin Stormcrowe
#2 What effect does this have on mobility and spring attack? I do like the inclusion of the extended move but it looks like mobility and spring attack become a lot less desireable.
#2 What effect does this have on mobility and spring attack? I do like the inclusion of the extended move but it looks like mobility and spring attack become a lot less desireable.Personally, I really like the options I have heard in this thread for iterative attacks. They allow the same variety and boost that the various divine combat allow clerics and paladins. I agree those options should not become too broad in their scope though. I think limiting them to:
1) trading an itertative attack for extra damage
2) trading an interative for an extended move (10 foot adjust without provoking an attack of opportunity
3) trading an interative attack for a boost to AC
4) trading an interative attack for an attack bonus to the highest BAB (represnting the patient strike...waiting for that perfect opening in the opponents defenses).-Weylin Stormcrowe
Spring Attack and MObility are still more useful for covering a distance greater than 10 feet. Simply limit the trading of an iterative attack for 10' adjust to once. Secondly, the feats for trading iterative attacks may be either restricted to fighters only or made prohibitive for non-fighters due to BAB or other requisites.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I have homeruled that as an emergency backup, the caster can pay ability score points as ability damage equal to the spell level. It all has to come from the same stat, but the caster can choose which one. If any of them fall below 6, the caster is fatigued, below 3 caster is exhausted, 0 is either death or disabled.
Wizard burns too many spells = party carrying wizard on shoulders.
er...sorry about that, mis-post ;)
|
|
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?
Or just make Weapon Finesse available to any character at 1st level.
Oh, and I vote to get rid of iterative attacks, but make a feat that lets players get iterative attacks if they want them. That way the useless wizard/rogue BAB is not wasted on iterative attacks.
Blargh. I just saw the changes to Power Attack...why the alterations?