|
I remember several discussions a while back about how iterative attacks get to be cumbersome, and some folks suggested alternative models where players could trade an attack for a special damage effect or an extra 5' step. Did anything ever come of all that?
I think there should be an alternative -- basically a full round action that's a 'haymaker' attack that is one attack at the character's highest attack bonus, and gain extra damage for each attack they forfeit.
|
|
I remember several discussions a while back about how iterative attacks get to be cumbersome, and some folks suggested alternative models where players could trade an attack for a special damage effect or an extra 5' step. Did anything ever come of all that?I think there should be an alternative -- basically a full round action that's a 'haymaker' attack that is one attack at the character's highest attack bonus, and gain extra damage for each attack they forfeit.
Yeah, I love this idea. A BAB +11 Fighter who is fighting something CR appropriate (and thus, not really easy to hit with iterative attacks anyway) could sacrifice his second and third attacks for an extra die of damage each.
But the stuff Mosaic mentions of adding a 5 ft. step per attack sacrificed or a special effect, sounds even cooler.
Perhaps the effects would be staged depending on number of attacks sacrificed, so that a blow to the head could trigger a Dazed condition for 1 round (or save to remove?) if one attack is forfeit, or a Stunned condition for 2 attacks, with additional iterative attacks adding additional rounds of duration? (Or penalties to a Fort or Ref save to avoid / break free from these conditions?)
I am using an alternative :
If a fighter declares a full attack at the beginning of a round, he doesn't apply the -5 to each consecutive attack.
Instead, he divides the global penalty by all his attacks (-5/2, -10/3, -15/4).
Even if the penalty affects the first attack, in the result it doesn't penalize too heavily any attack.
Examples :
Level 6 fighter (+6/+1) : -2 to each attack = BAB +4/+4.
Level 11 fighter (+11/+6/+1) : -3 to each attack = BAB +7/+7/+7.
Level 16 fighter (+16/+11/+6/+1) : -4 to each attack = BAB +12/+12/+12/+12.
Furthermore, a fighter can sacrify one or all of his secondary attacks to get one of these benefits :
For each forfeited attack he can make a move of 5ft or a move action.
If he forfeits all his secondary attacks, the theorical penalty to hit is instead converted into a bonus to damage.
I'll repost the progression of that idea from our end:
Another idea I've been kicking around is coming up with a way to remove full-attacks from the game. They take a really long time to complete, they make combat less interesting by converting damage into massive spikes, and as time goes on, they make full-attacking the objective for a martial character, removing viability of bull-rushing, disarming, etc.
It seems, at least to me, that the reason full-attacks exist in the first place is to balance martial damage output with higher-level spells. A single attack does not scale nearly as quickly as a caster's highest-level spells do. So, in a roundabout way, full-attacks represent a spellcaster taking longer amounts of time to complete higher-level spellcasting. At 11th level, when a full-BAB PC is at +11/+6/+1, a spellcaster takes three times as long to cast his 6th-level spells than he did with his 1st-level spells. Not chronologically, but with regards to action capacity. One attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th.
So, looking at the situation from this direction, one logical conclusion comes to mind:
Instead of granting multiple attacks to compensate for higher-level spells, why not make higher-level spells take longer to cast?
As mentioned a moment ago, one attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th. Why not slow down casting time instead of speeding up attack time to follow this progression?
-4th and 5th-level spells require two standard ("attack") actions to complete.
-6th and 7th-level spells require three standard actions to complete.
-8th and 9th-level spells require four standard actions to complete.
So if a spellcaster wants to cast, say, Disintegrate, he'll be able to cast it, but then he loses his next two standard actions. Or full turns; the idea will have to be revised of course.
This way, we can then accomplish what iterative attacks were designed to accomplish, and then we'd be able to phase out the convoluted "it's all about getting your full-attack, because full-attack > everything else" system that currently stands. Play would be sped up, as all the full-attack math would not have to be done, and combat would be more interesting, since damage would no longer come in massive spikes as it does now, allowing PCs and monsters to defend themselves instead of sitting back and dying to a full-attack. Also, other non-full-attack actions, like bull-rushes, would be viable again, since they only have to compete with the effectiveness of a single attack, not a full-attack as well as the actions which grant one.
-Matt
|
I am using an alternative :
If a fighter declares a full attack at the beginning of a round, he doesn't apply the -5 to each consecutive attack.
Instead, he divides the global penalty by all his attacks (-5/2, -10/3, -15/4).
Even if the penalty affects the first attack, in the result it doesn't penalize too heavily any attack.Examples :
Level 6 fighter (+6/+1) : -2 to each attack = BAB +4/+4.
Level 11 fighter (+11/+6/+1) : -3 to each attack = BAB +7/+7/+7.
Level 16 fighter (+16/+11/+6/+1) : -4 to each attack = BAB +12/+12/+12/+12.Furthermore, a fighter can sacrify one or all of his secondary attacks to get one of these benefits :
For each forfeited attack he can make a move of 5ft or a move action.
If he forfeits all his secondary attacks, the theorical penalty to hit is instead converted into a bonus to damage.
I like your idea.
BUT it still doesn't resolve the one issue I've always had.
Issue: full attack resolution takes too long. Too many dice, too much arithmatic. Take my wife's cleric/fighter elven archer character in the Shackled City game. She's 17th level currently (we're starting the last chapter).
She casts Divine Power in any big-time combat - giving her a BAB of +17 (4 attacks), she has Rapid Shot, and the wizard usually casts Haste on the party.
This gives her 6 shots a round. 3 of them at +X and then +X -5, +X -10 +X -15. Then she rolls Yd8 for damage, and adds her Divine Favor, Point Blank shot, Strength Bow bonus, Greater magic weapon bonus, plus anything else (Heroism, Prayer, etc that may be in effect), then her bow is Shocking and Flaming, so that (Yd6)x2 to add to everything.
This is my redeveloped Combat System:
Full Attacks = 1 normal attack and 1 iterative attack (only), once BAB is +6 or higher.
Movement is allowed each round as normal in additional to being allowed to make full attacks. (allowing twice as many attacks during movement as rules currently allows).
For BABs higher than 10, do 2 points of additional damage for each BAB over 10 (i.e. BAB 16 allows 2 attacks +16/+11). Each do an additional 12 points of damage.
This extra 24 points of damage helps make up the fact that you're not getting 3 and/or 4 attacks, but typically in a 4 iterative attack regime, your 4 rarely if ever hits, and your 3rd is frequently a miss, too.
Allowing bonus damage all the time on each of the two hits most likely to succeed, and allowing both attacks to be made even when moving:
1_ makes the amount of damage done at the end of a combat very close to what would be with the rules as written,
2_ speeds up each combat round significantly since theres so many less dice being rolled and added
3_ allows combat to be more fluid - allowing choices of "Do I move and only get one attack, or stand and get all my attacks (alot of times, decisions to do something "cool" or "interesting" gets overlooked because denying a fighter his full-attack capability is too great of a penalty - this is no longer the case.
caveats:
1_ two weapon fighting: both weapons must strike at the same time, so you can't attack with right hand, then move, then attack with left hand.
2_ precision based damage is ONLY applied to the first successful strike in a round that the character moves more than 5'. (if the rogue take no move action he can make a full attack and do sneak attack on every strike - if he moves 10' or move, he can still make all his attacks, but only the first strike is a sneak attack - otherwise during our playtesting it was way too powerful and easy for a rogue to move around getting sneak attacks - moving into flanking position so readily and easily with full movements).
3_Haste only affects one person now with each casting - and the extra attack is ONLY at the full BAB when the character is using its full BAB (what this means is Rapid Shot or Flurry of Blows - that lowers the BAB by 2 cannot be further increased with the number of attacks with Haste; thus another step towards limiting the stacking of the maximum number of attacks per round.
My next campaign is fully adopting these rules that we've been playtesting and designing all along. There's alot more in depth info about the combat as it pertains to this - as it affects so many feats etc. My rules Document is over 118 pages right now that fully reconstructs combat based on this mechanic. 40 of those pages are all about combat.
Robert
Here's my vote:
For each iterative attack that you can make due to a high base attack bonus, you may forgo the attack to instead take a 5 ft. step.
If you cast a spell that takes a standard action or less to cast, you may also take a 5 ft. step if your base attack would allow iterative attacks. However, on any round that you do this, you may not cast a second spell (such as a swift, immediate, or quickened spell).
Simple, easy, makes it easier to move around the battlefield, and even gives spellcasters more options.
Here's my vote:
For each iterative attack that you can make due to a high base attack bonus, you may forgo the attack to instead take a 5 ft. step.
Given the increase in swift action options in Pathfinder RPG (e.g. dodge, turning smite) what do people think of also allowing characters to forgo an iterative attack for an extra swift action?
I am using an alternative :
If a fighter declares a full attack at the beginning of a round, he doesn't apply the -5 to each consecutive attack.
Instead, he divides the global penalty by all his attacks (-5/2, -10/3, -15/4).
Even if the penalty affects the first attack, in the result it doesn't penalize too heavily any attack.Examples :
Level 6 fighter (+6/+1) : -2 to each attack = BAB +4/+4.
Level 11 fighter (+11/+6/+1) : -3 to each attack = BAB +7/+7/+7.
Level 16 fighter (+16/+11/+6/+1) : -4 to each attack = BAB +12/+12/+12/+12.
this looks killer really. I may run this by a few players. It gives high level fights many options. a 16th level fighter could take 1,2,3 or 4 attacks I like that.
I have been thinking of making full attacks a standard action has anyone done this?
|
I remember several discussions a while back about how iterative attacks get to be cumbersome, and some folks suggested alternative models where players could trade an attack for a special damage effect or an extra 5' step. Did anything ever come of all that?I think there should be an alternative -- basically a full round action that's a 'haymaker' attack that is one attack at the character's highest attack bonus, and gain extra damage for each attack they forfeit.
How about:
"During a full-attack a player may substitute his iterative attacks for extra damage upon his primary attack.
Each iterative attack can be used to add +1d6 of damage, up to a maximum of +5d6.
The primary attack must still hit its target and deals its ordinary damage plus the extra iterative damage."
This could also open up a new combat feat.
"Haymaker (requires BAB +7): The character may add +1d6 of his iterative damage to standard attacks."
"Fierce Blow (requires BAB +12): The character may add +2d6 of his iterative damage to standard attacks."
"Epic Swipe (requires BAB +21): The character may add all of his iterative damage to standard attacks."
Something like that?
|
There is a feat somewhere (most certainly not OGL, but definitely in a WotC book), the name of which I cannot remember at all at the moment, that the fighting folks in my party are using (I'm playing a wizard and thus have no interest in it). It allows them to drop their last iterative attack in favour of doing double-dice-damage on their other attacks. So, for example, if you have three attacks:
+15 (1d8+10)
+10 (1d8+10)
+5 (1d8+10)
... you could drop the attack at +5 in favour of doing an attack at +15 and at +10 each doing 2d8+10 damage. It's good to use if you're attacking something with an armour class that makes your last attack chancy. Also, unless you're using a big weapon, the extra damage you're going to do from the dice is not likely to add up to the extra +damage from actually taking the attack - but that attack might miss. It's like trading in an attack that is likely to miss to do a bit of extra damage with the rest of the attacks. Obviously, if the target has a low enough armour class that the last attack is worth the gamble then you will take all of your attacks in hopes of hitting with the last one.
(We also use a "speed factor" system where iterative attacks are spread out and sometimes you just want your first attack to do more damage in hopes of dropping the opponent before it can get its attack off... this feat comes in handy if you think that an extra <weapon damage> dice of damage could make all the difference.)
Honestly, though, the rules shouldn't have to compensate for unprepared players... If they are going to get all goofified with spells and special abilities, it should all be written down. The player drops a certain number of d20s, sees which ones hit (colour-coding them to a chart of attacks with the associated to-hit bonuses is handy), then follows the line for each one that hit across to tally up damage. If your players are slowing down the game trying to figure this out, then tell them to make a chart. It works well and takes only seconds at the beginning of combat to fill in.
How about:
"During a full-attack a player may substitute his iterative attacks for extra damage upon his primary attack.Each iterative attack can be used to add +1d6 of damage, up to a maximum of +5d6.
The primary attack must still hit its target and deals its ordinary damage plus the extra iterative damage."
This could also open up a new combat feat.
"Haymaker (requires BAB +7): The character may add +1d6 of his iterative damage to standard attacks."
"Fierce Blow (requires BAB +12): The character may add +2d6 of his iterative damage to standard attacks."
"Epic Swipe (requires BAB +21): The character may add all of his iterative damage to standard attacks."
Something like that?
Similar feats are already in PfRPG.
Vital Strike - Base attack bonus +11; Take one fewer attack to deal extra damage (roll damage dice for all such attacks twice)
Improved Vital Strike - Vital Strike, base attack bonus +16; Take two fewer attacks to deal significantly more damage (roll damage dice for all such attacks thrice)
This is the PfRPG solution to reducing the number of iterative attacks. If you want to make Vital Strike your standard, just House Rule the feats for free.
Now this might not adequately satisfy those with TWF and Multi-shot, but I would suggest you create similar feats to create this effect. The intent seems to be to allow at least the second attack, but then allow more damage rather than do the third and fourth attacks. In the case of TWF/Multi-shot/Flurry of blows; allow the first -2 to attack but eliminate the higher iteration attacks at -5 to attack and allow a damage bonus instead. I suggest that it not be a seperate feat. They already paid once to get Improved TWF. Make the feat have the option of either giving a third attack at -5 or add damage to your other TWF attacks.
EDIT: One more thing. Since a feat was added to substitute damage for iterative attacks due to BAB, why were they not added for things like TWF? I suggest that BAB reiterative attacks are granted without a choice by the player character. With TWF, the player CHOSE to take a feat to get an extra attack. So the designers did not given the option of extra damage with TWF.