I was about to go to sleep when i thought of a really cool idea to save time with iterative attacks.
Instead of attacking multiple times, a player will role a d20 once. If the player hits than that is one hit; it it hits by 5 or more, than the player gets a second attack; if it hits by 10 or more, than the player gets another attack, etc. After calculating how many hits the player gets, he/she just roles all of the attacks at the same time and then subtracts Damage Reduction. For example if a fighter with a rapier and 14 strength hits by 5 or more, the player would role 2d6 and then add 4.
If a player roles a critical, the player gets to role a second d20 to add to the first. Then, the player can obtain large quantities of attacks that makes up for the fact that there are no critical hits. For example if I role an 20 with a long sword, I then role another d20 and get 10. i then add up my attack bonus which is 6. My total role is36. if the enemies AC is 20, i get 3 attacks.
I don't know if this makes abny sense, but i thought it was an interesting idea.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Heh... Quickened True Strike = QUINT-DAMAGE!!
That's a bit extreme, but what you do install is a sense of "the more you hit by, the more damage you deal," which is lacking from Pathfinder now that Power Attack has been changed.
The game needs a mechanic like that to function.
-Matt
I think having multiple attacks based on BAB is both technically reasonable, and satisfying to players. For me, it just "makes sense" that someone with a high bab (a very skilled combatant) should be able to make additional attacks. Now, some might argue in favor of just rolling that into extra damage on one attack, but for me personally, that's just a BIT too abstract and 4E-ish. I don't like going to that level of abstract, even if it DOES make sense and might speed play. I personally am willing to sacrifice some speed of play in favor of maintaining some level of connection to reality. With all of that said, I am really in favor of some rethinking of combat and attacks etc, but feel that this might be too "low-level" of a change to merit being included in the final rules. Jason already has a metric butt-load of stuff to do and test and making such fundamental changes may be too drastic at this stage. I know I would rather have a high quality product in my hands in August as opposed to something rushed out and perhaps requiring tons of errata right out of the gate.