The Trailblazer rules claim that replacing the first iterative attack at -5 with both attacks at -2 is mathematically equivalent (or very close at any rate). Furthermore, additional attacks beyond 2 just decrease the bonus by one also.
Is there any validity to this? That book is daily good about showing the math, but on this rule he just gives us the payload.
If it is even close to equivalent, I'm considering using it. It seems like a lot less math and fewer rolls for the same result.
The Trailblazer rules claim that replacing the first iterative attack at -5 with both attacks at -2 is mathematically equivalent (or very close at any rate). Furthermore, additional attacks beyond 2 just decrease the bonus by one also.
Is there any validity to this? That book is daily good about showing the math, but on this rule he just gives us the payload.
If it is even close to equivalent, I'm considering using it. It seems like a lot less math and fewer rolls for the same result.
I can't prove it mathematically, but I let our group use it in a test adventure. It works, well.
What we liked was that the to hit bonuses were the same for both attacks. The dislike? My player's didn't want to trade in their 3rd and 4th attacks for just two attacks at -2. In the end, I made it optional. The players can choose to use it, if they like, but it is not mandatory.
I've a hunch that the math is right in TB... about 15% more damage output from the TB method over the core method. But, like I said, can't prove it mathematically.
I could see cutting down the number of attacks in exchange for making those attacks hit more. It definitely sounds like quicker combat. Can't comment on the math however.PST: that's not reducing the number of attacks TOZ. It's turning that +5/+0 into +3/+3, and turning +10/+5/+0 into +7/+7/+7
Actually, the Trailblazer method would turn +10/+5/+0 into +8/+8. No third attack.
|
I could see cutting down the number of attacks in exchange for making those attacks hit more. It definitely sounds like quicker combat. Can't comment on the math however.PST: that's not reducing the number of attacks TOZ. It's turning that +5/+0 into +3/+3, and turning +10/+5/+0 into +7/+7/+7
But +20/+15/+10/+5 turning into +20/+20 IS reducing attacks. Which is what Trailblazer does. No more than two attacks.
There's an old thread in Enworld where he broke down the math on iteratives in great detail.
Basically outside of edge cases such as only hit on a 20 or only miss on a 1 the reduction of iteratives to 2 attacks ends up being functional similar in terms of damage output to the 0/-5/-10/-15 methodology.
The simple fact of the matter is that tertiary and quaternary attacks don't contribute a huge amount to DPR against CR appropriate foes. Further because the penalty to hit is fixed there is less computation and errors from faulty arithematic.
I also find that it does put the high level fighter types at slight disadvantage vs mooks because the fighter typically loses the ability to drop as many mooks per round as he'd be able to under the old system.
Overall I think it's a pretty solid set of rules than can definitely be applied to Pathfinder play with only some slight caveats.
Not sure I like it really, but then, I'm interested in improving life for the people who hit things, not keeping it the same and just filing off the serial numbers :P
It does improve things in most cases. The people hit things end up hitting more often, which increases overall damage on average. Trailblazer does a good job of explaining this, and the PDF is well-worth purchasing.
Yeah, I have to say I was skeptical at first, but I've found more than one thing to steal from Trailblazer. Pity they couldn't have picked a less facetious title.