I wanted to see if anyone had tried something like this before. My goal is to simplify things at my table (at times I have 7 players with most playing their first higher level character, the group average is 11th level), by more or less getting rid of iterative attacks and having no roll to confirm critical hits in order to keep things moving without drastically altering the balance of the game.
Base Attack Bonus: This is added as normal, but a character doesn't benefit from additional attacks, unless he or she has an alternate mode of attack (such as a bite attack) or a class feature or feat that allows the character to do so (such as the Two-Weapon Fighting feat or Flurry of Blows).
Rolling a Natural 20: The attack is a critical hit any time a player rolls a natural 20 on an attack roll.
Threatening a Critical Hit: A player that threatens a critical hit with a die roll lower than a natural 20, such as a wielding a rapier or having the Improved Critical feat, must still roll high enough to hit the target. If the attack hits, it's a critical hit.
This obviously doesn't address feats or class features that affect confirmation rolls, but I'm willing to deal with those on a case by case basis. Thanks for your input!
So with the reduction in melee characters damage output how are you reducing casters so that they dont over shadow the martial guys?
even if the iteratives are only hitting 20-35% of the time you have increased the amount of time for martial characters to kill off a threat by that % which means they will get hit more often need more healing draining more resources. mean while the caster still uses save or sucks or in your game blasts multiple targets in one turn which might cause hard feelings among the players.
Nothing wrong with making folks get their $%#t together before their turn comes up (giving them a 10 count to declare and start moving the minis or else they forfeit their turn may be a better option to impart the importance of knowing what to do). But this does not seem like a very solid solution to the problem.
So with the reduction in melee characters damage output how are you reducing casters so that they dont over shadow the martial guys?
even if the iteratives are only hitting 20-35% of the time you have increased the amount of time for martial characters to kill off a threat by that % which means they will get hit more often need more healing draining more resources. mean while the caster still uses save or sucks or in your game blasts multiple targets in one turn which might cause hard feelings among the players.
Nothing wrong with making folks get their $%#t together before their turn comes up (giving them a 10 count to declare and start moving the minis or else they forfeit their turn may be a better option to impart the importance of knowing what to do). But this does not seem like a very solid solution to the problem.
Thanks for your input. I suppose I forgot to mention that that group consists nearly entirely of martial characters and that these rules would also affect NPCs as well. I see your point though, this does tip the favor in the way of spellcasters a tad, but I think that with the other characters consistently hitting most rounds with a much greater chance of getting their damage multiplied doesn't necessarily break the game in the favor of those with access to spells. I also realize that most monsters have numerous attack methods, but I'm mitigating the damage they would otherwise cause by making them only able to have one of their natural attacks per turn unless they have the Multiattack feat or abilities like Pounce or Rend. I think this will also give me more time to engage individual members of the party as I too will be spending less time calculating the monsters' dice rolls.
I have also instituted a 1 minute policy on turns, so that also helps quite a bit, but I've been really wanting to try this and want to see if other people have put this into practice. I may have to throw a spellcaster against them or an NPC caster in the party just to test your theory. I intend on starting this on Saturday, so I'll keep people posted on the results if anyone is interested.
I wanted to see if anyone had tried something like this before. My goal is to simplify things at my table (at times I have 7 players with most playing their first higher level character, the group average is 11th level), by more or less getting rid of iterative attacks and having no roll to confirm critical hits in order to keep things moving without drastically altering the balance of the game.
Without the feats, etc., that you mentioned elsewhere in your post, there's no reason to go with the full-attack action?
You could tweak the odds of hitting, instead of (or in addition to) ramping up the criticals. Maybe a +1 for every iterative attack:
+5 = +5
+6/+1 = +7
+11/+6/+1 = +13
After all, when you take the last two attacks away from someone with +13/+8/+3 while it's true you're taking away a so-so and a pretty-unlikely chance at hitting, you're also taking away even the chance of doing so. If I have a fighter at +13/+8/+3 then if I miss with my +13 I'm happy I at least have a couple of chances left (even if my odds are very bad).
Turning that one +13 into one +15 at least means I'm not just losing those other two swings.
.
..
...
....
The Iron Heroes's take on iterative attack can be useful, both because it reduces the amount of attacks (at high level) and simplifies the math involved:
+1 = +1
+6/+1 = +4/+4 (two attacks at BAB -2)
+11/+6/+1 = +10/+10 (two attacks at BAB -1)
+16/+11+6/+1 = +16/+16 (two attacks at BAB)
If you only have 1 attack, you aren't doing enough damage. You're not accounting for damage.
You could add a flat number to the amount of damage per level.
I would add your BAB to the damage as well.
Attack = BAB + Strength + Misc.
Damage = BAB + Strength + Misc.
For instance.
A fighter with a longsword and a strength of 18 at level 1.
BAB1
1 + 4 + 0 = +5 to hit.
1 + 1d8 + 4 + 0 = 6-13 damage.
That same fighter at 8th level with a +2 longsword and now has a 20 Strength.
8 + 5 + 2 = +15 to hit.
8 + 1d8 + 5 + 2 = 16-23 damage.
Sure, you are missing some of the damage of multiple attacks, but you are causing more damage consistently.
Again, just add your BAB to damage.
I've been playing around with a damage calculating spreadsheet I made for a character of mine, and I ran some numbers through.
In general:
* deficits are quite a bit larger for characters who have more bonus to hit, and rather larger for characters who have more bonus to damage. (Power attack becomes even more valuable.)
* conversely, deficits are smaller for characters with smaller weapons and less than full base attack (although of course their damage itself is still lower)
Assuming AC typical at CR, for a full base attack class using a (1d10) 2 handed weapon and power attack, with strength and enhancement bonuses to keep hit% around 50% (and not including your auto-crit rule since my groups all hate it and it isn't built into my math):
.
.
Level..........Deficit per round
6..............6
7..............6
8..............7.5
9..............7.8
10.............7.8
11.............9.1
12.............11.21
13.............11.21
14.............11.21
15.............11.21
16.............14.6
17.............14.6
18.............14.6
19.............14.6
20.............17
Fairly linear overall, but stepped. I think a flat +ba to damage is a little bit much -- that's *almost* the worst case scenario up there.
A similar character using a weapon one handed rather two handed is down 4 damage at 6th level, 6 damage at 9th, 7 at 11th, 8.5 at 14th, 11 at 16th, and 13 at 20th.
Hm. Actually, if you just lowered monster HP, it might be an interesting way of not only speeding up the game, but also encouraging alternate builds -- although hyper-damaging builds still do more damage overall, the difference is less drastic. Although, it kills rogues, wildshaping druids, and maybe archers and paladins.
@LovesTha It isn't /just/ rolling the dice that takes the time. It's rolling the dice, determining if it's a hit, adding the damage (and bonuses), determining the effect on the target, deciding whether to full attack and if so, who is the next target and whether and where to 5' step, and whether that is a hit, and what damage that does and whether that target drops... and so on. Now, that was two attacks. (My 15th level paladin has six attacks, seven hasted, with about 50% chance per round of getting an extra attack due to a crit. My friend the alchemist can throw something like five or seven bombs a round. The rogue has five attacks.)
@Justin James Nelson How are you handling things like familiars, animal companions, mounts, and summons, who may get their own attacks? Can they attack in the same round as their player, or do they have to be non-combat-only?
Without the feats, etc., that you mentioned elsewhere in your post, there's no reason to go with the full-attack action?
I am interested to see how this plays out. I would suspect that it would lead to more movement and 5' stepping around during combat or otherwise coming up with ways to use that move action.
@Laurefindel I seem to recall that you have houseruled something like one attack per person per round at your table, how has this affected your game?
I do see a reoccurring theme here: that is not necessarily getting rid of iterative attacks entirely but less of them and with higher bonuses. I think if I were to do this, I may as well not try to tinker base attacks.
I noticed that the latter part of my post concerning critical hits has not received the same amount of attention. Do people generally agree with getting rid of confirmation rolls?
@LovesTha It isn't /just/ rolling the dice that takes the time. It's rolling the dice, determining if it's a hit, adding the damage (and bonuses), determining the effect on the target, deciding whether to full attack and if so, who is the next target and whether and where to 5' step, and whether that is a hit, and what damage that does and whether that target drops... and so on. Now, that was two attacks. (My 15th level paladin has six attacks, seven hasted, with about 50% chance per round of getting an extra attack due to a crit. My friend the alchemist can throw something like five or seven bombs a round. The rogue has five attacks.)
@threemilechild This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just one or two of those things but all those things combined that are slowing things up at my table, especially with such a large group. As for companions (familiars, summons, etc.), since none of my players have any I hadn't really considered it. I may say that it takes a player's swift of move action to direct a companion, with the result being that the companion can either take a move or standard action (companion swift or immediate actions would not cost anything from the player).
I noticed that the latter part of my post concerning critical hits has not received the same amount of attention. Do people generally agree with getting rid of confirmation rolls?
Well. Groups I have played in have tried it out and then quit it. I think it was decided that it favours monsters rather than players, although I can't remember the logic behind that, now. Maybe they roll more attacks. Certainly, if you use crit cards, don't let the monsters use the cards unless they're bosses.
@threemilechild This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just one or two of those things but all those things combined that are slowing things up at my table, especially with such a large group.
Hm. Maybe, instead of removing iteratives, rule that you cannot switch targets within a full attack. This would allow your players to pre-roll their attacks (including figuring damage, if they know the target AC already). Granted, sometimes they would get information they shouldn't have("I may as well heal you, Bob, because on my turn all I was going to do is whiff" or "Don't worry, Bill, I rolled two crits and 80 damage, that Ogre's toast"), but they're losing out on some damage overall and some tactical advantage of moving, anyway. If their intended target is already down by their turn, then they only get the first attack they rolled, barring pounce.
It's kind of a shame about the companions/summons/familiars, but if nobody was using them anyway I guess it doesn't much matter.
@Laurefindel I seem to recall that you have houseruled something like one attack per person per round at your table, how has this affected your game?
Once you start adding-up feats, most non-spellcaster characters manage two get two attacks or so per round (or at least one retry), sometimes more considering circumstantial extra attacks (like from the cleave feat). My issue was more with characters that ended-up with six or seven attacks. In that regard, it speed-up and streamlined the combat significantly*...
In my experience, two attacks is enough to have fun feel that your round is "worth" enough (even at high level), but it isn't enough to keep-up with the damage output expected by RaW (especially at high level). This "1 base attack per round" rule of mine is inscribed in a rather thorough set of houserules in order to work, to the point where it becomes an alternate system remotely related to the OGL.
IMO, the beauty of the Iron Heroes alternate iterative attack bonus is that both attacks are made with the same bonus, making calculations somewhat easier (throw both dice at the same time, apply the same bonus without caring about which dice corresponds to which bonus etc). As such, it is not that intrusive as a houserule.
Someone had made the math and affirmed that the resulting DPR was similar to RaW, but that sould be verified. If so, it would be a houserule that could easily be inserted without affecting game experience too much.
* My system isn't so much based on 1 attack/round as on the principle that there is no full attack option. As such, a player doesn't need to hesitate whether he or she is going to move or stay put to dish-out 3 or 4 times the DPR it would do with a single attack (if move). That in itself streamlined combat significantly.
'findel