Iterative attacks in BAB order

[james maissen]

In another thread:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.

That FAQ is just clarifying that you can choose either 2 attacks with the sword and 1 with the mace or 2 with the mace and 1 with the sword—it wasn't implying anything about the order in which you had to take them.

The "do them in order highest to lowest" rule only applies to attacks with that hand. In other words, if you're +11/+6/+1, you have to do +11 before you do +6, and have to do +6 before you do +1.

The rules don't actually state or care whether you start with your main hand or your offhand, just as long as each hand's "in order highest to lowest" rule is followed.

My question, if anyone could answer it:

What is the reason for the requirement in the first place? Does it serve any purpose?

I had my guesses in 3e, but the above goes against those.. so I'm at a loss. Is this a phantom that doesn't need to exist at all? Or is it something whose purpose is getting lost? Perhaps it still applies, perhaps not with the Pathfinder changes to 3rd.

-James

[Komoda]

I would imagine it just helps make sure that everyone at the table is playing the same way. For instance, I roll a 1, 13 & 10. with a +11/+6/+1 so instead of having to declare each and every attack we can all know it is 16/19/11. We all know at least one player that will roll a 1 and then try to add the +1.

I think it is more of a bookkeeping rule than anything else.

[james maissen]

Komoda wrote:

I would imagine it just helps make sure that everyone at the table is playing the same way. For instance, I roll a 1, 13 & 10. with a +11/+6/+1 so instead of having to declare each and every attack we can all know it is 16/19/11. We all know at least one player that will roll a 1 and then try to add the +1.

I think it is more of a bookkeeping rule than anything else.

If that's the case, then it should be a guideline rather than a rule.

Besides.. the above quote gives freedom between primary and secondary that would abolish what you are saying the rule gives. Now you still declare each and every attack 'primary' then 'secondary' or 'primary, primary, then secondary, primary, secondary, secondary', etc..

But there are mechanical consequences of the BAB rule, and I'm wondering if they are intended or even embraced?

-James

[Komoda]

I think it is important to declare which weapon one attacks with. Following the rule would then let everyone know which attack it is because it has to go in order.

So if you were attacking with 2 weapons you would just declare which one each attack. The other way you would have to declare which weapon as well as which iterative for each attack. Therefore I think the ruling streamlines the game but still gives you options.

It would really suck to attack something with a sword, find out it doesn't work well and not be able to switch to the mace in your other hand because of a bookkeeping rule.

The other implications don't seem as dire to me, but I acknowledge that they exist.

[MC Templar]

james maissen wrote:

What is the reason for the requirement in the first place? Does it serve any purpose?

-James

There are feats and class abilities that allow a character to get specified bonuses by losing "The first attack in his full attack action"

I am betting this rule is in place to clarify you can't arbitrarily decide that one will be the lowest bonus of your attack chain to circumvent the intended cost of the feats and abilities.

[james maissen]

MC Templar wrote:

james maissen wrote:

What is the reason for the requirement in the first place? Does it serve any purpose?

-James

There are feats and class abilities that allow a character to get specified bonuses by losing "The first attack in his full attack action"

I am betting this rule is in place to clarify you can't arbitrarily decide that one will be the lowest bonus of your attack chain to circumvent the intended cost of the feats and abilities.

Well since the rule predated those abilities, I always thought it was to prevent abuse for maneuvers.

Back then many maneuvers would start with a touch attack and then not rely upon BAB at all. Thus going to say trip in 3e/3.5 it would be better to use an iterative attack to trip.. if you could THEN take better attacks (at +4 for them being prone) you would be better off.

In Pathfinder maneuvers are altered, but it is still a bit of an issue. If you have a decent advantage on CMB vs CMD that surpasses your chances on attack roll vs AC, then an iterative might be better used to say trip. To then get attacks at a higher BAB bonus afterwards does seem like an advantage to not following this fully.

That's why I posted this question.. I'm wondering if way back then it was just for ease of play (as Komoda suggests), or if it was worrying about getting such an advantage.

If its the later shouldn't the attacks being completely in descending BAB order, rather than letting someone take 2nd or 3rd iterative attaks before full BAB ones?

If its just the former, why make it a rule rather than a presumed guideline?

It just seems as if it has lost its purpose. Either it should be removed as a rule, or stay true to its purpose. I admit that I might not know its purpose, hence this thread.

-James

[cnetarian]

The rule does not require all one hand then the other hand, it requires attacks be performed in order of highest bonus to lowest. The clarification was later clarified so that the attacks for each hand were considered separately so that main hand attacks can be resolved first followed by off-hand attacks but a player can also use two main-hand attacks (highest then second highest), then all off-hand attacks (in order from highest to lowest), then the remaining main-hand attacks (in order of third highest, forth highest, lowest) or any other variation as long as the attacks are resolved from highest to lowest for each hand.

The clarification seems to have been issued because of the way the rules have evolved to require having a free hand to do many things. I don't think there is any underlying philosophy to this other than that the rule working this way results in combat happening in a way which is close to the way the developers want it to. It might be obsolete and perhaps should be removed, but there are many, many players who are perfectly capable of and willing to twist any change in rules to their advantage, and the game has already been expanded based on the status quo, extreme caution should be used in changing it now.