| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Forum
I been thinking about adding a new house rule to my game(s):
Iterative attacks are determined by total attack bonus.
Example(if needed or desired):
A medium sized 1st level fighter with STR 16, weapon focus(longsword), and a masterwork longsword would have +6/+1 with the masterwork longsword, but "only" +4 with a regular battleaxe.
Feats with BAB requirements, would still only count BAB. Like Improved TWF.
Upsides:
u1) martials get a boost
u2) weapon focus (line) improves (along with other combat feats)
u3) enhancement bonus gains benefits over magic weapon properties
Downsides:
d1) size change may determine number of attacks
d2) low level fights become deadlier (eg. orcs/ogres, barbarians)
d3) more rolls may incur slow play
d4) ranged combat
d5) skewed benefits on borderline values: a masterwork item is worth more mechanically if you have attack +5 than if you have +4 or +6.
--------------------------
I really like the upsides - which should be obvious, since I'm advocating the rule :)
My take on the downsides:
d1) I dislike size bonus/penalty to attacks as it is. I prefer to only apply these when your size changes from your normal. If kept, then the size change usually incurs an "equal" drop/gain in strength, so - maybe not an issue (for melee).
d2) GM beware!
d3) The extra damage will shorten combat, which alleviates this issue
d4) Ranged combat already has advantages over melee.
d5) meh... (okay - bad argument, but it's all I have)
---------------------------
Now the questions are:
- What do you think?
- Am I overlooking some potential/obvious problems with this? which?
- Has this been tried/done to death and failed? (I hope not)
It is of course exploitable, but my players are focused on fun, but not attracted to martial classes.
Maybe some oomph will help; I like oomph... do you like oomph?
Thanks...
|
Questions:
1. Do you max out a 4 attacks?
2. What do you do with the tw oweapons hting feat line which is based on BAB not attacks? (said another way how do you balance two weapon fighting to keep up?
Comments:
This will really slow down fights when you need to start figuring out if you are adding extra attacks based on buffs, or losing them for debuffs. It also complicates it when you want to switch weapon to overcome DR only to lose an attack, you will have folks theory crafting for weapon switching.
Overall I think it will allow narrow focused warriors at low levels to do better, but in many ways those are the levels that warriors are best, at later levels (unless you give people more then 4 attacks which is risky for balance) it will have no impact.
Questions:
1. Do you max out a 4 attacks?
2. What do you do with the tw oweapons hting feat line which is based on BAB not attacks? (said another way how do you balance two weapon fighting to keep up?Comments:
This will really slow down fights when you need to start figuring out if you are adding extra attacks based on buffs, or losing them for debuffs. It also complicates it when you want to switch weapon to overcome DR only to lose an attack, you will have folks theory crafting for weapon switching.Overall I think it will allow narrow focused warriors at low levels to do better, but in many ways those are the levels that warriors are best, at later levels (unless you give people more then 4 attacks which is risky for balance) it will have no impact.
1. So far, yes. 4 attacks max.
2. You would still need BAB +6 to take Improved two-weapon fighting. Two weapon fighting isn't for every one, this doesn't change that.it won't slow down that much, you still need to know your full attack bonus anyway: +6, +11, +16? not that big a deal.
Weapon switching will be nerfed (as in "not empowered"), I hadn't thought of that.
Extending the example (adds bookkeeping):
Maybe allow battleaxe +4 / mwk. longsword +1, but not sword +6 / axe -1
- I will think about this.
Theory crafting? nope, my players play nice.
Power level discrepancy: I disagree, it allows medium BAB (and multiclassers) to obtain 4 attacks, it is most powerful (I think) at mid levels 7-12. And at later levels also good for less than full BAB.
Pretty sure this allows a 1st level character to get 3 attacks. Off the top of my head:
Orc Barbarian, maximum strength, weapon focus, rich parents, masterwork weapon.
You can do a similar thing with a small angelkin aasimar, but that's a little more far-out.
This sounds like a bit much to me. It seems like it'd really be worth chasing that 3rd attack. Starting without power attack is going to hurt you and that third attack will not hit much, but even so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd restrict the alternate attack progression calculation to BAB + weapon enhancement bonus + (greater) weapon focus (and possibly weapon training), and not cap number of attacks.
So, a level 20 fighter with weapon training 5, greater weapon focus, and a +5 weapon would have an effective BAB of 32, giving a base attack progression of +32/+27/+22/+17/+12/+7/+2 = 7 attacks. How is this any more potent or time consuming than a caster that uses an AOE spell than affect 7+ targets?
Personally, I would only apply this rule for *melee* attacks. Ranged combat has enough advantages that this boost isn't necessary.
Pretty sure this allows a 1st level character to get 3 attacks. Off the top of my head:
Orc Barbarian, maximum strength, weapon focus, rich parents, masterwork weapon.
You can do a similar thing with a small angelkin aasimar, but that's a little more far-out.
This sounds like a bit much to me. It seems like it'd really be worth chasing that 3rd attack. Starting without power attack is going to hurt you and that third attack will not hit much, but even so...
Special race + stat maxing + feat + trait + item, which are all focused on one thing, would make a character effective at that one thing... I agree. Might I offer up a toothy half-orc draconic sorcerer having three natural attacks at 1st level.
But as mentioned, theory crafting and minmaxing is not a concern.
I'm not making this rule to prevent extreme cases from being unbalanced, I want to make martials (melee, now) a better option at levels 3 and above.
I'd restrict the alternate attack progression calculation to BAB + weapon enhancement bonus + (greater) weapon focus (and possibly weapon training), and not cap number of attacks.
So, a level 20 fighter with weapon training 5, greater weapon focus, and a +5 weapon would have an effective BAB of 32, giving a base attack progression of +32/+27/+22/+17/+12/+7/+2 = 7 attacks. How is this any more potent or time consuming than a caster that uses an AOE spell than affect 7+ targets?
Personally, I would only apply this rule for *melee* attacks. Ranged combat has enough advantages that this boost isn't necessary.
Those are some good points, it would give fighters a little extra, doing it like that, I think I might keep strength(dex) in there - I like the idea of "born strong" makes better warriors.
Those 5th, 6th, 7th attacks probably won't hit as is -- which speaks for allowing them -- but they would increase the mythic path thingy that reduces penalty on iteratives -- which also kinda speaks for allowing them :)
And ranged attacks probably shouldn't use this.
Considering that you can easily get 3 attacks at lvl 1 all with primary natural weapons, more if you try harder, I'd say that's fine in current balance.
Not that that it's balanced mind you, when at lvl 1 a single attack might kill someone, much less 3.
Special race + stat maxing + feat + trait + item, which are all focused on one thing, would make a character effective at that one thing... I agree. Might I offer up a toothy half-orc draconic sorcerer having three natural attacks at 1st level.
But as mentioned, theory crafting and minmaxing is not a concern.
I'm not making this rule to prevent extreme cases from being unbalanced, I want to make martials (melee, now) a better option at levels 3 and above.
I see what you mean. The trouble is the build I mentioned doesn't have a great deal of thought put into it. It essentially takes the obvious approach to everything, with the exception of Rich Parents, which serves only to get you your masterwork sword about an hour of table time early. I just took a bunch of well-known stuff that makes barbarians better at the Thing Barbarians Mostly Do.
Normally Power Attack would be the feat for the blandest of archetypal barbarians, but under your system I don't see the point in trading accuracy for damage. After all accuracy itself grants more attacks and thus more damage. Raising attack bonus becomes the new common-sense baseline, even if you're not optimising.
You can do the same thing with a smiting paladin who has 8 points of ability bonus between his Strength and Charisma, if he takes Weapon Focus and Rich Parents. Less if he's small. Paladins usually want those bonuses anyway if they can get them and Weapon Focus is hardly a rare feat. As with the barbarian, rich parents only helps for the first session or so in the first place, so you can safely skip it if you like.
Truly optimising and picking less obvious/thematic options is likely to result in more power again.
Your rule affects classes more the lower level you're playing at, while the problem you've identified doesn't exist until third level and worsens as level increases. That's a recipe for disappointing results.
It also improves characters more the more competent they already are, so you're likely to see melee characters with better builds pull further ahead of weaker ones. It's likely to introduce an imbalance between the melee guys.
As for the sorcerer, three natural weapons with 1x Strength bonus damage and low damage dice on a class that can't make such good use of attacks is a very different deal to a barbarian with a three-hit two-handed weapon. The orc can pick up more natural or iterative attacks quite easily too.
For the purpose of iteratives, I would not count strength bonuses (or penalties) under the rationale that these modifiers have to do with force of the blow, not skill as reflected by Bab, Weapon Focus, Fighter Weapon Training, etc. I would count the Weapon Finesse bonus.
I do appreciate
the idea of "born strong" makes better warriors.but for me, that's not inspiration for increasing iteratives due to strength bonus.
I would extend the benefit to ranged attack as well. I'd appreciate some elaboration on why some (DonDuckie, Gherrick) think that's inadvisable.
I subscribe to a more abstract approach to ability scores, STR also represents an innate gift/mind for combat.
Given that [+3 BAB +0 STR] < [+0 BAB +3 STR] in terms of battle efficiency.Ranged combat is (in many ways) superior to melee, so I don't like that archers(gunslingers) would gain early iteratives. I kinda prefer my original ranged nerf and then including them in this.
If I had my way; ranged attacks would also be STR based.
"Full attack action: As a full round action, you may attack a target. If you hit, you may make a second attack with -5 to your attack roll, if that hits a third attack with -10, etc; until you miss".
I think that is too rigid, and it works against some cinematic scenes of fighting multiple opponents. It also creates cascading failures, which is akin to fumbles (amplified by effects that grant extra attacks) - so not my thing.
I see what you mean. The trouble is the build I mentioned doesn't have a great deal of thought put into it. It essentially takes the obvious approach to everything, with the exception of Rich Parents, which serves only to get you your masterwork sword about an hour of table time early. I just took a bunch of well-known stuff that makes barbarians better at the Thing Barbarians Mostly Do.
For us: not much thought.
For people who don't spend as much time pouring through forums, books, and builds: that build is quite an effort. CRB, B1, UCam.And orcs with rich parents are rare and should be really awesome, that's called a background (and who really allows rich parents trait? besides me?). I'm not trying to fix everything by making rules that can never cause issues or be exploited -- so I don't consider powergamers an end all reason not to allow for more power in general.
...snip...
paladin
...snip...
Paladin going nova once per day might make the party cut him some slack for bumming everybody out with his preachings on morality :)
Your rule affects classes more the lower level you're playing at, while the problem you've identified doesn't exist until third level and worsens as level increases. That's a recipe for disappointing results.
It also improves characters more the more competent they already are, so you're likely to see...
I want more competent warriors to stand out more, that is by design.
3rd level is where casters start increasing their power significantly, and martials get: wait for it... +1 to hit...
Here martials start out ahead, some.
Adding: I would limit this rule to affect players and story villains only.
Ok, previously you were talking like optimisation was irrelevant, now you're talking like you mean to encourage it. "Making more competent warriors stand out more" is just build inequality. I think build inequality is unambiguously a bad thing, because it limits the options of experienced players and randomly empowers or dis-empowers inexperienced players, leading to uneven parties. That's the exact opposite of giving the weak guy a boost.
As for the idea of starting the martials out ahead, I think that will also make things worse. They're arguably a little ahead at level 1 already, so now the early game will likely be unfair to casters. The more the martials need their new advantage, the less it will make its presence felt until finally they get to that stage where they're usually completely outclassed to find their boost has evaporated completely. You'd do much better with a rule focused on the other end of the level table, perhaps by increasing the rate at which they get attacks, or reducing the iterative penalty progression.
I get where you're coming from, but your rule is still a really awkward fit for the hole you're trying to fill with it.
@LoneKnave: yeah, the one target was the issue. And that wording is better, but it still has the cascading failure thing, where if you miss on the first attack you lose attacks, making an unfortunate roll seem even worse -- that's why I compared it to fumble rules.
@Mortuum: I encourage interesting characters, or at least that is what I'm trying to do. As it is, martials are not considered worth playing by my players because of a "lack of shiny moments" (my words), the house rule is an attempt to make them more appealing.
Uneven parties are already an issue, and martials are often losing, I don't see how giving them something would make this worse. Casters will still be very shine-able, they don't lose anything.
But you may be right about shifting focus on the iterative penalty and rate.
Ok, what I am talking about is martials who are more practically built (due to luck or planning) overshadowing those martials who already don't hit so often.
I understand why you want to make martials stronger when compared to casters, but I think this way of going about it will create a microcosm of the overall problem between the classes it affects.