I was just kinda perusing the boards and this thought crept up on me, now the whole idea is kind of bugging me. In the back of my head I feel like iterative attacks aren't really a crucial part of Pathfinder, they can bog down combat, pouncing has to be a thing in order to move and attack, etc. I suppose the Caster-Martial disparity would be even more extreme, but one could totally develop a way to give Martial characters some sort of "Mega-Attacks" in order to give them a little oomph without their load of attacks. Naturally certain classes (Monk, TWFers) would gain abilities to attack twice, three, even four times a round, but these would be characters built specifically to attack multiple times a round as their shtick. Any pet class would be much more powerful in this scenario, so that's something to take into account.
I don't know, man, total half baked thought, but has anyone else thought about this? I have no desire to like...re-write Pathfinder without iterative attacks, they seem like a sacred cow that we could let go of.
I could also just play an E6 game, but you know, sometimes we get drunk and post things on the forums because we're bored. <3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would check out 4e, it's pretty much what you're looking.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would ask the opposite question: does the move or attack paradigm really have any benefit? Having run games both using the move or attack rules, and allowing move and attack, I find the game works much better when move and full attack is possible. Nobody has to take pounce to be effective, and combat moves smoothly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SpyCraft and FantasyCraft did a good job of it.
All major Actions are divided into either Full Round or Half-Round Actions.
Base Attack Bonuses are kept the same, but instead of iterative attacks, all Attacks are Half-Round Actions.
What this means is, like in normal d20, you can Move and Attack all in one round.
Unlike normal d20, from level 1, if you don't move, you may use your first Half Round Action to make an Attack, and then make a second Attack using your second Half-Round Action.
If you are wielding Two Weapons and have Two-Weapon Fighting, you can therefore make a total of 4 attacks per round from level 1 until level 20.
Whether you want to add in ADDITIONAL attacks from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting onward would be entirely your call.
Things like Haste and Speed both work to add 1 additional Attack Action to the mix, so long as you've spent both your Half Actions on Attacking.
However, you still cannot make an Attack AND a Standard Action in the same turn, nor can you make two Standard Actions, but you can make a Standard and a Move, a Double Move, and a Move and Attack.
---
Effectively, under this model:
HALF-ROUND ACTIONS
Move Action is a 49% of a Round,
Standard Actions (like casting a normal spell) are 51% of a Round
Attack Actions are 50% of a Round.
Free, Swift, & Immediate Actions, and Attacks of Opportunity all work the same as in standard d20, and are 0% of a Round.
FULL-ROUND ACTIONS
Charge
Run
Flee
Other actions noted as Full-Round, like Whirlwind Attack or casting a Full-Round Spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, yes - Iterative Attacks are a major, major part of 3rd Edition, and a LOT of options written for both it and Pathfinder stop working entirely when you remove it.
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree and monk's Flurry of Blows rely on multiple attacks per round.
Several special attack options like Pummeling Strike and Clustered Shots just do not work without iterative attacks giving you lots things to throw at your enemies.
There's a pretty hefty list of things in 3.5 that just stop dead without Iterative Attacks, and if PF had thrown them away, it would have basically invalidated the whole "3.5-backwards-compatible" shtick that made PF a hugely successful game launch by appealing to players who hated that 4E invalidated their 50+ 3.5 book collections.
---
In the SpyCraft/FantasyCraft system I listed above, it should be noted that there IS no Two-Weapon Fighting tree.
Two-Weapon Fighting ends at the very first Feat, because it gives you TWO attacks per Attack Action, which means that it DOUBLES as both Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Pounce, since it allowed you to both Move and Attack with two weapons in one turn.
Another answer to the lack of more attacks was to emphasize Critical Hits.
The entire system works on Wounds & Vitality/Vigor, rather than HP, everyone has Hero Points in the form of Action Dice, and Critical Hits have lower Multipliers than d20 - Critical Hits, if activated by ANYONE spending an Action Die when a Crit is rolled and then Confirmed the normal way, deals the weapon's damage to someone's Wounds directly; what normally is a x2 in d20 deals only 1x damage, 3x deals only 2x, 4x deals 3x, etc.
The results, however, are that things like Keen Kukris kill you WAY FREAKIN' FASTER than in 3.5 or PF, because 2-3 Crit Hits can KILL most people, especially squishy, squishy casters.
---
SpyCraft and FantasyCraft are a system built on the very-basic chassis of 3.5 d20, and effectively reworked from the ground up, meaning there are a LOT of ways in which it isn't compatible AT ALL with 3.5 material.
Pathfinder, in being made originally to be backwards-compatible with 3.5, had to include some things like straight HP, Iterative Attacks, etc., or else the entire endeavor would have been like saying 3.5 was "easily backwards compatible with 2nd Ed.": a blatant and utter lie.
As much as Pathfinder is a powerhouse NOW, just 5 years ago Paizo might not have/probably wouldn't have been able to put out Pathfinder under an entirely new/reconstructed d20 system and still had it be the roaring success it is. Its compatibility with 3.5 while streamlining the system was, at that point, it's main draw.
The SpyCraft and FantasyCraft system, by comparison, however (the Craft System as it's called), has existed since 3.0/3.5. But those games barely register on a lot of players' radar, sadly, despite the books being as well-written, balanced, and visually as striking as any Pathfinder hardbook.
A large portion of this dilemma is that, while SpyCraft operates on the d20 skeleton, there are SO many changes that it rightly viewed as it's own system entirely.
It's a system that works extremely well, and is a great mechanical rival to PF's streamlined 3.5 system, but it's major flaw is that you can't pick up a 3.5 book and incorporate it into your games easily, if at all.
Players play Pathfinder now BECAUSE it's Pathfinder, and it has things like the APG, UC, UM, and ARG providing lots and lots of options for an already solid system as its main draw these days, but you have to remember that that system HAD to be built as a piggyback of 3.5 in order to succeed in the first place, because Paizo was a pretty substantial underdog back then.
For better or for worse, PF can't really change from that polished 3.5 skeleton without invalidating 16+ hardbounds and pissing off a LOT of players in the process who would now own "dead books".
Instead, it has to find new ways to make the idiosyncrasies work to the game's benefits, Iterative Attacks and all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Pathfinder was created to be fully 3.5 compatible for the majority of options. The idea was to innovate little in terms of core rules.
I don't know, man, total half baked thought, but has anyone else thought about this? I have no desire to like...re-write Pathfinder without iterative attacks, they seem like a sacred cow that we could let go of.
People have been talking about this since...well, probably since 3e came out in 2000. So you're not alone. :)
I think the 3e-style Star Wars rpg granted bonus damage based on BAB rather than iterative attacks, so if you're into house ruling you could do something like that. (I'd suggest bonus weapon dice every few levels rather than static damage bonuses, but that's a detail.) Couple this with Scythia's elimination of the full-round attack action, and I think you're onto something!
Alternatively, if you don't want to deal with the ripple effects of removing iterative attacks, there's 4e as Opuk0 mentioned. And contrary to what some would have you think, 4e has a lot of other perks!
It would be nice to eliminate extra attacks, to quicken combat... but weapon attacks would have to do a LOT more damage.
It would be a total system re-write if you wanted it to resemble a vaguely balanced system...
It would be nice to eliminate extra attacks, to quicken combat... but weapon attacks would have to do a LOT more damage.
It would be a total system re-write if you wanted it to resemble a vaguely balanced system...
Right, and it's actually pretty realistic to get more/faster attacks the more you level up.
Sure, your average couch-potato PF player (hey - it's true, we all know it), can't swing a sword more than once accurately in a 6-second timespan, but watch any modern Kendo or Longsword matches, Fencing matches, MMA or Boxing fights, or rapid-fire archery demonstrations, and you'll realize that humans can get off an impressive number attacks in a 6-second interval.
I could understand bringing back Attack Rates for weapons, though - very heavy weapons, like a Greatsword, understandably would be/are harder to get as many attacks off as smaller, lighter weapons like a sabre/rapier are much easier to get lots of iterative attacks off, and very small weapons like daggers are lightning-quick.
But that's really a house rule, and in the end might only serve to worsen Martials' standings against full casters.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check out the ree Basic D&D PDF for 5E.
Combat works without iterative attacks. Most fighting classes get a second attack at 5th level. The fighter gets a 3rd and 4th at 11th and 20th as well. You might be able to adapt this for PF.
Here are the basics of combat attacks and movement:
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.
You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action (includes attacking), and then move 20 feet.
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
Of course if you watch any real matches you also realize that mostly they're blocking and parrying and feinting. The blade is as much defense as offense and exactly how many moves should be counted as "attacks" in 6 seconds is pretty subjective.It would be nice to eliminate extra attacks, to quicken combat... but weapon attacks would have to do a LOT more damage.
It would be a total system re-write if you wanted it to resemble a vaguely balanced system...
Right, and it's actually pretty realistic to get more/faster attacks the more you level up.
Sure, your average couch-potato PF player (hey - it's true, we all know it), can't swing a sword more than once accurately in a 6-second timespan, but watch any modern Kendo or Longsword matches, Fencing matches, MMA or Boxing fights, or rapid-fire archery demonstrations, and you'll realize that humans can get off an impressive number attacks in a 6-second interval.
I could understand bringing back Attack Rates for weapons, though - very heavy weapons, like a Greatsword, understandably would be/are harder to get as many attacks off as smaller, lighter weapons like a sabre/rapier, and very small weapons like daggers are lightning-quick.
But that's really a house rule, and in the end might only serve to worsen Martials' standings against full casters.
True, but that says a little more about how combat as a whole is handled in D&D and other turn-based RPGs compared to real life.
Turn-based RPGs in general are a very roshambo system of enemies kicking each other in the taint until someone goes down.
Part of actual block/parry back and forth is that people in real life are, theoretically, using Combat Expertise (though in real life it doesn't suck); they're not going all-out on attacks and instead reserving some momentum for blocking.
The alternative is that Combat Reflexes + Opportune Parry & Riposte is a LOT more common in real life than it is in Pathfinder.
Real-life combat also shows the merit of level-based static bonuses to AC, where a martial character would, understandably, get higher and higher AC as they level because they're also using their weapons to block.
Anyway, to REALLY simulate real-life combat, especially hand-to-hand, you'd need to not have a static AC and instead have constant "Roll to Attack, Roll to Defend" nonsense.
Palladium has the "Attack roll vs Defense roll" for every attack, and while it produces a more realistic system of combat to a degree, it also slows down combat to a screeching hault.
There may be something to rock-paper-scissors style combat that LARPs use sometimes (and now I feel dirty for even THINKING that...)
|
True, but that says a little more about how combat as a whole is handled in D&D and other turn-based RPGs compared to real life.
Turn-based RPGs in general are a very roshambo system of enemies kicking each other in the taint until someone goes down.
Which is why GURPS is still my favorite combat system. I love active defenses.
Except for how it really draws combat out so that it takes forever to actually hit anyone.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'd hesitate to call iterative attacks a "sacred cow" simply because they were a 3.0 invention. In 1e/2e martials(only) got multiple attacks as they went up levels, but it was a bit clunky with them gaining fractional attacks. Imagine getting one attack on odd numbered rounds and two on even. But, you got all your attacks regardless of movement so there was less reliance on sitting still to get a full attack, and all your attacks were at your full attack bonus.
But, yeah, coming from 3.5 Pathfinder kept them to make stat blocks as backwards compatible as possible.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 5th ed solved this by the very simple (and totally stealable) expedient of allowing everyone to break up their movement any way they like. There is no 'full attack' action, only the 'attack' action, which lets you take all the attacks to which you are entitled.
Simples! : )
Just to lay out where I'm at.
-I'm not looking for a new system, I like PF, 4E, even Palladium for what they do.
-I totally understand that PF would completely fall apart if one removed the iterative attacks, I have no intention of doing so.
-I'm aware that iterative s have been a part of D&D and it's counterparts throughout the ages.
But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?
Spring Attack being a Feat kinda makes sense, since in real life being deft like that takes training, and it also kinda doesn't, because moving and striking is such a basic tactic and fact of combat.
It would probably make more sense to make a houserule as thus:
You can draw 1 weapon as part of a Move Action if you have a Base Attack Bonus of +1 as per usual.
If you have a Base Attack Bonus of +6 or greater, after you make any Attack as part of a Full Round Action, you may make one 5ft. Movement as a Free Action; you may not take more than one 5ft. movement per individual Attack, and you may only move a total number of feet this way equal to your Speed.
So, a Two-Weapon Fighting Barbarian with 4 Natural Attacks from Animal Fury, Lesser Fiend Totem, and Lesser Draconic Bloodline at lv12 would have a Full Attack of +10/+10/+7/+7/+7/+7/+5/+5/+0/+0, and could move a total of 40ft. over the course of 8 Attacks made as part of a Full Attack Action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the devs talked about optional rules that monkey with the action economy was something they were considering to include in Pathfinder Unchained. I would not be surprised if they presented a new optional combat mechanic that got rid of iterative attacks.
Just to lay out where I'm at.
-I'm not looking for a new system, I like PF, 4E, even Palladium for what they do.
-I totally understand that PF would completely fall apart if one removed the iterative attacks, I have no intention of doing so.
-I'm aware that iterative s have been a part of D&D and it's counterparts throughout the ages.
But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?
If you remove Iterative Attacks and leave everything else, then yes, obviously.
What you're asking is basically, "if I remove Nitrogen from the atmosphere, would anyone miss it?" Which is to say - absolutely, yes; it's necessary for the vast majority of land-based life to survive.
If Pathfinder had been made WITHOUT Iterative Attacks from the beginning, then it would be a massively different system.
You wouldn't have things Improved or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, nor would you have Pummeling Strike, Clustered Shots, or Hammer the Gap, because they wouldn't function at all - they'd have to be rewritten entirely.
Feats like Vital Strike and Whirlwind Attack wouldn't suck - they'd actually be fantastic.
Feats like Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Risky Striker would basically be awful.
---
So, yes, get rid of Iterative Actions, and a very, very large portion of the whole house of cards comes down and requires a massive rewrite of a WHOOOLE lot of options.
Therefore, yes, I'd miss it.
But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?
I would. Rolling more dice is always more fun than rolling one. Even if you're decreasingly likely to hit, there's always the possibility of rolling a natural 20 on your last iterative.
I don't see that it slows down combat all that much, especially if you roll all your attacks at once. ("The red d20 is my first attack, the blue one my second, and the black one my third.")
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that iterative attacks are the problem. It's the fact that you can't move more than 5-feet while taking your attacks which is the problem. Which is how 5th ed's idea is the solution.
For PF, just have the full attack action include your movement which may be spread between attacks as you wish.
Problem solved.
I'm pretty sure the devs talked about optional rules that monkey with the action economy was something they were considering to include in Pathfinder Unchained. I would not be surprised if they presented a new optional combat mechanic that got rid of iterative attacks.
Alternatively, it uses Iterative Attacks in a different way.
Like, you get your primary attacks at your Initiative, you get your second attacks at your Init -5, your tertiary at Init -10, quaternary at Init -15, etc.
That way, combat is really back-and-forth, rather than just "and now the Fighter takes 17 attacks from Full Attack + Great Cleave...".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to lay out where I'm at.
-I'm not looking for a new system, I like PF, 4E, even Palladium for what they do.
-I totally understand that PF would completely fall apart if one removed the iterative attacks, I have no intention of doing so.
-I'm aware that iterative s have been a part of D&D and it's counterparts throughout the ages.
But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?
The games was marketed to 3.5 players who did not want to go to 4E, so at the time it had to be very much like 3.5. Changing that would have forced many other rule changes, so yeah it would have been missed. The only way to do this is to write a new d20 based system that is similar to 3.5/PF.
The games was marketed to 3.5 players who did not want to go to 4E, so at the time it had to be very much like 3.5. Changing that would have forced many other rule changes, so yeah it would have been missed. The only way to do this is to write a new d20 based system that is similar to 3.5/PF.Just to lay out where I'm at.
-I'm not looking for a new system, I like PF, 4E, even Palladium for what they do.
-I totally understand that PF would completely fall apart if one removed the iterative attacks, I have no intention of doing so.
-I'm aware that iterative s have been a part of D&D and it's counterparts throughout the ages.
But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?
Which NOW means that it'd invalidate/obsolete/really mess up every book printed from the CRB to now, since the rules would have a gigantic hole filled with incompatible content (Feats, Abilities, etc.).
That's why I say that FantasyCraft/SpyCraft is a very good alternative to PF - they're very similar in terms of balance & overall quality, and even share a lot of the same notions & mechanics (obviously), yet while PF stays more true to the legacy of earlier D&D editions so it's easier to make a direct transition from 2nd Ed to 3rd to Pathfinder, Fantasy/SpyCraft goes totally rogue and creates a radically different system that's still recognizably d20 at heart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, if PF was written without iteratives, would anyone miss them?
Yes. There are a few good reasons that iterative attacks were included in D&D 3.0 (and, by extension, Pathfinder). They solve three different problems:
1. The Damage Problem: Some mechanic is needed to significantly increase the damage that martial characters can do at higher levels.
2. The Mooks Problem: Some mechanic is needed to make it possible for high-level martial characters to kill multiple weak foes in a round.
3. The Attack Bonus Problem: Some mechanic is needed to make attack bonus continue to matter at higher levels, particularly in the case where your attack bonus is high enough that you automatically hit.
Getting multiple attacks solves the damage problem and the mooks problem, and having the attack bonus decrease for later attacks solves the attack bonus problem.
That being said, there's not really any good reason that iterative attacks were tied to full-round actions. I suppose the designers thought that it would be interesting for martial characters to have to choose each round between attacking at full strength and moving. It also gives an important advantage to archers, since archers can full attack every round without moving. But if you want to get rid of this and simply let characters pounce, it wouldn't particularly break the game. (Note: Be careful with giving monsters the pounce ability. This significantly increases the power of certain monsters.)
Of course if you watch any real matches you also realize that mostly they're blocking and parrying and feinting. The blade is as much defense as offense and exactly how many moves should be counted as "attacks" in 6 seconds is pretty subjective.It would be nice to eliminate extra attacks, to quicken combat... but weapon attacks would have to do a LOT more damage.
It would be a total system re-write if you wanted it to resemble a vaguely balanced system...
Right, and it's actually pretty realistic to get more/faster attacks the more you level up.
Sure, your average couch-potato PF player (hey - it's true, we all know it), can't swing a sword more than once accurately in a 6-second timespan, but watch any modern Kendo or Longsword matches, Fencing matches, MMA or Boxing fights, or rapid-fire archery demonstrations, and you'll realize that humans can get off an impressive number attacks in a 6-second interval.
I could understand bringing back Attack Rates for weapons, though - very heavy weapons, like a Greatsword, understandably would be/are harder to get as many attacks off as smaller, lighter weapons like a sabre/rapier, and very small weapons like daggers are lightning-quick.
But that's really a house rule, and in the end might only serve to worsen Martials' standings against full casters.
True, but that says a little more about how combat as a whole is handled in D&D and other turn-based RPGs compared to real life.
Turn-based RPGs in general are a very roshambo system of enemies kicking each other in the taint until someone goes down.
Part of actual block/parry back and forth is that people in real life are, theoretically, using Combat Expertise (though in real life it doesn't suck); they're not going all-out on attacks and instead reserving some momentum for blocking.
The alternative is that Combat Reflexes + Opportune Parry & Riposte is a LOT more common in real life than it is in
...
That's not actually what is happening.
What you're seeing is more the AC 10+ Dex bonus. Remember, if you've got no bonus to hit, you've only a 50% chance of hitting someone over the course of six seconds who also doesn't have an AC bonus.
Dodge bonuses, Crane Wing-type parries, Expertise, off-stat AC bonuses and other stuff all add on top of this.
==Aelryinth
If you do away with iterative attacks, bear in mind that displacement and mirror image become much more powerful.
Mirror image I get, but why displacement?
|
|
If you do away with iterative attacks, bear in mind that displacement and mirror image become much more powerful.Mirror image I get, but why displacement?
Because with one attack there's a 50% chance you won't hit due to displacement, but making 3 attacks, there only a 12.5% chance you won't hit with one of your attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of full attacks--sacrificing mobility for more damage. The problem lies with the lack of options outside of it.
Because with one attack there's a 50% chance you won't hit due to displacement, but making 3 attacks, there only a 12.5% chance you won't hit with one of your attacks.If you do away with iterative attacks, bear in mind that displacement and mirror image become much more powerful.Mirror image I get, but why displacement?
But overall, you'll do the same amount of damage - half of what you would have without the displacement.
but more attacks lead to more potential damage
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A full attack should basically be the equivalent of a flurry...maybe generating an extra attack. It should also be a more defensive style, giving you possibly a bonus to AC or your saves, possibly your bonus to hit.
Let's just say a Standard Action gave you all your attacks.
Taking the full attack action now means you are GIVING UP your move action. What do you get for that? Specifically, why isn't a full attack useful at level 1, when you don't get multiple attacks, as well as at 16th when you get your 4th?
Redefine what a full attack means.
Full Attack: Gain a +2 To Hit, to your AC or to your saves, your choice. This improves by +1 for each iterative attack you have.
So, you'd give up your move to really be able to hit something hard, to really defend yourself against an attack where you can't move, or to harden yourself against incoming spells and stuff.
That's worth losing a move action. It becomes a tactical choice, instead of the tactical choice being, "How can I move to get a full attack?"
Which also does away with Pounce and the best class being the one that gets it or an equivalent first.
The flip side of this? You have to choose if monsters also get the benefit of this with multiple natural attacks, or if it is only available with iteratives.
If iteratives, it swings the damage bar away from natural attack users and back to weapon users. Humanoids will have an advantage over monsters and wildshapers.
==Aelryinth
I don't remember who I saw post the idea, but I thought it was certainly conducive to making mobility feasible at higher levels, was the elimination of additional attacks at higher levels, and giving all classes the corresponding vital strike feat for free when they achieved sufficient BAB.
I realize this makes twf and other multiple-limb attacks vastly more powerful, but is there any reason they shouldn't be? We're all used to the one-big-two-handed-weapon-is-best paradigm, but is that because it makes sense, or because the rules facilitate those builds?
I, of course, would not implement such h a change on it's own, as it tends to exacerbate caster-martial disparities at higher levels, but then I would give a pretty strong overhaul if I were changing things...So much so, that I get exhausted thinking about it, and stick to the game as is, because even if it isn't perfect, it's fun and a lot less work to play as is.
But overall, you'll do the same amount of damage - half of what you would have without the displacement.
What he said.
I don't think that iterative attacks are the problem. It's the fact that you can't move more than 5-feet while taking your attacks which is the problem. Which is how 5th ed's idea is the solution.
For PF, just have the full attack action include your movement which may be spread between attacks as you wish.
Problem solved.
+1 for this. Sounds good to me. I was toying with a similar idea, although with a different name and a bit different detail (which would let you give up a subset of your attacks in exchange for more movement, without it being an all-or-just-one choice like it is now).
I don't think that iterative attacks are the problem. It's the fact that you can't move more than 5-feet while taking your attacks which is the problem. Which is how 5th ed's idea is the solution.
For PF, just have the full attack action include your movement which may be spread between attacks as you wish.
Problem solved.
+1 for this. Sounds good to me. I was toying with a similar idea, although with a different name and a bit different detail (which would let you give up a subset of your attacks in exchange for more movement, without it being an all-or-just-one choice like it is now).
Which is why I suggested a "never stop moving" houserule that once you get your second attack, you're good enough in martial arts that you could take an additional 5ft movement after each attack (regardless of hit or miss), moving in total up to your base speed.
That'd mean that higher BABs and characters fighting two-weapon style get more movements, yes, but that actually seems kinda fitting, all things considered.
You already get a free 5ft Movement during your turn, so that takes care of BAB 1-5, so gaining additional 5ft Movements after each attack from BAB 6+ isn't that huge a deal, really.
^Not bad, but why limit it to 5' increments? (This is especially true for creatures that have higher than average base movement rates -- strangely, with Rules As Written, 5' Step doesn't get scaled up for them.)
^Not bad, but why limit it to 5' increments? (This is especially true for creatures that have higher than average base movement rates -- strangely, with Rules As Written, 5' Step doesn't get scaled up for them.)
Mostly just seemed like a balance thing.
You're already allowed 1 free 5ft movement, regardless of size, and Attack-5ft-Attack-5ft-Attack-5ft seems pretty fair is all, especially if you're taking a full round action to do all this.
Though looking at it, maybe BAB +6 or higher might be a little too steep.
Maybe it'd be better to do it as BAB +1, and after every Attack beyond your first Mainhand Attack you may make an additional 5ft step.
That way two-weapon combatants get a boost to mobility from the get-go (I'm looking at you, Rogue).
That way even things like Rogues can go Attack > Normal 5ft Step > Attack > Additional 5ft Step starting at lv2.
Check out the ree Basic D&D PDF for 5E.
Combat works without iterative attacks. Most fighting classes get a second attack at 5th level. The fighter gets a 3rd and 4th at 11th and 20th as well. You might be able to adapt this for PF.
Here are the basics of combat attacks and movement:
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action (includes attacking), and then move 20 feet.
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
That really isn't eliminating iteratives, it is just repackaging them. The only thing that is different is that there is no full attack precluding movement.
True, but that says a little more about how combat as a whole is handled in D&D and other turn-based RPGs compared to real life.
Turn-based RPGs in general are a very roshambo system of enemies kicking each other in the taint until someone goes down.
Which is why GURPS is still my favorite combat system. I love active defenses.
Except for how it really draws combat out so that it takes forever to actually hit anyone.
GURPS models reality very well, but does not do heroic combat like D&D does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Glass, Fighters at least slowly amassed multiple attacks per round back in the day (Pre WOTC)
So, the answer to my question is yes, iterative attacks are part of what a large amount of people expected when they picked up Pathfinder for the first time and would have been missed dearly had the game been written without them.
|
|
What he said.But overall, you'll do the same amount of damage - half of what you would have without the displacement.
Fair, but if you do all your damage in one big attack you have a 1/2 shot. If you only need to land one of the lesser attacks to drop an enemy then you have a 7/8 chance to do so.
So say an enemy has displacement and HP equal to the damage from 1 and 1/3 of the all in one attacks, or 4 of the regular attacks. Chances are it takes 4 rounds with the big attacks a round, and takes 3 rounds with 3 of the lesser attacks a round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-I'm aware that iterative s have been a part of D&D and it's counterparts throughout the ages.Well, they were part of D&D from 2000 until 2008, and then inherited by Pathfinder. I'm not sure that qualifies as "through the ages"!
_
glass.
well even in 2ed, when you had the THAC0, fighter types would get more attacks per round the higher their level went. it would be even more if they had weapon specilazation.
it went from 1/1 atacks to 3/2 to 2/1 to 5/2 . as in 1 attack per round to 3 attacks per two rounds(one at he end of every odd round). to 2 attacks each rounds to 5 attacks each two rounds (2 attacks on your turn. one bewteen the rounds then 2 more next turn with no atack after the 2nd round and start over).
back then it didnt matter if you moved or not .so you could move your full move and then make all your attacks.
The only problem I see is that at high levels a full attack does considerably more damage than a standar action attack. I think free moving and full attacking would be an extreme solution.
My personal houserule is that you can make iterative attacks with a standard action attack but at -10 (instead of a -5) penalty, which basically means that at bab 11+ you can make one normal and one -10 attack as a standard action.
Considering bogging down combat there aren't many solutions to deal with that without a big revamp for the system.
Trailblazer ended up giving you a +20/+20 full attack instead of the normal +20/+15/+10/+5 spread. Considering the huge to hit bonuses 20 damage dealers have this is propably a nerf but then again power attack might move the calculations towards the two "big" attacks.