Hello,
So I was talking with 2 of my players the other day on changes to PF for the next campaign. I want to use the unchained Removing Iterative Attacks rule, as I’m trying to speed up play as much as I can.
I have the 2 I was talk to that didn’t like this idea, they think I’m trying to nerf them, and they want the 3 attack rolls. One was really bad and was calling me a fun Nazi, all I’m trying to do is make the gamer better for everyone.
Any of you math experts help show them that this rule change only speeds up play and doesn’t "Nerf" them. Thanks
It basically makes whatever they roll for the attack roll, the same as what they would've rolled for the next two rolls. Damage is not necessarily lowered.
1. What levels are you playing at?
2. What classes are you playing with?
3. If it is about speeding up combat and your players are happy with the current system consider that (for example pre rolling attacks and having 30 seconds to dictate your action).
It basically makes whatever they roll for the attack roll, the same as what they would've rolled for the next two rolls. Damage is not necessarily lowered.It does however make things a lot more swingy. Where with the normal rules rolling 3-4 times results in a more bell curved damage output where you trend towards average, with the no iteratives rule you end up with a bad roll meaning you don't hit at all (where normally missing your first attack still gives you a good chance of hitting on other attacks. Especially if you have bonus full BAB attacks like from haste, rapid shot, two weapon fighting), which is going to be super noticable to a player, even if the overall damage averages out to the same.
I think that's why there is the glancing blow. Doesn't "fully" mitigate the issue, but it helps.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The system only speeds up play if everyone does their pre-calculating (that includes you as a GM making sure you have all of the AC thresholds). What it does poorly, though, is affecting probability. I would not use this subsystem.
The easy way to think of this is to simply say "If I have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting the target, it's more likely that I will score a hit if I roll 3 times than 1." Sure, the 1 hit might be bigger, but that doesn't necessarily make it better.
The fastest option I've seen at the table is for players to roll for all their attacks at once and announce the lowest unknown roll result. If we've seen that a 14 misses and I roll attacks totalling 12, 15, and 20, I ask if 15 hits. If it does, I know I have 2 hits. I already know that the 12 is a miss. If it does not, I ask if 20 hits.
I also have a standing rule that dice are read from left to right and paired with their similarly placed bonuses. I find it to be faster than the color matching that many people do. Similarly, when I roll damage (which I frequently roll at the same time as the attack), those dice are read left to right as well.
1. What levels are you playing at?
2. What classes are you playing with?
3. If it is about speeding up combat and your players are happy with the current system consider that (for example pre rolling attacks and having 30 seconds to dictate your action).
I am just guessing from the description, but it looks like it is level 11+, since there are 3 iteratives. Plus, this rule change is not as immediately apparent until those levels.
You will have a very mixed reaction to the new rule set. Its one of the reasons its optional. Depending on the level and classes etc it cab be a Nerf to a character. I have played several systems with a rule set a lot like this one, and it is a very different way of playing. It would be a good idea to sit down with the group and have a fair discussion over it. A barbarian at level 1 probably wouldn't mind the extra attack for the attack penalty. A wizard though my complain how it affects his casting.
How does Removing Iterative Attacks affect casting or give additional attacks to the barbarian?
|
The only time I've seen iteratives be a problem was when the following three things came together on one player:
1) Shield-based TWFer that had GTWF and the feat that grants a free shield bash on critical (main hand was a keen kukri). Minimum 5 attacks, typically 6-7 due to hasting and crits.
2) Big Cat animal companion that had a feat chain to allow standard action charges, meaning it pounced every round for 5 attacks. Even without that, however, it still got 3-4 depending on whether haste was going.
3) Player themselves constantly delayed their own roll to talk about the various factors that went into it for some unknown reason. Partly because they had trouble keeping track.
With ALL of the above, that player's turn would take WAY longer than everyone else's, especially since everyone else was single weapon with a max of 4 attacks if haste was going (or a caster, which were also quick to resolve).
In the vast majority of cases I've not seen iteratives be a problem, even in higher level games. However, the situation I described did result in a gentleman's agreement at our table: If you have a companion then either yourself or the companion should be very quickly resolved (e.g. one roll and done). So you can TWF ranger + Wolf companion, or THF ranger + Big Cat companion, but not TWF ranger + Big Cat.
Springing it on characters not designed for it...can be rough. If they had a chance to build with it in mind it could be alright.
It makes characters a lot more mobile, since they can move and get the benefits as though they were attacking more than once. It's not necessarily a downgrade in potential damage, but it is substantially more swinging because you only roll 1 die.
Melee characters stand to be much more mobile using this rule.
However, if your issue is really that players are taking too much time at the table this is what you do.
1) Get a 1 minute sand timer.
2) Explain when the sand runs out you're done.
3) Either you accomplish what you've rolled for or you delay your turn till after the next persons (possibly continuing to be delayed depending on how fast other players are).
Really, players should be prepared and know their bonuses well enough that this shouldn't be a problem for martial characters (the ones who are really affected by removing iterative attacks). The only other part that comes into play is telling players what the target AC of a creature. While some GMs loathe to do this, it really does make things faster because players can resolve what is and isn't a hit without asking you about each attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may or may not be directly on-topic, but the thing I dislike most about this option is that is reduces how many dice get rolled. Getting together with friends to RP is great fun, but when it comes down to it, rolling the flippin dice is the most fun part of table top RPGs in my opinion. I don't like the tradeoff of "lowering fun" in pursuit of shortening combat time.
Games that are heavy on RP can end up being relatively low in dice rolling, so when it's time to fight -- I wanna roll some dice!!
Just my two copper coins...
|
I will say - while it doesn't actually change DPR - it is more swingy - and that is inherently a slight nerf to PCs.
PCs generally have the power edge in every fight - so the more things that increase the randomness of the game hurt PCs far more than they do NPCs.
It's just like how rough crits are for the first few levels. A crit is kinda handy when the PCs land one - but often they would make the kill sans crit. However - a lucky greataxe swing can cleave a PC in twain for the first couple levels. I remember being glad I hadn't gone elf with my bard when at level 2 or 3 a mook with a greataxe dropped me from near full hp to -12.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The swinginess is very like that of a high crit multiplier - mathematically the average damage from a 19-20/x2 and a 20/x3 weapon are the same, but players tend to prefer the 19-20/x2 weapon. They'd rather crit more often, than have a huge crit that might waste damage. You get the same effect with the optional no-iteratives system - you have swingy damage but as others have noted you lose the ability to make up for a bad first roll.
Do your players have laptops and or tablets? If you want to speed up rolling, there are a ton of online things that will let you set up a macro and roll all your dice at once. roll20, for example, will let you push one button and roll 3 attacks with all the damage dice and then flip coins for concealment chance. It will even total up the attack rolls (adding the bonus you tell it to add to the d20 roll) and sum your attack dice. Then you just read off the values.
It may be a little less satisfying than rolling physical dice, but it might be a more agreeable option to your players than getting rid of iterative attacks.
How does Removing Iterative Attacks affect casting or give additional attacks to the barbarian?I think he's gotten his wires crossed and is talking about the new action economy system.
Or can the Barbarian get an extra attack off of rolling high at level one? I don't have the book in front of me but I'm not remembering off-hand a rule against that.
To the OP: whether or not it's a nerf is going to depend strongly on what they're using. Can you provide levels and at least a rough sketch of their builds, or their current attack sequences?
There is actually a section for removing iterative attacks. Here is how it works. "You can gain an additional hit for every 5 by which the attack
roll exceeds the target’s AC, limited by your base attack bonus".They also tell you how to handle TWF and other cases.
What I don't like is that if you want to attack multiple enemies you have to declare up front, and you use the AC of the highest enemy, and if you use TWF and one of your weapons has a lower attack bonus you use that bonus when determining how many hits you sccore.
The players do seem more likely to lose damage before any math is done.
I will do some math later tonight if nobody else gets to it first to see how it works out, but it will be at around 12 hours from now.
1. Starting at level 1 most likely going to level 17
2. No classes set or builds.
3. Well not every player is slow, I do have a couple that take a little longer than normal.
This rule is just one in many that I'm looking at adding, another I was thinking of adding is using average damage vs rolling.
Edit: I wanted to be able to use this to help speed up some of the enemy’s turns, would using this for NPC/Enemy’s only make it too easy for the players?
Well, this system is not for everyone. It's meant to simplify the game. And in doing so, yes, it removes some complexity in the combat. That's the point.
|
I like the rule for removing iteratives, high level play is the worst for multiple reasons, but watching the math challenged roll multiple dice and try to remember the countless magical/class/circumstance bonuses can be legit painful.
Your players were out of line for calling you a "fun nazi". The faster combat goes THE MORE COMBATS YOU CAN HAVE PER SESSION!
Now the swinginess can hurt PCs, that's a true thing. But that can be mitigated by adding hero points into the game (see Advanced Player's Guide). So when the players roll badly they can boost the attack somewhat.
Or you can use the Mutants & Masterminds Hero points:
"Reroll your dice, if you get lower than 10, then add 10 to the roll."
It speeds up the game at the cost of accuracy. For example a natural one does not mean you miss ONE attack it means you waste your whole round now. Additionally crit focused builds suffer a serious setback as well since your no longer getting multiple chances at criticals.
And seeing as additional attacks are the one real advantage melee's have, removing them for a more 'all or nothing' system can be viewed negatively.
Plus some folks like rolling a lot of dice. It is part of the fun for some. I can easily see their issue.
My group, used to very long combats, opted NOT to use the systemm for the reasons I list above, but we also seem to run much longer play times than what I have seen on the boards, averaging 12-14 hour game sessions when we play so that may be an issue.
To speed up play my group uses colored D20's. They are all rolled at once but the order they are read in is written down before hand.
For Example I use ted, white, blue and orange D20's, in that order, when I have to roll attacks. I can do this before the person ahead of me in initiative is done with their round and then I am ready to roll damage as soon as our ref tells me if I have hit or not (she likes to keep AC's secret). If we are far enough into a combat that we have figured out the AC I can even roll damage before hand as well.
|
|
As a DM I only hide ACs on important creatures, and only for round 1. Aside from that, I just tell them what AC they need to be hitting so that they can just note what number they need on the die to hit (adding 5 to that required number each time they drop a level on iteratives). Then they just roll them all out in a row. An full attack with 3 attacks takes like 10 seconds to resolve the hit/miss/crit. Maybe up to 30 seconds if some buffs/debuffs are involved. Damage actually takes longer than to-hit.
What slow down fights, in my experience, is indecision or allowing people to dawdle. That and having a lot of sources of misc. bonuses, which tends to happen at high level.
My guess is people are mis-attributing the source of the slowdown at their table to the iterative attack system because that's where the dice roll comes from, whereas it's actually all the stuff leading up to the dice roll that's the problem. It happens to be that both things become more common at a similar rate.
What I usually see for making things quick for bonus calculation is this:
My Attacks (Normal): +X/+X-5/+X-10
My Attaacks (Power Attack): +X-4/+X-9/+X-14
Misc Modifiers:
Bard Song: +3
Heroism: +2
Shaken: -2
"Okay, so my normal bonus is +X but I have +3 total modifiers, so I'm at X+3. I need a 13 to hit his AC. *rolls*, now an 18 *rolls*, now I need a natural 20 :( *rolls* Well, only one hit *rolls damage*"
TL;DR - Train your players to write down bonuses on scratch paper as they're applied so that they know them when their turn comes and things go lots faster.
It is definitely a nerf. It removes the ability to attack multiple targets.
The only time I've seen iteratives be a problem was when the following three things came together on one player:
1) Shield-based TWFer that had GTWF and the feat that grants a free shield bash on critical (main hand was a keen kukri). Minimum 5 attacks, typically 6-7 due to hasting and crits.
2) Big Cat animal companion that had a feat chain to allow standard action charges, meaning it pounced every round for 5 attacks. Even without that, however, it still got 3-4 depending on whether haste was going.
3) Player themselves constantly delayed their own roll to talk about the various factors that went into it for some unknown reason. Partly because they had trouble keeping track.With ALL of the above, that player's turn would take WAY longer than everyone else's, especially since everyone else was single weapon with a max of 4 attacks if haste was going (or a caster, which were also quick to resolve).
In the vast majority of cases I've not seen iteratives be a problem, even in higher level games. However, the situation I described did result in a gentleman's agreement at our table: If you have a companion then either yourself or the companion should be very quickly resolved (e.g. one roll and done). So you can TWF ranger + Wolf companion, or THF ranger + Big Cat companion, but not TWF ranger + Big Cat.
The penalties of iterative attacks had always been the problem, remove those penalties and the problems with iterative attacks goes away.
When a Wizard casts a Fireball spell, does the spell DC drop after the first opponent? No, then why should martial characters be penalised for attacking multiple opponents.There is no valid reason why they are being penalised.
IMO the Unchained system is clunky and counter intuitive.
Melee characters don't need extra mobility (it homogenises melee/ranged combat), they just need the Vital Strike feat tree (or something similar) to be baked into their class or into the combat system itself. So that you do slightly less damage when you move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is definitely a nerf. It removes the ability to attack multiple targets.
Or it gives every multiple target the highest AC in the group chosen, effectively.
Frankly,figuring out all the exceptions with the new system and having to learn/track how all the add on attack effects work would seem to slow the game as much or more than the current system.
Honestly I have played games from level 1 up to as high as 27. The game does not really slow considerably in my experience until level 16+ which a vast majority of gamers on this board say they never really even get to.
I would suggest you try the new system for 2 combat heavy sessions. That way folks can see it in action rather than theory craft it. If after using it your players still want the old system go back to the old system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using a single attack roll increases variance and variance is the enemy.
Especially when even at the best variance still works in the enemies favor. Natural 1's will mean all misses (more than likely) but natural 20's do not necessarily mean all hits or all crits.
May as well just take 10 on all melee rolls if speeding up combat is that critical.
As I said I think the math will be worse for the players, but let's try it out.
build one: power attacking barbarian level 11 +2 keen falchion
+24 to attack 2d4+30
Normal DPR 100.10
No iterative DPR 101.98
Manyshot archer. level 10 fighter +19 1d8+15
Normal DPR 68.25
No iterative DPR 65.52
TWF(assumes identical weapons for ease) +19 1d4+10 15-20
10th level character
Normal DPR 43.88
No iterative DPR 43.875
So the numbers are about the same, but.....
The issue of doing no damage when you miss completely is also not fun to deal with.
The game also slows down when you have to account for multiple extra attacks such as from TWF, haste and so on. There is not really that much less dice rolling.
You might take away 2 attack rolls at high level, but you still have to make the damage rolls.
As I said I think the math will be worse for the players, but let's try it out.
build one: power attacking barbarian level 11 +2 keen falchion
+24 to attack 2d4+30Normal DPR 100.10
No iterative DPR 101.98
Manyshot archer. level 10 fighter +19 1d8+15
Normal DPR 68.25No iterative DPR 65.52
TWF(assumes identical weapons for ease) +19 1d4+10 15-20
10th level characterNormal DPR 43.88
No iterative DPR 43.875
So the numbers are about the same, but.....
The issue of doing no damage when you miss completely is also not fun to deal with.
The game also slows down when you have to account for multiple extra attacks such as from TWF, haste and so on. There is not really that much less dice rolling.
You might take away 2 attack rolls at high level, but you still have to make the damage rolls.
The thing is that thf and twf are the styles that get affected the *least*.
In essence, the system does four things.
a)The attacker deals half of a single attack worth of damage if they miss by a small amount. This works out to a small damage buff for everyone
b)Effectively, a single roll is made and the result used for every attack. For creatures with a number of attacks greater than one, this increases variance and makes the damage numbers more swingey
c)For characters with multiple attacks at a specific BAB(aside from TWF, which is handled with it's own mechanic that effectively treats two weapons as one with summed damage), this forces the extra attacks to take a penalty for lower bab.
d)Crit chance is greatly reduced
Barring haste, THF and TWF a)doesn't make many "attacks"(A primary and an offhand count as 1 for our purposes), so the increase in variance doesn't do that much, and b)Only has 1 attack at each BAB level. They do suffer from the crit chance, however, but this hurts classes like the Magus more.
Lets take a couple of extreme examples: A hasted 10 headed Hydra, and a hasted archer with rapid shot, both before 6 bab and after 6 bab with manyshot.
Hydra
Normal System: +0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0
New System: +0/+0/-5/-5/-10/-10/-15/-15/-20/-20/-25
Archer before 6BAB
Normal System: +0/+0/+0
New System: +0/-5/-10
Archer after 6BAB
Normal System: +0x2/+0/+0/-5
New System: +0x2/-5/-10/-15
Now for some actual DPR calculations.
Level 6 fighter with 14 str, 18+2 dex, a +1 Adaptive Longbow, Bracers of falcon aim, Rapid shot,Point Blank Shot, Manyshot, Deadly Aim, Weapon Focus+Weapon Spec(Longbow), Weapon Training(Bows) with haste up inside of 30 feet against 20 AC
Attack Mod=6BAB+5Dex+1Enh+1Comp+1PBS+1Haste+1WepT+1WF-2DA-2RS=+13(0.70 CtH)
Damage=1d8+1PBS+2Str+2WepS+1WepT+1Enh+4DA=1d8+11(15.5av)/19-20x3
--------------------------
Normal System=0.7x2/0.7/0.7/0.45
1st+Manyshot 0.7*(15.5*1.2+15.5)=23.87
Rapid Shot 0.7*15.5*1.2=13.02
Haste attack 0.7*15.5*1.2=13.02
Iterative 0.45*15.5*1.2=8.37
Total damage=58.28
-------------------------
New System=0.7x2/0.45/0.2/0
1st+Manyshot 0.7*15.5x2=21
Rapid Shot 0.45*15.5=6.975
Haste attack 0.2*15.5=3.1
Iterative 0=0
Critical 0.1*0.7x15.5x2+0.1x0.7x0.1x15.5x2=2.387
Grazing attack 0.25*12.5=3.125
Total Damage=36.587
An archer with the above build is losing about 37% of their damage due to the new system.
I am not even going to get into the hydra. Suffice to say, it isn't pretty.
As you can see, some combat styles suffer really badly.
Are you accounting for crits, because that is going to boost the damage of the first two attacks that hit. The other attacks should do less damage.
Are you accounting for crits, because that is going to boost the damage of the first two attacks that hit. The other attacks should do less damage.
Oh, I accounted for em all right.
Critical 0.1*0.7x15.5x2+0.1x0.7x0.1x15.5x2=2.387
Hey, I noticed an error. It should be the following
Critical 0.1*0.7x15.5x2+0.1x0.1x15.5x2=2.48 instead of 2.387Not that it makes a meaningful difference
Anywho...
To get a single crit out of 4 attacks, the following has to happen:
A roll of 19 or 20 on the attack roll (0.1 chance)
A roll of 7 or greater on the confirm (0.7 chance)
There is a total chance of 0.07 that you get a critical. A 3x crit with the damage above adds 2x15.5 to the damage dealt by one attack. Thus, the total average damage is 15.5x2x0.07=2.17 from getting the first crit.
To get the second crit, the following has to happen
A roll of 19 or 20 on the attack roll (0.1 chance)
A roll of 19 or 20 on the confirm (0.1 chance)
This gives you a second crit to another attack on top of the first, with a chance of 0.01(1%).
Thus, the total damage is 15.5x2x0.01=0.31 from the second crit
The total damage from crits is 0.31+2.17=2.48
What do you mean by "with a chance"? The way I read it was that one crit was applied to two attacks meaning you get to roll crit damage for two of your attacks, or am I misunderstanding you?