One of the things I like about the Starfinder Roleplaying Game is that anyone can make two attacks at -4/-4 instead of their normal attack bonus for a single attack.
Our group added that rule to our house rules for Pathfinder, this past weekend and it worked great. Ultimately, only one character used it, but he was the character with the highest effective attack bonus in the group.
So, I got to thinking, what would the modifier need to be for it to be balanced against normal iterative attacks while allowing a character to get 3 or 4 attacks?
Two attacks at -4/-4 versus an iterative (+0/-5) seems balanced.
Would three attacks at -6/-6/-6 be balanced against iteratives of +0/-5/-10 ???
How about four attacks at -8/-8/-8/-8 against iteratives of +0/-5/-10/-15 ???
You are basically looking at two weapon fighting rules without two weapon fighting without a lot of the negatives.
-4/-4 is not the same as 0/-5. -4/-4 comes far before 0/-5 happens. I'm not sure if -6 or -8 is enough and there should be a level or BAB limit on that.
Thanks, SorrySleeping.
I agree with the level or BAB limit on the triple and quadruple attack options.
I was thinking of limiting those to only the full BAB classes and not allowing them to be used before the character had +11 BAB for the triple attack and +20 BAB for the quadruple attack.
I would allow -4/-4 to all characters for attacks that can't benefit from the full attack action (essentially it would look like aimless flailing). After that, the BaB rules as written are adequate and carefully balanced against the whole system.
In fact I may have snagged this for my homebrew bible if it weren't so obvious at this point.
Here's my alternative rules that stop iteratives from being quite so bad:
Extra Attack: At BAB +6 a character may make a full attack and gain 2 attacks with their main weapon at a -2 to attack for both attacks. At BAB +11 a character may make 3 attacks as a full attack with their weapon weapon at a -3 to all attack rolls. At BAB +16 this increases to -5 for 4 attacks.
This is "balanced" against the usual BAB rules (for your stock standard fighter either two-handed or two-weapon). Dunno how it works out for rogues or clerics though.
Here's my alternative rules that stop iteratives from being quite so bad:
Extra Attack: At BAB +6 a character may make a full attack and gain 2 attacks with their main weapon at a -2 to attack for both attacks. At BAB +11 a character may make 3 attacks as a full attack with their weapon weapon at a -3 to all attack rolls. At BAB +16 this increases to -5 for 4 attacks.
This is "balanced" against the usual BAB rules (for your stock standard fighter either two-handed or two-weapon). Dunno how it works out for rogues or clerics though.
This isn't bad... I know that some classes have an issue with "to hit" and no built in mechanic to offset it. Idk if this really helps, but it certainly buffs the iterations for these guys.
TWF penalties would stack as written... it could work, maybe -4 @ BAB 16? Because the penalty is shared by each attack, I don't think it would be much of a problem... 3/4 classes would hit more often even if not as reliably with their first attempt.
TWF penalties would stack as written... it could work, maybe -4 @ BAB 16?
My calculations (and I admit they're as flawed as anyone else's calculations) indicate that a -5 is needed to keep it balanced. Although my calculations assume that a 16th level fighter has a haste attack whenever they full attack. And yup. If you stack TWFing penalties on top it keeps roughly the same balance as currently exists (at least until 19th and 20th level).
And yeah, I'd be very interested to see how a Rogue stacks up with the modification vs the standard BAB rules. But I haven't got any handy spreadsheets to let me easily check.
The -8/-8/-8/-8 might be a bit rough. almost halves your chance of hitting. Unless the monsters ac is noticeably low. I've been thinking about something like that myself. Still early in my formulations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Trailblazer rules do something like this.
Instead of normal 0/-5 iterative attacks, you get two attacks at -2/-2 at BAB 6 then, instead of gaining more attacks the penalty is reduced by 1 at BAB 11 and again at BAB 16.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The -8/-8/-8/-8 might be a bit rough. almost halves your chance of hitting. Unless the monsters ac is noticeably low. I've been thinking about something like that myself. Still early in my formulations.
Fighter's attack bonuses are so high that it doesn't really matter. Of course, it does depend on what enemies you're routinely facing.
A level 17 fighter is going to have: +22/+22/+22/+22/+22
That's a hit on a 14 vs CR 20. However that's also without any morale bonuses or any other spells. A mere heroism reduces the needed roll to a 12 and a flank reduces it to a 10.
I'd take four hits at +22 vs 2 attacks at +27, 1 attack at +22, 1 attack at +17 (needs a 19 to hit) and 1 attack at +12 (cannot hit on anything but a natural 20).
The Trailblazer rules do something like this.
Instead of normal 0/-5 iterative attacks, you get two attacks at -2/-2 at BAB 6 then, instead of gaining more attacks the penalty is reduced by 1 at BAB 11 and again at BAB 16.
Trailblazer rules?
You make a good point. I never like that fact that if you need a 10 to hit with your first attack your last 2 need a 20 etc. I probably wouldn't use power attack. with the 22 if I needed a 14 to hit already. it would be a 6 to hit with normal bonuses so yeah that doesn't seem terrible.
I probably wouldn't use power attack. with the 22 if I needed a 14 to hit already. it would be a 6 to hit with normal bonuses so yeah that doesn't seem terrible.
That'd work (as you noted my attack bonus assumed power attack is turned on). Depending on level will determine how much it affects the damage you're dealing. An alternative would be to simply take less attacks. So at level 17 you could choose to only take 2 attacks with a -2 penalty to both rolls, or 3 attacks with a -3 penalty to all three rolls.
Both options are valid. If you know the creature only has one or two hits left in it but it has high DR that you can't bypass, you're better off using power attack and simply making less attack rolls. If you have a few enemies surrounding you with only a few hit points each you're better off not using power attack and instead getting the extra attack rolls.
Either way, you're making a tactical choice as to how to proceed on a per round basis which is (IMO) better than the way the rules currently work (more tactical options for fighters that don't increase their damage level is good IMO). And if you don't want that level of complexity, simply always do full attacks with power attack turned on and you're probably going to be doing pretty good for yourself anyway.
Finally your to hit will be better against foes that aren't APL+3.
[EDIT]: Just double checked my numbers. my +22 also assumes you have Combat Expertise turned on as well. Here is the breakdown for attack modifiers:
+17 (BAB) - 5 (4 Extra Attacks) + 8 (STR Mod) + 5 (Weapon Enchancement Bonus) + 1 (Haste Bonus) + 4 (Weapon Training) + 1 (Weapon Focus) + 1 (Greater Weapon Focus) -5 (Combat Expertise) -5 (Power Attack).
If you're worried about PA, you'd probably turn off Combat Expertise first.
I would allow -4/-4 to all characters for attacks that can't benefit from the full attack action (essentially it would look like aimless flailing). After that, the BaB rules as written are adequate and carefully balanced against the whole system.
In fact I may have snagged this for my homebrew bible if it weren't so obvious at this point.
I agree that it's pretty obvious, now, Byrdology. I took a quick look at your homebrew bible thread and saw some interesting things.
I like the BAB rules as written and agree that they are carefully balanced against the whole system. I'm just exploring an idea for a possible option.
Here's my alternative rules that stop iteratives from being quite so bad:
Extra Attack: At BAB +6 a character may make a full attack and gain 2 attacks with their main weapon at a -2 to attack for both attacks. At BAB +11 a character may make 3 attacks as a full attack with their weapon weapon at a -3 to all attack rolls. At BAB +16 this increases to -5 for 4 attacks.
This is "balanced" against the usual BAB rules (for your stock standard fighter either two-handed or two-weapon). Dunno how it works out for rogues or clerics though.
This isn't bad... I know that some classes have an issue with "to hit" and no built in mechanic to offset it. Idk if this really helps, but it certainly buffs the iterations for these guys.
TWF penalties would stack as written... it could work, maybe -4 @ BAB 16? Because the penalty is shared by each attack, I don't think it would be much of a problem... 3/4 classes would hit more often even if not as reliably with their first attempt.
This is an interesting idea. I'm actually surprised that -4 or -5 for 4 attacks wouldn't outshine the normal iteratives, though.
The -8/-8/-8/-8 might be a bit rough. almost halves your chance of hitting. Unless the monsters ac is noticeably low. I've been thinking about something like that myself. Still early in my formulations.
I think you're right, Vidmaster7. The -8's do take a lot of the character's chance to hit away.
Trailblazer rules?The Trailblazer rules do something like this.
Instead of normal 0/-5 iterative attacks, you get two attacks at -2/-2 at BAB 6 then, instead of gaining more attacks the penalty is reduced by 1 at BAB 11 and again at BAB 16.
Yes, I remember the Trailblazer rules set.
http://drivethrurpg.com/product/64009/Trailblazer
Lots of good options, there.
I like the -4/-4 option for the anyone with a BAB of less than +6. Perhaps, that's a solution?
-4/-4 at BAB +0 to +5
-2/-2 at BAB +6 to +10
-1/-1 at BAB +11 to +15
+0/+0 at BAB +16 and up
And, just keep it at two attacks rather than trying to figure out how to increase it to three or four attacks?
Hmmm....
The -8/-8/-8/-8 might be a bit rough. almost halves your chance of hitting. Unless the monsters ac is noticeably low. I've been thinking about something like that myself. Still early in my formulations.Fighter's attack bonuses are so high that it doesn't really matter. Of course, it does depend on what enemies you're routinely facing.
A level 17 fighter is going to have: +22/+22/+22/+22/+22
That's a hit on a 14 vs CR 20. However that's also without any morale bonuses or any other spells. A mere heroism reduces the needed roll to a 12 and a flank reduces it to a 10.
I'd take four hits at +22 vs 2 attacks at +27, 1 attack at +22, 1 attack at +17 (needs a 19 to hit) and 1 attack at +12 (cannot hit on anything but a natural 20).
Trailblazer rules?The Trailblazer rules do something like this.
Instead of normal 0/-5 iterative attacks, you get two attacks at -2/-2 at BAB 6 then, instead of gaining more attacks the penalty is reduced by 1 at BAB 11 and again at BAB 16.
Trailblazer is a set of 3.5 houserules/rebalancing that came out around the same time as Pathfinder. Lots of good ideas and they go through and explain the rules changes they made and why and how it's supposed to make the game better.
They stop adding new iteratives after the 2nd one because it allows turns to resolve faster at high levels.
Trailblazer is a set of 3.5 houserules/rebalancing that came out around the same time as Pathfinder. Lots of good ideas and they go through and explain the rules changes they made and why and how it's supposed to make the game better.
They stop adding new iteratives after the 2nd one because it allows turns to resolve faster at high levels.
Thanks. Hadn't heard of it before. Although unless they're significantly boosting the fighter in other ways (or significantly reducing the power of other classes in other ways), reducing a fighter's attacks to just 2 is a significant depowering.
just give martials pounce it solves all of the "i cant full attack right now cuz i need to move" issues
If your going that option, why bother with keeping the full attack? Just make it a standard action that can't be combined with cleave or vital strike.
According to their math 2 attacks at near full attack bonus actually increases damage output against most enemies by up to 15%, the exceptions being enemies with either extremely low or extremely high AC.
cuz there are ways to combine things with standard actions that cant be combined with a full round action that would highly unbalance
Such as?
it plus it allows them to move up to 2 times their normal movement when they pounce and nets them an extra +2 to hit
Let them make all their attacks at the end of a charge and you get the same thing.
@Ninja: I'd be interested to see how that assertion stacks up in Pathfinder. Remember you didn't get weapon training in 3.5
@Ninja: I'd be interested to see how that assertion stacks up in Pathfinder. Remember you didn't get weapon training in 3.5
That's a very good point, John. Fighters are stronger in Pathfinder than in 3.5 (as are many of the other classes).
@Ninja: I'd be interested to see how that assertion stacks up in Pathfinder. Remember you didn't get weapon training in 3.5That's a very good point, John. Fighters are stronger in Pathfinder than in 3.5 (as are many of the other classes).
Every other class than the rogue anyway... well the PF rogue is stronger than the 3.X, but not near close to the power curve of the others. This particular thread favors rogues and monks more than others.
Favoring rogues and monks might not be a bad thing, then...
Not that it doesn't favor others at all, because it does. But Rogues and Monks don't have built in to hit buffs (unless I'm that out of touch with the new material) or spells to supplement combat viability (like full and half casters with 3/4 BaB).
?: how would you read the monk's flurry table with this?
I've never been a fan of iterative attacks in OGL games.
I've been thinking about using the Starfinder rule for making two attacks at -4 each, and adding extra damage dice on hits for every 5 points of BAB. So, when your BAB is at +5, your weapon damage increases by 1 die, as per Vital Strike. It increases by another die at +10, +15, and +20.
So, a 5th level fighter with a longsword hits for a base damage of 2d8+bonuses. A 10th-level fighter hits for 3d8+bonuses, 15th for 4d8, and 20th for 5d8. But they don't get iterative attacks.
Not sure how the math works vis-a-vis encounter design, though.
Not that it doesn't favor others at all, because it does. But Rogues and Monks don't have built in to hit buffs (unless I'm that out of touch with the new material) or spells to supplement combat viability (like full and half casters with 3/4 BaB).
?: how would you read the monk's flurry table with this?
Depends on which version of the monk you're using. But assuming you're using the core rulebook monk, the monk's flurry is actually a full BAB class with the two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting and greater two-weapon fighting feats built into it. Alas without actually getting the TWF feats you don't get the benefit of any other feats which use them as pre-requisites without having to first waste a feat on it.
So I'd read the monk's flurry BAB the same as I would read a TWFing fighter's BAB.
Not sure how the math works vis-a-vis encounter design, though.
Well it doesn't for all the reasons that Vital Strike doesn't. Even assuming you get a third attack from haste and a couple of AoOs for tripping, you're still reduced to dealing a third of the damage you would deal under the normal rules.
there's a class called the hecilight or something similar
Are there any other rules/options you're aware of that would interact badly with the rule? And if you do, can you please list them?
Because if this is the sole reason to naysay the proposed rule, it seems like an easy option is to simply not allow the hecilight (which I can't actually find anywhere on the internet). I can only presume it's an obscure 3rd party class which even you don't always allow.
found it for you heritor knight screwed up the name pretty bad but its a paizo prestige class and there's probably others out there that can so similar stuff adding massive bonuses to standard action stuff
So that's a no on knowing any other rules then? Cause an easy fix is to ban that prestige class (to be honest I'm the only one whose actually used one in the last few years in my group and I did it as a challenge to make an old school magus work without the magus class).
LadyJ here is a summary from my perspective:
LadyJ: Just give everyone pounce.
Me: Why not just make full attack a standard action?
LadyJ: Because it wouldn't be as powerful.
Me: Well charge would be a comparable effect.
LadyJ: But there's other stuff that would make it too powerful.
Me: Such as?
LadyJ: This single prestige class from a Golarion specific book (that may or may not even be deity specific)
Me: Well just don't allow that prestige class. Problem solved.
LadyJ: Stop inventing new rules.
So I won't be following your suggestion of giving everyone pounce. Your of course welcome to do so. Happy gaming to you and your group.
fixed that for youLadyJ here is a summary from my perspective:
LadyJ: Just give everyone pounce.
Me: Why not just make full attack a standard action?
LadyJ: This prestige class that is just an example of what i could find and there may be more out there i don't have time to go look threw every single one to make sure its the only one
Me: Well just don't allow that prestige class which could be one of many. Problem solved.
LadyJ: this way is simpler and doesn't hinder character concepts that would happen by banning stuff
You didn't actually. As I said, that was my perspective of the conversation. But hey, good on you for further articulating your point (if only ever so slightly).
Your posts have been as insightful as they ever are. Happy gaming.
Not that it doesn't favor others at all, because it does. But Rogues and Monks don't have built in to hit buffs (unless I'm that out of touch with the new material) or spells to supplement combat viability (like full and half casters with 3/4 BaB).
?: how would you read the monk's flurry table with this?
Hi, Byrdology,
What I was thinking of with the original idea was just to balance this as an alternative to the standard iterative attacks. Basically, trade normal attacks for this option.
So, for a monk, he would be exchanging his flurry for this. This would likely be worse than the Monk's normal flurry.
So, I don't think this would help monks, much.
@ Hrothgar: I think it is an excellent option as a standard attack. I would personally have a problem with granting precision dmg in conjunction with it, but I wouldn't argue either.
Hmmm... Good point about precision damage... Hadn't thought of that.
I'll have to ruminate on that a bit... It might make rogues more powerful, at least at higher levels... But, at BAB +1 to +5 at -4/-4, it should be fine.
oh no the rogues might actually be useful on combat what ever shall we do
I'm all about rogue love, and I'm sure it may work out, but at lvl 20 two attacks that do weapon dmg + mods AND 10d6 SA each at only a -4/-4, may be too much. I know in 5e SA only applies 1/round and that may need to be applied to this attack option... but I would reserve final judgement upon mathematical hit hit /dmg %s.
Thematically taking -4/-4 lends itself to a more reckless less presicion approach, but at higher levels, -4/-4 seems more tactically viable than 0/-5/-10.
Basically it would be stronger than almost every other classes standard attack at -4/-4, but is much more balanced against classes that have full BaB and built in "to hit" mechanics that help them land them more reliably.
But by that same token, the concept fits perfectly with the rogue style of hit and fade or maneuver then strike.
So if anyone is up for it, it would be nice to see the rogues standard double attack vs other classes standard double attack as well as the rogues standard double attack vs full iterations.
It would be ok for the unchained monk. maybe a little more retooling.
@ Hrothgar: I think it is an excellent option as a standard attack.
By standard attack, I'm assuming that you're talking about an attack that would allow it to be paired with a move action?
If so, that wasn't what I originally had in mind. I was thinking of this as a full-attack option, which would only allow a 5-foot step.
oh no the rogues might actually be useful on combat what ever shall we do
After thinking about it for a few days, I don't think it would hurt to allow rogues to use the -4/-4 option as a full attack and get sneak attack dice on both attacks.
@ Lady-J: I'm sorry I wasn't clearer... I meant to imply the % chance to hit, self buffed with no magic, at full iteration and class only dmg modifiers (per swing).
I know that a twf rogue can do over 60d6 + (w x 6) under ideal circumstances, but those iterations fall of sharply when you consider the lack of buffs (weapon training and class feats, smite, rage, inspire courage, etc). The balance portion comes when you factor how reliable that dmg is; from modifiers like situational, # of times/ day, and % chance to hit.
Then that same chart at only -4/-4 iterations. It should slightly buff the second attack and certainly buffs the 3rd for a rogue, but is it enough to reliably compare with other classes that (may do less dmg, but) do it more reliably?
@Hrothgar: there are feats that let you get two attacks at -2/-2 on a standard attack, -4/-4 is mechanically weaker, but doesn't cost a feat. Hence the (proposed) balance.