The "multiple attacks" rule is a bit excessive and really harms melee


Playing the Game


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that puts melee builds above spellcasting in the early levels is supposed to be that they use fewer actions, but at a -5 penalty per extra attack they quickly become unable to land hits at all.

Take a 75% chance to hit, it quickly becomes 50% and then 25%. This is already a bit much, as you would only have 75% against weaker enemies, in this case you would land an average of 1.5 hits.

Against a difficult enemy with only a 50% chance to hit it becomes 25%, then crits only in this case it is only an average of .75 hits.

If the penalty gets reduced to 4 or to 3 however, attacking twice actually becomes viable. With the chances being 75% 55% 35%(average 1.65 attacks) for 4 and 75% 60% 45%(average 1.8 attacks) if the value is 3.

This may look like a lot of maths, but the problem here is that a melee build WILL attack multiple times a turn, and without all the ways to spend a spare action that casters have you will quickly fall behind. Add in that casters have ways of ignoring the multiple action requirement of casting and melee will fall even further behind.

This is before taking into account that melee builds do not get many bonuses throughout, while a lot of their feats help with melee a lot of them have rather weak effects. Even the feat that increases your damage dice for fighter two handed ends up being weaker than a 3rd level fireball.

Please Paizo, buff melee.


And by difficult enemy you mean a level appropriate enemy right? Since as far as I've seen in the math a "full bab" class is sitting at about the 50% mark for all their primary attacks against an enemy equal level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For my old house rules using PF1 RAE I changed the combat system entirely to primary and secondary attacks, making them use the same rules as natural attacks. It also got rid of big nasty chunks of words like "first attack in a round" and "attack at your full base attack bonus" and just referred to primary attack. It made haste easier, by having it grant an additional primary attack. It buffed martial characters for things like furious focus, because it applied to all your primary attacks. Unchained monks became amazing, and competed for best martial.

Your combat style of choice interacted with single actions, and could be combined in a huge way that granted agency and freedom to the characters.

After such an amazing Paizo system, I'm really sad about this one.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah I'm starting to get the feeling that keeping track of your current MAP is going to be a sticking point. I'm already confused by abilities that reference your MAP, are exempt from increasing your MAP, different MAP for different weapons, or other such things.

Given a few days it'll get better, but it could definitely be cleaner. Maybe having 1 Primary and 2 Secondary attacks would be appropriate.


I personally find MAP needlessly complicated and it makes designing combat around it clunky, often in detrimental ways to the game's performance.

In a lot of cases you lose out on tactical advantage by using your class options rather than just engaging the core system.


Yeah, I always felt the descending iterative attacks of 3rd Ed were too punitive, as if martial characters need to be taken down a peg or two...I am so surprised they have really embraced it in this edition, seems like an archaic rule/mechanic, now.


Maybe remove penalty and make second Strike per round cost 2 actions as an alternative


1 person marked this as a favorite.

played the game the the -5 on the second attack almost had know effect on the attacks hitting or missing. tho this is normal the case at low levels the roll on the d20 swings things more. are dps fighter was doing on average 10 a hit rolling d12 for damage and his 2nd attack would still hit like 50% of the time thanks to things like sweep and flanking

and as the caster vs fighter this is a argument as old as time and the grass will all ways look better on the other side


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

For my old house rules using PF1 RAE I changed the combat system entirely to primary and secondary attacks, making them use the same rules as natural attacks. It also got rid of big nasty chunks of words like "first attack in a round" and "attack at your full base attack bonus" and just referred to primary attack. It made haste easier, by having it grant an additional primary attack. It buffed martial characters for things like furious focus, because it applied to all your primary attacks. Unchained monks became amazing, and competed for best martial.

Your combat style of choice interacted with single actions, and could be combined in a huge way that granted agency and freedom to the characters.

After such an amazing Paizo system, I'm really sad about this one.

If you got a link to your houserules (if you have stored them online, of course), I'd be very interested to take a look at them (probably not in the next days, but very much in the near future).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A single melee regardless of 1-3 attacks landing will ALWAYS do less damage than a 3rd level fireball... unless your caster does something stupid and fireballs a single target instead of a group.

The other side of that also is that if the target makes a crit success on their save they're sitting there all comfy now that their undies are dryer fresh warm and toasty and have tken 0 damage from the fireball. Gone are the days of that only happening for those with evasion and improved evasion EVERYTHING has that chance now.

Comparing a limitless attack (melee can swing all day long) against a single target, and a limited attack (only so many 3rd level spells) against a 20 foot area is like comparing apples and forks.

I'll agree maybe the -10 on third and subsequent attacks is a little much.

Perhaps it should be Full bonus 1st attack, Full bonus -2 for the 2nd attack, and Full - 5 for 3rd and subsequent.


link


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doombybbr wrote:

If the penalty gets reduced to 4 or to 3 however, attacking twice actually becomes viable. With the chances being 75% 55% 35%(average 1.65 attacks) for 4 and 75% 60% 45%(average 1.8 attacks) if the value is 3.

This may look like a lot of maths, but the problem here is that a melee build WILL attack multiple times a turn, and without all the ways to spend a spare action that casters have you will quickly fall behind. Add in that casters have ways of ignoring the multiple action requirement of casting and melee will fall even further behind.

This is before taking into account that melee builds do not get many bonuses throughout, while a lot of their feats help with melee a lot of them have rather weak effects. Even the feat that increases your damage dice for fighter two handed ends up being weaker than a 3rd level fireball.

Please Paizo, buff melee.

If you actually looked into the options for melee classes to circumvent the multiattack penalties and increase damage you wouldn't have had to make this post. Agile weapons, class feats, the way how runes work etc.

I'm not sure if this is actually a troll post.


rasplundjr wrote:
A single melee regardless of 1-3 attacks landing will ALWAYS do less damage than a 3rd level fireball... unless your caster does something stupid and fireballs a single target instead of a group.

Really? You can do 36 d12 damage with a lvl 3 fireball? I didn't know that. Cause that's what 3 crits with a +5 greataxe and str 10 and without any use of feats can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:
Doombybbr wrote:

If the penalty gets reduced to 4 or to 3 however, attacking twice actually becomes viable. With the chances being 75% 55% 35%(average 1.65 attacks) for 4 and 75% 60% 45%(average 1.8 attacks) if the value is 3.

This may look like a lot of maths, but the problem here is that a melee build WILL attack multiple times a turn, and without all the ways to spend a spare action that casters have you will quickly fall behind. Add in that casters have ways of ignoring the multiple action requirement of casting and melee will fall even further behind.

This is before taking into account that melee builds do not get many bonuses throughout, while a lot of their feats help with melee a lot of them have rather weak effects. Even the feat that increases your damage dice for fighter two handed ends up being weaker than a 3rd level fireball.

Please Paizo, buff melee.

If you actually looked into the options for melee classes to circumvent the multiattack penalties and increase damage you wouldn't have had to make this post. Agile weapons, class feats, the way how runes work etc.

I'm not sure if this is actually a troll post.

I have looked into them, and mapped the mathematical distribution spreads for different styles. What did you read that I didn't?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I have looked into them, and mapped the mathematical distribution spreads for different styles. What did you read that I didn't?

Well for starters I actually read the whole book and not just how you make 3 basic attacks. You need to take the class feats into account and the weapon traits and for damage you have to take the runes into account.

You realize you can get as a ranger for example easily to 0/-3/-3 on 3 hits instead of 0/-5/-10? Other classes have other options to reduce the penalties.
Weapon damage increases by one die for every rune. Also something that you seem to be compeltely unaware of.
I highly suggest going over the different options again.


rasplundjr wrote:

A single melee regardless of 1-3 attacks landing will ALWAYS do less damage than a 3rd level fireball... unless your caster does something stupid and fireballs a single target instead of a group.

The other side of that also is that if the target makes a crit success on their save they're sitting there all comfy now that their undies are dryer fresh warm and toasty and have tken 0 damage from the fireball. Gone are the days of that only happening for those with evasion and improved evasion EVERYTHING has that chance now.

Comparing a limitless attack (melee can swing all day long) against a single target, and a limited attack (only so many 3rd level spells) against a 20 foot area is like comparing apples and forks.

I'll agree maybe the -10 on third and subsequent attacks is a little much.

Perhaps it should be Full bonus 1st attack, Full bonus -2 for the 2nd attack, and Full - 5 for 3rd and subsequent.

For 3rd Ed/PF1, using the Unchained RAE, I implement:

Extra Attacks. Each attack beyond the first on a turn takes a penalty: second attack at -3, third attack at -5.
For melee attacks with light weapons, natural weapons, rapiers, scimitars, spiked chains, whips, and for ranged attacks with bolas, daggers, darts, hand crossbows, shortbows, and slings, the penalty is: second attack at -2, third attack at -4.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I have looked into them, and mapped the mathematical distribution spreads for different styles. What did you read that I didn't?

Well for starters I actually read the whole book and not just how you make 3 basic attacks. You need to take the class feats into account and the weapon traits and for damage you have to take the runes into account.

You realize you can get as a ranger for example easily to 0/-3/-3 on 3 hits instead of 0/-5/-10? Other classes have other options to reduce the penalties.
Weapon damage increases by one die for every rune. Also something that you seem to be compeltely unaware of.
I highly suggest going over the different options again.

I have, and the best classes to get the highest potential bonuses and damage are bards and fighters.

Barbarians are just as good at hitting as the worst combatant classes like casters until level 12 when they finally get expert, for +1.

Rangers and paladins come in at second best, capping out at +2 from master proficiency.

In most cases for damage, you are taxed actions by your class features to add incremental damage buffs and more times than not said incremental buffs do not have higher risk/reward values than simply making your secondary and/or tertiary attacks. The math on this comes from the fact that across most of the ACs in the bestiary your odds of landing a crit on primary attacks are worse than landing a hit on your secondaries, this makes feats like Power Attack and Dual-Handed Strike terrible options because the math isn't there.

Paladins for instance, use Blade of Justice to get maybe an extra 16 damage total, 24 on a single crit, 32 on a double crit. Compared to making extra attacks getting multiples of dice like 7 or 8 plus STR, it doesn't even compare.

The paradigm of adding dice to level out the average as the base assumption of the math is not going to work to the game's favor, I fear. Some reports on here have already shown that enemy AC and HP don't give consistent results and the dice are really swingy.


I really want the MAP to be removed or changed, but I'll accept it if the feats are rebalanced around single actions for combat purposes.

I've been thinking about dividing combat into 4 essences like spells are: [Offense] [Defense] [Mobility] and [Status/Utility]

I think combat oriented characters should build with these essences in mind and feats should be designed around interacting with these in a balanced way around each other, so they may perform differently in some aspects, but trade-off in other areas.

Theory Crafted Examples:

Power Attack (++offense, -defense): costs 1 action, and incurs a penalty to AC to improve damage. Can be done multiple times, to greatly improve damage potential, but the penalties stack either opening up highly defensive builds to be hit more, or opening you up to be crit more by BBEGs creating a risk/reward system that scales as you level and the potential penalty/increase improves. Requires using a weapon two-handed, be it a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon (property), or a two-handed weapon. Should automatically include adding STR again to damage as a conditional modifier.

Double Slice (+offense, +defense): functions much as it does now, but includes the Twin Parry stuff as you level. I'd like to see it just allow two strikes for one action, but require agile/finesse weapons, and Twin Parry would cost an extra action if going defensive and scale, most likely add DEX to AC as a conditional modifier.

Aggressive Shield (++defense, -offense, -mobility): instead of pushing an enemy back from the get go, you'll be trading the action to use a shield as normal, but this feat improves the AC you add from it by your STR mod. This becomes increasingly interesting for STR builds that want to tank and use heavy armor. You'll lose the action to attack, but gain improved defense greatly that trades off with the lack of damage potential that you'd otherwise lose out on. As it scales add in the push back stuff and the reactive shield stuff.

Nimbleness/Mobility (+mobility, +defense, -offense): each move action you take in a turn increases your AC, making this a trade off for using movement to get around, and can use a single action to count as movement, but allows one to remain stationary and gain a single bonus to AC as if from movement. As it scales it can also be used as a reaction to either attain or improve the scaling bonus from movement. Provides a significant boost when combined with sudden charge, which makes it a good combo when compared to caster options imo.

This is all just spit balling ideas, but I think it's worth looking at and using to balance combat options.

Dark Archive

Asuet wrote:
rasplundjr wrote:
A single melee regardless of 1-3 attacks landing will ALWAYS do less damage than a 3rd level fireball... unless your caster does something stupid and fireballs a single target instead of a group.
Really? You can do 36 d12 damage with a lvl 3 fireball? I didn't know that. Cause that's what 3 crits with a +5 greataxe and str 10 and without any use of feats can do.

Who has a +5 weapon at level 5? I thought we were comparing comparable level characters. If you're looking at a character that should be wielding a +5 weapon vs a 5th level caster with a 3rd level fireball you're not looking at apples and forks you're looking at apples and hand grenades.

Even then max damage on that melee with no str bonus or extra damage runes attached to the weapon is 36d12 is 432.

If that fireball lands on an area where all 44 squares of the 20 foot burst are filled with a single creature each and then none of them make their save not even critcally fail their save just don't make it (and I know that's so unlikely it's silly to even think) that's 44(6d6) Maxed would be 1,584 granted that is spread over 44 creatures so really it's only 36 each but it's still more damage output.

You know what I will modify my statement - A Single melee character of 5th level will always have less total damage potential than a 5th level caster releasing a 3rd level fireball on a group.

It's still an unfair comparrison any way you shape it 1 to 3 targets vs as many as you can fit in a 20 foot burst.

If you want to compare Melee vs Caster it should be on single target attacks but even then totally different roles so it'sstill not a good comparison.

You're comparing a firefighter and a cop.

*Edit - I had calculated the number of squares incorreclty in that 20 foot burst - I shouldn't math and lunch at the same time.


By level 5 most caster builds can combine options like magic weapon and magical striker to have +2 weapons, making them at the very worst exactly equal to fighter potential, and leagues ahead at worst.


Asuet wrote:
rasplundjr wrote:
A single melee regardless of 1-3 attacks landing will ALWAYS do less damage than a 3rd level fireball... unless your caster does something stupid and fireballs a single target instead of a group.
Really? You can do 36 d12 damage with a lvl 3 fireball? I didn't know that. Cause that's what 3 crits with a +5 greataxe and str 10 and without any use of feats can do.

I see your point, but...

That's a 20th level treasure though, so a level 3 fireball is a little underpowered in level compared to that.

It looks like others pointed this out already though.

Technically I see your point though in regards to his wording (ALWAYS is a pretty strong word).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fireball deals an average of 15-16 damage when you assume 50% get half damage for making the saving throw. And you can do that max 3 to 4 times at lvl 5.
Guess who doesn't have spellslots? Melee classes. They just have their axe +1 on lvl 5 for 2d12 +4 per hit and can hit 3 times per turn. Every turn. For how many turns they want. Without chance to save against that.
Most casters combine magical striker at lvl 4? Did you even read the wizard feats? 90% will take quick preparation on lvl 4. The other 10% probably the familiar enhancment or the extra cantrips.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
link

Thank you.


To be honest, it's the multi attack penalty that makes Melee relevant. Think about how terrible it would be to have to spend actions moving next to foes before you attack them if ranged guys were shooting three arrows at full bonus every turn. Same thing for utility actions like shield use, stances, etc. Both the balance between melee and range and the internal balance between actions so there's more to combat than rolling to hit a lot kind of require the penalties.

Casters are only a couple of points behind on attack bonus and have some spells to help them out in combat, so it's not like they couldn't also find ways to advantage of unpenalized triple attacks. Moreover, a number of martial class feats allow them deal with these penalties in one form or another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:

Fireball deals an average of 15-16 damage when you assume 50% get half damage for making the saving throw. And you can do that max 3 to 4 times at lvl 5.

Guess who doesn't have spellslots? Melee classes. They just have their axe +1 on lvl 5 for 2d12 +4 per hit and can hit 3 times per turn. Every turn. For how many turns they want. Without chance to save against that.
Most casters combine magical striker at lvl 4? Did you even read the wizard feats? 90% will take quick preparation on lvl 4. The other 10% probably the familiar enhancment or the extra cantrips.

Just sayin' if we want to compare damages...

Level 5 Rogue, with 2 +1 1d6 agile weapons, who took Fighter Devotion at level 2, then at level 4 took Double Slice through the Fighter Devotion, flanking an enemy.

Assuming a +4 Dex and Dex-to-Damage will hurl out, if both hit:
4d6 +4d6 Sneak Attack +8 - Without a crit - Or 8d6+8

vs Fireball - 6d6

Rogue avg 36 Wizard avg 21


Rogue: 36 multiplied by X (the number of times in a day they can get flanking attacks), multiplied by their hit chance.
Wizard: 21 multiplied by Y (the number of fireballs they can cast in a day) multiplied by Z (the number of opponents they hit with each fireball) multiplied by about 0.75 (due to reflex saves).

Since we can't calculate X or Z, the comparison is meaningless.


The main point here is that spells are a resource. They should be better in the situation they are used in than skills that are available any time. Concluding from that that classes without spells are somehow at a disadvantage is just silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:
The main point here is that spells are a resource. They should be better in the situation they are used in than skills that are available any time. Concluding from that that classes without spells are somehow at a disadvantage is just silly.

Spells are expendable and swappable. A Fighter who has spent his entire career putting permanent character resources into being the best goddamn climber he can be should not be outclassed at climbing by a wizard who woke up and decided that he would probably be doing some climbing today.


Doombybbr wrote:
The thing that puts melee builds above spellcasting in the early levels is supposed to be that they use fewer actions, but at a -5 penalty per extra attack they quickly become unable to land hits at all.

Did you playtest?

In my play test, my fighters and rogues are far outperforming any spellcasters.

2nd and 3rd attacks DO hit and often crit.

Did you know Agile weapons allow you to make your second attack at -4, something you asked for?

Fighters have class feats like Power Attack and Furious Focus that either make your primary attack much better or buff your 2nd and 3rd attack.

I have no idea how this plays out at 5th level or higher, but at levels 1-2, martials are better than OK.


Asuet wrote:
The main point here is that spells are a resource. They should be better in the situation they are used in than skills that are available any time. Concluding from that that classes without spells are somehow at a disadvantage is just silly.

That's kind of true. Otoh, there are other forms of cost. There's cost in action, opportunities to do X, risks, and so forth. If we say that characters have some finite amount of combat endurance because enemies get to do stuff too, then the a number of attacks a character can make is also limited in a practical sense. Same thing for number of enemies - if there are twenty dudes in the dungeon, attacks past the point where they're all dead are of vastly reduced importance.

Also, you've no doubt seen an early takedown of a target reduce the threat of that side since they'll get fewer actions. So like money, there is a 'time value of damage\offense.'

If you look only at daily limits and ignore all the others, you aren't painting a very accurate picture of the resources involved. And that's why "unlimited" classes have often struggled ime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want to talk about cost in actions then melee's are way better off than casters. 95% of all spells take 2 actions to cast. If I remember correctly the only offensive spell that can be cast with one action is magic missile and that results in wasting a spellslot to cast a horrible ineffective spell. So casters are incredibly limited in the way they can move around the battlefield. Positioning is the most deciding factor when you play a caster in this edition. Melee's don't have that problem at all. Most melee classes have ways to move twice and still make 2 hits.
I started playtesting and will have my second session tomorrow but from my experience so far there is no unbalance towards casters. Rather the opposite. Especially our rogue was outperforming a lot of the other classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sudden Charge is the only way to move twice and get two hits, most other ways in the book only let you move once. Do you have a list or at least more than one example?

Any action that improves damage by a small amount without improving your attack bonus overall will leave you with diminishing returns when compared to simply not using those abilities. The exception to this is Double Slice.

I did a maths to prove it.


Sudden charge, cleave, Spring attack, two-weapon flurry, flurry of blows, weapon supremacy, abundant step when using more spell points, enduring quickness, skirmish strike, spring from the shadows.
You know that most of these feats only cost 1 action which allows you to do 1 stride and one attack on top of that action? Thats the same effect. 2 moves and 2 strikes. And several of these skills are available to multiple melee classes. Also I'm pretty sure I missed some feats.

Please stop saying you do the math when you don't even understand how the feats work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:

Sudden charge, cleave, Spring attack, two-weapon flurry, flurry of blows, weapon supremacy, abundant step when using more spell points, enduring quickness, skirmish strike, spring from the shadows.

You know that most of these feats only cost 1 action which allows you to do 1 stride and one attack on top of that action? Thats the same effect. 2 moves and 2 strikes. And several of these skills are available to multiple melee classes. Also I'm pretty sure I missed some feats.

Please stop saying you do the math when you don't even understand how the feats work.

Sudden Charge was mentioned, granted.

Cleave does not add in movement, it's a reaction that requires an extremely specific scenario, you have to have two enemies exactly adjacent to each other and you have to take one of them out presumably with one attack in order to get the bonus movement you claim. False.

Spring Attack also requires two enemies, one must be adjacent to you before you move, and you must move to one that is within your movement speed and end adjacent to it and make an attack. This one does buy you an action, but I'd hardly call it free movement considering it again requires a specific scenario.

Two-Weapon Flurry is a trap, it must be done on tertiary attacks, which means you have to have already spent two actions attacking, it cannot ever grant you additional movement. It does let you make 4 attacks while dual-wielding, and that's good considering how good Double Slice is, but it has to be used in conjunction with a full attack, and when doing so, one attack at full and two at -3 is always going to be better for you anyway. False.

Flurry of Blows exists for this purpose, granted.

Weapon Supremacy, 20th level feat. Haste happens way sooner than this.

Dimensional Steps from what I can read moves you 40 ft, as a monk your single action speed reaches this by at bare minimum 9th level, way before you can heighten Dimensional Steps to this range. False.

Enduring Quickness is a 20th level ability that specifically adds another action to move, seemingly to complement the fighter's 20th level ability. Again, Haste happens way sooner.

Skirmish Strike allows a step, so 5 foot movement, hardly the equivalent of a double move for free.

Spring From The Shadows might work, though it requires some set-up.

Half of these were wrong, and my math is solid.

Maybe read the things you boast about yourself before calling someone else out and laying out personal insults. Shoulda just flagged but most of your list was inaccurate which warranted a response considering people reading your words might actually take you seriously.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
And by difficult enemy you mean a level appropriate enemy right? Since as far as I've seen in the math a "full bab" class is sitting at about the 50% mark for all their primary attacks against an enemy equal level.

\

I found it quite reasonable. I like having the option of multiple attacks even if they become less likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great. You went at least from "there is only one" to granting that at least half of the dozen feats i listed were options. I didn't boast. I just proved your argument wrong. Fact is that every melee class has these options.

Also on first glance on your "math" you already made the mistake to use d6 as damage for both attacks of the double slice damage calculations. You can actually use a d8 weapon for the first strike and a d6 agile weapon for the second. So much to "my math is solid".
You also don't take into account the many situations where you don't start the turn next to the enemy. Most of the combat feats have a deep impact on action economy. And that's what the dozen examples i listed showed. Caster are heavily restricted by the action economy. Melee classes are not. Not even close. Casters can barely move if they want to use their spells.

Furthermore I don't get why you link that. I never proposed to nerf melee classes or double slice. I was responding to the ridiculous idea that melee classes needs a buff.


Asuet wrote:

Great. You went at least from "there is only one" to granting that at least half of the dozen feats i listed were options. I didn't boast. I just proved your argument wrong. Fact is that every melee class has these options.

Also on first glance on your "math" you already made the mistake to use d6 as damage for both attacks of the double slice damage calculations. You can actually use a d8 weapon for the first strike and a d6 agile weapon for the second. So much to "my math is solid".
You also don't take into account the many situations where you don't start the turn next to the enemy. Most of the combat feats have a deep impact on action economy. And that's what the dozen examples i listed showed. Caster are heavily restricted by the action economy. Melee classes are not. Not even close. Casters can barely move if they want to use their spells.

Furthermore I don't get why you link that. I never proposed to nerf melee classes or double slice. I was responding to the ridiculous idea that melee classes needs a buff.

If you had read my post, you'll know I used d6s because agile weapons confer better crit chances in more situations.

I did the math on single attacks, double attacks, and triple attacks.

Did you even read it?


I would suggest making the Multi-attack penalty the inverse of the trained proficiency progression. This would do two things simultaneously:

1) better fits the design space for other rules associated with similar rolls that are ostensibly already on the same progression - to hit, skill, resistances, etc.

2) better interface with weapon proficiencies using the TEML model and any feats progressing multi-attack/two-weapon fighting.

So your 1st attack action would be at the standard (no penalty similar to Trained), the 2nd attack is at a -1 penalty, and the 3rd attack would be at a -2 penalty.

Conversely, if that is too forgiving, ratchet it up to the untrained penalty, the double it:

Your 1st attack action would be at the standard (no penalty similar to Trained), the 2nd attack is at a -2 penalty, and the 3rd attack would be at a -4 penalty.


First you would have to demonstrate that melee classes are actually in a bad spot to justify them getting a buff. Nobody in this thread did that.
Changes to multiattackpenalties also don't just effect melee classes in a positive way. They change drastically the balancing in general because guess who also can hit multiple times? Monsters. I'm not so sure if melee classes appreciate being hit way more often in a system where going below 0 hp is incredibly punishing.


Asuet wrote:
I just proved your argument wrong.

Not really, from what I have read in that exchange, more like, strike that, reverse it.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / The "multiple attacks" rule is a bit excessive and really harms melee All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game