Consequences of Removing Attack Penalty of Iterative Attacks

[Keneth]

What the title says. I'm considering removing the attack penalty imposed on iterative attacks, instead allowing characters to perform all attacks at their full BAB, but I'm somewhat concerned about the consequences of such a rule change. Clearly that would considerably increase the damage potential of mundanes, but are there other (potentially game-breaking) consequences there?

It doesn't affect most monsters, as natural attacks are treated the same as they were (primary and secondary), and magic users generally don't have iterative attacks unless they're gishes. I suppose this is a slight boost to CODzilla, but it's kinda unavoidable.

[Ceaon]

Damage output doubles at levels where a character gains BAB divisable by 6, which is a huge spurt in power.

[eggynack]

It probably wouldn't be too problematic. It's just melee combat, so nothing you do to improve it can be all that borked, and it's nice to make later iteratives worth something. Also, the cleric half of CODzilla would be impacted, but the druid half probably wouldn't be, cause they mostly rely on natural attacks. You'd likely end up making the lotsa weak attacks fighting method a bit better, which is a nice thing from a balance perspective. TWF guys and monks could use a hug.

[lsfreak]

Damage output doubles at levels where a character gains BAB divisable by 6, which is a huge spurt in power.

*Using D&D's definition of "doubling" :smalltongue: Going from 10 to 11 is a 50% increase, 15 to 16 a 33% increase.

I believe a fairly common houserule is that, instead of no penalty, all iteratives are at -5, so you might have +16/+11/+11/+11 instead of the normal +16/+11/+6/+1.

[Keneth]

Damage output doubles at levels where a character gains BAB divisable by 6, which is a huge spurt in power.

Actually, damage potential doubles (using D&D's definition of doubling). A good beatstick should be able to hit with their iteratives at least some, if not most of the time, so the actual damage output increase is quite a fair bit lower.

I guess treating iterative attacks as secondary attacks is slightly more balanced. Good point.

[XionUnborn01]

In one of the campaigns I was in, we changed it from -5 to -2. so, at 20th level you would have 20/18/16/14

we had toyed with increasing the number of attacks down until you get to 10 for the final attack but never implemented it.

We had a lot of fun with it because it creates a little more consistency with your melee characters. YMMV

[Urpriest]

You'd need to houserule Rapidstrike. Of course, you'd need to houserule it regardless, so....

[eggynack]

I guess treating iterative attacks as secondary attacks is slightly more balanced. Good point.
It makes the combat mechanics more coherent too. You can essentially call iteratives secondary attacks, and all combat methods would fall under the same umbrella. The current way, where you have two completely different systems assigned to hitting someone in the face, is an odd thing.

[Firechanter]

First off:
I don't know about you, but I dislike characters with truckloads of attacks, and discourage my players to build such. Simply because it takes freaking much time at the table and bogs down gameplay to no end.

Imagine a Tiger Claw Warblade with Raging Mongoose and Blood in the Water Stance dual-wielding Keen Kukris. That bugger gets up to _eleven_ attacks per round, of which 30% will threaten, averaging _fourteen_ attack rolls per Full Attack action. And then the damage rolls. Very boring for everyone else.

That said, streamlining iterative attacks would speed up things a little, since you don't have to figure out the modifier over and over again. I kinda like the idea of the houserule lsfreak mentioned.

[eggynack]

I don't know about you, but I dislike characters with truckloads of attacks, and discourage my players to build such. Simply because it takes freaking much time at the table and bogs down gameplay to no end.

Maybe, but I think it's better to maintain parity across the combat styles than to make one style less efficient simply because it makes you roll more dice. People really like dual wielding, and it's a painful thing to tell them how horrible it is. Besides, there's a ton of really powerful strategies and tactics that bog down gameplay way worse than TWF does. Just to name two, battlefield control and summoning take up a ton of time. The former doesn't take that long to resolve, but if you plop a freezing fog down on a group of enemies, that's a combat that's never going to end. The latter just directly increases the amount of characters in a combat, and that can eat up time like nothing else. It just feels like TWF is small potatoes in comparison, both in the increase in time taken, and in how appealing the strategy will become from an optimization standpoint.

[Keneth]

I don't know about you, but I dislike characters with truckloads of attacks, and discourage my players to build such. Simply because it takes freaking much time at the table and bogs down gameplay to no end.

I made a java dice roller which we use when we need to roll large amounts of dice. Well, aside from d6s for damage. Taking a fistful or two of d6s and rolling them all at once all over the table is just cathartic, even though it starts to average out once you reach 15+ dice. So yeah, not really concerned about dice rolling, and this change wouldn't affect the number of dice rolled anyway, although it does encourage builds that use multiple attacks.

If you don't like a lot of rolling at the table, D&D isn't really the game for you in the first place. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

If your attack bonus is the same with every attack, you can just throw a handful of dice at once. "So, I need to roll a 12 to hit, that's 13, 17, 6, 9, 19, two hits and a critical."

[Fax Celestis]

If your attack bonus is the same with every attack, you can just throw a handful of dice at once. "So, I need to roll a 12 to hit, that's 13, 17, 6, 9, 19, two hits and a critical."

Or if they're different, designate your dice by color.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Or if they're different, designate your dice by color.
That can still be a pain. "Ok, the red one was the first attack, and the blue was the second, and the green-- no, hang on, the green was the second and the blue was the third..."

I second the "secondary attacks at -5" thing, though.

[Keneth]

Secondary attacks it is. This is primarily a Pathfinder change for our group anyway, so there are fewer issues to worry about. I think it'll turn out alright, especially with all the other nice things mundanes are getting.

[Fax Celestis]

That can still be a pain. "Ok, the red one was the first attack, and the blue was the second, and the green-- no, hang on, the green was the second and the blue was the third..."

Roy G Biv, yo.

[Firechanter]

I concur, that's actually a very elegant idea. Primary attack at highest bonus, the rest are Secondary attacks at a flat, not cumulative -5 penalty.

The average damage output should be increased by around 30%, at least for a Full-BAB character with no other extra attacks. With extra attacks (such as from Haste) the difference actually shrinks. Doesn't sound gamebreaking to me.

The nice thing is that this can speed up combat significantly, even without die-roller programs. You just need to remember one separate colour for the primary attack, and can roll everything at once without this "oh wait, green was the third... damn" effect.

Nice nice nice, now I wanna try it out =D

[eggynack]

Y'know, the only thing I dislike about the primary/secondary iterative plan is that iteratives have always felt very tied to BAB, and this interrupts that. You know you get your second iterative at +11, because each subsequent iterative has a -5 penalty to the one before it, and 11-10 is +1. It's probably not an actual issue, but there's just something vaguely dissatisfying about +11/+6/+6. Better than the alternative though.

[Keneth]

I suppose things do get somewhat disjoined, but it's probably just because we're used to it.

[eggynack]

I suppose things do get somewhat disjoined, but it's probably just because we're used to it.
Yeah, maybe. I'm a fan of good aesthetics in mechanics, but it's not a thing I'd sacrifice effective mechanics for. Besides, as I noted, you're trading off iterative based aesthetics for the aesthetics of having natural attacks and weapon attacks being based off the same core mechanics, so it works out in the end.

[Grayson01]

Yeah i think you are right on the change of the norm, I think the change is a good one.


I suppose things do get somewhat disjoined, but it's probably just because we're used to it.

[Blackhawk748]

Me likey :smallbiggrin: then again i have a soft spot for mundanes and beatsticks in general, i think im gonna pitch this to my group and we can discuss using it.

[Boci]

Imagine a Tiger Claw Warblade with Raging Mongoose and Blood in the Water Stance dual-wielding Keen Kukris. That bugger gets up to _eleven_ attacks per round, of which 30% will threaten, averaging _fourteen_ attack rolls per Full Attack action. And then the damage rolls. Very boring for everyone else.

No, he can make 11 attacks once, then until he refreshes his maneuvers he can make as many attacks per round as any full BAB class whose dual wielding weapons. Also blood in the water does nothing to increase the amount of dice rolled.

[Runestar]

As a general rule of thumb, having 4 attacks at cumulative -5 attack penalty is roughly equal to 2 attacks at full bab, or a single attack at double damage (which is the PHB2 fighter variant). So assuming your fighter can consistently get in full-attacks, you are basically doubling his damage output.

It will improve the damage potential of fighter-types, but otherwise doesn't really change anything. In my opinion, fighters have never had an issue with dealing damage. It was always their lack of options in and outside of combat which was their weakness.

For example, all the attacks in the world are useless when your fighter is stunned by a mindflayer's mind-blast, or grappled by a T-Rex.

[lord_khaine]

For example, all the attacks in the world are useless when your fighter is stunned by a mindflayer's mind-blast, or grappled by a T-Rex.

Bot quite true, a million pokes with a butterknife would still kill the T-Rex, solving the grapple problem :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

As a general rule of thumb, having 4 attacks at cumulative -5 attack penalty is roughly equal to 2 attacks at full bab, or a single attack at double damage (which is the PHB2 fighter variant). So assuming your fighter can consistently get in full-attacks, you are basically doubling his damage output.

It will improve the damage potential of fighter-types, but otherwise doesn't really change anything. In my opinion, fighters have never had an issue with dealing damage. It was always their lack of options in and outside of combat which was their weakness.

For example, all the attacks in the world are useless when your fighter is stunned by a mindflayer's mind-blast, or grappled by a T-Rex.
As has been noted, you're not really doubling damage output at all. It's all kindsa more complicated than that. First, you have to take into account the possibility that all of a fighter's iteratives could have a high chance of hitting. It's certainly possible to get those results at some levels of optimization. Second, you have to take into account the fact that you can effectively power attack for more, which could actually tip the scales more in this rule's favor. There's a whole bunch of factors here, is what I'm saying.

Also, on this not changing the balance of the game, does it have to? Not every change to combat mechanics has to be made with the understanding that you'll end up with parity between fighters and wizards. As long as the OP doesn't present this as a fighter fix, I don't think we have to evaluate it as one.

[Darcand]

I would take it a step further and go with a single attack at full BaB, or multiple attacks all at BaB -2.


Posted from Giantitp.com App for Android

[Ashtagon]

Actually, damage potential doubles (using D&D's definition of doubling). A good beatstick should be able to hit with their iteratives at least some, if not most of the time, so the actual damage output increase is quite a fair bit lower.

I guess treating iterative attacks as secondary attacks is slightly more balanced. Good point.

A long time ago, I did some extensive statistical analysis. Assuming no silly levels of attack bonus optimisation, damage is increased to roughly (iirc) 150% base with the 1st iterative, roughly 180% with the second, and roughly 185% with the third.

Older D&D editions did multiple attacks with a 3/2 notation, indicating two attacks every other round (at full attack bonus).

[erikun]

This biggest problem are giants, or any large high-STR creature with iterative attacks on its own with an manufactured weapon. They do a lot of damage per hit and a huge bonus almost guaranteeing the first strike connects, but in exchange have a lower to-hit so that later attacks. Giving them all their attacks at full BAB will make them considerably more dangerous.

[Person_Man]

So the first thing to remember is that with sufficient supplements, 3.X D&D (and to a somewhat lesser degree, Pathfinder) to-hit and damage output is completely unhinged from any sort of meaningful balance or scale. So whether or not it's ok or not ok for you to jigger with any number is pretty much entirely dependent on your group, and how much it optimizes.

Having said that, I would be fine with removing almost all fiddly To-Hit bonuses and penalties from the game, with the exception of those that arise from a specific effect (an enemy does something to you) or a specific trade-off (Power Attack, Combat Expertise). But if you do that, you should also probably remove most damage multipliers, like Leap Attack, Headlong Rush, Spirited Charge, etc.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Most of those multipliers "only" work on a charge, the problem are not the multipliers themselves (unless you stack them all at the same time); but pounce. If for example Leap Attack only worked on the first attack of a charge, regardless of how many attacks you get, it wouldn't be as bad. I would also limit the PA multipliers to one or two at the most (say Leap attack+ valourous weapon? Kosher Leap attack + valorous weapon + headlong rush? Nope).

[Person_Man]

Most of those multipliers "only" work on a charge, the problem are not the multipliers themselves (unless you stack them all at the same time); but pounce. If for example Leap Attack only worked on the first attack of a charge, regardless of how many attacks you get, it wouldn't be as bad. I would also limit the PA multipliers to one or two at the most (say Leap attack+ valourous weapon? Kosher Leap attack + valorous weapon + headlong rush? Nope).

So yes and no. You are absolutely correct that the most common damage multipliers abuses come from Pounce + lots of attacks + multiplier.

But you can also get lots of damage just from magic items, magic, psionics, incarnum, ToB combos, increasing your actual/effective size, by increasing your actual/effective size, just getting a lot of attacks in general plus free movement (or just using ranged attacks), and probably other means I'm forgetting.

So again, I'd say its highly dependent on the party. There's nothing inherently wrong about adding additional stuff to the game or taking out annoying penalties. But if you put your foot down too hard on the breaks, you're not going anywhere, and if you push too hard on the gas, it won't be long before you drive off the side of a cliff.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I agree that there are tons of ways to get huge amounts of damage using magic (and similar), but this houserule impacts non-ToB/Natural weapon meleers more. A Totemist (or a metamorphosied Psywar, etc) won't care that iterative attacks are made without a penalty since their attack routines look mostly the same a -5 at most (and if I planed to rely heavily on multiple natural attacks Improved Multiattack would be something I would get ASAP), but mundanes such as fighters and the like could really use the boost.

However you are right it depends heavily on the party and the playstile, for example in the last game I played it's effect would have been negligible on the other players, since most of the party was a caster of some sort (I was the exception playing a TWF).

[Firechanter]

This biggest problem are giants, or any large high-STR creature with iterative attacks on its own with an manufactured weapon.

The lesson here being, [cue South Park ski trainer] "If you're allowing a Giant to Full Attack, you're gonna have a bad time". That was pretty much the case already; gets a bit more emphasized with this rule.

If you find that this kind of enemies give your party too much trouble, you might counter that by allowing the PCs to max all their HD.

And and as for something a little further up:

Also blood in the water does nothing to increase the amount of dice rolled.

But it does. BitW gradually and continuously increases your To Hit, which increases the amount of Hits and confirmed crits, and through that, the amount of damage rolls. /nitpick

[Keneth]

This biggest problem are giants, or any large high-STR creature with iterative attacks on its own with an manufactured weapon. They do a lot of damage per hit and a huge bonus almost guaranteeing the first strike connects, but in exchange have a lower to-hit so that later attacks. Giving them all their attacks at full BAB will make them considerably more dangerous.

Well that's good, you're supposed to be scared of heavy hitters, and this isn't the only houserule I've implemented that makes them more dangerous.

Plus, I'm considering another change that makes it harder for smaller creatures to effectively damage larger ones. I'm just not sure how I'm gonna go about it yet.


I would take it a step further and go with a single attack at full BaB, or multiple attacks all at BaB -2.

I've considered that to begin with, but I've already got a similar mechanic in the game, and it didn't feel quite right duplicating the effect.

[Barstro]

Well that's good, you're supposed to be scared of heavy hitters.

I consider that to be rather important to remember.

While it hurts the already low-tiered melee characters, I've never had a problem with the logic in diminishing returns on iterative attacks. It makes sense to me that a single attack should be nice and strong, but trying to string together a whole lot of attacks shouldn't be just as easy (taking time in setting up a good uppercut vs. quickly getting that same uppercut so you can toss in a few jabs as well)

It's just sad that underpowered meleers are more hurt by the rule. But, I've always felt that any rule change that affects PCs and foes the same is fine; just requires more planning by the PCs.

[Keneth]

It makes sense to me that a single attack should be nice and strong, but trying to string together a whole lot of attacks shouldn't be just as easy

Well, the problem with that logic is that it depends entirely on the type of weapon and style of combat. There are plenty of fighting techniques that consist of a set or even flurry of attacks where one is no less accurate than the other. If anything, the difference between these would be the complexity (where your skill is represented by your BAB) and the damage output, but varying damage doesn't translate quite as well into generic game mechanics. Imagine each weapon having several different dice and Strength bonus multipliers depending on what kind of attack you perform. It's an arithmetic nightmare.

For a time I considered implementing fighting styles/stances that anyone could adopt while in combat, but it just complicated things to an unnecessary degree.

[eggynack]

I consider that to be rather important to remember.

While it hurts the already low-tiered melee characters, I've never had a problem with the logic in diminishing returns on iterative attacks. It makes sense to me that a single attack should be nice and strong, but trying to string together a whole lot of attacks shouldn't be just as easy (taking time in setting up a good uppercut vs. quickly getting that same uppercut so you can toss in a few jabs as well)

It's just sad that underpowered meleers are more hurt by the rule. But, I've always felt that any rule change that affects PCs and foes the same is fine; just requires more planning by the PCs.
Why would previously underpowered melee characters be hurt more by this rule? Underpowered melee characters are the ones who want to get off a full attack the most. ToB, which is a system largely predicated on standard attacks, and natural attack users, who were already using this basic system anyway, aren't helped much by this rule at all. At the same time, fighters are able to gain some extra oomph on their third and fourth iteratives, which is nifty. The only time this rule could possibly be harmful is when the underpowered melee character is fighting another underpowered melee character, but then the other character is put at the same disadvantage. A giant theoretically wouldn't want to close with the fighter either, simply because he also fears a full attack. The only disadvantage here isn't one, and the rest seems like a pure balance increase.

[buttcyst]

Pretty neat idea, I like it. I've been poking around a similar concept, only instead of increasing the attack bonus of the iteratives, converting the 3rd and 4th attacks into movement. I do like the idea of changing the iteratives to secondarys.

[eggynack]

Pretty neat idea, I like it. I've been poking around a similar concept, only instead of increasing the attack bonus of the iteratives, converting the 3rd and 4th attacks into movement. I do like the idea of changing the iteratives to secondarys.
Now that I think of it, having the ability to convert iteratives to five foot steps in general could be nifty. It'd give mundane guys some bonus maneuverability that not-mundane guys don't usually have access to. I don't know if there are any problems with that ability, but it seems like a safe addition.

[Fax Celestis]

Now that I think of it, having the ability to convert iteratives to five foot steps in general could be nifty. It'd give mundane guys some bonus maneuverability that not-mundane guys don't usually have access to. I don't know if there are any problems with that ability, but it seems like a safe addition.

The Evasive Reflexes feat already gives some precedent (for transforming AoOs into 5' steps).

[buttcyst]

I was thinking half movement for 3rd att, and full movement for both 3rd and 4th, can only make 2 attacks if you move, or up to 4 with twf feats or penalized off-hand attacks.


I apologize if this changed the direction too much, but I think it applies to the OP topic

[Barstro]

Why would previously underpowered melee characters be hurt more by this rule? Underpowered melee characters are the ones who want to get off a full attack the most.

My fault for poor communication.

I meant that melee is most hurt by the current rule of iterative attacks getting progressively lower attack bonuses.

@Kennith;
I agree with what you say. But I would still think that lining up a single hit would result in greater accuracy than trying to line up a combination. We could argue all day about what moves, combos, etc. would look like, but no matter our differences in how we get there, we seem agree on the final conclusion. That being said, making the game more "real" would be a mathematical nightmare, as you stated.

[Keneth]

I apologize if this changed the direction too much, but I think it applies to the OP topic

Well, another one of the house rules I implemented allows characters to move up to their full speed prior to making a full attack, so we're thinking in a similar direction. I don't mind this thread being derailed at this point, I've already got what I came for. :smallsmile:

[Person_Man]

Pretty neat idea, I like it. I've been poking around a similar concept, only instead of increasing the attack bonus of the iteratives, converting the 3rd and 4th attacks into movement. I do like the idea of changing the iteratives to secondarys.

You could also just give everyone free super Pounce. Player moves. Player makes attacks. If they still have attacks and movement available, they can continue to move and/or make attacks, until they either run out of movement or run out of attacks. (Or is stopped by an attack of opportunity or other effect). A Charge gives you double movement, but limits you to a strait line.

It makes full BAB more valuable (since you basically get extra movement/mobility as well as an additional attack), and makes mundane melee characters in general a lot more flexible.

[Firechanter]

The problem with allowing Move + Full Attack is the other side of my previous posting: You want to hit hard, and not get hit hard back. Thus, it's your task as player to plan your attacks so that you kill a strong opponent before he can strike a Full Attack.
When everyone can move and full-attack at the same time, this is impossible. It takes a great deal of tactics out of and puts a world of hurt into the game. Everything that can hit you, will hit you, with a full attack, every round, until somebody is dead.

Thus, I wouldn't implement Move+Full Attack by default. Keep it tied to special abilities like Pounce, so you have better control over who can and cannot do it.

[Keneth]

Suddenly ignoring AC and initiative isn't such a great idea anymore, is it? :smalltongue:

Pounce was retarded, it makes no sense that you could make iterative attacks while pouncing. Meanwhile it makes plenty of sense being able to pressure someone who decides to move away from you, and the poor mechanics which penalize mundanes simply for moving allowed players to exploit that.

My rules change both, and they force the players to use more advanced tactics, like mundanes protecting casters, and characters using maneuvers like trip or dirty trick to control the flow of battle.

Being able to dish out large amounts of damage is great, but it means nothing if you leave yourself wide open to a world of hurt. You need to be able to deny your opponent's tactics without something so banal as taking a few steps back.