Iterative Attacks As Class Feature

[Fax Celestis]

As topic. This is off the cuff and not really thought through: I'm just toying with the idea.

What are people's thoughts on restricting iterative attacks to those who have the class feature that gives them a second/third/fourth attack?

Could be a neat way to give some oomph to the Fighter.

Say most full BAB classes get a feature at 6th, 11th, and 16th for +1 iterative attack at BAB-5.

Caster classes could not get iteratives.

3/4 BAB classes could get an iterative at 11th.

And the Fighter (and possibly similar classes that need it like the Samurai, Soulknife, and Soulborn) could get iteratives that are at -3 at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.

[Jormengand]

If a Wizard is making a FRAA at any point in the proceedings he's doing something horribly wrong anyway. Also, things like the Magus and equivalents need those extra attacks - both of them.

[Hamste]

It would be pretty bad for multiclassing and tough to figure out for prestige classes.

[Telonius]

It sounds like a decent idea, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish. There aren't that many Wizard tricks that depend on having more than one attack (at least that I'm aware of). Druid would be working off natural attacks anyway. Cleric might get taken down a peg if Divine Power is altered, but no change otherwise.

Rogue's damage output would probably take a real hit; so would any other less-than-full BAB class that depends on precision damage or lots of attacks.

[Fax Celestis]

It would be pretty bad for multiclassing and tough to figure out for prestige classes.

The point of this post is to figure out if its worth developing this into a full-fledged homebrew, or if this one should die on the cutting-room floor.

[Mad Wizard]

Is the idea to promote single classing instead of dipping? I'm not a big fan - this weakens any fighter-type who takes a prestige class or dips into another fighter class. It seems like a bigger nerf to fighters than casters, in general, since casters don't really need iteratives at all.

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, assume the above plus I wrangle a way to advance iterative attacks reasonably for multiclassers and PrCs.

[Segev]

It would require increasing the number of feats given, either to the Fighter specifically or to everybody in general, but you could make it a feat line:

Iterative Attack [Combat]
Prerequisite: +6 BAB
Benefit: When you make a Full Attack action, you may make an additional attack (called an "iterative attack") with a -5 modifier from your full attack bonus.
Special: A fighter may take this feat as a bonus feat.

Improved Iterative Attack [Combat]
Prerequisites: +11 BAB
Benefit: When you make a Full Attack action, you may make a second iterative attack at a -10 penalty.
Special: A Fighter may take this feat as a bonus feat.

Greater Iterative Attack [Combat]
Benefit: When you make a Full Attack action, you may make a third iterative attack at a -15 penalty.
Special: A Fighter may take this feat as a bonus feat.


You'd need to rewrite how natural attack full attack routines worked to keep them in line, and you might want to alter things still further to empower fighters or to otherwise help other classes, but this would definitely make it something "special."

[Prime32]

Okay, assume the above plus I wrangle a way to advance iterative attacks reasonably for multiclassers and PrCs.Like a "martial rating" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm)? You could just go and give them extra standard actions - it has the bonus of making fighter/wizard more viable.

[Fax Celestis]

Like a "martial rating" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm)? You could just go and give them extra standard actions - it has the bonus of making fighter/wizard more viable.

Yeah, actually, pretty much like that.

[Chronos]

It sounds like a lot of work for not much payoff, to me. Most of the classes that use iterative attacks would keep them, and most of the classes that don't use them would lose them. Net effect, not much.

[Radar]

It would require increasing the number of feats given, either to the Fighter specifically or to everybody in general, but you could make it a feat line:

Iterative Attack [Combat]
Prerequisite: +6 BAB
Benefit: When you make a Full Attack action, you may make an additional attack (called an "iterative attack") with a -5 modifier from your full attack bonus.
Special: A fighter may take this feat as a bonus feat.

Improved Iterative Attack [Combat]
Prerequisites: +11 BAB
Benefit: When you make a Full Attack action, you may make a second iterative attack at a -10 penalty.
Special: A Fighter may take this feat as a bonus feat.

Greater Iterative Attack [Combat]
Benefit: When you make a Full Attack action, you may make a third iterative attack at a -15 penalty.
Special: A Fighter may take this feat as a bonus feat.


You'd need to rewrite how natural attack full attack routines worked to keep them in line, and you might want to alter things still further to empower fighters or to otherwise help other classes, but this would definitely make it something "special."
This would be yet another feat tax for martial characters and wouldn't hurt casters in the slightest.

In my opinion BAB related iterative attacks aren't a problem and any other solution would be more complicated or pretty much the same thing (as the proposed martial rating). In fact I'd rather do something about the penalties on the iterative attacks - especially important, if you consider, that natural attacks use full attack bonus even if you have many of them. In general natural attacks rules should IMO be somehow integrated with regular iteratives.


Like a "martial rating" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm)? You could just go and give them extra standard actions - it has the bonus of making fighter/wizard more viable.
Giving anyone extra standard action is very, very risky buisness - they are the most valuable resource for any character and the consequences are difficult to predict. It would however be a good move to allow Full Attack on a standard action instead of a full round. That extra mobility would prevent the need for a Lion Totem Barbarian dip.

[Segev]

*shrug* I did say it would require giving more feats out to balance things out.

What doing that would do is open some flexibility to offer those feats early to certain classes. Or base things off of having them.

But yes, it's a feat tax if you don't compensate somehow.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It wouldn't really do much. Melee would still suck and casters don't full attack anyway.

[EyethatBinds]

Sounds like you're making a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Why complicate the rules when iterative attacks are fine as they are? They hardly need to be nerfed since they rarely hit after the second one, and spellcasters need more a speed bump to their ultimate cosmic power than the fighter needs a conditional beatstick rule.

[SassyQuatch]

It works. Several of my games have removed iterative attacks completely with exception of extra attacks from two weapon fighting or monk weapons, full attacks don't exist unless you have a character built around extra attacks or "super-moves" that need more effort than a regular attack. No big changes overall.

[Jormengand]

It works. Several of my games have removed iterative attacks completely with exception of extra attacks from two weapon fighting or monk weapons, full attacks don't exist unless you have a character built around extra attacks or "super-moves" that need more effort than a regular attack. No big changes overall.

Well, say goodbye to all the half-decent fighter builds who aren't Uberchargers...

[SassyQuatch]

Well, say goodbye to all the half-decent fighter builds who aren't Uberchargers...

That you feel the Ubercharger build is a valid "half-decent" example tells me that you are concerned only about the minmax cheese from iterative attacks.

In actual play, with non-cheese obsessed players it works perfectly well. You can even get iterative attacks, just not as many and you generally need to optimize your build to get them.

[Darth Stabber]

Well, say goodbye to all the half-decent fighter builds who aren't Uberchargers...

Übercharger needs iteratives too, why else do you think pounce is soo important to them?

@Fax

I say this with all due respect, you are person on this board I look up to more than anyone else.

But the bottom line is that this idea has little merit in a world of linear warriors and quadratic casters, aand given how extra attacks due to BAB are figured, some of it is baked right in. This will nerf clerics a little, but the collateral damage to non-casters is staggering.

[SassyQuatch]

But the bottom line is that this idea has little merit in a world of linear warriors and quadratic casters, aand given how extra attacks due to BAB are figured, some of it is baked right in. This will nerf clerics a little, but the collateral damage to non-casters is staggering.
Well, it doesn't balance against casters, but they really won't be affected anyways, so that means little.

What it can do is balance against other fighting classes. If a fighter gets iterative attacks through class, but a Warblade does not, then the fighter has just gained in power and becomes a bit more viable while the Warblade has lost little since most of his abilities rely on specialized moves and not on iterative attacks.

It weakens some of the mid-BAB classes, but in the end those classes also generally have other things to do with their actions than just full attacks as well.

In the end it lowers raw damage potential of most classes, but since the classes that are the most powerful and will end up winning most battles with their actions are barely affected by losing iterative attacks that doesn't matter so much. By the time that iterative attacks are gained the path to victory rarely resides with removing hitpoints.

[Divide by Zero]

What it can do is balance against other fighting classes. If a fighter gets iterative attacks through class, but a Warblade does not, then the fighter has just gained in power and becomes a bit more viable while the Warblade has lost little since most of his abilities rely on specialized moves and not on iterative attacks.

How exactly does the fighter gain anything by making iteratives class-based rather than automatic?

[SassyQuatch]

How exactly does the fighter gain anything by making iteratives class-based rather than automatic?
Re-read the post. Fighter doesn't gain, but he would now have attack options that other classes do not have, balancing him against those classes.

With the example I already made, Warblades have a lot of options, plus they also have iterative attacks. Fighters are more limited in options, but if they instead get more attacks than other classes then it begins to balance out.

Get the idea yet?

[Divide by Zero]

Re-read the post. Fighter doesn't gain, but he would now have attack options that other classes do not have, balancing him against those classes.

With the example I already made, Warblades have a lot of options, plus they also have iterative attacks. Fighters are more limited in options, but if they instead get more attacks than other classes then it begins to balance out.

Get the idea yet?

There's a post I read in another thread a while back that I think is really appropriate to this discussion:

The problem is that the 3.5 Fighter is poorly designed. The solution is not to demand all other mundane classes be equally poorly designed.
If you want to make the fighter not suck, fix the fighter.

[SassyQuatch]

If you want to make the fighter not suck, fix the fighter.
Which I also do. However, people act as if iterative attacks are some vital part of a character. They are not, and myself and numerous others have tried playing without the BAB-based iteratives entirely and it has not weakened the individual classes, nor the game itself. Rather, it has actually sped up gameplay and made combat more fluid.

What I am saying is that Fax is not completely crazy. Removing those iteratives from some (or all) classes is a tested and valid play style. People need to stop worshiping their sacred cows and being reactionary, and actually think about the topic in a reasonable manner.

[Divide by Zero]

Which I also do. However, people act as if iterative attacks are some vital part of a character. They are not, and myself and numerous others have tried playing without the BAB-based iteratives entirely and it has not weakened the individual classes, nor the game itself. Rather, it has actually sped up gameplay and made combat more fluid.

What I am saying is that Fax is not completely crazy. Removing those iteratives from some (or all) classes is a tested and valid play style. People need to stop worshiping their sacred cows and being reactionary, and actually think about the topic in a reasonable manner.

And you need to stop making assumptions about what other people think. I never claimed that full attacks are "vital" (a claim clearly disproven by the ToB classes), and your second paragraph is incredibly condescending. I was simply disagreeing with the idea that removing full attacks somehow makes the fighter better. The fact that you also fix the class in other ways doesn't change that.

[Curmudgeon]

Might it not be easier to get what you want by making a non-iterative attack class feature, which spellcasting classes would have? (Something like "-1 iterative attack" at Wizard 1 & Wizard 11, Cleric/Druid 2 & 12, Sorcerer 3 & 13, and so on.)

[SowZ]

Making a class feature at a mid level for the Fighter that reduces iterative attack penalties to -3 or and another one at high levels for the Fighter that reduces it to -1 might be interesting. Various other classes could maybe get their penalty reduced to -4 and eventually -2, perhaps. This could make iterative attacks better if you take certain classes up a long ways.

Shoot, you could make it a Fighter bonus feat. Toying around with the idea isn't bad. But changing the whole mechanic isn't worth it, IMO.

[SassyQuatch]

And you need to stop making assumptions about what other people think. I never claimed that full attacks are "vital" (a claim clearly disproven by the ToB classes), and your second paragraph is incredibly condescending. I was simply disagreeing with the idea that removing full attacks somehow makes the fighter better. The fact that you also fix the class in other ways doesn't change that.
My comment was not directed at you personally, but a general statement. My apologies for offending you.

I have noticed, however, that the general tone of many on boards such as this is that iterative attacks are somehow unassailable. Mostly that idea tends to come from the fact that it has been a common mechanic in the game over several generations and not based off of sound reasoning. Statistically, the hit rate from a +20 BAB and iteratives works out to an average of 1.8, and damage output will follow the same curve. Yes, cutting damage nearly in half for a number of classes can hurt (assuming that a full attack can be made, which is not certain), but it is not insurmountable, and I note that it is not an action to be taken without making further adjustments to the game.

In the the end though it just seems off that such a big deal is made over the possibility of doing a bit less damage when it is generally acknowledged that direct damage is a weaker option and that by the time iteratives come into play most conflicts are decided apart from damage alone. Heaven forbid that overpowered casters that singlehandedly end encounters actually get any sort of nerf though.

[erikun]

This does bad things to the fighting gish, as they'd lose or delay extra attacks because if their character concept. Even with prestige classes giving an "iterative bonus" like the fighter, you're still delayed because of the levels spend as a spellcaster - and not all gish PrCs are that great.

It also causes issues with characters like rogues.