Consequences of this "incremental initiative" houserule?

[OttoVonBigby]

OK, I'm not sure where I picked this up, but for ages now I've run 3.5 such that characters with multiple attacks from high BAB do not make all their attacks at the same time on their initiative count. Instead, my house rule is this:

Characters who use the Full Attack action to make multiple attacks (due to having a sufficiently high base attack bonus) divide their initiative by the number of attacks they get (rounded down) to determine when the attacks subsequent to their first attack take place. They cannot use all attacks at once unless they have the Whirlwind Attack feat.
Example: Bill, an 11th-level fighter, has a base attack bonus of +11/+6/+1. If, in a combat for which he rolled 24 as his initiative, he chooses to use the Full Attack action to make multiple attacks, his first attack (with a +11 BAB) takes place on his normal initiative count of 24. His second attack takes place at 16 in the combat order (24-(24/3)) with a +6 BAB, and his third takes place at 8 in the combat order (24-(24/3)-(24/3)) with a +1 BAB. If Bill has only one opponent who has only one attack, and the opponent's initiative was 10, that means Bill gets two attacks before his opponent can attack, and then a third after his opponent's attack.

My question is, in what ways does this change the game? Might it make casters less OP? Might it hurt noncasters? What other possible consequences, however fiddly or unlikely, do you folks perceive?

[Bluydee]

I'm not sure what the purpose is. Casters still get to cast on their turn, and all it really does is needlessly hurt mundanes. In fact, casters can now simply escape during the full attack.

[Andezzar]

What Bluydee said.

What happens if a character does have the Whirlwind Attack Feat? Does he function normally, or does he only have the option to use the feat?

[Spore]

Also....holy biscuit is that complicated to set up. Turns nowadays take too long but this would make high level combat practically unplayable.

[WhamBamSam]

It needlessly hurts non-casters, especially precision damage types who rely on acting first to get enemies flatfooted. It doesn't really inhibit casters at all, apart from Gish types who like full attacking.

[Necroticplague]

Doesn't seem like a really good idea. Isn't particularly realistic, widens caster-mundane divide even more than already exists, and creates some really weird situations (So...I can't use my attacks from BAB for 6 initiative counts, but I can somehow can AoO someone in that time, despite being in the middle of attacking already). Only real bright side i can see is that it encourages players to find ways to get more attacks that aren't just iteratives, like TWF+SA, Aoo, Haste, and similar.

[HMS Invincible]

Sounds like you cribbed this over from Shadowrun. That steampunk game had initiative passes like you described, except you got more actions, not just attacks for having higher initiative.

[Coidzor]

OK, I'm not sure where I picked this up, but for ages now I've run 3.5 such that characters with multiple attacks from high BAB do not make all their attacks at the same time on their initiative count. Instead, my house rule is this:

Characters who use the Full Attack action to make multiple attacks (due to having a sufficiently high base attack bonus) divide their initiative by the number of attacks they get (rounded down) to determine when the attacks subsequent to their first attack take place. They cannot use all attacks at once unless they have the Whirlwind Attack feat.
Example: Bill, an 11th-level fighter, has a base attack bonus of +11/+6/+1. If, in a combat for which he rolled 24 as his initiative, he chooses to use the Full Attack action to make multiple attacks, his first attack (with a +11 BAB) takes place on his normal initiative count of 24. His second attack takes place at 16 in the combat order (24-(24/3)) with a +6 BAB, and his third takes place at 8 in the combat order (24-(24/3)-(24/3)) with a +1 BAB. If Bill has only one opponent who has only one attack, and the opponent's initiative was 10, that means Bill gets two attacks before his opponent can attack, and then a third after his opponent's attack.

My question is, in what ways does this change the game? Might it make casters less OP? Might it hurt noncasters? What other possible consequences, however fiddly or unlikely, do you folks perceive?

Reach becomes more important as Bob's opponent can hit him and then 5-foot-step out of Bob's attack range. Or be a spring attacker and move out of his range or have an advantage against AoOs or just use the withdraw option. Which then raises the question of what happens with Bob's 3rd attack that was supposed to go here but now no longer can.

Or, if Bob sets up a full attack but the opponent had an Initiative of 23 so they were only hit by Bob's first attack and then move out of his range because they were some cowardly creature that wanted to use the withdrawal option or were a Spring-Attacker... What happens when his 2nd iterative attack would proc? Does he have to make it against another opponent, provided one is within range? Is his entire turn wasted? Does he get the option to take a move and swift action when the 2nd iterative would have occurred if he hadn't already used his move and/or swift actions?

I think casters would only very rarely actually eat full-attacks in this case.

Also, how do you adjudicate natural weapons taking this into account? Flurry of MissesBlows? TWFing and Multiweapon Fighting?

Does Precision Damage still apply to all attacks or does it only apply to the first attack made in a round? Does whether precision damage is applicable change based upon how creatures react to suffering a precision damage full attack?

...Does Snap Kick add in an attack each time an iterative procs in this sequence? Just with the last iterative attack? As if it were an extra iterative attack or some initiative count lower than the last iterative attack?

What about Improved Trip? Do tripping and the free follow-up attack both occur on the same initiative count? Can the scenario where Bob has initiative 20 and trips Greg who has Initiative 18, such that Greg actually stands up and provokes an AoO from Bob for standing up before Bob's free follow-up attack from having tripped Greg and possessing the Improved Trip feat can proc?

What about if Bob trips Greg and has the follow-up attack at Initiative count 20, Greg stands up and takes the first part of his turn eating an AoO to stand and hitting Bob once at initiative count 19, then at Initiative count 14, Bob can just trip Greg and get a free follow-up attack again which then leaves Greg unable to stand up again to get off his second iterative at Bob on initiative count 13, so he has to make all of the rest of his attacks prone?

[Seerow]

Make it so in exchange for this limitation each attack comes at the highest attack bonus, and Fighters get 5-15ft worth of move between each attack, and make Wizard spells resolve on initiative count 2*spell level lower than when they started casting... and this might be okay.

Still way too complicated.

[Curmudgeon]

It's going to level out the differences between melee combatants and archers, because melee opponents can get away after 1-2 attacks. However, it primarily reduces the effectiveness of melee weapon users relative to spellcasters.

Over all, a fair addition of complexity for no useful improvement in the game.

[eggynack]

I could see this being a vaguely interesting option. Like, full attackers have the capacity to split up their full attacks across the initiative count with some general rules, thus allowing you to take advantage of predicted changes in the state of the battlefield. For example, you have the capacity to full attack, but you're facing a goblin. A single attack is almost certainly enough to take on the goblin, so you save your other attacks so that you can make use of your extra attacks if other goblins pop by. That'd be especially nifty with AoO tripping or standstill stuff, as you could work to ensure enemies in range on later attacks.

However, as a forced rule, it's just the absolute worst. In most cases, as in not that goblin case, splitting your attacks across initiative is worse than the alternative. You've nerfed full attacking, and it's a thing that very much did not need nerfing. As Curmudgeon notes, it's a rule that does have the dubious advantage of buffing archery relative to melee, but it's a rule that does that by nerfing both things relative to things that are not those things. You've hurt some of the least powerful classes in the game, while doing little to the most powerful classes, and that's a bad thing.

[Thanatosia]

My question is, in what ways does this change the game? Might it make casters less OP?
I've got to know, how in what way in what logic did it ever enter you mind to even suggest that this might in any way, shape, or form, negatively affect casters or make them less OP? I'm sincerely curious to know what even slightest hint of a suggestion that this could be a caster nerf somehow made you type that sentence. But yeah, it has no affect on spellcasting whatsoever, while making non-casters have a *much* harder time doing their job.

[Curmudgeon]

I've got to know, how in what way in what logic did it ever enter you mind to even suggest that this might in any way, shape, or form, negatively affect casters or make them less OP? I'm sincerely curious to know what even slightest hint of a suggestion that this could be a caster nerf somehow made you type that sentence. But yeah, it has no affect on spellcasting whatsoever, while making non-casters have a *much* harder time doing their job.
If a spellcaster uses repeated touch attacks, this would affect them negatively in the same way (but not to the same extent, given the disparity in BAB) as dedicated melee warriors. But that's really just a small selection of gish characters we're talking about here.