"Avalanche of blades"-eque full attacks

[Boci]

So in another a poster came up with that they thought was an example of an obviously broken houserule (because it made full attacks too powerful):

"Whenever you make a full attack, ignore BAB and instead keep making attacks at full BAB until you miss"

Is it just me, or is that not really that broken? Its a little chaotic compared to the default full-attack, and its unfair to two-weapon fighters (but that could be fixed by allowing them to suffer two misses before they must stop attacking). Am I wrong? Is it in fact going to break the game?

[ILM]

It's fairly easy to boost your attack bonus high enough that you're guaranteed to hit, whatever your roll. With this houserule, it literally means you get infinite attacks in a round.

[Chronos]

It's fairly easy to boost your attack bonus high enough that you're guaranteed to hit, whatever your roll.
How do you deal with natural 1s?

The biggest problem I see is that it's too sensitive. If you take someone who only misses on a 1 or 2, then that guy will have on average 10 attacks per round. Give that guy just an additional +1, and suddenly he averages 20 attacks per round. A single +1 shouldn't double a character's combat effectiveness.

[ILM]

You know, we've been ignoring that dumb rule for so long that I thought that it was actually a houserule. I guess you don't, or you optimize around it using the many reroll options available to PCs (including Luck Blade, stuff from Complete Scoundrel, and ToB)

[OldTrees1]

Under this rule:
Damage_per_Hit * Number_of_Hits_per_Turn >> Hp

So it is unbalancing unless you were already playing with Expected_Damage_per_Turn > Hp" such as Uberchargers.

[Fouredged Sword]

How do you deal with natural 1s?

The biggest problem I see is that it's too sensitive. If you take someone who only misses on a 1 or 2, then that guy will have on average 10 attacks per round. Give that guy just an additional +1, and suddenly he averages 20 attacks per round. A single +1 shouldn't double a character's combat effectiveness.

There is a luck feat that lets you treat 1s as natural 20s when attacking so long as you have luck points to burn.

That said, this boosts crit fishers. My blood in the water warblade would LOVE attacking until he can't miss any longer.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I prefer to remove the penalty to iterative attacks or treat them the same as natural attacks (all iterative attacks are at -5, non cumulative).

[Boci]

Under this rule:
Damage_per_Hit * Number_of_Hits_per_Turn >> Hp

So it is unbalancing unless you were already playing with Expected_Damage_per_Turn > Hp" such as Uberchargers.

This was sort of my initial response "It buffs characters who full attack. That places a pretty low cap on unbalancing it can be". Maybe I've been on the forums for too long.

For comparisons to ubercharger its worth noting that not needing to charge massively boosts to their utility.

To be clear, I couldn't see myself using this houserule, but I disagree its un-viable for every group ever. Its makes combat more of a puzzle than it already is, necessitates additional defenses beyond AC: miss chances, immediate action spells and magical items, Robular's Gambit/Karmic Strike(?) to disarm your opponent with an AoO (or just hit back harder). Initiative, stealth and counter-stealth along with the ability to full attack in the surprise round (so pounce or a way of getting an extra actions) also becomes more important.

This is a niche houserule, but it could have its uses. For low OP groups, fighters are unlikely to have the the attack bonus to avoid missing regularly enough. In high OP groups, its unlikely to terribly matter. There no doubt a middle spot will be problematic, with melee starting to optimize but casters not quite there yet since it harder to learn spell combos than to stack bonuses, and other groups won't like the added random factor, but I don't see this as an un-redeemable houserule.

[Chronos]

It also vastly increases the difference between a full attack and a standard attack. Suppose that you do use this houserule. Now, you need to significantly increase the HP of monsters the players are up against, to compensate. That's not too bad... except what happens if the fighter finds himself unable to full attack? He's suddenly worthless, instead of just being at half effectiveness.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm assuming a fairly standard Fighter 20 for these numbers, with attack bonuses constant throughout.



# to Hit Target
# of Atks (Normal TWF)
# of Atks (Normal Other)
# of Atks (Avg w/ houserule)


2
7
4
18.9999992


3
7
4
9


4
7
4
5.66666666


5
7
4
4


6
7
4
3


7
7
4
2.33333333


8
7
4
1.857142857


9
7
4
1.5


10
7
4
1.22222222


11
7
4
1


12
7
4
0.81818181


13
7
4
0.66666666


14
7
4
0.538461


15
7
4
0.428571


16
7
4
0.33333333


17
7
4
0.25


18
7
4
0.1764705882


19
7
4
0.11111111


20
7
4
0.05263157895



Assuming a wide array of ACs to target (all across the board), this averages at ~2.7 attacks. If you're virtually guaranteed to hit the target, you get a ridiculous number of attacks; and if hitting the target is difficult, you basically have to pray that your high level fighter gets a crit, or he's wasted his entire turn. It's even worse for TWFighters, since the only advantage they had over other forms of fighting was that they got lots of attacks. This also makes things like the Speed enchantment and the Slashing Flurry feat worthless, takes away one of the great things about Haste, and makes things like Cleave, Lightning Mace, and similar extra-attack options really weird...but really, that's small potatoes compared to gimping any fighter who hasn't optimized their to-hit.

Fun fact: if you took a Two-Handed Weapon Fighter who operates under this variant, and tossed "Choose Destiny" on him (a 9th spell, to be fair), he'd average 399 attacks before he missed. If that guy's got even a hint of Power Attack Optimization going on, the person he was attacking is screwed.

[Zetapup]

There is a luck feat that lets you treat 1s as natural 20s when attacking so long as you have luck points to burn.

That said, this boosts crit fishers. My blood in the water warblade would LOVE attacking until he can't miss any longer.

Pretty sure that luck feat requires a swift action though, so you'd only be able to do that once per turn. However, if you combined that, choose destiny, and a high to hit, you'd have a ridiculous amount of attacks per turn (plus more if you go lightning maces crit fishing)

[Droopy McCool]

So in another a poster came up with that they thought was an example of an obviously broken houserule (because it made full attacks too powerful):

"Whenever you make a full attack, ignore BAB and instead keep making attacks at full BAB until you miss"

Is it just me, or is that not really that broken? Its a little chaotic compared to the default full-attack, and its unfair to two-weapon fighters (but that could be fixed by allowing them to suffer two misses before they must stop attacking). Am I wrong? Is it in fact going to break the game?

Maybe this isn't, in fact, "broken", so much as unbalanced. You said so yourself that this would be unfair to TWF guys. Yes, you could fix that, but then there's always gonna be something else that needs to be fixed due to unfairness. Besides, this seems unnecessary unless you're looking for a reason to buff encounters.

This subject also stems from my new sigged quote. :smallsmile:

McCool

[Boci]

Maybe this isn't, in fact, "broken", so much as unbalanced.

But how is it unbalanced? My point is (well, one of my points), is that there is no one answer. ILM was concerned it was too powerful, even without their houserule that you can still hit on a nat 1, whilst AvatarVecna was more worried about this being a nerf. Chronus was more concerned with it being too sensitive with +1 to hit potentially doubling attacks, as well as the effect this would have on the usefullness of standard attacks. OldTrees1 added that it was probably okay in a group alongside an ubercharger.


This subject also stems from my new sigged quote. :smallsmile:

Honestly I'd rather you didn't have in your signature a strawman argument that was constructed primarily to insult me, but its your signature and the world doesn't revolve around me.

[AvatarVecna]

But how is it unbalanced? My point is (well, one of my points), is that there is no one answer. ILM was concerned it was too powerful, even without their houserule that you can still hit on a nat 1, whilst AvatarVecna was more worried about this being a nerf. Chronus was more concerned with it being too sensitive with +1 to hit potentially doubling attacks, as well as the effect this would have on the usefullness of standard attacks. OldTrees1 added that it was probably okay in a group alongside an ubercharger.

I'm not necessarily saying it would be a nerf (by all accounts, it's a buff to those with great accuracy); the problem with this hypothetical house rule is that it's completely swingy no matter what level you are, and it so greatly alters one of the fundamental aspects of the game that figuring out absolutely everything that would happen as a result could be very difficult. At the high levels, a bow-wielder or a greataxe master gets 4 attacks (5 with haste) on a full attack and has decent accuracy; meanwhile, a TWF master has 7 attacks (or 8 with haste), at the cost of lowered accuracy; with this rule in place, anything that lowers your chance of hitting (such as TWF penalties, flurry penalties, Power Attack penalties, etc.) is death for your DPR, while anything that boosts your accuracy (from Weapon Focus to Knowledge Devotion) is a huge boost to DPR from the extra attacks that higher attack bonus will generate for you over your career. Similarly, effects that lower AC will get you killed, while effects that boost AC will rule the world.

My main issue with this rule is that normally, a full BAB attack has a fairly good (about 3/4 or so?) chance of hitting an equal CR creature; this is a general estimate, not an actual mathematical fact, but it's close enough for government work; most options that increase accuracy are fairly optimal choices, while those that decrease accuracy are unoptimal, even in the current system. My problem with this rule is that, because your high accuracy means lots of attacks and low accuracy means few attacks, it punishes those that don't optimize martial characters (those who take TWF, or flurry of blows, or Power Attack for the higher risk/reward) and rewards those that take good options (like Knowledge Devotion, or the Master Thrower's touch AC targeting, which are generally more dependable options); the gap between optimized and unoptimized martial characters is wide enough even without this rule...and that says nothing of the casters: casters aren't affected by this rule at all, since it's not how they fight, while martials are, at best, given a slight boost to the thing they could already break (DPR), or at worst, completely gimped at the one thing they used to be good at.

From a purely mechanical point of view, the selling point of the martial classes is that, while what they do isn't usually that impressive compared to what a mage can do, the martial class can do those things all day, and reliably, while mages have limited reserves to draw on; this rule, mechanically speaking, turns the reliability of the martial classes, the one thing they really had going for them, and turns it into a literal lottery. From turn to turn, there's no way of knowing how many attacks you're going to get, and losing out due to a bit of bad luck, or because your build wasn't optimal enough to only miss on a nat 1, is incredibly frustrating, and can make the player feel even more useless than the martial classes already make players feel while playing them...which is a true accomplishment, to be sure, but not one that should be celebrated.

If a person wished to use a houserule like this in a game, I would suggest altering it: rather than replacing a full attack, it would be in addition to the full attack...but the "extra attack" would not trigger from any attack, but only from confirmed criticals (or, if we're worried about crit-fisher builds, only on a confirmed crit from a natural 20); this would allow for theoretically infinite attacks, but would reduce the likelihood of getting that broken...plus, it would keep the higher risk/reward options viable. The houserule, as currently presented, is overpowered when applied to optimized martials and incredibly underpowered when applied to unoptimized martials, and this is an issue. Martials need nice things, and this houserule tries to give them one...but because of how it would work with the current system, the only people that actually benefit from it are the people who need the least help, and the only ones that can't even potentially be nerfed by it are the ones that need to be nerfed (casters).

I hope I've made my position on this houserule a bit more clear.

EDIT: You ask how it's unbalanced, and mention that there's no one true answer, and that's really the problem: there are multiple ways in which this can prove overpowered or underpowered compared to the existing system, virtually no ways of it being a mechanical upgrade to those who need it, and the mechanic turns the entire base of the combat system on its head. Your question of how exactly this is unbalanced is like playing half a game of Jenga, when an earthquake happens halfway through, and then trying to determine which player is considered responsible for the tower falling.

[Necroticplague]

The way I see it, this isn't that big a deal. At low levels, you miss frequently enough that you won't notice. At higher levels, you kill everything within your reach anyway. So this doesn't change much.

[Tjallen]

Suddenly that wand of wraith strike went from 'pretty nice' to 'And now I hit all the things'. And if it applies to monsters too you might end up with a very bad case of deadness, which to me at least sounds like 'fun'.

[AzraelX]

strawman
No. It began by stating it was "a parallel example". No one tried to represent it as literally being your argument. The correct term is "analogy".


insult
Being insulted by people disagreeing with you, especially when you're objectively wrong, is a personal problem.


There are multiple ways in which this can prove overpowered or underpowered compared to the existing system, virtually no ways of it being a mechanical upgrade to those who need it, and the mechanic turns the entire base of the combat system on its head. Your question of how exactly this is unbalanced is like playing half a game of Jenga, when an earthquake happens halfway through, and then trying to determine which player is considered responsible for the tower falling.
Appropriate explanation.

However, be aware that the OP stated in their previous thread that (1) they think game balance is purely a matter of opinion, and (2) opinions that disagree with them are irrelevant. Ergo, the OP has no intention of considering dissenting viewpoints, except for considering how to make passive-aggressive comments about them later like those seen in the quotes above.

[Sacrieur]

First, Avalanche of Blades 7th level maneuver and it has a cumulative -4 penalty on each attack you make. There are a number of differences between this and a house rule, and illustrates just how ridiculous the rule is. The maneuver will begin to give you a penalty on your attack roll — so unless you're an equally game breaking character like pun-pun...

They're not all that similar, because you can only use it once before recovery, have to have it prepared, and it gives cumulative penalties. It's also only available at high level games. It serves little purpose to illustrate how a house rule which copies it but removes every restriction can be balanced.



Honestly I'd rather you didn't have in your signature a strawman argument that was constructed primarily to insult me, but its your signature and the world doesn't revolve around me.

This is rude, unnecessary, and petty. Why are you still going out of your way to insult forum members, and perpetuating pointless conflict? It ended weeks ago. Let it go.

[Droopy McCool]

Honestly I'd rather you didn't have in your signature a strawman argument that was constructed primarily to insult me, but its your signature and the world doesn't revolve around me.

I just wanted to say I meant no harm to you, Boci, by adding this to my signature. I just found it to be an extremely funny statement, regardless of context (or who it was "targeting").

As for how it's unbalanced, I've already said why:


Maybe this isn't, in fact, "broken", so much as unbalanced. You said so yourself that this would be unfair to TWF guys. Yes, you could fix that, but then there's always gonna be something else that needs to be fixed due to unfairness.

The problem, then, is stemming from trying to alter something that worked well in the first place. You (in general) can argue that the BAB and Full Attack system was not a good mechanic to begin with, but I don't see anyone suffering from it being too restrictive. If this is the case, however, now it really just becomes a matter of opinion with regard to whether you want to use normal Full Attacks or the "Avalanche of Blades" houserule.

McCool

[Boci]

Being insulted by people disagreeing with you, especially when you're objectively wrong, is a personal problem.


Appropriate explanation.

How do you go from "objectively wrong" to agreeing with "there are multiple ways in which this can prove overpowered or underpowered compared to the existing system" in the same post?



the OP stated in their previous thread that...opinions that disagree with them are irrelevant

Not quite. When we are discussing the game system as a whole, you're opinion is worth just as much as mine. When its "I want to try this houserule in my group" vs. "You shouldn't its a bad idea", my opinion is ultimately worth more, by virtue of me actually playing in the group.

Everyone's opinion here on this houserule is equal, because its purely theoretical, but as soon I want to try this houserule in an actual game and see how it goes, the parameters of the discussion change. You're still free to share your opinion on the effects of such a houserule and say why I should use it, but you need to accept I could still opt to try it out anyway.


EDIT: You ask how it's unbalanced, and mention that there's no one true answer, and that's really the problem: there are multiple ways in which this can prove overpowered or underpowered compared to the existing system, virtually no ways of it being a mechanical upgrade to those who need it, and the mechanic turns the entire base of the combat system on its head. Your question of how exactly this is unbalanced is like playing half a game of Jenga, when an earthquake happens halfway through, and then trying to determine which player is considered responsible for the tower falling.

I'd say there's a bit more point in discussing houserules and balance than than the earthquake. You just gave a multi-paragraph analysis of this houserule, which I doubt you could do to the same effect on the earthquake blame.

There are also some topics we haven't touched on yet, such how some groups use fluff to balance mechanics, whilst others don't. Similarly, what could be a terrible houserule for the game as a whole can be an awesome houserule for a group.