Iterative Attacks

[Nomrom]

Reading through the 4th edition wish list thread, I saw that some people wanted 4e to dump iterative attacks. I don't really understand this. I know that its really hard to hit with your other attacks, but if you don't at least have that chance, it seems to me that fighter-types would lose any chance they have of being effective. Can someone please explain this to me and show me what I'm missing.

[Starsinger]

In Saga edition, instead of having iteritive attacks, you get a bonus on damage equal to half your level. So instead of having 3 attacks that won't hit, a Fighter 20 instead deals 10 extra damage on his one attack.

[Mike_G]

I'd like to see a damage or AC bonus from high BAB. It would be something actually useful.

Iterative attacks just slow down combat with more rolls that don't hit anyway.

[Matthew]

In previous editions only Warriors got additional Attacks at high levels and without penalties. Cutting out the pointless Dice Rolling is high on my list of ways to streamline 3e.

[jamroar]

Reading through the $th edition wish list thread, I saw that some people wanted 4e to dump iterative attacks. I don't really understand this. I know that its really hard to hit with your other attacks, but if you don't at least have that chance, it seems to me that fighter-types would lose any chance they have of being effective. Can someone please explain this to me and show me what I'm missing.

Presumably iterative attacks can be moved off to specific maneuvers you can perform with certain weapons, not by default for all classes. For example, pulling off a flurry of quick attacks on a single opponent could be done with a dagger or rapier, but not available to someone using a Maul or ridiculously oversized Fullblade. Or Whirlwind attack/Cleave available to only those using swinging weapons.

[PinkysBrain]

In Saga edition, instead of having iteritive attacks, you get a bonus on damage equal to half your level. So instead of having 3 attacks that won't hit, a Fighter 20 instead deals 10 extra damage on his one attack.
That's way too low for D&D though.

Casters are still going to be doing 1d6 per caster level, some things just can't change, and with that bonus you can't keep pace .... power attack bonus damage would have to be increased further too of course (for a good melee character the second attack will generally have better than even odds of hitting and even the third should be close to even).

[MrNexx]

Reading through the $th edition wish list thread, I saw that some people wanted 4e to dump iterative attacks. I don't really understand this. I know that its really hard to hit with your other attacks, but if you don't at least have that chance, it seems to me that fighter-types would lose any chance they have of being effective. Can someone please explain this to me and show me what I'm missing.

Iterative attacks severely limit warriors' combat options. If you're good enough to hit with a few attacks, you're going to lose a lot of your damage potential if you don't take full-round action iterative attacks, instead of something clever, but not your 5 attacks per round.

[TheOOB]

That's way too low for D&D though.

Casters are still going to be doing 1d6 per caster level, some things just can't change, and with that bonus you can't keep pace .... power attack bonus damage would have to be increased further too of course (for a good melee character the second attack will generally have better than even odds of hitting and even the third should be close to even).

It's too early to make any assumptions about D&D.

One of the biggest I have with Iterative attacks in 3.x is that essentially, starting at level 6, you lose all mobility if you want to use the full attack action. A warrior cannot do enough damage with one attack, yet they cant move and make all their attacks. It's kinda silly.

[Zincorium]

Here's the deal with the saga system:

Additional attacks are easily available, via feats. TWF not only stacks with the multiple attack feats, they multiply. And you get that bonus damage on all of them.

The fighter is actually a lot better off under the saga way of doing things than a barbarian or paladin because they can get the bonus-attack feats faster and still get all their other feats.

Are they as good as wizards? No, but that's not the case now, and hopefully 4th won't end up being as obviously unbalanced as 3.X in that particular category. If it is, well, there are plenty of houserules for that sort of thing on the boards that we can probably still use.

[Mike_G]

We actually use a houserule where you can give up extra attacks for an extra 1d6 damage each.

It's not much, but it does give you a bit more damage on your first attack, which is generally a better option than just rolling a few misses each round.

[Ramza00]

How would it be balance wise that if you beat the Ac by a certain amount, you multiply the entire damage (including roll) by 100%

for example if you beat the AC by +6 you get 100% damage (must have +6 bab)
If you beat the AC by +12 you get 200% damage (must have +11 bab)
If you beat the AC by +18 you get 300% damage (must have +16 bab)

etc

the +6, +12, and +18 don't really matter they can be another number. In effect what I am trying to do is devlop a system where you are saying if you beat the AC so high that in theory you hit them multiple times. you just roll once to represent the entire full attack and not the individual attacks. Something similar can be done for twfing.

(Just limiting rolls and condensing them would speed up full attacks along)

[Skjaldbakka]

I believe the issue is not "Oh man, I have to roll out three attacks", but "Oh man, I have to stand here and not move to get my 2nd and 3rd attack".

A quick fix for that would be to allow a move action as part of a full attack, while taking a -5 penalty to your attacks for the round. A better fix, if you like fighting with more flair, is to use ToB (which gives useful things to do with a standard action as a fightery-type).

If you don't like ToB classes, you could always just allow the manuever feats, as a way for the fighter to pick up three manuevers and a stance eventually. Its not like the fighter needs all his feats.


EDIT-

In effect what I am trying to do is devlop a system where you are saying if you beat the AC so high that in theory you hit them multiple times.

Talislanta has a similar mechanic, which could be adapted to D&D. THe way it worked was you made an attack roll, and subtracted your opponent's defense roll. If the result was 10 or higher, you hit. If the result was in your threat range, you crit. (if the result was in your target's crit range, you fumble; i.e. His roll beat yours by 20 (or by less with the right feat selection).

[MrNexx]

Actually, a quickie "extra damage" system I like is that, for every point you beat their AC by, you do an additional point of damage. This ignores critical resistance... you've hit them well and hard, slicing through their defenses.

If they have an AC 10 and you hit and AC 20, you do 10 extra damage. Weapon Focus potentially adds +1 to damage.

[Matthew]

Yeah, that system is not a bad one. Last version I saw was published in KoDT, though I don't recall the issue number. Overall, I think I prefer the BAB = +1 AB, +1 DB idea at the moment, with Full BAB Classes getting an additional Full BAB Attack at Level 11.

[Golthur]

Actually, a quickie "extra damage" system I like is that, for every point you beat their AC by, you do an additional point of damage. This ignores critical resistance... you've hit them well and hard, slicing through their defenses.

If they have an AC 10 and you hit and AC 20, you do 10 extra damage. Weapon Focus potentially adds +1 to damage.

Yeah, I like this one too. It's very yoinkable. :smile:

[Dausuul]

I think there are three reasons. First, as many have said, fighter mobility drops to almost nothing at higher levels if you have to stand still to make a full attack. Second, keeping track of several different attacks at several different attack bonuses is a major pain. Third, it slows combat way down when everyone is making seventeen attacks.

Statistically, attacking once with a 75% chance to hit, once with a 50% chance to hit, and once with a 25% chance to hit is pretty much the same as attacking once with a 75% chance to hit and double damage. Presumably 4E is aiming for the latter.

[MrNexx]

Ok, so how's this for a change in rules? A full attack is now a standard action.

[horseboy]

Ok, so how's this for a change in rules? A full attack is now a standard action.

The way I'm reading it, there would be no "full attack" action.

[MrNexx]

The way I'm reading it, there would be no "full attack" action.

Pretty much. If you get iterative attacks, you get them whenever you make an attack. I would rule, however, that you still couldn't make them on a charge (though you could use both weapons if TWF).

[Charity]

House ruling 4e already MrNexx?

[Ikkitosen]

In a similar vein to this, I'd like to see a caster's highest level spells take a round or a full round to cast, then the next one or two levels take less time down to a standard action for those they've long mastered. Hamper the mobility of those casters like happened to fighters. Then make fighters able to move whilst "full attacking" and that'll be a turnaround I can get on board with.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

In a similar vein to this, I'd like to see a caster's highest level spells take a round or a full round to cast, then the next one or two levels take less time down to a standard action for those they've long mastered. Hamper the mobility of those casters like happened to fighters. Then make fighters able to move whilst "full attacking" and that'll be a turnaround I can get on board with.

The highest level spells casters will be able to cast is 25th level spells in 4th edition.

[Ikkitosen]

The highest level spells casters will be able to cast is 25th level spells in 4th edition.

I require the addition of some kind of emoticon to know whether you're serious or not please.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I require the addition of some kind of emoticon to know whether you're serious or not please.

Maybe this one :smallamused: will be enough indication that I am in fact serious.

(Assuming Rodney Thompson was not lying, in which case I would still be serious, but incorrect.)

[Charity]

Pop this on an eyestalk could you Silvanos?
http://cagreetings.com/images/moodring.jpg

*gratuitous Vegas reference*

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Pop this on an eyestalk could you Silvanos?
http://cagreetings.com/images/moodring.jpg

*gratuitous Vegas reference*

Sure, but what if my metabolism will make the it the wrong colour? :smallamused:

[Charity]

Just needs calibrating.....


Oo yeah http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/Topic_(chocolate_bar).jpg/180px-Topic_(chocolate_bar).jpg

Iterative attacks are a pain in th pinny, Damage bonus sounds like a winner.

[Matthew]

I reckon this 25 Spell Levels is a bunch of nonesense. It sounds suspiciously like:

1/2 Character Level + 5 (Trained) + 5 (Focused)

Which is an extrapolation of the Saga Skill thing over thirty levels. Surely, it would make more sense to have thirty Spell levels if you have thirty Character Levels? Anyway, I heard it would be 27.

[Dausuul]

Ok, so how's this for a change in rules? A full attack is now a standard action.

That addresses the fighter mobility problem, but not the issues of tracking several different attack bonuses or slowing down combat.


In a similar vein to this, I'd like to see a caster's highest level spells take a round or a full round to cast, then the next one or two levels take less time down to a standard action for those they've long mastered. Hamper the mobility of those casters like happened to fighters. Then make fighters able to move whilst "full attacking" and that'll be a turnaround I can get on board with.

Mobility isn't nearly as important to casters as it is to melee fighters. The melee fighter suffers from the lack of mobility because of the need to get up close to the monster in order to damage it. Casters can unleash a barrage of death from anywhere on the battlefield. It's the same reason archers are so much more effective than melee-ers at high levels.

[Charity]

buh?


Where are you finding all this stuff?

[Skjaldbakka]

I believe they are making extrapolations under the assumption that 4E will have many similarities to the new Star Wars system.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Based on the material WotC has shown us in future fighters may be getting MORE attacks per round, not fewer. At least with swords. From what we have been told there will be few similarites with Saga, a system I have seen more flames and rants about than 3.5

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I reckon this 25 Spell Levels is a bunch of nonesense. It sounds suspiciously like:

1/2 Character Level + 5 (Trained) + 5 (Focused)

Which is an extrapolation of the Saga Skill thing over thirty levels. Surely, it would make more sense to have thirty Spell levels if you have thirty Character Levels? Anyway, I heard it would be 27.

I am not familiar with the Saga rules, so I have no idea how it is going to work. But since 4th Edition features mechanics not unlike that of Saga and ToB you could be right on the money.

As I said, my source is associate designer Rodney Thompson.

Where did you hear 27?

[Tormsskull]

Silvanos is a freaking Beholder, he's using one of his magic eye-ray-beams to discern the information from one of the game designer's heads.


OT: Yeah, I like the idea of doing away with full-attacks for the melee types. If you want to condense the rolls, you could just make 1 roll and factor everything off of that.

For example, Target has a 20 AC, your fighter adds +20/+15/+10/+5. You roll a 9. So you got 29/24/19/14 total. The first 2 attacks beat the target's AC, so you hit twice. Roll for damage and then double it (cause you hit twice, would have to roll separately for different weapons).

This would speed things up, but would have the side effect of making critical hits truly CRITICAL.

[Matthew]

Where did you hear 27?

Somewhere on the Wizards Forum, I think. I wrote it off as nonesense at the time and have dug around a bit, but cannot find the post in question; it could have just been a typing error anyway. If it is a result of the Saga Skill System, then it means Wizards have access to 10 Levels of Spells at Level 1, which suggests an interesting distribution.

Tormsskull: If they are following the Saga model, Critical Hits will revert back to something like the Core 2e Optional Rule (i.e. Natural 20 = Critical Hit). I think this is highly likely, as weapons appear to be now differentiated by what can be done with them, rather than by Damage and Critical Range.

[Person_Man]

I'm looking forward to cleaned up melee rules. Preferably:


One attack with scaled damage instead of multiple attacks per round.
Crit only on a natural 20, with no Keen or Improved Critical options.
Weapons with real differences.

Now here's an interesting question - does anyone know if they're keeping Attacks of Opportunity? On one hand, AoO slow down the game (OK, I want to Grapple: Step 1...) On the other hand, they're the only thing that makes formation and battlefield control meaningful - without it, a monster can just walk past a Fighter and eat the Wizard. And if they use scaled damage instead of multiple attacks, an AoO build could potentially deal insane damage.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Is my group the only one that rolls itterative attacks all at once?

IE

Fighter: I full attack the dragon. Green is +27, blue is +22, Red is +17 and white is +12.
Me: OK.
Fighter: 42, 31, 19 and 22.
Me: Two hits, roll damage together as you are bypassing DR.

I hope they keep AoOs, and preferably make them harder to avoid.

[Matthew]

Is my group the only one that rolls itterative attacks all at once?

IE

Fighter: I full attack the dragon. Green is +27, blue is +22, Red is +17 and white is +12.
Me: OK.
Fighter: 42, 31, 19 and 22.
Me: Two hits, roll damage together as you are bypassing DR.

I hope they keep AoOs, and preferably make them harder to avoid.

Doubtful, but you're missing a tactical trick, as you don't have to commit to a Full Attack Action until after your first attack. Also, if you have multiple opponents or the Cleave Feat this might be a disadvantagous method.

[Dausuul]

Confirmation of wizards casting 25th-level spells here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906384).

[leperkhaun]

they way i look at it is that in general the 3rd and 4th attack are just so my warrior MIGHT vorpal something. Flesh ring of scorn wins.

[Person_Man]

Is my group the only one that rolls itterative attacks all at once?

IE

Fighter: I full attack the dragon. Green is +27, blue is +22, Red is +17 and white is +12.
Me: OK.
Fighter: 42, 31, 19 and 22.
Me: Two hits, roll damage together as you are bypassing DR.

I hope they keep AoOs, and preferably make them harder to avoid.

Damage reduction is applied separately each time you take damage. So your example is incorrect.

In addition to the correct advice that Matthew gives, you're also screwing yourself if you currently threaten (or could potential threaten with a 5 ft. step) multiple enemies. By rolling each attack die separately, you don't waste damage on an enemy after you've killed them.

So while it saves time to roll all of your attack dice at once, no one I know does it, because it could have a huge effect on the outcome of combat.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Ok, in the above example we are dealing with the instance of a fighter in melee range of a single large foe who DR is not an issue. In other situations (such as a group of foes) a brief description of what you want to do before you roll is generaly not a major problem. IE "I attack each orc untill they fall and then move on" or "I attack the ogre with the first attack and then direct the other two at goblins."

[Roderick_BR]

Maybe just giving a 2nd attack to high BAB at no penalties as in AD&D?
I don't know how TWF could work, though.

[Larrin]

Off Topic: 25th-level spells sounds more like a promise of epic spell levels meaning something than a statement that implies that our wizards will have to wade through ~2.5 times the spell levels on their way to the top of non-epic leveling. I will be very surprised if 25th level spells (or even 12th level spells) are going to be overly common/practical even compared to 3.5 9th level spells.

On topic: Iterative attacks, i've played games that don't have it, and you have to scale either damage up or hp down to make it NOT take a long time. I went into it blindly, making no changes, and combat took many more rounds, then i was used to, and since it was a on-line post-by-post game, it took even longer than usual. In a real-time game, i can see it saving some time, but warriors had better get some compensation for losing extra attacks or they'll feel pretty silly when they just swing their sword once a turn....So i guess i'm eager to see what compensation they WILL get if iterative attacks are out.

Question: What about Monsters/natural attacks? Will the dragon still get to make its 5+ attacks (since techinically they aren't iterative, just multiple natural attacks)?

[Matthew]

It wouldn't affect Monster Attacks, no. Chances are, from what the Articles indicate, it will be possible to make multiple Attacks at level 1 with the right Weapons and Abilities. I'm guessing it will be like Saga and the 'Double Attack' thing [-5 AB to both Attacks].