Thoughts on iterative attacks?

[tedcahill2]

Does having multiple attacks provide a benefit against hard to hit enemies? Or is it mainly to more easily deal with low AC swarms?

When you're level 16+ and you have four attacks, but each iterative attack imposes a cumulative -5 penalty, your first attack might be an easy hit, second will hit with some luck, but the monsters you're fighting probably aren't being hit by your 3rd and 4th attacks. So are they useless in this instance?

I had a thought about treating iterative attack more like how two weapon fighting works, in that you can sort of choose the number of attacks you'd like to make in a round to maximize the likely hood that you'll actually hit. I would probably make this option part of a standard attack action so that fighter types can actually move and attack. So basically, one attack, no penalty. Two attacks, -2 to both attacks. Three attacks, -4 to all attacks. Four attacks, -8 to all attacks.

A level 20 fighter would normally have four attacks at +20/+15/+10/+5. Under this variant they could choose to make one attack at +20, two at +18 each, three at +16 each, or 4 at +12 each. This would be a standard action, instead of a full attack, and would require the normal base attack thresholds that iterative attacks are normally gained (so they can't make 2 attacks at -2 until they're at least level 6).

[zlefin]

not that I have much play experience; but it's mostly relevant against swarms, or if you've optimized your to-hit enough that you can hit with them anyways. also can apply if you're aiming at touch AC, as iwth some combat maneuvers.
against tougher targets the 3rd and 4th hits are just fishing for 20's.

I'd also guess the designers put it in to try to normalize some of the damage scaling, not that it really does that.

The proposed change sounds like a fine change in principle, the numbers might need some tweaking in practice.

[HouseRules]

You're trying to create a Melee version of Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#manyshot)

+20
+18/+18 Rapid Shot or Manyshot (2 hits)
+16/+16/+16 Manyshot (3 hits)
+14/+14/+14/+14 Manyshot (4 hits)

In Manyshot, the penalty is -2 per additional hit.

[CharonsHelper]

I'd also guess the designers put it in to try to normalize some of the damage scaling, not that it really does that.


I think it was to make AC & To-Hit bonuses matter over a broader swath at mid-high levels.

You have a halfway decent AC at high levels - but still low enough to usually be hit by their first swing? Good news! They may miss their 2nd & 3rd swings!

You jacked up your accuracy so that you always hit, but now it seems like overkill against foes who have crappy AC? Good news! All your iterative attacks will likely hit!

[Coventry]

So, let's run the math, comparing a base die roll of 1-20, against the armor class ranges that matter: AC 7 or lower (which even that +5 iterative hits on a roll of 2) to AC 40 (which requires a natural 20 to hit even on the +20 iterative) ...


Two attacks, -2 to both attacks.

This is never worth it against any armor class. Against AC 38, it will land a hit about 1/3 as often as the full iterative attack cycle (5% + 5% versus 15% + 5% + 5% +5%). Against ACs in the range of 30-35, the difference will barely be noticeable, but it will still hit less often than the full iterative).


-4 to all attacks.

This is actually better than the full iterative attack cycle against ACs in the range of 24 to 31. It's the same against AC 32 (45%+20%+5%+5% versus 25%+25%+25%) and AC 23, but is otherwise strictly inferior to a full iterative attack cycle.


Four attacks, -8 to all attacks.

This is better than the full iterative against ACs in the range of 8 through 19, tied against the full iterative against AC20 and against AC40, but is otherwise weaker against AC21 through AC39 (the worst is against AC 32, where the iterative attacks are 45% + 25% + 5% + 5% as above, compared to 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% for needing to roll a natural 20 to hit with only a +12.

Taken together, the standard iterative is better at ACs in the range of 21-22 and 33-39, equal to one of the alternates at ACs 7, 20, 23, 32 and 40, and weaker against ACs in the ranges of 8-19 and 24-31.


This would be a standard action, instead of a full attack

Red Flag on the play! This gives every fighter pounce for free. That robs everyone else that had to pay the feat/class taxes to get that ability on their own.

[Silva Stormrage]

Red Flag on the play! This gives every fighter pounce for free. That robs everyone else that had to pay the feat/class taxes to get that ability on their own.

Not quite as pounce lets you charge while move + "Standard action full attack" doesn't let you trigger some abilities that only work on charge.

For the VAST majority of circumstances you are correct but... is that really a problem? Pounce is only a 1 level dip and it's almost necessary for melee to have it. I don't really see a problem with giving melee free movement options.

[tedcahill2]

Red Flag on the play! This gives every fighter pounce for free. That robs everyone else that had to pay the feat/class taxes to get that ability on their own. I was just using a fighter as an example. I didn't intend this as a fighter only ability. This would be a change to the way iterative attacks work across the board for all classes.

[Coventry]

I was just using a fighter as an example. I didn't intend this as a fighter only ability. This would be a change to the way iterative attacks work across the board for all classes.

Just recognize that the almost-pounce is the real source of extra combat ability - the dice roll changes have minimal impact in comparison.


but... is that really a problem?

Maybe not. If melee needs to be improved, then adding pounce or almost-pounce to everyone is definitely a quick and easy way to achieve that goal.

[Eldariel]

Maybe not. If melee needs to be improved, then adding pounce or almost-pounce to everyone is definitely a quick and easy way to achieve that goal.

Eh, it mostly removes the volatility of "nearly useless without full attack, but actually quite potent with full attack". Obviously everyone just finds ways to make full attacks, but it's kinda stupid the system forces you to jump through hoops to achieve that when it should be the baseline. If one wished to keep a penalty for moving and attacking, it should be more consistent across levels (right now it doesn't exist for levels 1-5 and it's huge particularly for TWFers higher up) and it shouldn't be so massive as to remove up to 80% of your damage.

[Firechanter]

I think the main reason that not everyone has (should have) Pounce by default is due to 3E's PC/NPC transparency. You would NOT want every single opponent to be able to pounce you! Especially not with those ubercharger-rates of exponential damage.

As for iteratives, I do feel that humanoids get shortchanged because they suffer cumulative -5s on every iterative, whereas monsters generally only suffer -5 once on all secondary attacks, and some are even better than that. I think that Legend's homologation is a decent compromise here, where for instance at level 20 you'll have +20/+15/+15/+15.

I've only placed Pathfinder actively in the last couple of years, it uses the same iterative rules as 3.5, makes Pounce (or any form of Move+Full Attack) a lot more difficult to get, but is a lot more generous with attack bonuses than 3.5. Here your second attack still has a very good hit chance and only the third drops into regions where you _may_ have to be lucky. I don't quite remember my last 3.5 char's stats but pretty sure it was less than that. Generally my preferred approach is to get more extra attacks at full bonus rather than relying on iteratives.

[HouseRules]

Split your attacks based upon the target's HD. If your BAB = X, then it could split into a sum of x_1, x_2, ..., and to attack a monster with Y HD, you need to use a +Y attack. The question is what is the balance?

Two Weapon Fighting as a balance point.
main hand / off hand : notes
-4 / -8 Improvise
-4 / -4 Ambidextrous (3.0)
-2 / -2 Two-Weapon Fighting (3.0)

If we use improvised two-weapon fighting (no feat), then +20 splits into +16/+12 or +14/+14 for balanced.

Remember that a feat removes -4 penalty to hit (proficiency, ambidextrous, two-weapon fighting, etc.) or gives +1 bonus to hit (weapon focus, greater weapon focus).

3.5 merged two-weapon fighting and ambidextrous making it the only feat that removes -8 penalty to hit.

Therefore, it is better to assume that Ambidextrous is free and start from there.

If we use improvised two-weapon fighting (assume Ambidextrous is free), then +20 splits into +16/+16, and a feat should bring this to +18/+18.

Splitting
+20
+16/+16
+16/+12/+12
+12/+12/+12/+12
+12/+12/+12/+8/+8
+12/+12/+8/+8/+8/+8
+12/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/
+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8

A strike could split into -4/-4 without a feat, or -2/-2 with a feat.

[Biggus]

As for iteratives, I do feel that humanoids get shortchanged because they suffer cumulative -5s on every iterative, whereas monsters generally only suffer -5 once on all secondary attacks, and some are even better than that. I think that Legend's homologation is a decent compromise here, where for instance at level 20 you'll have +20/+15/+15/+15.


Is Legend's homologation the name for the "all iteratives at -5" variant? I've been playing with that houserule for a little while now, but I didn't know it had a name...

[Psyren]

Does having multiple attacks provide a benefit against hard to hit enemies? Or is it mainly to more easily deal with low AC swarms?

When you're level 16+ and you have four attacks, but each iterative attack imposes a cumulative -5 penalty, your first attack might be an easy hit, second will hit with some luck, but the monsters you're fighting probably aren't being hit by your 3rd and 4th attacks. So are they useless in this instance?

In a game with as much potential for bonus stacking as 3.5 and PF have, it's actually possible to optimize iteratives such that even a -10 or -15 on a level-appropriate foe has a reasonable chance to hit. Furthermore, there are other types of enemy besides big level-appropriate bruiser and swarm of weaklings - there's also low-AC enemies like casters and rogue types, once you've countered their other defenses like buffs and stealth for example.



I had a thought about treating iterative attack more like how two weapon fighting works, in that you can sort of choose the number of attacks you'd like to make in a round to maximize the likely hood that you'll actually hit. I would probably make this option part of a standard attack action so that fighter types can actually move and attack. So basically, one attack, no penalty. Two attacks, -2 to both attacks. Three attacks, -4 to all attacks. Four attacks, -8 to all attacks.

It might interest you that this is basically the approach Starfinder took - albeit they limit most classes to just two attacks, while Soldier, Solarion and Operative have limited ways to get 3 or 4.

[StSword]

Alternate Paths Martial Characters 2 for Pathfinder had some optional rules for those who find that their iterative attacks less than useful, the option to sacrifice an iterative attack to gain another bonus.

Like being able to ignore some DR or hardness, gain a bonus to hit, or sacrificing two iterative attacks to gain the bonuses of fighting defensively (but not the to hit penalty on their iterative attacks).

So a character who finds they can't hit with their third iterative attack could sacrifice it for a +1 to hit on their two remaining attacks (plus however many extra attacks their build affords them through haste or two weapon fighting, etc).

Although I've never used it myself to see how it plays out.

[King of Nowhere]

getting to +40 to hit isn't hard at high level (without buffs), so even the last attack is at +25. The highest AC I remember on a non-epic monster is 42, you still have a chance to hit that. consider that most foes will not have AC 42 and you can get significantly higher than +40.
Even when you deal with humanoids with lots of protective items (as I am doing in my campaign, it's a high wealth world and so high level npcs can have half a million to sink in protective items) it's hard to get over 45-50 without considerable cheese.

so, if you let your fighters make four attacks at +12, they will almost always do it.

[tedcahill2]

getting to +40 to hit isn't hard at high level (without buffs), so even the last attack is at +25. The highest AC I remember on a non-epic monster is 42, you still have a chance to hit that. consider that most foes will not have AC 42 and you can get significantly higher than +40.
Even when you deal with humanoids with lots of protective items (as I am doing in my campaign, it's a high wealth world and so high level npcs can have half a million to sink in protective items) it's hard to get over 45-50 without considerable cheese.

so, if you let your fighters make four attacks at +12, they will almost always do it.

This may be true in an optimized game, but I have never seen a character in a game I ran or played in with +40 to hit. Games I'm in never have the access to wealth or unfettered access to any item they want that it would require to get attack and AC that high.

[Psyren]

This may be true in an optimized game, but I have never seen a character in a game I ran or played in with +40 to hit. Games I'm in never have the access to wealth or unfettered access to any item they want that it would require to get attack and AC that high.

+40 to hit isn't that unheard of. Basic optimization would put a fighter 20 at +37 after all:

18 starting Strength
+5 from levels = 23 Str
+5 from Manuals/Wish = 28 Str
+6 from belt = 34 Str

That's +12 to hit just from Strength; then add +5 from their weapon and +20 from BAB; the other three comes from miscellaneous things like Weapon Focus or an ioun stone. The last iterative being at +25 is therefore not unheard of either. And a Barbarian's basic numbers come in even higher.

Coming in much lower than that would require denying them their expected WBL, which is certainly a thing you could do but causes martial classes to drastically underperform as a result.

[Zancloufer]

+40 to hit isn't that unheard of. Basic optimization would put a fighter 20 at +37 after all:

18 starting Strength
+5 from levels = 23 Str
+5 from Manuals/Wish = 28 Str
+6 from belt = 34 Str

That's +12 to hit just from Strength; then add +5 from their weapon and +20 from BAB; the other three comes from miscellaneous things like Weapon Focus or an ioun stone. The last iterative being at +25 is therefore not unheard of either. And a Barbarian's basic numbers come in even higher.

Coming in much lower than that would require denying them their expected WBL, which is certainly a thing you could do but causes martial classes to drastically underperform as a result.

Not to mention buffs. Getting +4 to +8 from competence or sacred buffs isn't too hard. If your fighter is really paranoid/prepared you can get Bane weapons for even more bonuses to hit easily breaking +50 alone here. I had a decently optimized char idea that I'll probably never get to play that had about +60 to hit at level 20 after a few buffs.

On the basic premise of the thread: Instead of -5 for each extra attack as a full round taking -2 on all attacks for each extra attack added (so +16/+16/+16/+16 at level 20) as a standard action sounds fine. Just keep it that you need pounce or something similar for charging and making multiple attacks and it should be fine.

[tedcahill2]

+40 to hit isn't that unheard of. Basic optimization would put a fighter 20 at +37 after all:

18 starting Strength
+5 from levels = 23 Str
+5 from Manuals/Wish = 28 Str
+6 from belt = 34 Str

That's +12 to hit just from Strength; then add +5 from their weapon and +20 from BAB; the other three comes from miscellaneous things like Weapon Focus or an ioun stone. The last iterative being at +25 is therefore not unheard of either. And a Barbarian's basic numbers come in even higher.

Coming in much lower than that would require denying them their expected WBL, which is certainly a thing you could do but causes martial classes to drastically underperform as a result.

You're still describing a higher level of optimization than a typical game has. Now mind you I'm not talking about what can be achieved using a level 20 starting character with level 20 starting wealth and free reign on magic items. But a character that starts at level 1 and grows organically to level 20 is in almost no situation going to find 5 manuals of strength to use on themselves. I can see getting to +35 easily enough though, so I see you're point regardless.

[King of Nowhere]

You're still describing a higher level of optimization than a typical game has. Now mind you I'm not talking about what can be achieved using a level 20 starting character with level 20 starting wealth and free reign on magic items. But a character that starts at level 1 and grows organically to level 20 is in almost no situation going to find 5 manuals of strength to use on themselves. I can see getting to +35 easily enough though, so I see you're point regardless.

we have different concepts of what optimization entails.

I think my treshold is pretty low, because half my group still has troubles calculating their bonuses to stuff after several years.
however, getting flat bonuses is not high optimization. it is not hard, it does not require competence. it does not require getting three obscure prestige classes or making two unrelated abilities to interact in weird way. this item gives you a +1 to attack roll, you buy it, end of the story. you don't need to plan anything in advance about the build. a single-class fighter is fine.
it's not even that expensive; a +5 weapon is 50k gp, a belt of giant strenght is 36k. So with less than 90k you can already be past +35. you are supposed to have over 700k at level 20.

and those are just simple items that everyone should have heard of. Enhancement to strenght, enhancement to weapon. If you rifle through obscure sourcebooks, you can find so many more boosts to pile up. Sacred, profane, insight, competence, morale, luck, there are items that will pile up those bonuses.

let us not forget class benefits. A fighter can get a +4 from (greater) weapon focus and weapon mastery. A barbarian can get +4 from his str bonus when raging. A barbarian can still get a +1 from weapon focus, a fighter can dip for one level of barbarian to get rage for an additional +2. both can take levels in varius prestige classes that grant "frenzy", which is basically rage but can be used together with regular rage with stacking benefits, for another +3.

And then there is teamplay. most times you'll manage to fflank your opponent, for another +2. If you have improved trip you can trip your opponent, this gives you a +4. invisibility does not work against everyone, but when it works it's another large bonus.

Then you can start with combos. One of my players took levels in scarred berserker, a prestige class that lets you cast a few spells. it progresses to 5th level spells. he then took quicken spell to cast quickened true strike for a +20 to hit, reaching over +70. This lets him power attack hugely to deal 100+ damage on a single strike on a charge. And that's still fairly low compared to what could be achieved; I am trying to keep a relatively low power level, but I must at least let martials compete with casters.

And now we are in the realm of optimization. If you are really trying, you can get to +60 without much difficulty.

Buying the most obvious bonuses from the book and getting to +40? not much optimization required.

[ngilop]

I have to agree with the above.

I am the opposite of a GiTP optimizer and at level 20, I have gotten my fighter with a +43 Attack bonus for the first attack and I was not really even trying. factor in spell bonus, flanking bonuses and other circumstance bonuses and it could get as high as +60. Which, I am sure that if I actually tried I could reach even higher.


If the Op thinks that mundanes and fighters are too power, just give them a poor base attack bonus. I don't understand how as you get better at fighting and more powerful your actual fighting skill gets worse, but to each his own.

I have seen a 3rd party d20 game go with your get full BaB for your first then all others are at -5. Might want to try that to not screw over the mundanes as bad as you are, but again, that is just my own tastes. Casters already get enough love. I see no reason to shaft mundanes just because.