multiple attacks statistical analysis

[Ashtagon]

So I took the multiple attacks, with their bab modifiers, and compared them to various target numbers. For each major full-attack type (+0; +0, -5; +0, -5, -10, and +0, -5, -10, -15), I compared the chances of hitting at various different base target numbers, from 2 up to 20. I then removed the extreme high and low ends from consideration (leaving the middle 50%), since a balanced encounter should avoid either extreme. Next, I divided the average number of potential hits for each multiple attack type by the average number of hits assuming a single attack (from bab between +0 and 5). The resulting number can be thought of as how many more times effective than a single attack the multiple attack manoeuvre is.

Here are the results:

bab (0): 1 (control value)
bab (0/-5): 1.509
bab (0/-5/-10): 1.7
bab (0/-5/-10/-15): 1.8

I did the same thing for monk flurry of blows.

(Incidentally, despite its reputation as a flurry of misses, there is just one specific window in which FoB is inferior to a single attack, which is monk levels 1-4 and an attack roll target number of 17-19 needed to hit. The tactical requirement to use a full-attack action is the real limit).

L1 flurry (-2/-2): 1.6
L5 flurry (-1/-1): 1.8
L8 flurry (-1/-1/-6): 2.227
L9 flurry (0/0/-5): 2.509
L11 flurry (0/0/0/-5): 3.509
L15 flurry (0/0/0/-5/-10): 3.7

It seems to me that, rather than making multiple attack rolls, a simple damage multiplier could be used instead. Or, instead of a multiplier, possibly extra damage (based on a "standard" weapon).

Only issue is, would the fistful of d20s not being rolled detract from the enjoyment of the game?

[Baron Corm]

I don't think that reducing your number of attack rolls would reduce the fun of the game. It would speed it up, and make it more fun. However it would still be good for a meleer to have something to do with his full-round action, if he has the chance to use it.

I think that if you do away with iterative attacks, your damage bonus should be based on your exact BAB, not the number of attacks you would have had. The only reason it's set up like that is because you can't split an attack up into 5 parts. Maybe do something like increase damage by 5% per BAB, and you can still make a full attack at any level to make two attacks at your highest attack bonus?

The static damage bonus would probably be easier to use, in practice, but harder to design. To throw out an idea, it would be cool to make your weapon matter more, adding a damage bonus based on your base weapon damage, like so:

<d4: None
d4: 1 per BAB
d6: 1.5 per BAB
d8 (or 2d4): 2 per BAB
d10: 2.5 per BAB
d12 (or 2d6): 3 per BAB
2d8: 4 per BAB
2d10: 5 per BAB

The last two values are for monks. Due to their 3/4 progression, they would only be getting slightly more damage than a 1/1 (and only at level 20), so you could keep FoB in, and let them be one of the few classes (along with TWF) that have to stress over mobility. I'm not sure if Power Attack would stay in this system, or not. You might have to increase the damage of Sneak Attack, too. It's a rough draft, at least.