Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tenzhi 04-05-04, 10:28 AM	That's right - no more iterative attacks. I propose a variant rule whereupon iterative attacks are no more. And TWF feats that effectively grant iterative attacks for the offhand are similarly nixed. Fighting with two weapons would add one extra attack, but the base penalties might be reduced from what they are now (perhaps to -2 for the primary hand and -4 for the offhand). And there would be a fighter feat called "Multi-Attack" that would grant an extra attack with a -2 penalty to all attacks made that round (and possibly an "Improved Multi-attack" that added another attack with a further -2 penalty to all attacks that round). Just an aimless thought.
77IM 04-05-04, 11:17 AM	Hmmm. This system could work, but ... how is it really an improvement over the current system? This unfairly favors monsters, who get multiple attacks based on physiology. In the default system, a mid- to high-level fighter could wollop a monster several times and get wolloped back several times. In a related story, this new system devalues the full attack action -- you would only do it if you have some special option like an off-hand weapon or Whirlwind Attack. This makes moving about more useful, which in turn increases AoOs, boosting Combat Reflexes. Under the normal rules, a smart character fighting a dragon would pull back after hitting -- suffering an AoO and a charge from the dragon -- rather than stand toe-to-toe and take the six attacks; under this variant, pretty much every monster must be handled this way. Reach weapons become better too, holding monsters at bay and broadening your AoO range. It might seem as though this changes combat from a slugfest into the Hokey-Pokey ("put your fighter in; put your fighter out; put your fighter in and shake him all about"), but in my experience, in a group of tactically shrewd players and DM, combats rarely devolve into slugfests anyway. In other words, this system could work, but ... how is it really an improvement over the current system? -- 77IM
Masterful_Norg 04-05-04, 12:10 PM	Combine it with a system where everyone's actions have initiative costs and where you gain a certain fixed amount of initiative points each round. You simply spend up your initiative points and the ones you don't spend are added (with a maximum of 5) to your next initiative roll so that your next turn comes a bit earlier. All you need to do is buy an extra attack which would come at a negative 5 penalty, but this time the negative penalty can drop your attack bonus into the negatives as long as you can spend so many points. A round still counts as six seconds so each attack roll is actually a single swing of the sword or shot from the bow. I'm using this.
Tenzhi 04-05-04, 11:43 PM	Originally posted by 77IM In other words, this system could work, but ... how is it really an improvement over the current system? A fighter still eventually gets almost as many attacks as he normally would and at a higher base attack for the majority of them. And since the fighter is the only one who gets the multiple attacks he is moved more firmly into his proper Fighter place. It also makes the choice between melee or ranged options for the ranger a bit more of a choice. The fact that monsters get multiple attacks based on physiology is something that PCs used to have to deal with all the time and is really no big deal.
flyingmoose 04-06-04, 01:00 AM	Originally posted by Tenzhi It also makes the choice between melee or ranged options for the ranger a bit more of a choice. ...? What does that mean, more of a choice? Isn't that like being a little pregnant or kinda dead? I think you're fixing something that isn't broken.
Tenzhi 04-06-04, 01:10 AM	Originally posted by flyingmoose Isn't that like being a little pregnant or kinda dead? Both of those conditions are likely to happen in D&D... ;P I think you're fixing something that isn't broken. Fixing? Variant rules aren't about "fixing" anything. They're about seasoning the game to suit your own tastes. ;)
Ranger REG 04-06-04, 05:46 AM	Originally posted by Tenzhi Just an aimless thought. Feh. AEG's Spycraft have not used iterative attack in their d20 ruleset, citing that an attack is a half-action, therefore you can make two attacks per round under the standard rules, regardless if you're 1st-level or 20th-level. HOWEVER, they offer feats that would give you more attacks per round. You're going to have to convince me hard why I should drop iterative attack, because I consider this a 3e sacred cow.
Pystian 04-06-04, 06:04 AM	Ranger REG, you're generally known for more polite responses than "Feh." Going back to the monster-fighter slug out, aren't the last couple attacks of the fighter considerably less useful anyhow? I don't know the exact workings of Masterful_Norg's solution, but it sounds like it could do a lot to improve game-play.
Tenzhi 04-06-04, 06:58 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG HOWEVER, they offer feats that would give you more attacks per round. As do I - but only to Fighters. You're going to have to convince me hard why I should drop iterative attack, because I consider this a 3e sacred cow. I don't have to convince you to use it, it's just a variant. That is the spirit of the UA book, after all.
FreeTheSlaves 04-06-04, 07:10 AM	You can get rid of iterative attacks by rolling them into one important die roll. Essentially you have the one normal attack for when you do not perform the full attack option. When you perform the full attack option you add any additional attacks damage rolls (you would normally get) to the combined damage roll. Critical hits would add 1 more roll for a *2, add 2 for a *3 and add 3 for a *4. However this does not take into account the reduced attack bonus you would normally get with iterative attacks or two weapon fighting. A precise mathematical formula to factor this in is probably too complicated to be wieldy. :( Any solution must bare in mind the integrity of the damage reduction rules and power attack. Any thoughts?
Lord Arkhaven 04-06-04, 02:03 PM	Fights would last considerably longer.
FreeTheSlaves 04-06-04, 11:44 PM	Actually the opposite would occur. If a lvl20 fighter does his one attack roll for 8d6+60, his turn is completed faster and thus combat is swifter.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 12:56 AM	you realize,no smart person plays fighter types TO BEGIN WITH,but now we wish to weaken them more?!?!? house rules should show some balence,this just unfairly punishs the punished.
Anthor Del Niera 04-07-04, 01:06 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse you realize,no smart person plays fighter types TO BEGIN WITH,but now we wish to weaken them more?!?!? house rules should show some balence,this just unfairly punishs the punished. I disagree. First of all, this wouldn't weaken fighter types all that much. You'd have to similarly tone down mages and clerics, but it's really quite plausible. Not something for my campaign, but if it suits you, I see no problem. Lina, there are a number of "smart" people that play fighter types. I'm not certain I understand the context of your argument... a fighter can be just as good a roleplayer as a mage, obviously, and in terms of combat can dish out as much, if not more, damage pretty regularly. Much more regularly than the mage that soon runs out of spells, or the sorc that simply hold their own. The most overpowered class, clerics, would be more nerfed than anyone for this. Tenzhi, also consider the potential effect this would have on monks and paladins.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 02:05 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse you realize,no smart person plays fighter types TO BEGIN WITH,but now we wish to weaken them more?!?!? No, we wish to give them back their dominion over melee combat which was foolishly parcelled out among the other classes. Multiple attacks per round is (mostly) the sole domain of the fighter again. Combined with dividing the feats into General and Combat feats with the latter only available to Fighters (a select few available to Rogues when they have Bonus Feats available), it makes Fighters much more assertively "Fighters." Originally posted by Anthor Del Niera Tenzhi, also consider the potential effect this would have on monks and paladins. Monks would still have Flurry of Blows, which would put them more on par with Fighters in melee combat than they are now as far as number of attacks and BAB is concerned (IIRC, the Monk would eventually have 3 attacks per round with FoB at +15 each; and with my proposal the Fighter would have three attacks per round at +16 each). Of course, the fighter will have enhancement bonuses to attack and damage that will still ensure his superiority over the monk - albeit by a smaller margin than before. On a relative scale the Paladin (and the Barbarian, for that matter) will be weakened by his loss of iterative attacks, but I'm still not sure if that bothers me all that much. If it does, I'll probably give them the Multi-Attack feat for free somewhere along the way (though not the Improved version). Rangers will, of course, already get multiple attacks in their own way via TWF or Ranged feats. And the rest of the classes don't need multiple attacks.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 02:09 AM	tenzhi when i say fighters,i mean any non-primary caster.as it stands compared to clerics,druids and wizards there quite unplayable. weakening them more is kind of silly.the easiest way to boost fighters is A.add more fighter only feats,B.add feats that let attacks compare to spells,stealth pumping fighters since they could more easily get these great feats.i used to have a list of meta martial feats somewhere.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 02:13 AM	Originally posted by Anthor Del Niera I disagree. First of all, this wouldn't weaken fighter types all that much. You'd have to similarly tone down mages and clerics, but it's really quite plausible. Not something for my campaign, but if it suits you, I see no problem. Lina, there are a number of "smart" people that play fighter types. I'm not certain I understand the context of your argument... a fighter can be just as good a roleplayer as a mage, obviously, and in terms of combat can dish out as much, if not more, damage pretty regularly. Much more regularly than the mage that soon runs out of spells, or the sorc that simply hold their own. The most overpowered class, clerics, would be more nerfed than anyone for this. Tenzhi, also consider the potential effect this would have on monks and paladins. smart implys that my charecter is of optimum use in my group.a fighter serves nothing a cleric cant do as well and cannot deal "damage". actual hitpoints as far as anyone should care are non-existant as spells read save or die.if they dont kill them instantly your not playing to full potentiol and that is unintelligent. and before you call me a powergamer,id like to note im a true gamer.the elusive third breed that considers both faucets of this hobby equally importent.therefore i powergame my charecters mechaniclly and roleplay as well as the drama lovers.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 02:34 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse tenzhi when i say fighters,i mean any non-primary caster.as it stands compared to clerics,druids and wizards there quite unplayable. When I say Fighters I mean Fighters. Rogues are not fighters, nor should they try to be. They have their own role in the party and are quite playable even alongside Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. A role for everyone and everyone in their role. weakening them more is kind of silly. This actually isn't weakening the Fighter much, if at all - he goes from 4 attacks at +20/+15/+10/+5 to 3 attacks all at +16... that's one less attack, but a better overall chance of connecting with all of them. And relative to the other classes it makes the fighter stronger.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 02:39 AM	Originally posted by Tenzhi When I say Fighters I mean Fighters. Rogues are not fighters, nor should they try to be. They have their own role in the party and are quite playable even alongside Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. A role for everyone and everyone in their role. This actually isn't weakening the Fighter much, if at all - he goes from 4 attacks at +20/+15/+10/+5 to 3 attacks all at +16... that's one less attack, but a better overall chance of connecting with all of them. And relative to the other classes it makes the fighter stronger. ok front line warrior classes get weaker.this includes fighter,paladin,barbarian,ranger. all of these should be compareable to a fighter in a stand up fight,not better equal but diffrent.so you weaken 3 of the games already weak classes and put the fighter at a slightly higher level powerwise. also note this weakens rogues who need physical attacks to dish out damage as well. and this weakens bards by weakening the number of attacks they can buff,bards are second only to fighters in crappyness. of course this weakens clerics and druids,that part im all for:D even though there my favrite classes. you also seem to be mistaken in believeing rogues have a use outside of massive physical damage. all thieveryness effects are better handled by druids,no one can possiby be suspiocus of a bug.traps also are handled best by druids,IE summon natures ally spontainisly.finally druids lacking physical stats will have decent to high charismas and therefore make great facemen,and yes they do have the skills. so rogues can ummm pick pockets which you should slap the heros for doing anyways,that or flank things.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 03:10 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse ok front line warrior classes get weaker.this includes fighter,paladin,barbarian,ranger. all of these should be compareable to a fighter in a stand up fight,not better equal but diffrent.so you weaken 3 of the games already weak classes and put the fighter at a slightly higher level powerwise. I agree that they should be close, but not equal to a fighter in a stand-up fight. They get other abilities that a Fighter can't get whereas the Fighter's ONLY ability is to fight. I do understand that they should have at least some ability to make multiple attacks - for the Ranger this is already taken care of by its TWF/Ranged feats. For the Barbarian and the Paladin I will probably end up giving them the Multi-Attack for free (but not the Improved Multi-attack) as I noted above. also note this weakens rogues who need physical attacks to dish out damage as well. I obviously disagree with this assessment of the Rogue. I feel the Rogue does well enough (given his role) with one attack per round and Sneak Attack. However, I mentioned above that I made combat feats Fighter-only except for a few select feats that a Rogue could take when he has Bonus Feats available (as a class feature) - TWF and some Ranged feats made it onto the list that will allow the Rogue to get an extra attack per round if it so chooses. you also seem to be mistaken in believeing rogues have a use outside of massive physical damage. all thieveryness effects are better handled by druids,no one can possiby be suspiocus of a bug.traps also are handled best by druids,IE summon natures ally spontainisly.finally druids lacking physical stats will have decent to high charismas and therefore make great facemen,and yes they do have the skills. so rogues can ummm pick pockets which you should slap the heros for doing anyways,that or flank things. A druid who callously summon's animals to feed them to traps in my campaigns will soon find themselves bereft of Druidic abilities. But putting that aside, one of the things I've been giving some thought to of late is the fact that the Rogue isn't the master of skills he should be. While he gets a fair number of skills, he doesn't out"class" everyone else in his use of them like he should. I haven't decided exactly how I want to deal with this yet... I've considered giving them a flat bonus to various skills, or letting them use their Int bonus as well as their Dex bonus on all Dex-based skills, or getting a bonus to all (or a select few) of their class skills equal to 1/2 their class level... But I haven't decided on anything yet. And given my house rules, front-loading won't be a problem since there's none of that class-jumping multi-classing going on.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 03:16 AM	its not any more callous than throwing them at rampageing dragons which is sorta the purpose to being able to spam them.anyways roleplay wise these animals arent even actully there being that there SUMMONED not CALLED,so the cruelty part doesnt exist,its simply the druid protecting himself,a guardian of nature with mental projections of his allied beasts.nothing wrong with that saying that they the best summoners cant summon isnt just a stealth nerf its a complete nerf. and anywho there still much much better at stealth.:smirk:
Anthor Del Niera 04-07-04, 03:18 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse smart implys that my charecter is of optimum use in my group.a fighter serves nothing a cleric cant do as well and cannot deal "damage". actual hitpoints as far as anyone should care are non-existant as spells read save or die.if they dont kill them instantly your not playing to full potentiol and that is unintelligent. and before you call me a powergamer,id like to note im a true gamer.the elusive third breed that considers both faucets of this hobby equally importent.therefore i powergame my charecters mechaniclly and roleplay as well as the drama lovers. Oh, dear. Where to begin... There's an old quote. "I question some of your judgement, and much of your spelling..." Lina, could you explain the hit points not existing thing? I understand that from an in-game perspective, they do not, but you seem to justify that with "spells read save or die." I'm not certain exactly how these subjects are related, except in the faintest of ways. You're awfully defensive about the powergamer thing, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not going to ruin this thread with comments about you. Suffice to say that I disagree. Tenzhi, perhaps giving the barbarian a stronger rage ability would compensate. A single shot of incredible proportions. I like the idea, there. No reason not to go with it. As for the paladin, it is already considerably weaker in melee combat than the fighter. Give some thought to bonus feats for other classes. One every four or five levels for the paladin ought to even things ought. Ranger should be fine, but I would suggest giving them a bonus feat every six levels, just for a little added kick. Let them be the archers, the trackers, if you are looking for a purpose for everyone and everyone fulfilling their purpose. Biggest nerfing I see is the cleric, which is wise. Second biggest is the rogue; consider that 3.0 and 3.5 were built with the rogue as a combat-oriented sneak attacker. It would, in my opinion, be wise to give them a little something to make up for it, especially since use magic device is no longer solely theirs. Consider granting free shadowdancer abilities. They seem to resemble your idea of a rogue a little more. Hm. There's more, but it's not coming immediately, and it's 3 AM here. I'm going to end my post at this before I start babbling incoherently.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 03:26 AM	i aplogize for mentioning game prefrences which i agree is holely out of context for these boards,but i do not like being called a power gamer:mad: and you brought up all classes are usefull rp wise,which i agree they are. so onto mechanics.for the most part hitpoints dont exist in the context of rules,any wizard worth his salt will have ONE kind of spell prepared for battle.these read,save or die.even from lowly first level the mighty wizard has sleep as do druids,this spell also reads save or die. if all the enemys die before hitpoint damage can take them out theres no reason to USE hitpoint damage.IE hitpoints dont exist.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 03:32 AM	Yes, SUMMONED - which by definition means they come from somewhere when you summon them rather than just being created out of thin air. And yes, summoning a badger to combat a rampaging dragon would be rather cruel - especially if the Druid was using the badger to avoid the dragon himself. An elemental or three has a fighting chance, though - even moreso if the druid is fighting alongside them. Is the druid better at Stealth? If it can wildshape into something small enough it gets a decent size modifier (and when can it do that, if ever, without core feats? I'm afraid I don't recall when it can Wildshape into Tiny, Diminutive, or Fine creatures and I don't have the book at hand?), but it would also have to have the base skill to match the Rogue as well. And depending on what modifiers I may decide on for the Rogue's skills and what magic items it has the Druid may very well be better off saving its wildshape for other uses.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 03:58 AM	on druid stealth:the druid is the best stealther,no one cares if a >insert small critter here< is running around gnawing on leftovers. on druid summons:please read up on summoned verus called,a summoned creature is a mental projection of the real thing.so basiclly summoning means that you just yoinked a badgers dreamself to protect you.if it dies the badger wakes up thinking something bads about to happen,looks around,decides it wasnt real and goes back to sleep.
Ranger REG 04-07-04, 04:16 AM	Originally posted by Pystian Ranger REG, you're generally known for more polite responses than "Feh." Feh. * shrugs shoulders * :D Going back to the monster-fighter slug out, aren't the last couple attacks of the fighter considerably less useful anyhow? I don't know the exact workings of Masterful_Norg's solution, but it sounds like it could do a lot to improve game-play. While the bonuses for the additional attack(s) appears to be shrinking, it is still considered beneficial because the more attacks you can make the more chances you can roll a natural 20 per round. And you know that a natural 20 is always a hit (possible critical hit), regardless of PC's worst attack penalty or defender's high AC bonus.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 04:23 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse on druid summons:please read up on summoned verus called,a summoned creature is a mental projection of the real thing.so basiclly summoning means that you just yoinked a badgers dreamself to protect you.if it dies the badger wakes up thinking something bads about to happen,looks around,decides it wasnt real and goes back to sleep. All I see in the SRD (and looking at the SRD is a painfully slow process through this connection) is "Summon Nature's Ally" - the only "Call" spells involve lightning. Nor is there anything about "mental projections" in the description of the spell as far as I can see. Perhaps there was something non-core regarding it put out in a magazine or splatbook, but that's neither here nor there. And looking at the Druid in the SRD it can become Tiny at 11th level which gives them a +8 bonus to Hide, but not Move Silently. And Hide/Move Silently are Cross-class skills for the Druid. So the Druid would have at max 7 ranks with a +8 bonus in Hide and 7 ranks in Move Silently IF it disregarded a lot of other skills, whereas the Rogue could have 14 ranks in both of those skills at 11th level making it the better Stealth-meister by far under most conditions.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 04:27 AM	look at the type line under summon natures ally.it reads summon.look at gate,it reads called.read your dmg/phb for what these mean if you cant find it in the SRD. ok moveing on,didnt i explain how there the best stealthers?its metagameing for the dm to allow the npcs to know its the druid,hes a bloody rat/flee/whatever no one cares that those things exist unless there currently bugging that person.and if the dm metagames with me around woe to him because he has opened some big ol floodgates.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 04:43 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse ok moveing on,didnt i explain how there the best stealthers?its metagameing for the dm to allow the npcs to know its the druid,hes a bloody rat/flee/whatever no one cares that those things exist unless there currently bugging that person.and if the dm metagames with me around woe to him because he has opened some big ol floodgates. In a world where people don't regularly assume the shapes of/acquire the services of small animals anyone who's up to no good will naturally be suspicious of such things. Woe to the player who assumes the conventions of a fantasy world are the same as the real world despite the impactive differences of magic.
Tenzhi 04-07-04, 05:08 AM	Ah yes, there's Summoning. "A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this." "Brings a creature"... "sent back to where it came from"... The only appreciable difference between Summoning and Calling seems to be that a Summoned creature that's killed will reform in 24 hours. But it still went through the pain and suffering of death.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-04, 05:11 AM	noted,so its comatose for 24 hours.if druids cant summon things there useless,fluff is fluff.one way or another its not against mythos for druids to spam summons which is why they have spont summoning.i would stab them if they sent there faithful hound though;)