Idea for multiple attacks PEACH [Archive] - Wizards Community

Idea for multiple attacks PEACH [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
darkwarrior42
09-20-06, 02:45 PM I've been tinkering with the base classes for a while, and I've never been quite happy with the system in place for multiple attacks. I like the concept that multiple attacks are less accurate, but I don't like the static -0/-5/-10/-15 modifiers.

My idea is based on the Exalted game's system for taking multiple actions in a round. Basically, I'd like to see a system where a character declares how many attacks he will make in that round. His first attack would take a penalty equal to the number of attacks he is making in total, and each successive attack would increase the penalty by a fixed amount, -1 or -2 perhaps. I'll use -2 in my example below.

Example: A level 12 fighter with weapon focus, greater weapon focus, a strength of 20, and a +3 weapon has a total attack bonus of +22. We'll assume he has no other bonuses to make this simple.
One attack: no penalty, +22.
Two attacks: first attack at -2 (+20), second attack at -4 (+ 18)
Three attacks: first attack at -3 (+19), second attack at -5 (+17), third attack at -7 (+15)
Etc.

At the moment, I plan to limit the total number of attacks made by saying that you can't take a penalty on any attack larger than your BAB. For example, the fighter above could not make five attacks because his penalties would be -5/-7/-9/-11/-13, and the final penalty of -13 is larger than his BAB.

I'm looking for opinions on the concept in general, and any ideas people have to make it more balanced. My group has played Exalted before so I know it won't slow the game down a lot, so that's not a concern for me.
Tequila_Sunrise
09-20-06, 04:30 PM My opinion: too complicated. If you want to change ititerative attacks, which is totally kool, make them simpler not more complicated. For example, for every +5 BAB above +1 a character can choose to make an additional attack during a full attack action. For each additional attack, all attacks take -2.

This makes rolling really simple because you don't have to remember different bonuses, or roll one-by-one. Heck, this elimates the need to cap ititerative attacks at 4/round!
Seerow
09-20-06, 04:43 PM I like making multiple attacks all work like secondary natural attacks.

Primary attack at full bonus, all other attacks at -5. With a feat all other attacks at -3. (Other things such as Flurry or TWFing with their own penalties add their penalties to this)

So a 20th level Fighter full attacking goes:

20/15/15/15

A 20th level Fighter with Rapid Strike goes

20/17/17/17

A 20th level Fighter with TWF going

18/15/15/15
18/15/15

etc.
058
09-20-06, 09:32 PM I like it, but the only problem I can see is that you eventually get to a point where you can initiate so many attacks in one round that it becomes difficult to imagine someone hitting that often in the span of six seconds.
Seerow
09-20-06, 09:33 PM You get to that point with or without these houserules, how does that change it?

The only thing this does is make it so it's more likely to actually hit.
Fargren
09-21-06, 09:23 AM if you don't limit the number of attacks you can make, your system allows someone to make one thousand attacks with horible penalties. However, a antural 20 always hits, sothat could be pretty destructive(and absurd)
058
09-21-06, 08:33 PM At the moment, I plan to limit the total number of attacks made by saying that you can't take a penalty on any attack larger than your BAB. For example, the fighter above could not make five attacks because his penalties would be -5/-7/-9/-11/-13, and the final penalty of -13 is larger than his BAB.

Speaks for itself.
darkwarrior42
09-22-06, 11:35 PM Thanks to everyone for the comments; I would have been back sooner, but the people who provide my internet misplaced my payment and told me it was my fault. *rolls eyes*

I might wind up going with Tequila's idea, for simplicity's sake. Seerow's idea isn't bad, but one of the things I was trying to achieve with my original idea was to create a tactical decision in battle. "Do I make one attack at my full attack bonus, or do I make four attacks, each at a reduced bonus?" One of my biggest problems with the standard 20/15/10/5 system is that there are very few reasons not to make four attacks.

The other reason behind my original system is that I do like the idea of having the first attack be the most likely to hit, with each subsequent attack having a lesser chance of success, but trying to achieve both that and the tactical decision above seems to be exceedingly complicated, no matter what I come up with. Given a choice, I'd rather have the decision than the declining bonuses.

Seerow, your idea is a pretty good one, but I think I'm going to hold off on it because I like the fact that natural weapons don't work quite like manufactured weapons. It gives characters with natural weapons an interesting option in battle, which I like (in case you couldn't tell :P)
Seerow
09-23-06, 01:43 PM Natural weapons aren't an option... they're a necessity just like normal attacks. If you have them, you make them as secondary attacks in addition to your manufactured weapon itterative attacks.

Though I do respect the idea of giving tactical flexibility, I'm not sure this is the way to be adding it. Personally, the martial disciplines from ToB do the tactical fighting thing better IMO.
ThorGuy
09-23-06, 02:03 PM You get to that point with or without these houserules, how does that change it?

The only thing this does is make it so it's more likely to actually hit.
Umm... No. You don't. Under standard rules, it's capped at 4 iterative attacks per round.

I like your idea, darkwarrior, but I think there should be a cap in place like in the standard rules. Perhaps 7 attacks? (The maximum a lvl. 20 fighter could have)
Seerow
09-23-06, 02:23 PM Well his rule has the cap for no penalty worse than BAB. So a 20th level Fighter has 20 BAB...

1 attack-+20
2 Attacks-+19/+17
3 Attacks-+18/+16/+14
4 attacks-+17/+15/+13
5 attacks-+16/+14/+12/+10
6 attacks-+15/+13/+11/+9/+7
7 attacks-+14/+12/+10/+8/+6/+4
8 attacks-+13/+11/+9/+7/+5/+3/+1

If you go to 9 attacks, you're going negative on your last attack, so 8 is your absolute cap.

Here's a question, how would you work TWFing with this?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
darkwarrior42 09-20-06, 02:45 PM	I've been tinkering with the base classes for a while, and I've never been quite happy with the system in place for multiple attacks. I like the concept that multiple attacks are less accurate, but I don't like the static -0/-5/-10/-15 modifiers. My idea is based on the Exalted game's system for taking multiple actions in a round. Basically, I'd like to see a system where a character declares how many attacks he will make in that round. His first attack would take a penalty equal to the number of attacks he is making in total, and each successive attack would increase the penalty by a fixed amount, -1 or -2 perhaps. I'll use -2 in my example below. Example: A level 12 fighter with weapon focus, greater weapon focus, a strength of 20, and a +3 weapon has a total attack bonus of +22. We'll assume he has no other bonuses to make this simple. One attack: no penalty, +22. Two attacks: first attack at -2 (+20), second attack at -4 (+ 18) Three attacks: first attack at -3 (+19), second attack at -5 (+17), third attack at -7 (+15) Etc. At the moment, I plan to limit the total number of attacks made by saying that you can't take a penalty on any attack larger than your BAB. For example, the fighter above could not make five attacks because his penalties would be -5/-7/-9/-11/-13, and the final penalty of -13 is larger than his BAB. I'm looking for opinions on the concept in general, and any ideas people have to make it more balanced. My group has played Exalted before so I know it won't slow the game down a lot, so that's not a concern for me.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-20-06, 04:30 PM	My opinion: too complicated. If you want to change ititerative attacks, which is totally kool, make them simpler not more complicated. For example, for every +5 BAB above +1 a character can choose to make an additional attack during a full attack action. For each additional attack, all attacks take -2. This makes rolling really simple because you don't have to remember different bonuses, or roll one-by-one. Heck, this elimates the need to cap ititerative attacks at 4/round!
Seerow 09-20-06, 04:43 PM	I like making multiple attacks all work like secondary natural attacks. Primary attack at full bonus, all other attacks at -5. With a feat all other attacks at -3. (Other things such as Flurry or TWFing with their own penalties add their penalties to this) So a 20th level Fighter full attacking goes: 20/15/15/15 A 20th level Fighter with Rapid Strike goes 20/17/17/17 A 20th level Fighter with TWF going 18/15/15/15 18/15/15 etc.
058 09-20-06, 09:32 PM	I like it, but the only problem I can see is that you eventually get to a point where you can initiate so many attacks in one round that it becomes difficult to imagine someone hitting that often in the span of six seconds.
Seerow 09-20-06, 09:33 PM	You get to that point with or without these houserules, how does that change it? The only thing this does is make it so it's more likely to actually hit.
Fargren 09-21-06, 09:23 AM	if you don't limit the number of attacks you can make, your system allows someone to make one thousand attacks with horible penalties. However, a antural 20 always hits, sothat could be pretty destructive(and absurd)
058 09-21-06, 08:33 PM	At the moment, I plan to limit the total number of attacks made by saying that you can't take a penalty on any attack larger than your BAB. For example, the fighter above could not make five attacks because his penalties would be -5/-7/-9/-11/-13, and the final penalty of -13 is larger than his BAB. Speaks for itself.
darkwarrior42 09-22-06, 11:35 PM	Thanks to everyone for the comments; I would have been back sooner, but the people who provide my internet misplaced my payment and told me it was my fault. rolls eyes I might wind up going with Tequila's idea, for simplicity's sake. Seerow's idea isn't bad, but one of the things I was trying to achieve with my original idea was to create a tactical decision in battle. "Do I make one attack at my full attack bonus, or do I make four attacks, each at a reduced bonus?" One of my biggest problems with the standard 20/15/10/5 system is that there are very few reasons not to make four attacks. The other reason behind my original system is that I do like the idea of having the first attack be the most likely to hit, with each subsequent attack having a lesser chance of success, but trying to achieve both that and the tactical decision above seems to be exceedingly complicated, no matter what I come up with. Given a choice, I'd rather have the decision than the declining bonuses. Seerow, your idea is a pretty good one, but I think I'm going to hold off on it because I like the fact that natural weapons don't work quite like manufactured weapons. It gives characters with natural weapons an interesting option in battle, which I like (in case you couldn't tell :P)
Seerow 09-23-06, 01:43 PM	Natural weapons aren't an option... they're a necessity just like normal attacks. If you have them, you make them as secondary attacks in addition to your manufactured weapon itterative attacks. Though I do respect the idea of giving tactical flexibility, I'm not sure this is the way to be adding it. Personally, the martial disciplines from ToB do the tactical fighting thing better IMO.
ThorGuy 09-23-06, 02:03 PM	You get to that point with or without these houserules, how does that change it? The only thing this does is make it so it's more likely to actually hit. Umm... No. You don't. Under standard rules, it's capped at 4 iterative attacks per round. I like your idea, darkwarrior, but I think there should be a cap in place like in the standard rules. Perhaps 7 attacks? (The maximum a lvl. 20 fighter could have)
Seerow 09-23-06, 02:23 PM	Well his rule has the cap for no penalty worse than BAB. So a 20th level Fighter has 20 BAB... 1 attack-+20 2 Attacks-+19/+17 3 Attacks-+18/+16/+14 4 attacks-+17/+15/+13 5 attacks-+16/+14/+12/+10 6 attacks-+15/+13/+11/+9/+7 7 attacks-+14/+12/+10/+8/+6/+4 8 attacks-+13/+11/+9/+7/+5/+3/+1 If you go to 9 attacks, you're going negative on your last attack, so 8 is your absolute cap. Here's a question, how would you work TWFing with this?