Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 02-08-07, 07:19 PM	A fighter gains their 6th level, and they now gain a second attack at -5. This attack has a 25% less likelyhood of hitting, but it is a nice reward; you can deal extra damage on a full attack now. But upon gaining their 11th level, they now gain a third attack that's worse than their 2nd. The attack at 16th level is even more of a joke. On the other hand, a Dragon has 1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, and a tail, and their claws, wings, and tail are all at -5 (or -3 if they take multiattack). I know several others have suggested this before, but I'm about to test having all itterative attacks treated as secondary attacks: they are all at -5. I'm even considering having +11 BAB grant a second attack on a standard action attack (so a warrior's standard attack matches up with a caster's standard action a little more). What reprecussions am I going to face here?
DwarvinJedi 02-08-07, 07:29 PM	Fighters will hit more often, and I really like the second attack on a standard action, but which attack would that have a bonus as?
Xeviat-DM 02-08-07, 08:24 PM	OH, at +11 BAB, you'd have a standard attack of +11/+6, and a full attack of +11/+6/+6. The reasoning being that a standard action is 3 seconds, and a move action is 3 seconds. If spending both to gain a second attack at +6 BAB is possible, then spending both to gain a third attack would mean you'd have the chance to gain more than one attack in 3 seconds. Technically, I should probably shunt that back to +16 BAB (giving a nice bonus to the full BAB classes at the end), but I'm nto sure if that would be too late. +6 BAB, you double your attacks. +11 BAB you increase your number of attacks by 50%. At +16 BAB, you only increase your number of attacks by 1/3rd, so that's the time when an extra standard attack might be best fit in.
Jack Daniel 02-08-07, 08:40 PM	OH, at +11 BAB, you'd have a standard attack of +11/+6, and a full attack of +11/+6/+6. The reasoning being that a standard action is 3 seconds, and a move action is 3 seconds. If spending both to gain a second attack at +6 BAB is possible, then spending both to gain a third attack would mean you'd have the chance to gain more than one attack in 3 seconds. Technically, I should probably shunt that back to +16 BAB (giving a nice bonus to the full BAB classes at the end), but I'm nto sure if that would be too late. +6 BAB, you double your attacks. +11 BAB you increase your number of attacks by 50%. At +16 BAB, you only increase your number of attacks by 1/3rd, so that's the time when an extra standard attack might be best fit in. Here's the progression I'm using now: +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11/+6 +12/+7 +13/+8 +14/+9 +15/+10 +16/+11 +17/+12 +18/+13 +19/+14 +20/+15 +21/+16/+16 +22/+17/+17 +23/+18/+18 +24/+19/+19 +25/+20/+20 etc. It really keeps the die-rolls in check at high levels and speeds up combat (especially since a fistful of d20s can be rolled to make all your secondary attacks, since they all use the same modifier). Of course, I had to do this to balance out the fact I'm using a different hit point system (capping PC hit dice at 9th level, like it was in OD&D) and a rather radically different damage system (which I just put up for review in another post).
Melayl 02-08-07, 11:18 PM	I think it sounds good. Are you also considering a feat similar to Multiattack, to reduce that to -3?
Neutronium_Dragon 02-08-07, 11:29 PM	Something to keep in mind is that a number of bonus effects and abilities, as well as some feats, are tied to the number of attacks you make each round. Reducing that number will negatively impact those feats and abilities.
Xeviat-DM 02-09-07, 01:52 AM	I think it sounds good. Are you also considering a feat similar to Multiattack, to reduce that to -3? I don't know about that. It seems like a feat that every single warrior would pick up, and thus it strikes me as too good.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-10-07, 10:16 AM	The reasoning being that a standard action is 3 seconds, and a move action is 3 seconds.That's not necessarily true. That's kind of like saying, "a road is 10 miles long." Some roads take longer than others. How does this interact with things like Bounding Assault and flurry of blows?
Sphyre 02-10-07, 11:07 AM	I think it sounds good. Are you also considering a feat similar to Multiattack, to reduce that to -3? just fyi, multiattack reduces the penality to -2 from -5.
Chimaera2000 02-10-07, 05:36 PM	I think that the idea is solid in principle, it might just hit some snags with other abilities like TWF and flurry. In terms of overall implications, it won't make a difference until level 11+, in which case it means that fighting classes that rely on full attacks (i.e. non-Tome of Battle classes) will hit more accurately against foes. I don't think that this is a bad thing by any means, as otherwise the attack bonuses are too low to hit at all. Attacks with +5 or even +10 BAB at 20th level? Yeah, like those'll hit except on a natural 20.... With fighting classes becoming increasingly weaker compared to spellcasters at high levels, they need all the help that they can get. The fix should be balanced.
Xeviat-DM 02-11-07, 09:50 PM	That's not necessarily true. That's kind of like saying, "a road is 10 miles long." Some roads take longer than others. How does this interact with things like Bounding Assault and flurry of blows? I don't know; if all roads took 10 minutes to traverse while driving 60 miles an hour, they'd all be 10 miles long. If drawing a weapon and walking 30 feet didn't take the same amount of time and effort, they'd be different actions (I'm aware that with a BAB of +1, you can draw a weapon and move your speed, but that's because people can multitask with different limbs). I'm unsure how to test things; maybe I can compare their damage output to a wizard's (even though a wizard's strength is other spells than damage dealers.
Vaelan 02-12-07, 10:15 PM	I'm unsure how to test things; maybe I can compare their damage output to a wizard's (even though a wizard's strength is other spells than damage dealers. Why? As a rulemaker, you shouldn't be concerned with competition within the party because that is not what the game is about. You should test it in circumstances that are relevant to your group, using typical strategies and opponents. Attempting to inject some sense of objectivity into the process simply isn't worthwhile. All it does is change a rule that everyone but you will need to adjust for their games into a rule that everyone will need to adjust for their games. I don't think that this is a bad thing by any means, as otherwise the attack bonuses are too low to hit at all. Attacks with +5 or even +10 BAB at 20th level? Yeah, like those'll hit except on a natural 20... The number and magnitude of bonuses to attack rolls you can accumulate at that level are simply ridiculous. My last level 20 Fighter hit a CR 22 dragon 70% of the time with his least accurate attacks, and he used Two-Weapon Fighting. Sometimes I think that people on these boards don't even try to play melee combatants well.
starfire311 02-13-07, 09:10 AM	I really liked your system, here is what we tried briefly awhile ago in my group. you can make 1 single attack at your BAB as a standard or full attack. if your BAB is +6 or greater you can make 2 attacks with a -2 to all you attacks as a full attack if your BAB is +11 or greater you can make 2 attacks as a standard action with a -4 to all your attacks or 3 attacks as a full attack with a -4 to all your attacks If your BAB is +16 or greater you can make 4 attacks as a full attack with a -6 to all your attacks. One thing to remember was just because you get access to the higher options doesnt mean you lose the lower options So, with a BAB +16 you could as a standard action make 1 attack at +16 or 2 attacks at +12 or as a full attack you could make 1 attack at +16 or 2 attacks at +14 or 3 attacks at +12 or 4 attacks at +10. My group liked it very much, I was the biggest detractor of it, and I convinced them to go back to the standard way, but it is possible that you may like it.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-13-07, 10:59 AM	If drawing a weapon and walking 30 feet didn't take the same amount of time and effort, they'd be different actions...What I'm saying is that not every action takes exactly half the round. Not every standard action is going to last exactly three seconds. The genericality of D&D combat allows things to take a little more or less time sometimes.
Xeviat-DM 02-13-07, 03:07 PM	What I'm saying is that not every action takes exactly half the round. Not every standard action is going to last exactly three seconds. The genericality of D&D combat allows things to take a little more or less time sometimes. Seems like an odd point to argue with me on. You're saying that if someone can make 3 or 4 attacks in six seconds, that it's not possible for them to make 2 attacks in 3? Sure, at that point, making 1 attack would be less than three seconds (with three attacks, it would be 2 seconds), and thats why I think standard actions should get extra attacks.
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-13-07, 03:56 PM	Realism and game balance differ. I like making multiple attacks as a standard action when you have a high enough BAB, but making 2 when your BAB grants you 3 seems a bit overpowering. I think it should be restricted to the classes with a good BAB, so I wouldn't grant that until they gained their fourth attack. Combine that with reducing penalties for iterative attacks, and a good progression would go like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6/3 7/4 8/5 9/6 10/7 11/8/5 12/9/6 13/10/7 14/11/8 15/12/9 16/13/10/7 17/14/11/8 18/15/12/9 19/16/13/10 20/17/14/11 At BAB 16 or higher, the character may make two attacks as a standard action (one at full BAB, one at -3). EDIT: I also liked the house rule presented on this board earlier of increasing the fighter's BAB by 1 at 1st, 6th, 11th, and 16th level, so a fighter (but only a fighter) would have a BAB of 24/21/18/15 at level 20.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-13-07, 05:28 PM	Seems like an odd point to argue with me on. You're saying that if someone can make 3 or 4 attacks in six seconds, that it's not possible for them to make 2 attacks in 3?Well what constitutes an attack? I think part of the idea behind this rule is that one attack roll equals one swing of the weapon, and that simply isn't true. A single attack roll could be a flurry of rapid strikes. If you missed completely, an attack roll might not even be a swing; it could mean you failed to locate an opening and you hessitated. I fear that this adds unnecessary and potentially problematic specificity to a deliberately generic combat system. You grok?
Xeviat-DM 02-13-07, 11:38 PM	I don't see any added complexity in my proposition. In fact, I see simplicity. I understand that you're worried that my ideas describe combat differently, but I don't think I am. And I do like the idea of putting the second standard attack at +16 BAB, so only warriors get it. Good call. I do want to do away with the scaling attacks, that's the point of my proposition. All extra attacks will be secondary attacks, at a -5 penalty to hit. This way, characters don't have a little -15 to hit attack at the end of their routien.
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-14-07, 12:10 AM	Well what constitutes an attack? I think part of the idea behind this rule is that one attack roll equals one swing of the weapon, and that simply isn't true. A single attack roll could be a flurry of rapid strikes. If you missed completely, an attack roll might not even be a swing; it could mean you failed to locate an opening and you hessitated. I fear that this adds unnecessary and potentially problematic specificity to a deliberately generic combat system. You grok? To answer your question, what I consider an attack is actually several swings of the weapon, perhaps as many as 9 or 10.. Your BAB indicates how many chances you have to damage the opponent in a round. Now, that seems like a lot for a round being six seconds, but I've been using a house rule that a round is actually 18 seconds. I triple spell durations accordingly. Makes hardly any impact on game balance, it just seems more believable that a round is 18 seconds or so. Yes, yes, tell me D&D and believability don't mix, but eh. Even a standard action to attack "represents" multiple "swings" of the weapon, per se. In any case, that's just my random justification for it. Trying to think about things happening in D&D as related to the real world is a recipe for a headache.
starfire311 02-14-07, 09:09 AM	To answer your question, what I consider an attack is actually several swings of the weapon, perhaps as many as 9 or 10.. Your BAB indicates how many chances you have to damage the opponent in a round. Now, that seems like a lot for a round being six seconds, but I've been using a house rule that a round is actually 18 seconds. I triple spell durations accordingly. Makes hardly any impact on game balance, it just seems more believable that a round is 18 seconds or so. Yes, yes, tell me D&D and believability don't mix, but eh. Even a standard action to attack "represents" multiple "swings" of the weapon, per se. In any case, that's just my random justification for it. Trying to think about things happening in D&D as related to the real world is a recipe for a headache. I do believe this was a great model or previous editions, I no longer feel that it is a good model for 3.x. Because of things like smite, spells that are part of a touch attack, attacks of opprtunity, feats that actually count the number of times you were missed in a round, keeping track of arrows fired, and there are probably many other times when this model breaks down, it has begun to seem to me that 3.x is really designed to track every attack that is made.
Xeviat-DM 02-15-07, 04:25 PM	And parrying is now modeled with Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise. I also think that the flurry of blows mechanic represents when you try to attack more than normal, and I think it could be a feat for characters to take (like rapid shot). Pointing out Smite and other effects as singular attacks was very perceptive starfire. Thanks.
Otto the Bugbear 02-16-07, 06:15 PM	A fighter gains their 6th level, and they now gain a second attack at -5. This attack has a 25% less likelyhood of hitting, but it is a nice reward; you can deal extra damage on a full attack now. But upon gaining their 11th level, they now gain a third attack that's worse than their 2nd. The attack at 16th level is even more of a joke. On the other hand, a Dragon has 1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, and a tail, and their claws, wings, and tail are all at -5 (or -3 if they take multiattack). I know several others have suggested this before, but I'm about to test having all itterative attacks treated as secondary attacks: they are all at -5. I'm even considering having +11 BAB grant a second attack on a standard action attack (so a warrior's standard attack matches up with a caster's standard action a little more). What reprecussions am I going to face here? This isn't the first time this idea has come up, and it does generate some interest. I'd be curious to hear how it works out. I really liked your system, here is what we tried briefly awhile ago in my group. you can make 1 single attack at your BAB as a standard or full attack. if your BAB is +6 or greater you can make 2 attacks with a -2 to all you attacks as a full attack if your BAB is +11 or greater you can make 2 attacks as a standard action with a -4 to all your attacks or 3 attacks as a full attack with a -4 to all your attacks If your BAB is +16 or greater you can make 4 attacks as a full attack with a -6 to all your attacks. One thing to remember was just because you get access to the higher options doesnt mean you lose the lower options So, with a BAB +16 you could as a standard action make 1 attack at +16 or 2 attacks at +12 or as a full attack you could make 1 attack at +16 or 2 attacks at +14 or 3 attacks at +12 or 4 attacks at +10. My group liked it very much, I was the biggest detractor of it, and I convinced them to go back to the standard way, but it is possible that you may like it. This one looks like it rocks too, but it leaves a question open. Why did you talk them out of it? I don't see any added complexity in my proposition. In fact, I see simplicity. I understand that you're worried that my ideas describe combat differently, but I don't think I am. And I do like the idea of putting the second standard attack at +16 BAB, so only warriors get it. Good call. It's not complex. Don't worry about the complexity. I'm not sure about the +16 bit. It just seems to come in so late. I understand the concern with the 3/4 BAB casters gaining it at +11 BAB also.
starfire311 02-17-07, 06:29 PM	This one looks like it rocks too, but it leaves a question open. Why did you talk them out of it? It actually seems very cool, when you lok at it, it allows you to make a bunch of attacks with lower accuracy or less attacks with a better chance to hit. The big thing I didn't like about it was that you had to decide if you were making a full attack or not, before you made your 1st attack, this by itself wasn't too bad I suppose, and looking back now, I was probably too hard on the rule, and from an ingame perspective it would probably make more sense, that if you are gonna try to make 4 attacks in a 6 second period rather than one you would need to decide to do that ahead of time.
Bavix 02-22-07, 01:13 PM	Honestly, I've been thinking about dropping multiple attacks completely from my game. At higher levels, the number of attack rolls alone bogs down combat, not to mention the damage rolls, special abilities, etc (especially with monsters). Also, using fumbles—which I really enjoy—is completely unfair to high-level characters or creatures with several attacks. I'd like to drop multiple attack rolls completely and make full attack actions be treated more like special maneuvers (that may or may not include many attacks) but are handled with a single attack roll. I've noticed many alternate attack forms appearing in books like the PHB2 that give the option of making a single attack with a special benefit instead of getting multiple attacks and I'd like to take that farther. In other words, I'd like a high-level fighter's full attack to be DESCRIBED as a "whirlwind of steel and precision strikes" but the entire action to be handled with a single attack roll. Likewise, if a monster has multiple attacks, I'd like for the entire full-attack action to be resolved with a single attack roll. Maybe the BAB needs to be added to damage. Maybe special effects needs to be added to the damage roll. Maybe it will not work at all. What do you think?
Rhialto 02-24-07, 08:21 AM	I certainly think the fighter's extra attacks from high BaB are generally wasted. The 2nd (and even more so 3rd and 4th) attacks have such a low hit probability against the primary opponents of their level that it makes relatively little difference against primary opponents. It allows the fighter to make short(er) work of low level enemies, but those hardly need extra help against. It doesn't hurt at all that this will mainly help fighters. I suspect it may even be worth giving no penalty to extra attacks at all, but make a rule that they must either all be struck against the same opponent, or all randomly against whatever enemies happen to be in striking distance. basically, no planning the fine tactics of how to use the extra attacks. That would go a long way towards speeding up the fighter's attack rolls.