[3.5] How to remove additional attacks?

[The Troubadour]

Exactly what the title says. How can I remove additional attacks in order to speed up combat, while not decreasing the PCs combat capability? I'm thinking of removing the full attack action and simply add the following rule:

"If your Base Attack Bonus is +6 or higher, you deal double damage on all unarmed and weapon attacks performed on your turn.
your Base Attack Bonus is +11 or higher, you deal triple damage on all unarmed and weapon attacks performed on your turn.
your Base Attack Bonus is +16 or higher, you deal quadruple damage on all unarmed and weapon attacks performed on your turn."

What do you guys think? Am I missing any repercussion from these changes?

[Mulletmanalive]

It has some interesting side effects with weapon style spells.

You should also consider how damage boosts, channelled spell and so on are going to interact with this.

The idea is solid, it just suffers a little in reading [complete arcane defined touch spells as a weapon for purposes of feats so it could be a can'o'worms unless you specifically state if it does ir doesn't apply to spells].

You also need to figure out what two weapon fighting does now.

I've never actually found that it was the combat players who held things up compared to the mages, but that's just me...

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Won't speed it up as much as removing iteratives entirely, but you could have all iterative attacks occur at the same attack bonus-- saves you an extra step in calculating each of your attacks.

[Yitzi]

What do you guys think? Am I missing any repercussion from these changes?

You're missing two important repercussions (not counting an increase in the variance of damage/round).

The first is that it applies even when you can't make multiple attacks (e.g. move+attack or charge). That might not be a bad thing, though, depending on what style you're going for.

The second, which is far more of a concern, is that it's equivalent to allowing the iterative attacks to all be made at your full BAB, which makes AC far less important than it is normally.

[The Troubadour]

(not counting an increase in the variance of damage/round).

Yeah, I was thinking of maybe adding something like: "If your Base Attack Bonus is +11 or higher, even if you miss your attack you still deal your regular damage."


The first is that it applies even when you can't make multiple attacks (e.g. move+attack or charge).

That's intentional. :-) I'm also thinking of a way to remove opportunity attacks from the system.


The second, which is far more of a concern, is that it's equivalent to allowing the iterative attacks to all be made at your full BAB, which makes AC far less important than it is normally.

Really? I'd say it becomes even more important, since now you have the chance of negating all damage.

Is there any way of removing the additional attacks and also keeping the PCs' damage per round more-or-less the same to what it currently is? Maybe something like adding a blanket rule: "You gain a bonus to the attack's damage roll equal to twice the difference between your attack roll and your target's defense."

[gkathellar]

If you're changing iteratives into a damage bonus, I suggest making it more granular, as the "suddenly, you get an extra attack per round!" thing was always kind of nonsensical.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Tome of Battle. Now most "Fighter's" turns will be spend using a single ability.

[Rainbownaga]

Personally I would retain the full attack action and limit the more powerful attacks to full attacks. It's already too easy to get powerful charge attacks, and it would remove the issue of ToB being too powerful as well.

[Zeta Kai]

I've never actually found that it was the combat players who held things up compared to the mages, but that's just me...

No, it's not just you. Even when they know what they wanna do ahead of time, it still takes longer to resolve than tank-&-spank.

[Yitzi]

Really? I'd say it becomes even more important, since now you have the chance of negating all damage.

But on the other hand, a higher total average hit equivalents/round means that reducing the hit equivalents/round by a given number will be a lower percentage of the total.

That said, I realize that I forgot to take into account the fact that the fourth (and maybe even third) attack might be a 20-to-hit anyway, which this would remove the effect of. Still, doing the math, this does end up making AC less important except when the secondary attack would need a 20 to hit under the old system (in which case AC becomes more important.)


Is there any way of removing the additional attacks and also keeping the PCs' damage per round more-or-less the same to what it currently is? Maybe something like adding a blanket rule: "You gain a bonus to the attack's damage roll equal to twice the difference between your attack roll and your target's defense."

That still doesn't work; the problem is that under the standard system your damage/round depends on the target's AC in a way that does not scale with the difference between the target's AC and your attack bonus on the first attack.

What you can do to make it work, is to use the original idea, but 1. Make it optional, and 2. You take a -2 or -3 penalty to your attack roll when trying to do double damage, -5 when trying to do triple damage, and -7 or -8 when trying to do quadruple damage. That still doesn't help avoid increasing the variance, but it will make the actual damage/round work out.

Alternatively, you do normal damage, and if you beat the target's AC by 5 (and have BAB at least +6) you do double damage, and similarly for beating by 10 (triple damage, needs BAB +11) and by 15 (quadruple damage, needs BAB +16).

If you want a similar variance to the normal rules, though, there's no way to do it with a single d20 for the attack roll. You can, however, counteract the effect (at least with the first option, or anything where you know ahead of time what the damage multiplier will be) by reducing the die size: If you try to do double damage, use 1d14+3 (if you don't want to use a die size that can't be an actual die, 1d12+4 can work pretty well), for triple damage use 1d12+4, and for quadruple damage use 1d10+5. Of course, that'll cause messes in terms of the maximum, minimum, autohits, automisses, and crits, so you have to decide whether it's worth it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Alternatively, you do normal damage, and if you beat the target's AC by 5 (and have BAB at least +6) you do double damage, and similarly for beating by 10 (triple damage, needs BAB +11) and by 15 (quadruple damage, needs BAB +16).

This. This right here is actually a pretty excellent way of doing it.

[Waddacku]

I like the solution presented in Trailblazer. In short, instead of 0/-5 BAB attacks, you get -2/-2. When you'd have 0/-5/-10, you get -1/-1. At 0/-5/-10/-15, it's two attacks at full BAB. Should speed things up immensely, and the damage stays very close to the same (small increase when attack bonus and AC are similar, slight decrease at the extreme differences).

Mind, the book actually says at 6th level, 11th level, 15th level... I'm not sure if that's how they intended it or if it's supposed to go up with BAB. It shouldn't really pose any trouble either way, though.

[Morph Bark]

Iaijutsu Focus users will love it.

[Person_Man]

You could switch everyone to a Tome of Battle-ish combat mechanic.

All attacks/spells/powers/combat actions are a Standard Action (or a Full Round Action, if they're something big like Summoning).

A Move Action can only be used to move - either a normal move, a Charge, to stand up, open a door, take a 5 ft step, etc.

Attacks of Opportunity are an Immediate Action (thus limiting them to one per round), but if successful they immediately end the target's turn (ie, stop their movement and prevent them from taking any additional action - very powerful - but limited to one use per round).

A "basic attack" could deals normal damage + (BAB * 2). If you're a Rogue or Scout or Ninja, it is normal damage + (level*1d6) if the enemy qualifies for Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike/Skirmish.

If you have the "Improved whatever" feat, a basic attack also gives you 1 opposed check (to Trip, Bull Rush, Overrun, Disarm, Grapple, Sunder, etc). By default, a basic attack works like Spring Attack (and can be made at any point during your Move Action, including Charges, so that it works with mounted combat and Overrun and whatnot).

[The Troubadour]

Alternatively, you do normal damage, and if you beat the target's AC by 5 (and have BAB at least +6) you do double damage, and similarly for beating by 10 (triple damage, needs BAB +11) and by 15 (quadruple damage, needs BAB +16).

I like it! Seems simple enough. Thanks a lot! :-D


I like the solution presented in Trailblazer. In short, instead of 0/-5 BAB attacks, you get -2/-2. When you'd have 0/-5/-10, you get -1/-1. At 0/-5/-10/-15, it's two attacks at full BAB.

Hmmm, also very interesting. But is making more than one attack a full-round action, or simply a standard action?

[The Troubadour]

Sorry for not answering earlier, but somehow I completely missed your post!


All attacks/spells/powers/combat actions are a Standard Action (or a Full Round Action, if they're something big like Summoning).

So far, so good - in fact, that was exactly what I had in mind. :-)



A Move Action can only be used to move - either a normal move, a Charge, to stand up, open a door, take a 5 ft step, etc.

Agreed, except that a Charge should be a Full-Round Action.



Attacks of Opportunity are an Immediate Action (thus limiting them to one per round), but if successful they immediately end the target's turn (ie, stop their movement and prevent them from taking any additional action - very powerful - but limited to one use per round).

Hmmm... Quite powerful, indeed - but perhaps acceptable. Combat Reflexes would have to be reworked, though.



A "basic attack" could deals normal damage + (BAB * 2).

Let's see, under the standard rules:

20th-level Fighter, STR 20, wielding a +5 longsword, with Greater Weapon Specialization - If he successfully hits twice per round, he'll deal 2d8+28 (average damage: 37); if he successfully hits three times, he'll deal 3d8+42 (average damage: 55).

(Have I missed anything the Fighter could use to increase his damage? Generic things only, please - that is, nothing build-specific.)

Under your suggestion:

20th-level Fighter, STR 20, wielding a +5 longsword, with Greater Weapon Specialization - If he successfully hits the enemy, he'll deal 1d8+54 (average damage: 58).

Hmmm... How about adding only BAB to damage, instead of BAB * 2? Would Fighters/etc. still retain their relative power?



If you're a Rogue or Scout or Ninja, it is normal damage + (level*1d6) if the enemy qualifies for Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike/Skirmish.

Why level * 1d6? I thought they gained 1d6 of Sneak Attack for every 2 levels?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Let's see, under the standard rules:

20th-level Fighter, STR 20, wielding a +5 longsword, with Greater Weapon Specialization - If he successfully hits twice per round, he'll deal 2d8+28 (average damage: 37); if he successfully hits three times, he'll deal 3d8+42 (average damage: 55).


Power Attack. Odd feat bonuses. Other weapon abilities (chance to crit, +1d6 damage abilities, +flat damage abilities. Charge bonuses from charging builds. Any number of other things can contribute.

Basically, Tome of Battle still isn't overpowered, and it's high level effects are things like "+100 damage on this attack" or "+20d6 damage on this attack" or "deal 100 damage to every enemy within 60 feet of you, Reflex save for half."

What you're suggesting is, in my opinion, a straight up nerf to the Fighter, especially damage builds. You now only have one chance to hit, and you're not really gaining that much out of a half-decent Fighter build, even at +BaBx2 damage (which is probably OP at low levels, but definitely UP at higher levels).

I really would recommend a Tome of Battle like system where that standard action attack contributes about as much (if a little less) than a standard action spell would. Again, 9th level Tome of Battle effects are roughly equal to 6th-7th level spells, and that system works excellently.

[The Troubadour]

Power Attack. Odd feat bonuses. Other weapon abilities (chance to crit, +1d6 damage abilities, +flat damage abilities. Charge bonuses from charging builds. Any number of other things can contribute.

But those things will contribute equally to both systems, won't they? Wouldn't that keep things even between them?


I really would recommend a Tome of Battle like system where that standard action attack contributes about as much (if a little less) than a standard action spell would. Again, 9th level Tome of Battle effects are roughly equal to 6th-7th level spells, and that system works excellently.

*sigh* I'm almost to the point of forgetting this and just using the Injury optional rule. :-P
Just kidding. So, were I to go with a ToB-esque system, how about something like this:


BAB/Additional Damage Dice:
1-3 +1d8
4-7 +2d6
8-11 +2d8
12-15 +3d6
16-19 +3d8
20 +4d8

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But those things will contribute equally to both systems, won't they? Wouldn't that keep things even between them?

Nah...you suggested BaB-based damage, and those things scale off of number of attacks as well as BaB. :smallbiggrin:

[Yitzi]

Basically, Tome of Battle still isn't overpowered

Debatable. It's clearly not more overpowered than wizard or cleric (or even sorcerer or psion), but that's not the same thing.


What you're suggesting is, in my opinion, a straight up nerf to the Fighter, especially damage builds.

Not if all the damage modifiers are multiplied just like the base damage.

[The Troubadour]

Ok, guys, full disclosure: this is for a setting where the vast majority of spells won't deal damage and there will be almost no magic items.
So, let's look at it in a vacuum: does a system where damage = weapon damage die + STR modifier + BAB + difference between attack roll/target's AC work well enough at all levels of play (1-20)? How about the previous table, the one where you add extra damage dice (I like that one simply because I like rolling lots of dice :-P).

[Morph Bark]

Debatable. It's clearly not more overpowered than wizard or cleric (or even sorcerer or psion), but that's not the same thing.

I give you that it is debatable pre-level 6 versus other melee and versus everything else at level 1 and 2, but from level 6 onwards things become to equalize amongst non-fullcasters between ToB and non-ToB. Hence why E6 (or E8) is prettymuch perfect.


Ok, guys, full disclosure: this is for a setting where the vast majority of spells won't deal damage and there will be almost no magic items.
So, let's look at it in a vacuum: does a system where damage = weapon damage die + STR modifier + BAB + difference between attack roll/target's AC work well enough at all levels of play (1-20)? How about the previous table, the one where you add extra damage dice (I like that one simply because I like rolling lots of dice :-P).

Damage-dealing spells aren't the problem. The problem are the ones where casters get extra actions, shoot out save-or-sucks, no-saves or summon creatures. Especially in the last case does this variant actually empower spellcasters indirectly and nerf melee further.

...also, if you like rolling lots of dice, why would you want to make the amount of attacks less rather than more? Furthermore, have you checked with your players if they are of the same opinion and are fine with such a change? Barbarian players might be disappointed deeply.

[The Troubadour]

Damage-dealing spells aren't the problem. The problem are the ones where casters get extra actions, shoot out save-or-sucks, no-saves or summon creatures. Especially in the last case does this variant actually empower spellcasters indirectly and nerf melee further.

Yeah, the vast majority of those will be thrown out as well. Basically, magic will be a combination of enchantment/illusion spells with a few transmutation ones, and some buffing/debuffing spells as well.


...also, if you like rolling lots of dice, why would you want to make the amount of attacks less rather than more?

It's one thing to make 4 attack rolls and 4 damage rolls, it's quite another to make an attack roll and a single damage roll with some extra dice. ;-) Also, I'm trying to move away a bit from the tactical movement aspect of the game.


Barbarian players might be disappointed deeply.

Any reason Barbarian players might be more disappointed than others?

[Waddacku]

Hmmm, also very interesting. But is making more than one attack a full-round action, or simply a standard action?
Still a full-round. The book also includes what they call combat reactions, to make more things happen in a fight, but I haven't really read that section much. Trailblazer is a highly interesting book, though. If 3e mechanics interest you, anyway.

[Yitzi]

I give you that it is debatable pre-level 6 versus other melee and versus everything else at level 1 and 2, but from level 6 onwards things become to equalize amongst non-fullcasters between ToB and non-ToB. Hence why E6 (or E8) is prettymuch perfect.

Wait, things like "deal 100 damage to every enemy within 60'" are equal to non-ToB noncasters? How does that work?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Wait, things like "deal 100 damage to every enemy within 60'" are equal to non-ToB noncasters? How does that work?

Tome of Battle was intended to reduce the curve between the need to optimize non-casters in a caster environment and the casters themselves. It still falls behind even half-decently optimized non-casters, as many of the well known builds can sweep the floor with Tome of Battle, and many of those builds aren't even that complicated (a number of archer builds, a number of charge builds, and a few other fairly well known tricks). Tome of Battle sits above non-optimized non-casters, and below casters in general, and thus, in my mind, is a very good balance point for 3.5.

[Yitzi]

It still falls behind even half-decently optimized non-casters, as many of the well known builds can sweep the floor with Tome of Battle, and many of those builds aren't even that complicated (a number of archer builds, a number of charge builds, and a few other fairly well known tricks).

Ok, I suppose that makes sense.

[Roderick_BR]

It's an interesting option. I saw some suggestions like that before.
What it'll cause:
If all attacks, including "single" attacks will follow this rule, melee suddenly got a lot more powerful. You could allow this variant only during full attacks, but you could as well just leave it. Makes high level weapons combat actually gain power.
Also, it'll make a single attack at full BAB automatically give you automatic hits of the other 3 attacks. Let me explain: At BAB 16 to 20, you need to hit the enemy's AC 4 times to deal 4 times your damage. With this, you just need to hit once. You may want to apply the multiplied damage only to the weapon's base damage (4E style).
I wouldn't say that magic attacks would be affected as they are usually only rolled once every round. Just make this apply to iterary attacks and don't worry with those.
Two Weapon Fighting would be a lot better.
Classes that actually rely on multiple attacks, like Rogues, would have it's power actually reduced, as less attacks means applying less effects (extra dice damage, status penalties, chance to score a critical, chance to use a vorpal effect, etc).
Also, you'll be a little less effective against groups of mooks, unless you want to let multiple attacks as an option. Maybe call the single attack with extra damage "heavy attack" or something.

[Ashtagon]

I did some statistical analysis once, in which I compared attack rolls against their most common targets (enemies with AC between 5-15 points above BAB). Within that range...

* If you have a second attack, it is statistically equivalent to multiplying average damage output by 1.65 (+/- a small fraction).
* If you have a third attack, it is statistically equivalent to multiplying average damage output by 2 (+/- a small fraction).
* If you have a fourth attack, it is statistically equivalent to multiplying average damage output by 2.08 (+/- a small fraction).

The maths will leave this pattern if you have sneak attack and house rule it to only affect the first attack.It also breaks when comparing against enemies outside that "most common enemy" AC range.

Quite by coincidence, you can get the same statistical effect (or a very close approximation, within the AC range described above) by...

* ...rolling 2d20 and taking the single best result instead of two iterative attacks.
* ...rolling 3d20 and taking the single best result instead of three iterative attacks.
* ...rolling 4d20 and taking the single best result instead of four iterative attacks.

However, the "xd20 best one" approach does mean you will never get multiple hits with a single iterative attack sequence, which will reduce the swinginess of martial character damage. It also means you can't mass-attack groups of mooks without certain feats.