Thought on iterative attacks

[Ashtagon]

Proposed houserule:


As a standard action, you can make a full suite of iterative attacks. Extra attacks (eg. natural attacks if wielding a weapon, secondary natural attacks, offhand weapon) cannot be made, as per RAW.

As a full-round action, you can make a full suite of iterative attacks, at your full BAB bonus (ie. no penalty for being iterative attacks). Extra attacks (eg. natural attacks if wielding a weapon, secondary natural attacks, offhand weapon) can be made normally, as per RAW.

How would this affect playability of melee types?

[TuggyNE]

Hmm, I think it would improve things a fair bit.

However, I'd suggest rewriting to include the existing wording for iterative attacks, so as to avoid any direct reference to the old rules. (Put in a note that summarizes the effect of the changes, if you like.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

It certainly ups their damage potential considerably. And makes mobile battles a lot less annoying. And helps eliminate the necessity of getting pounce. So... all good things, I guess, although damage was always something melee types could do reasonably well.

On a related note, how about making all iterative attacks at a -5 penalty, rather than -5/-10/-15? Helps them hit, and it's faster, since you can roll all the attacks at once.

[bobthe6th]

So make TWF and S&B suck more ****?

Honestly, I would let TWF work with this. Really, the full attack action is more then a little funny. I would make charge still only a single attack... as it is a lot of movement distance.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So make TWF and S&B suck more ****?
Huh? :smallconfused: It makes TWF a lot better, since you're pretty much guaranteed to always get your extra attacks.

[bobthe6th]

Huh? :smallconfused: It makes TWF a lot better, since you're pretty much guaranteed to always get your extra attacks.

No, they are explicitly disallowed.


As a standard action, you can make a full suite of iterative attacks. Extra attacks (eg. natural attacks if wielding a weapon, secondary natural attacks, offhand weapon) cannot be made, as per RAW.

so once again, unless you can stay within 5ft you can't full attack with two weapons.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, that level of literacy bodes well for the essay I'm supposed to be writing right now... :smallannoyed:

Why aren't we allowing extra weapons and such?

[Ashtagon]

Well, that level of literacy bodes well for the essay I'm supposed to be writing right now... :smallannoyed:

Why aren't we allowing extra weapons and such?

My personal first choice is to drop iteratives entirely. However, I recognise they're a bit of a sacred cow, having been in every edition of the game ever in some form. I'm just experimenting with ideas.

btw, how many people here are familiar with the fact that by RAW, a L20 fighter with no twf-specific feats will still only get a single attack with his offhand weapon with his full-round attack action?

[TuggyNE]

btw, how many people here are familiar with the fact that by RAW, a L20 fighter with no twf-specific feats will still only get a single attack with his offhand weapon with his full-round attack action?

Me for one, but why do you ask?

[Just to Browse]

My personal first choice is to drop iteratives entirely. However, I recognise they're a bit of a sacred cow, having been in every edition of the game ever in some form. I'm just experimenting with ideas.

btw, how many people here are familiar with the fact that by RAW, a L20 fighter with no twf-specific feats will still only get a single attack with his offhand weapon with his full-round attack action?

Also, damage output. TWF damage output is totally screwed under this system (relative to other classes), so you should allow it.

And why is that RAW? The fighter would get 3 iterative attacks... is this another one of those dysfunctional misreadings/oversights?

[Ashtagon]

Also, damage output. TWF damage output is totally screwed under this system (relative to other classes), so you should allow it.

And why is that RAW? The fighter would get 3 iterative attacks... is this another one of those dysfunctional misreadings/oversights?

RAW, a L20 fighter with no specific feats in a full-round attack with TWF, gets 4 attacks with his main weapon and 1 attack with his off-hand weapon.

Many people play it as 4 attacks with main and 4 attacks with off-hand. However, there is a specific feat chain to grant iterative attacks with the off-hand weapon (Improved/Greater/Perfect TWF feats, PHB and CW), which clearly shows that the default is you do not get off-hand iteratives.

The historical niche for TWF was actually superior defence, but since that treads on the concept space of sword&board fighting and ignores established tropes for TWF, I'd rather stick with "more attacks" as the advantage of TWF.

Maybe this was a bad approach. Back to the drawing board.

(incidentally, any suggestion of "but full casters can do..." will be ignored. That's not a sensible balance point for any game.)

[Greenish]

Many people play it as 4 attacks with main and 4 attacks with off-hand.I've never seen that. I mean, the rules are perfectly clear (for once), and the TWF chain of feats beyond the first has one and only one purpose.


Also I really don't understand the thinking behind cutting out natural weapons and TWF from standard action full attacks.

[Ashtagon]

I've never seen that. I mean, the rules are perfectly clear (for once), and the TWF chain of feats beyond the first has one and only one purpose.


Also I really don't understand the thinking behind cutting out natural weapons and TWF from standard action full attacks.

There's no such thing as a full attack that can be done in a standard action, outside of homebrew or exotic (possibly 3pp) feats.

[NichG]

Natural weapons are probably being dropped to prevent monsters from all suddenly becoming much more dangerous (no more kiting dragons to prevent them from pulling off a 5 attack sequence otherwise).

I'd be more in favor of dropping iteratives entirely. Builds that get large numbers of attacks tend to dominate at the high end, which hedges out about half of the ToB content as being unable to keep up with the alternate option of just full attacking (and really, the half that is lost is the more interesting ToB content - the stuff that does things other than adding extra attacks to your attack sequence).

Of course this does mean adjusting damage a bit. There are a number of ways to do this I expect. One possibility would simply be that the attacker's BAB is added to weapon damage (sort of a free automatic Power Attack). The advantage of TWF is that you'd get two attacks instead of one, and there wouldn't be as much of a feat tax for going that route (it also helps make up for the normal situation where you have to dump Str to get Dex to qualify for those feats, thus reducing individual damage). You could just leave natural attacks working the old way but without the bonus, and use monster statblocks as-is.

Edit: Adding BAB once is probably not quite good enough. Maybe add 1.5x BAB for two-handed weapons, 1x BAB for 1-handed weapons? Even 3x/2x might be justified, though at that point you're really going to overwhelm any bonuses from weapon enchantment or stats.

[Greenish]

There's no such thing as a full attack that can be done in a standard action, outside of homebrew or exotic (possibly 3pp) feats.Of course there is, partial charge + Pounce. But obviously I was commenting on the piece of homebrew this whole thread is about. :smallsigh:

[Ashtagon]

Of course there is, partial charge + Pounce. But obviously I was commenting on the piece of homebrew this whole thread is about. :smallsigh:

Two-Weapon Pounce, perhaps? I generally regard PHB2 feats to be exotic content. It's quite far removed from core at any rate.

Or Catfolk Pounce (RotW)? Since that feat requires a specific and unusual race, that's reasonably exotic too.

Or Lion's Pounce (CD)? Since it requires wildshaping to use, that's also a candidate for the exotic feats list (and a horribly poor use of wildshaping resources, but druids, eh).

Is there another pounce variant I missed?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Pounce (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#pounce). Most frequently obtained through a one-level dip into Lion Totem Barbarian.

[Ashtagon]

Pounce (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#pounce). Most frequently obtained through a one-level dip into Lion Totem Barbarian.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#barbarianVariantTotemB arbarian


Lion Totem Class Features

A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities.


At 1st level, a lion-totem barbarian gains Run as a bonus feat.
A 2nd-level lion-totem barbarian gains a +2 bonus on Hide checks.
A 5th-level lion-totem barbarian gains a +2 bonus on damage rolls whenever he charges.



I'm not seeing Pounce in there.

Edit: Reading around, it seems the Spirit Lion Totem (Complete Champion) warrior gets pounce at 1st level. And most commentators on that note it is ridiculously OP and they ban it in their games. So yeah, exotic again. Complete Champion was definitely written during WotC's "we just don't care anymore" phase of 3.5e.

[bobthe6th]

sunden leap, shadow blip... but again, that is a comment on your brew.

I stand by my "telling TWF/S&B to suck more ****" which is hard, because they tend to suck all of it normally.

So, lets be clear, what do you want this variant to do?

[Ashtagon]

It just occurred to me, all this talk of pounce is actually a diversion. It's a diversion because Pounce gives you what you would normally get on a full round attack, not a standard attack. I'm not taking anything away from pounce.

What my changes amount to are:

Standard Attack: You get everything you would normally under RAW, except you also get iterative attacks on your primary weapon.

Full Round Action Attack: You get everything you would normally under RAW, except there is no iterative penalty on your iterative attacks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, we understand what you're doing. We're asking why you have specifically barred two-weapon fighting- already a weak style- from benefiting.

[Ashtagon]

No, we understand what you're doing. We're asking why you have specifically barred two-weapon fighting- already a weak style- from benefiting.

TWF benefits in all the cases where RAW normally allows TWF to get attacks from the offhand weapon.

Since a standard action spent attacking doesn't normally grant you offhand attacks, there is no gain. Assuming you spent a full-round action attacking (or pounce etc.) and have the appropriate feats to get iteratives on your offhand, then you get the benefit in your full round attack.

[bobthe6th]

Ok, really at this point I have to assume you are trolling.

The problem I have with your variant(not RAW, not pounce, what you have written in the OP), is that it gives a boost to Two Handed Fighting(that is, fighting with one weapon held with both hands) without giving an equivalent boost to Two Weapon Fighting(that is, fighting with a weapon in both hands) or Sword and Board(that is, fighting with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other(usually used to bash with)).

I find this to be a problem because Two Handed Fighting is the easiest to pick up(all you really need is power attack) and generally most powerful fighting style. Two Weapon Fighting is generally considered the weaker fighting style(DR shreds it, it generally relies on precision damage(which only works on a susbset of all foes, costs twice as much for the same enhancement bonus, gets far less benefit from power attack, and requires a minimum of three feats+ a Dex of 19.)

So, now that we understand each other... Why are you making an already weak style comparatively weaker when compared to the considerably stronger style?

[lightningcat]

This is what I'm using in my homebrew D&D game.


A standard attack action, one made the same turn as a move action, includes all iterative attacks based on you weapon speed and Base Attack Bonus. Characters with multiple weapons can attack with all of their weapons when using a standard attack action. Creatures with natural attacks may use all of their attacks when using a standard attack action.
A full attack action allows the character to make an additional attack at their highest Base Attack Bonus, and the penalty for all iterative attacks is reduced by 2, this does not change the weapon's speed. The additional attack applies to each weapon the character is using.

Weapon speed is stolenborrowed from the EQ tabletop game, and I use a totally reworked two-weapon fighting feat chain. So far no one has disliked it. But we haven't got to high levels yet. Theoritically a character could get 20 attacks in a round with this system, but no one has gotten past 5 yet.

[The Troubadour]

Considering how the 3rd and 4th attacks rarely hit (unless the PCs are fighting opponents with terribly low AC), I'm considering simply removing them entirely. Besides, in AD&D, if I recall it correctly, you could only reach 2 attacks per round, so there's a precedent for that.

[Ashtagon]

ok, I see now how the original proposal screws over TWF, so consider it dropped.

Following on from what The Troubadour said, I did some maths a long time ago, and noted that having one iterative attack was mathematically equivalent to have a damage multiplier of about x1.65; a third was equivalent to x2, and a fourth was equivalent to about x2.08. This assumes a level-appropriate opponent. It is worth less against more dangerous opponents, and more against weaker opponents.

Level-appropriate was defined for that spreadsheet as having an AC that would result in a successful hit being achieved on a minimum roll somewhere between 6 and 15; for a total attack bonus +10 hero, a "level-appropriate" enemy would have had a total AC in the 16-25 range.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Proposed houserule:


As a standard action, you can make a full suite of iterative attacks. Extra attacks (eg. natural attacks if wielding a weapon, secondary natural attacks, offhand weapon) cannot be made, as per RAW.

As a full-round action, you can make a full suite of iterative attacks, at your full BAB bonus (ie. no penalty for being iterative attacks). Extra attacks (eg. natural attacks if wielding a weapon, secondary natural attacks, offhand weapon) can be made normally, as per RAW.

How would this affect playability of melee types?

Sounds good to me!

Although I'm only looking to balance it with 3.0 core-books-only, rather than with 3.5 anything-goes...

[Blacky the Blackball]

Considering how the 3rd and 4th attacks rarely hit (unless the PCs are fighting opponents with terribly low AC), I'm considering simply removing them entirely. Besides, in AD&D, if I recall it correctly, you could only reach 2 attacks per round, so there's a precedent for that.

You don't recall correctly. In AD&D a fighter would get an attack per level if they were fighting 1HD opponents (at least they did in first edition - this may have been removed in second edition).

[Blacky the Blackball]

The problem I have with your variant(not RAW, not pounce, what you have written in the OP), is that it gives a boost to Two Handed Fighting(that is, fighting with one weapon held with both hands) without giving an equivalent boost to Two Weapon Fighting(that is, fighting with a weapon in both hands) or Sword and Board(that is, fighting with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other(usually used to bash with)).

I find this to be a problem because Two Handed Fighting is the easiest to pick up(all you really need is power attack) and generally most powerful fighting style. Two Weapon Fighting is generally considered the weaker fighting style(DR shreds it, it generally relies on precision damage(which only works on a susbset of all foes, costs twice as much for the same enhancement bonus, gets far less benefit from power attack, and requires a minimum of three feats+ a Dex of 19.)

Hmmm... Given that the suggestion is intended to help all melee characters, what sort of additional boost would you consider giving to TWF fighting to help balance it, then?

Allowing the off-hand attack to be made during a standard attack action would certainly help some. Probably not enough on its own, though.

[bobthe6th]

Hmmm... Given that the suggestion is intended to help all melee characters, what sort of additional boost would you consider giving to TWF fighting to help balance it, then?

Allowing the off-hand attack to be made during a standard attack action would certainly help some. Probably not enough on its own, though.

I am writing up a full weapon/armor/shield/weapon style remake, but for now I would suggest making TWF a exotic weapon prof that just lets you attack with both weapons as an attack action. Bonus damage is only applied once, but so is DR. If you attack different targets with both attacks, devide bonus damage evenly between them.

After that, allow people to enchant weapons as a set, that only provides the bonus if both weapons are wielded.

[The Troubadour]

You don't recall correctly. In AD&D a fighter would get an attack per level if they were fighting 1HD opponents (at least they did in first edition - this may have been removed in second edition).

It was, and it was only against enemies with less than 1 HD, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, against everyone else, even the high-level Fighter never surpassed 2 attacks per round, right?

[Blacky the Blackball]

It was, and it was only against enemies with less than 1 HD, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, against everyone else, even the high-level Fighter never surpassed 2 attacks per round, right?

I'm not sure they ever got more than one attack unless they were using two weapon fighting or you were using the Weapon Specialisation rules from one of the supplements.

If you were using Weapon Specialisation they could sometimes get 3 attacks (the infamous "Dart Thrower", for example).