PDA

View Full Version : Replacing Full Attacks (3.5/3.P)



Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-07, 08:54 PM
I dislike full attacks-- they take too long to resolve, and force combatants to spend too long standing in one place, robbing combat of dynamic energy. So, to replace them, I propose:


You may add your base attack bonus to all weapon damage rolls.
You may, as a standard action, attack multiple creatures within your reach, taking a penalty to attack and damage equal to the number of different creatures you're attacking. (So, for example, if you attack 4 goblins, you take a -4 penalty to attack and damage against each one). You may attack any number of creatures in a single round, up to a maximum number equal to one-half your base attack bonus.
Two-weapon fighting (under optimal circumstances) allows you to make two attacks in one standard action, but you only apply half your BAB to the damage. However, the penalties from attacking multiple creatures are halved.
In addition, for every 5 points of BAB, you roll your weapon damage die one additional time-- so a 5th level fighter wielding a longsword would deal 2d8+Str+5 damage, while if he were wielding a greatsword he'd deal 4d6+(1.5 x Str) + 5 damage.


This will result in somewhat lower melee damage. To compensate... maybe some sort of extra bonus for every 5 points of BAB? Not sure what, though-- extra damage just seems kind of redundant.

unbeliever536
2013-04-07, 09:23 PM
Why not just give everyone Spring Attack and it's improvements from PHII for free, when appropriate?

Humble Master
2013-04-07, 09:24 PM
How will this reduce melee damage if now you add your BAB to damage rolls? Also, to be honest, I dislike the ability to attack everybody within you range just at a high penalty. Let's look at a 1st level Fighter dueling with 3 Goblins. The first level fighter can pretty easily get a +6to his attack roll. Now if he attacks all the goblins at once with his greatsword he is reduced to +3 against each goblin. Assuming these are standard goblins with standard AC (15) there is a 40% chance that the fighter will hit any of these goblins. And he gets to attack all 3 of them. This seems a lot better than full attack so I don't understand why you feal that it will nerf mundane fighters.

.

Just to Browse
2013-04-07, 11:07 PM
I would actually have to test this to see how it works. While it seems like it would reduce single-target damage output by a big chunk, it makes all meleers into huge area damagers, which really encourages mook-slaying and diving into the thick of battle.

I'm OK with what it encourages, I'm just not sure if it works out numerically. Perhaps a different scaling multiattack option would work, something like this (though tables are bad):
{table]Targets|Penalty
1|-0
2|-2
3|-4
4|-5
5+|-6[/table]

nonsi
2013-04-08, 12:36 AM
Why not just give everyone Spring Attack and it's improvements from PHII for free, when appropriate?

Because it's not enough.
When facing a tough opponent, you want to be able to move about and still attack it more than once.

nonsi
2013-04-08, 12:41 AM
I dislike full attacks-- they take too long to resolve, and force combatants to spend too long standing in one place, robbing combat of dynamic energy. So, to replace them, I propose:


You may add your base attack bonus to all weapon damage rolls.
You may, as a standard action, attack multiple creatures within your reach, taking a penalty to attack and damage equal to the number of different creatures you're attacking. (So, for example, if you attack 4 goblins, you take a -4 penalty to attack and damage against each one).
Two-weapon fighting (under optimal circumstances) allows you to make two attacks in one standard action, but you only apply half your BAB to the damage. However, the penalties from attacking multiple creatures are halved.


This will result in somewhat lower melee damage. To compensate... maybe some sort of extra bonus for every 5 points of BAB? Not sure what, though-- extra damage just seems kind of redundant.

Here's another reason to consider my crit-substitution rules.
Too bad you didn't like them, because they'd work great in this case as well.

Erik Vale
2013-04-08, 12:46 AM
Perhaps instead give the vital strike feat line from pathfinder to character for free [1/5 bab. Each one multiplies the number of dice you normally get by 1 more than normal, so damage stays the same].

However this runs the risk of completely missing with your 1 attack. Which sucks.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2013-04-08, 01:06 AM
Have you been following the D&D Next packets? Class attack bonuses progress slowly (a level 20 fighter only has a +5 bonus to hit). Martial classes get the Deadly Strike ability, which lets them roll their weapon's base damage (the die roll, not the other modifiers) more than once and total the result, up to five time at level 20 (so a level 20 fighter swings longswords for 5d8 damage). Attacking the same opponent multiple times works differently for each class (monks can flurry, fighters get expertise dice), and the gist of it is that attacking multiple different opponents is mechanically different from attacking the same opponent multiple times.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-08, 07:33 AM
How will this reduce melee damage if now you add your BAB to damage rolls? Also, to be honest, I dislike the ability to attack everybody within you range just at a high penalty. Let's look at a 1st level Fighter dueling with 3 Goblins. The first level fighter can pretty easily get a +6to his attack roll. Now if he attacks all the goblins at once with his greatsword he is reduced to +3 against each goblin. Assuming these are standard goblins with standard AC (15) there is a 40% chance that the fighter will hit any of these goblins. And he gets to attack all 3 of them. This seems a lot better than full attack so I don't understand why you feal that it will nerf mundane fighters.
Single-target damage suffers considerably-- at, say, level 10, your weapon die + damage bonus is likely to be a lot higher than your BAB, so connecting with a second attack would deal more damage than just adding your BAB to the first one.


Here's another reason to consider my crit-substitution rules.
Too bad you didn't like them, because they'd work great in this case as well.
a) I don't know why you're saying that I don't like them; I have no memory of ever commenting on them
b) Looking at the thread, your rules have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm trying to do here-- they still allow full attacks, and increase the time spent on rolling, since you need to figure out how much you hit by


Perhaps instead give the vital strike feat line from pathfinder to character for free [1/5 bab. Each one multiplies the number of dice you normally get by 1 more than normal, so damage stays the same].

However this runs the risk of completely missing with your 1 attack. Which sucks.
Well, the risk of a total miss is already there. Vital Strike... it's an interesting option, certainly. Most bonus damage comes from, well, bonuses-- strength, magic, and power attack-- rather than weapon damage dice. But it's a thought...


On multiattacking: perhaps if we capped the number of extra attacks at, oh, 1/2 BAB, it would be more reasonable?

Zireael
2013-04-08, 08:31 AM
Yes, a 1/2 BAB cap on multiattacks is a good idea.

Yitzi
2013-04-08, 09:01 AM
I dislike full attacks-- they take too long to resolve, and force combatants to spend too long standing in one place, robbing combat of dynamic energy. So, to replace them, I propose:


You may add your base attack bonus to all weapon damage rolls.
You may, as a standard action, attack multiple creatures within your reach, taking a penalty to attack and damage equal to the number of different creatures you're attacking. (So, for example, if you attack 4 goblins, you take a -4 penalty to attack and damage against each one).
Two-weapon fighting (under optimal circumstances) allows you to make two attacks in one standard action, but you only apply half your BAB to the damage. However, the penalties from attacking multiple creatures are halved.


This will result in somewhat lower melee damage. To compensate... maybe some sort of extra bonus for every 5 points of BAB? Not sure what, though-- extra damage just seems kind of redundant.

The idea is good, but:
-You still end up that the lack of weaker iterative attacks makes AC unimportant outside a certain range. Perhaps replace "BAB to damage" with "the amount by which you beat the enemy's AC to damage" (and then just remove stuff like True Strike)? This also might help boost melee damage that extra bit.
-You probably should take a penalty proportional to the number of extra enemies you're attacking (i.e. -1 attack and damage for each enemy after the first). That way, the penalty for your second enemy isn't twice as much as the one for your third. The number of extra enemies should also probably be limited; maybe half your BAB?
-You probably should have some advantage to full attack actions over standard actions.
-This still doesn't give the concealment-bypassing advantage of multiple attacks. Perhaps you should allow multiple attacks to be made against a single enemy using the same rules (so if the wizard's got displacement up, you can make 4 weaker attacks instead of one stronger one to try to get some hits in.)
-For a nondamaging bonus for BAB, consider something along the lines of TOB stances (they're sufficiently unlike anything casters do that the usual anti-TOB arguments shouldn't apply), but scaling, or maybe the equivalent of bonus scaling feats.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-08, 09:09 AM
-You still end up that the lack of weaker iterative attacks makes AC unimportant outside a certain range. Perhaps replace "BAB to damage" with "the amount by which you beat the enemy's AC to damage" (and then just remove stuff like True Strike)? This also might help boost melee damage that extra bit.
Mmm. AC already has its own problems; personally, I favor adding some variant of BAB (1/2? 2/3?).


-You probably should take a penalty proportional to the number of extra enemies you're attacking (i.e. -1 attack and damage for each enemy after the first). That way, the penalty for your second enemy isn't twice as much as the one for your third. The number of extra enemies should also probably be limited; maybe half your BAB?
I just added a 1/2 BAB limit. The "penalty equal to the number of enemies you attack" is directly from M&M-- it's easy to remember. The penalty applies equally to all enemies, though-- if you attack 4 goblins, you take a -4 penalty against the first, second, third, and fourth.


-You probably should have some advantage to full attack actions over standard actions.
What full attack option? This is intended to replace the full attack option. There's no such thing as a full attack option using this system.


-This still doesn't give the concealment-bypassing advantage of multiple attacks. Perhaps you should allow multiple attacks to be made against a single enemy using the same rules (so if the wizard's got displacement up, you can make 4 weaker attacks instead of one stronger one to try to get some hits in.)
Mmm, true. I don't want to just put iterative attacks back in a different form, but that is an issue... Maybe some way to reroll miss chance multiple times? As a feat, perhaps.


-For a nondamaging bonus for BAB, consider something along the lines of TOB stances (they're sufficiently unlike anything casters do that the usual anti-TOB arguments shouldn't apply), but scaling, or maybe the equivalent of bonus scaling feats.
Hmm... there's an idea... though, of course, I wouldn't want to be too much the same, since I highly support using ToB in the game...

nonsi
2013-04-08, 09:26 AM
a) I don't know why you're saying that I don't like them; I have no memory of ever commenting on them

Memory glitch :smalleek:



b) Looking at the thread, your rules have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm trying to do here-- they still allow full attacks, and increase the time spent on rolling, since you need to figure out how much you hit by

Those rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13546955&postcount=1) say nothing about full attack - not in favor and not against.
As for the "figure out" part - it amounts to subtracting two numbers (regarding BAB as cap) and multiplying by a constant number. Hardly an effort after a single game session.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-08, 09:50 AM
Memory glitch :smalleek:
No worries.


Those rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13546955&postcount=1) say nothing about full attack - not in favor and not against.
As for the "figure out" part - it amounts to subtracting two numbers (regarding BAB as cap) and multiplying by a constant number. Hardly an effort after a single game session.
Standard assumption is to assume no houserules beyond those specifically mentioned, so... in any case, if you're not full attacking, the math works out even worse than this version, since you're capping extra damage at BAB, while I'm adding your full BAB, every time.
The math is simple, true, but it's something that you have to do every single time. That will slow things down, believe me. Not a lot, not compared to other things that slow the game down, but... sorry, man. Your work is not what I'm looking for here.

nonsi
2013-04-08, 10:09 AM
No worries.


Standard assumption is to assume no houserules beyond those specifically mentioned, so... in any case, if you're not full attacking, the math works out even worse than this version, since you're capping extra damage at BAB, while I'm adding your full BAB, every time.
The math is simple, true, but it's something that you have to do every single time. That will slow things down, believe me. Not a lot, not compared to other things that slow the game down, but... sorry, man. Your work is not what I'm looking for here.

Fair enough, but I was talking about stacking attack-roll derived extra damage on top of what you suggested (weapon damage + BAB + (up to BAB times the given multiplier)).
I was just assuming that with the attack rolls reduced to one, that extra calculation would be a negligible effort.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-08, 10:18 AM
Fair enough, but I was talking about stacking attack-roll derived extra damage on top of what you suggested (weapon damage + BAB + (up to BAB times the given multiplier)).
I was just assuming that with the attack rolls reduced to one, that extra calculation would be a negligible effort.
Ooooh, OK, that makes sense. Hmm...

RedWarlock
2013-04-08, 02:22 PM
Huh, concealment, yeah, I guess that can be a problem. I'm doing a similar thing in my houserules, removing full attacks.

My idea has been that at +6 BAB and every 10 levels after (so +6, +16, +26, in a 30-level cap) the base damage increases by a factor for all weapon attacks (so weapon damage is increased, as is any flat extras from strength or weapon bonuses, but not bonus dice like flaming or Sneak attack, following crit rules in that way), and every 5 levels (again +6, +11, +16, etc) you get an extra combat die (d20) to roll for your attacks, taking the better of the rolls. Limit of 3 dice total per attack. These dice are also expended to make AoOs, and you can use multiple dice on those AoOs as well. The dice refresh at the end of your turn. (Martial or weapons classes get 1 extra die at 1st level, non-stacking on multiclassing.)

Concealment would then be an issue for mine, as well. It becomes quite a bit stronger, for the same reasons, unless changes are made. I can't just say that you get multiple tries versus concealment equal to the dice spent, since that almost negates it entirely (50% chance, best of three rolls, who's *not* going to make that roll?). Hmm, dunno.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-08, 02:26 PM
Make a feat like Blind-Fight to let you reroll miss chances due to magic blinking-y stuff? And don't let miss chances stack.

Yitzi
2013-04-08, 04:14 PM
And don't let miss chances stack.

Usually, this is RAW already. Most miss chances come from concealment, and therefore don't stack; even miss chances from different sources do not "stack" in the way that AC bonuses do, but rather are each rolled separately.

eftexar
2013-04-08, 04:36 PM
Rules on Miss Chances (see the wizards site (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041005a))
Each type of miss chance does not stack with itself. The highest miss chance (or the one that qualifies in any case) takes precedence over the others. Different types are not combined, but are rolled separately.

Type 1: B/c you are difficult or impossible to see.*
ex. Concealment + Invisibility + Blur + Most Untyped
*A target who is blind ignore this type of miss chance, but has penalties of their own.

Type 2: B/c you are not there, are partially there, are sometimes there, or are sort of there.
ex. Incorporeality + Blink + Flicker + Some Untyped


The maximum for any single roll is 50%. The maximum number of rolls is 2 (one for each type), so the maximum miss chance is 75% (the chance of one of the rolls landing as a miss).

Keep in mind that there are sometimes exceptions to the rules (usually listed in the ability) and that this is not definitive of all situations (but it is for most).

NichG
2013-04-09, 02:33 AM
Concealment is a false issue here I think. Applying a 50% miss chance to 4 attacks has the same average effect on damage as applying it to one attack at 4x the damage. It just means that things get more swingy.

The mathematically consistent, though thematically weird option would be to treat miss chances simply as percentile damage reduction. Say that making 'an attack' is actually a flurry of strikes, parries, dodges, etc, rather than single moment of stabbity-ness. So miss chance makes X% of those (abstracted away) strikes miss.

As far as other things to do with BAB, how about something like the metamagic system except that you sacrifice BAB to power a variety of add-ons to the attack? So maybe for paying 4BAB you can get a free disarm attempt if you hit (in addition to your damage), or your attack sends the enemy flying back (not self-defeating now that there are no full attacks), or whatever.

Yitzi
2013-04-09, 09:29 AM
Concealment is a false issue here I think. Applying a 50% miss chance to 4 attacks has the same average effect on damage as applying it to one attack at 4x the damage. It just means that things get more swingy.

And that "more swingy" can be a problem.


As far as other things to do with BAB, how about something like the metamagic system except that you sacrifice BAB to power a variety of add-ons to the attack? So maybe for paying 4BAB you can get a free disarm attempt if you hit (in addition to your damage), or your attack sends the enemy flying back (not self-defeating now that there are no full attacks), or whatever.

Definitely an option.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2013-04-09, 11:49 AM
As far as other things to do with BAB, how about something like the metamagic system except that you sacrifice BAB to power a variety of add-ons to the attack? So maybe for paying 4BAB you can get a free disarm attempt if you hit (in addition to your damage), or your attack sends the enemy flying back (not self-defeating now that there are no full attacks), or whatever.

I still think that D&D Next has the right approach to this. Instead of peanlizing you for doing something cool, they give you a dedicated resource (expertise dice) for doing cool things.

Yitzi
2013-04-09, 12:27 PM
I still think that D&D Next has the right approach to this. Instead of peanlizing you for doing something cool, they give you a dedicated resource (expertise dice) for doing cool things.

On the other hand, if something is both more effective and easier, then there's no reason not to do it, which decreases the interesting-ness of the tactic. Perhaps cool things should be harder to pull off (and hence more notable) but a lot more effective when successful...

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-04-09, 12:45 PM
How are you planning to handle non-TWF extra attacks like Rapid Shot, Snap Kick, and similar? The standard tradeoff in 3e is -2 to all attacks in the round for 1 extra attack, and this system gives you a better value than that, making all of those worthless.

If I might make a suggestion, I would change the penalty to -2 per target instead of -1 to fit with the standard formula and remove the half-BAB limitation to BAB, so it's not an automatic choice to attack multiple enemies at low levels but if you have the attack bonus to deal with it you can do so. Then, change those other abilities such that they let you ignore or lessen penalties under certain conditions. Rapid Shot and Manyshot let you make one attack per round without penalty if it's with a ranged weapon, TWF lets you do that if you're using your off-hand weapon, Snap Kick lets you do that if it's with an unarmed strike, Steel Wind lets you do that if your second target is adjacent to the first, etc., and Whirlwind Attack halves the penalty for attacking multiple targets who are adjacent to you.