PDA

View Full Version : Some questions on iterative attacks and critical hits



Baron Corm
2007-08-10, 02:01 PM
I'm not asking questions here about how they work, but rather about why they work the way they do, and if anyone knows of a system which makes these two things more realistic.

Why is a level 20 fighter able to attack four times faster than a level 1 fighter? I could accept this because of the fact that at level 20 you are a god and make no sense anyway, but iterative attacks are tied to base attack bonus, which has nothing to do with speed, but rather how good you are in martial combat.

A rogue with a light weapon should be able to attack faster than a fighter with a greataxe, at every level. It's one of the advantages of using a light weapon, and its absence is one of the reasons that 2-handers are used by all fighters. I'm just asking someone to explain the whole logic behind iterative attacks to me.

Secondly, I'd like someone to explain the logic behind threat ranges and multipliers to me. Why does a scimitar have an 18-20 threat range, why does a scythe have a x4 multiplier, why does an anything have an anything? Does wielding a scimitar make you better at striking key areas of the opponent? Does getting slashed with a scythe hurt more than getting slashed with a greatsword for some reason? If so, why doesn't it just deal more damage?

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 02:05 PM
Iterative BAB doesn't represent actual number of attacks, it represents actual number of potentially effective attacks. It bundles all the bobs, weaves, feints, and stutters of actual combat into a small number of die rolls for ease of use and speedy combat.

Critical hit threat ranges and multipliers are designed to show two things: high-ranges represent weapons that are easier to get into narrow spaces or are easier to control exactly where they hit (ie: a rapier is easier to control than a scythe in combat). High-multiplier weapons represent weapons that are harder to finesse into heavy hits, but when they do land a telling blow its particularly vicious or lethal (ie: a scythe is harder to finesse into position, but can deal a significant amount of hurt when properly used).

geez3r
2007-08-10, 02:12 PM
Here's my answers to your questions:

Why is a level 20 fighter able to attack four times faster than a level 1 fighter?

Swinging heavy metal object at lethal speeds and not falling on your face is a hard thing to do, especially with other metal objects heading at you at the same time. With more practice, you gain a better sense of balance and are able to recover quicker and thereby giving more chances to attack.

A rogue with a light weapon should be able to attack faster than a fighter with a greataxe, at every level.

Sneak attack. A rouge is waiting for you to do something stupid before putting a stabbing implement in your vitals. But I also found that ligher weapons should be able to attack a little faster than larger weapons, but then the fighting mechanics get quite complex. Any "fixes" I've seen for this have been thus far quite messy. So basically taking a little away from reality for simplicity's sake.

Secondly, I'd like someone to explain the logic behind threat ranges and multipliers to me.

A higher threat range means that it is easier to hit someone's vitals with that weapon. For example, a rapier has a large threat range because it is quite easy to slip the blade between some ribs and take you pick at someone's vitals. A high multiplier means that it is harder to hit someone's vitals (because those weapons usually only threaten on a 20), but should it hit your vitals, it hurts a whole hell of a lot. A rapier slipping between your rips is one thing, a scythe is another.

Douglas
2007-08-10, 02:13 PM
Iterative attacks:
Any random commoner might be able to attack someone four times in one round. Attacking that fast does terrible things to your accuracy, however, so only someone who's really really good can do that and actually have a decent chance of connecting solidly. I think it actually states somewhere in the PHB that your number of attacks per round isn't meant to actually be how many times you swing your weapon each round, it's how many times you actually have a chance of hitting when you do.

Crit range/multiplier:
High crit range weapons are easier to handle and change direction in midswing. If you get a scimitar close to someone's face, it's easier to shift it enough to actually hit the face than it would be with a battleaxe. On the other hand, a scimitar to the face isn't going to hurt as much as the great big spike on the end of a scythe going straight into your forehead with the full momentum of a powerful swing behind it. The scythe doesn't do so much more damage on normal hits because you only get that deeply imbedded spike effect when you hit perfectly - most of the time it's going to just glance off and cut the surface a bit.

Baron Corm
2007-08-10, 02:13 PM
okay, that explains most of it, thanks

but the question remains, why doesn't the scythe just do more damage continually?

edit: simu'd


The scythe doesn't do so much more damage on normal hits because you only get that deeply imbedded spike effect when you hit perfectly - most of the time it's going to just glance off and cut the surface a bit.

so, a normal hit isnt a normal hit... all those times you thought you were being cool on the battlefield, sticking your sword into people's stomachs and slicing off their heads, you really just made a bunch of small cuts and they bled to death. huh. you should get a bonus to threat range if you have higher BAB than the person you're facing.

Douglas
2007-08-10, 02:15 PM
The scythe doesn't do so much more damage on normal hits because you only get that deeply imbedded spike effect when you hit perfectly - most of the time it's going to just glance off and cut the surface a bit.
10 characters

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 02:15 PM
but the question remains, why doesn't the scythe just do more damage continually?

It's a farming-implement-turned-war-weapon. It's designed for reaping, not slaying. And 2d4 damage isn't bad. That's slightly better than a longsword.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 02:21 PM
An explanation for light weapons being as fast as say, a greataxe, is that the opportunity to strike safely (i.e. when your opponent doesn't take advantage of his greater reach to cut your hands off when you attack) is limited for such weapons.

Keld Denar
2007-08-10, 02:53 PM
As someone noted, it IS actually easier to attack faster with a light weapon that a heavier weapon. The difference is, it's also easier to deflect a light weapon, either with a parry, or from armor, or even from a dodge. So a fighter 20 attacking with a great axe is gonna have a chance to hit on 4 of his 4 attacks per round, while a fighter 20 with a short sword is gonna have a chance to hit on like, 4 of his 20 attacks in a round. It could also be considered a culmination of damage. 1 "hit" with a great axe could be discribed as "a single deep gash from a single telling blow", while the same hit from a shortsword could be discribed as "a whirlwind of cuts and scratches that harried the opponent". D&D streamlines this into 4 simple rolls. Personally, I wouldn't like to sit there and actually roll that many attacks, and then add up each bit of damage individually. There is actually a lot more going on behind the crunch if you think about it.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 07:33 PM
Iterative Attacks and Critical Hits are probably some of my least favourite aspects of 3e. I quite like Saga's approach (I certainly like their ditching of Iterative Attacks). It's all just for mechanical variety, though.