The Gaming Den

First off, I'm not even sure there should be multiple attacks, as the fiasco concerning octopus fu and two-weapon fighting continues. This thread assumes that the idea of multiple attacks has merit but is implemented correctly, and anything to the effect of 'solution: get rid of multiple attacks' will be considered OT.

But anyway, the typical iterative BAB system is pretty much a sham. Only cleric archers and frenzied berserkers really use their 3rd or 4th attacks. The first iterative attack you get at -5 is actually somewhat helpful. However, it completely locks fighters into place and makes the battlefield that much less tactical (until you introduce fun stuff like 3.0E haste or pounce). The extra attacks at -10 and -15? Not so much. And the fact remains that fighters need their attacks MORE to keep up with the current opposition.

What to do? Just give out extra attacks at a flat rate/

Well, if you have multiple attacks, they have to be finite.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have people "gain attacks". A fighter might be the only exception. It migth be possible to have him gain extra attacks at certain levels. As for the rest of the people I'd keep their attacks finite.

Now as far as how many attacks you get normally, I'd say 2 would probably be best, because it makes up the difference between a full attack and normal attack and yet makes that important.

As for other attacks which are considered "flurries" I wouldn't resolve that with extra attacks but rather instead increase the damage and say something like "DR doubles against a flurry attack" or whatever. The damage bonus from a flurry style attack would be fixed possibly scaling with level (in the case of a monk), so that it'd be possible to make a guy who flurries with daggers and gains just as much of a benefit as a guy who flurries with a greatsword. In fact, using certain limitations on what you can do with a flurry you'd be able to encourage small weapons, such as saying "no power attack w/ flurry"

What you want to do is set up some kind of counter system.

Where fighters have a lot of attacks, 3-4 in this case, and spring attack counters fighters, because it lets you withdraw and only go 1:1 attack wise.

In the case of stuff like pounce, I'd just ditch it. If you're going to go with a full attack = no move paradigm you've got to stick with it. If there's a way to move and full attack, every fighter in the world is going to want to take it and it ends up being overpowered. Pounce just shouldn't exist.

As for iteratives, I'd say one attack at full and a second at -5. For people with 3 attacks you could either have 2 attacks at -5, or you could do something like -0/-3/-6. And four attacks offers the same choice depending. Either way it's more or less equal.

If you want people to get multiple attacks, they should come at a predetermined rate, and extend forever. People should probably be able to pull out a flat number of attacks and defenses every round based on their level, and people of higher level should therefore be expected to completely plow lower level people.

Giving out bonus attacks because you have a spike on your shield, boot, or cock is obviously a non-starter, and attacks should in no way be necessarily attached to specific appendages (as this makes grapple-style manuvers impossible to adjudicate).

Flurries should make your attacks more likely to hit, rends should make you do more damage. That's really the only reason they exist in the first place.

-Username17

BTW, getting your second attack at -5 is an interesting balance point that keeps the second attack from being an overwhelming taste explosion. But getting your third attack at -10 is just dumb - there's no reason to even have an attack at -10, much less at -15. The whole game is generated on a d20 for goodness sake!

If you are going to have later attacks come at penalties, it shouldn't ever be more than -5. So either the last attack, or half the attacks, or all the attacks past the first one, or whatever, might come at a penalty of up to -5, but at no time should anyone ever get -6 or more on anything.

Further, while the -5 penalty goes a long way towards making the evolution between 1 attack and 2 attacks be less abrupt - it can't fully succeed. It would be better, I think, if people started with more than one attack such that gaining extra ones wasn't such a huge dealio.

-Username17

You could start at 0/-5/-10/-15

and level to 0/-5/-5/-5

so that's 15 points up. Just give out 1 point per level.

edit: In addition to BAB, of course.

If you are keeping multiple attacks, how about this:

Allow anyone to get an extra attack with a -5 to thier roll ot two at -10, three at -15, etc. Also, make Power Attack and Expertise standard combat options and not feats.

That way any fighter can really adjust his attack for the situation. I mean, sometimes you need a bunch of easy attacks because you are going psycho-killer on a helpless enemy, some times you need all the defense you can muster while you whittle away an enemy, and other times you need one powerful attack to bust through DR; other times you need some mixture of all three.

ANYone?

That sounds like it would slow combat to a crawl, since as far as I know you still always hit on a natural twenty. Even if your attack is so low that you can't hit an AC of 0, you might as well take those extra attacks.

Also, it takes away one of the biggest advantages of fighters, too. I dunno.

What about making it a Fighter class feature (so not just anybody can do it) instead of a feat then?

You are right that it does seem like sort of a "Hail-Mary-I'mscrewed anywaysowhythehellnot?" type option.

Game On,
fbmf

By Fighters, I mean people who have a +1/level BAB.

The +1/level BAB classes concept is inherently non-extensible, and is thus only supportable in a low level environment if you want multiclassing to function.

So long as you only stay in a low level environment, you only ever get to a second attack from BAB, and it really can just work as printed - everyone gets one attack until you get a second attack at -5. If you intend to extend things to the point where you would start running into third or fourth attacks, you've already exceeded the stage which is sustainable while giving out different BABs to people with different class combinations, so what the hell difference does it make?

D&D breaks down by level 12 because the numeric bonus system can't iterate itself 10 times if you still want to generate things on a d20.

-Username17