Talk:Alternative Iterative Attacks (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	DanielDraco favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Since I've never known you to foul up in it before, I'm going to trust your math unless someone proves it faulty. So looking at it conceptually, this is indeed a much more streamlined way to go about iterative attacks. Well done.

Question

Is this meant to give only two attacks per round with a full attack? Because that's how it reads. -- Jota 14:51, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Yep. If you do the math, it's actually an increase in damage against most ACs when compared to the "usual" iterative attacks, since most aren't going to hit at very high levels at -10 or -15 to attack. --Ghostwheel 16:51, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

How does this interact with the Two-Weapon chain, specifically Improved and up? TarkisFlux 17:33, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Good point, this calls for a remake of the TWF chain as well *gets on it* --Ghostwheel 21:09, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Tome Version

So, I haven't gotten around to it, but since you wrote a Tome version I assume you've run the numbers on how your variant compares to standard Tome iterative attacks. Mind sharing? TarkisFlux 04:08, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't--I mostly stacked all the variant twf feats into one feat (scaling) and added the tome TWF stuff onto it. Though to tell the truth, it's pretty easy to see it just by eyeballing. Let's take the example of a Combat Rogue who's taken the Tome feat, both in my variant and in the Tome's regular system at level 20. In my variant the rogue would have an attack of 19 (BAB) + 0 (Iterative) = +19/+19/+19/+19, half with the primary hand and half with the off-hand. On the other hand, the strictly Tome version is going to be at +19/+14/+14/+14 with the primary hand and +19/+14/+14/+14 with the off-hand (if I'm reading it right). I think it's easy to tell that the strictly Tome version is much stronger--which is okay if you like playing at that level of power, though it can be confusing.

I personally prefer my games at the Rogue level of power, and prefer streamlining and simplicity over more complex die-rolls since I find that adding/subtracting the iterative attacks and having tons of attacks can be very time-consuming or confusing, especially after adding buffs/debuffs/cover/etc. In my variant, you take one number and find all the modifiers and all attacks have the same attack. In the Tome and traditional methods it can get very complex--or at least time-consuming.

So in short, it's a little weaker than that Tome variant, but much more streamlined/simpler IMO while still keeping the "spirit" of iterative attacks and none of their more confusing nature. --Ghostwheel 04:30, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

I won't debate the simpler aspect of it, because it is mostly and that gets it points, but I wonder if you caught the irony of what you've done. You've posted a tome feat variant that sorta powers down the BAB classes... when the Tome that redid BAB and reintroduced combat feats tried to boost it specifically so they could compete with casters and BAB actually meant something. I'm not saying your whole thing is bad, I guess I'm just not sure if it's worth doing a Tome variant that isn't at Wizard level, since everything else in the series is aimed at that balance point. TarkisFlux 07:16, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

While the difference in power is there, it's not as big as you might think, and certainly not anywhere as big as the difference between the traditional iterative attacks, and those used in the Tome. (So... more of a happy medium, I suppose.) So while it's a small drop in power, it serves its purpose, which is to simplify the iterative attack system, allowing combat rounds that include full attacks to be done much more quickly and easily. --Ghostwheel 07:20, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Flurry of Blows or Rapid Shot

Am I correct that using rapid shot in this system would cause you to take -5/-5/-5 penalties? It's doubtful that any of those will hit. Compare that to the typical -2/-2/-7 penalties that I would normally expect. Why would you want to decrease the power of that feat so much? -173.242.124.71 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure that's -5/-5/-5 at +6 BAB. At +11 BAB it becomes -4/-4/-4, and at +16 BAB it becomes -3/-3/-3. That said, any of those (even the first one) is better than ending up with attacks at -10 and -15, and if you think that -5 isn't going to hit, I think you'll agree that the base system is horrible and that ANY of the iterative attacks are going to miss. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)