Attacks per round

[Shrikant]

I wanted to check someting out and used the console to level-up my chareceters. And I found that none got 5 attacks per round. Not even my L25 barb. This is weird and I am sure something is off since warriors should definately be getting 5 attacks.

Any one know what might be the problem?

[ June 24, 2005, 21:47: Message edited by: Shrikant ]

[chevalier]

1... 6... 11... 16... 21... yeah, you should have five with that barbarian. I'm practically sure the game isn't tweaked for 4 max or anything.

[raptor]

Actually thats in the game mechanics from D&D.

No character ever gets more than 4 attacks per round from base attack bonus. If you look in players hand book, you will see that fighter gets max at 20/15/10/5 wich means that normall at level 21 he would get +1 and thus get the 21/16/11/6/1, but looking at epic handbook, it specifically states (textbox page 7) that the base attack "stopps" at level 20, after that you only get "epic bonuses" wich doesnt count as base attack bonus, and as thus do not generate extra attacks.

In short, D&D ruleset specifies that you cannot get more than 4 attacks per round from base attack bonus. use more weapons (two weapons), or grow more arms if you want more.

[Goon66]

I just noticed my paladin only had 4 attacks per round when he should have 5 he is a level 24 paladin which means he shouldve gotten his fifth attack awhile ago according to the booklet. After seeing this i searched through this forum for anything relating to that and found this topic saying it capped at 4. However looking through other posts i found none of them seem to agree with this so is it certain that your attacks per round with 1 weapon are capped at 4 (without spells, feats(rapid shot) or items which boost attacks per round e.g haste).

Im just confused cause the IWD2 manual states that you CAN get 5 attacks per round with normal BAB progression. And i assume the handbook raptor talked about was the 3rd edition rules D&D handbooks or watever they are(i think such things exist). But shouldnt the IWD2 manual have more of an effect of this game .

Anyway i jus want to make sure its not my characters that are screwed up because this happens with my other characters aswell(i think clerics and druids according to the manual get 5 attacks per round aswell)

[JT]

Yeah, according to the manual you get a 5th attack when BAB hits +21. You might expect a 6th attack at BAB +26, but it says you don't ever get that.

Apparently the game follows D+D rules rather than what the manual says. If that is true, it makes fighter BAB less relevant, because even a sorc 29/paladin 1 can get the full 4 attacks per round.

On the subject of sorcs, it seems to me that the M. Sword spell increases your BAB, increasing attacks per round to four.

[Goon66]

Mordenkainens sword doesnt boost the number of attacks per round does it?

Also thats so cheap i cant get past 4 attacks per round with my palading though i guess i now realise why anyone would dual wield when according to the booklet every class but wizard n sorc get the max amount of attacks anyway. Would it now be worth it to have my paladin dual wield a light weapon in his off hand even though he cant get ambidexterity??(hes using cera sumat or else id give him a 2-handed weapon)

[Space Gibbon]

Does Dual-Wielding just add one more attack per round, or does the off-hand have the same number of attacks as the main hand?

[The Magpie]

Dual-wielding can only add 1 attack per round (unless you're using Improved Haste or GWW in BGII); Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (which adds and extra off-hand attack at -5 AB) was omitted from IWD2 owing to engine limitations. The Infinity Engine just doesn't like multiple off-hand attacks.

In IWD2, you're generally much better off using a big Two-Handed Sword than you are dual-wielding, as the 1.5 x STR bonus generally adds up to more extra damage than the extra off-hand attack.

Also, as the Infinity Engine won't do more than 5 attacks per round total, that would explain why people aren't getting more than 4 unless they're dual-wielding. The attacks gained from BAB had to be capped at four for the sake of game balance.

As for the IWD2 manual saying you can get more than four attacks... Well, it's easily the least accurate, least useful manual I can think of right now. There are so many errors & inconsistencies in it, that I really wouldn't rely on it too much for information. In general, the "Information" button on the record screen is much more useful, but that doesn't carry any info on some topics. Such as BAB and APR progression, for example.

[ August 22, 2006, 17:22: Message edited by: The Magpie ]

[Harbourboy]

In IWD2, you're generally much better off using a big Two-Handed Sword than you are dual-wielding, as the 1.5 x STR bonus generally adds up to more extra damage than the extra off-hand attack.

Correct, especially as the damage from the off-hand weapon is often shrugged off by enemies with damage reduction. Plus there aren't enough weapons that provide real super duper bonuses just from holding them in your hand although there are situations when being able to dual wield might be useful (e.g. when fighting treants have Flaming Star Mace in one hand and Belib's Everlasting Torch in the other for double the 'fire' power).

[crucis]

@Harbourboy

You're correct about the value of 2H weapons vs dual wielding. That said, the value of 2H weapons is greatest when the wielder is very strong.

Weaker characters may get more benefit from dual wielding, particularly if the off hand weapon confers some useful special ability. That said, it had better be a very useful special ability to balance out the AB penelty that you get when dual wielding.

[kmonster]

Actually you don't really get a AB penalty when dualwielding.
If you wield two identical weapons for example, the first attack is -2, but the second and all following attacks are +3 compared to the ABs you would get when single handed.
So you actually get an AB bonus for dualwielding or using rapid shot and not a penalty if you count the attacks together.

So the off-hand weapon needs an useful special ability to balance out the missing extra strength bonus for 2-handers or the shield bonusses, not to balance out a non-existing AB penalty.

2-handers are nearly always better than dualwielding for characters you mainly want to deal out damage, with bull's strength and champion's strength later even low strength characters will gain extra damage bonusses.

You can even reach the attacks per round limit at fighter level 11 (or priest/rogue level 15), with haste and rapid shot they are already at the 5 APR limit then.

@JT: A sorc29/paladin1 gets only 3 base APR at +15/+10/+5. You need a sorc28/paladin2 for +16/+11/+6/+1.

[Fly2tHeSkY]

I guess one level or sorcerer at such a high level wont matter if you get an extra attack huh

[Decados]

Not really at that level.

[raptor]

"Actually you don't really get a AB penalty when dualwielding. If you wield two identical weapons for example, the first attack is -2, but the second and all following attacks are +3 compared to the ABs you would get when single handed.
So you actually get an AB bonus for dualwielding or using rapid shot and not a penalty if you count the attacks together." -Kmonster

Hmm, I'm not certain how you are calculating that or if its a bug in IWD2 or what it is. But normal rules for Dualwielding from D&D specifies with the feats (Two weapon ighting + ambidexterity) And using two weapons of different size (longsowrd + shortsword for ex) you should recive -2 on all attacks you use, but gain an extra attack at your normal max base attack (with the minus 2).

In short, same as Rapid Shot, extra attack at max base attack, but -2 on all attacks that round.

A Level 10 fighter with strength of 18 should be able to hit with a greataxe with 2 attacks at: +14/+9 and deal 1D12+6 damage. if he used dualwielding with teh feats he would attack: +12/+7 and +12 offhand, dealing 1D8+4 mainhand and 1D6+4 offhand.

Usually having more attack but weaker base attack works against lots of small enemies (which is non existant in iwd2 thanks to the balance system! grrr...) and having high attack bonus is usually better against larger or tougher enemies.

Just how did you calculate that ? or is it IWD2 bug ?

[Da Rock]

As raptor said, it is the D&D rules that cap it. This is because:
1) It slows the pnp game down to a crawl. IWD2 is a computer game, where all dice rolls are processed in milliseconds, so extra attacks would not slow this game down. It is only limited to the character animation speed (6+ APR in 6 seconds would look rather silly if you are not hasted).
2) Having more attacks per round is not really useful, because the last attacks (4th, 5th, etc) have such a low value, you would be unlikely to hit anything anyway. A Fighter 15 / Wizard 13 with Mordenkainen's Sword and Tensor's Transformation can negate this argument (5th attack would be at +24, before strength, items and other spell buffs) - but it is only a singular case.

All this is irrelevant, because it IS capped at 4 APR, without certain spells/weapons.

Do monks unarmed combat reach 5 APR? If so, does this also transfer to a non-monks unarmed combat (does an unarmed fighter get 5 APR at a high enough level - or is it still capped at 4)?

[kmonster]

@raptor:
Your fighter example gets +14/+9 AB, that's average 11.5 when not dualwielding.
The best two attacks while dualwielding with feats are +12/+12, that's +12 average.
So your fighter's 2 attacks are replaced with 2 attacks at a better average base attack bonus and he gets even an extra attack with lower AB when dualwielding.

[raptor]

Ah, gotcha. You count average hit bonus for x number of attacks. Well it works on higher levels, on low levels, well to quote Roy from OOTS: "Wow your feat selections just let you suck twise in a round instead of once."

IWD2 is way to favored for 2handers and strong characters i say, pitty.

[kmonster]

Rapid shot and dualwielding works even better at low levels, since a bonus attack matters more when you only have one attack per round instead of four.

At low levels with only 1 base attack per round you will have more offensive success dualwielding two identical short swords (or daggers) than using only one.
Lets look at the exspected average of hits in 20 round:

When a natural 17 is needed for hitting you would get in 2 normal and 2 critical hits single handed, dualwielding will give a total of 4 criticals, that's a damage increase of 2 attacks or of 50 percent.

When another value is needed for hitting, the difference in absolute and relative damage output even grows.

I like how 2-handed weapons are treated in 3E. In older games taking a 2-handed weapon was only recommended if you couldn't use a shield and dexterity was far more important than strength.
Now it's quite balanced, although still most parties have a higher sum of dexterity than strength values.

I don't think that IWD2 favors 2handers and strong characters, just the offensive melee warrior, 1 of 6 characters in my party had strength as his main attribute.

[Da Rock]

@kmonster:

"Pedants Corner"
Sorry to break your argument, but you are comparing two types of combat with 2 different enemies.
If a 2-weapon wielder (with both feats) requires 17+, then a 1-weapon wielder would require 15+ for the same enemy - causing MORE damage (over 20 rounds = two additional hits).

I think you just chose the wrong argument - the issue with 2-weapon wielding is when the attack bonus is NOT a problem.

[kmonster]

@Da Rock:
My example was about a character who needs 17 to hit the enemy normally and 19 dualwielding with the feats. I thought this was obvious, but I should have pointed out this more clearly.
In your example (15 normal, 17 dualwielding) the dualwielder would loose 2 normal hits with the main hand but gain 2 normal and 2 critical hits with the off-hand in 20 rounds, gaining an even bigger advantage dualwielding.

[Da Rock]

Sorry, kmonster, by brain has been "dying" on me for a couple of weeks now - I only realized the same thing you put down a few minutes ago (I kind of figured you would answer to my flawed argument - hence this post!)

I totally agree with the dual wielding advantage - except for vs 2-handed weapons. Given the 17/19+ example:
Greatsword vs Long Sword+Short Sword = 42 vs 32 damage in 20 rounds (without factoring in any other bonuses). This assumes that damage is averaged, i.e. 3.5 damage for each D6 damage roll (4.5 for a D8).
The "dual-wielding vs great weapon wielding" argument has already been done to death though.