Where does it say you're supposed to get better at multiple attacks? (I ask under the assuption that getting more attacks for some reason isn't considered getting better.)
I could have sworn I once read something in design notes from around the 3.0 transition comparing 2e's take on multiple attacks and 3.0's, but I can't seem to find it. (Then again, a lot of that stuff was from the early days of what is now ENWorld, and some of my Dragons from around that time seem to have gone missing, so I can't easily verify whether I'm misremembering or just lost track of it.)
More attacks are only a partial solution to me. The math works well enough at single-digit BAB, but... well, let's put it this way. For a fighter-BAB character, an attack at your full BAB is level-appropriate while an attack at -5 (with no commiserate bonus to something else in return) is something you could do five levels ago. Gaining another attack at -10 means your shiny new attack is only as good as something you could do ten levels ago -- not especially relevant save for representing a new chance to roll a 20. Conversely, if it's at -8 while your old secondary attack becomes -4, then not only is the new addition less outdated, but your old secondary attack is just a little bit closer to par than it used to be.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. in 2E, you'd get extra attacks (fewer than in 3E at the same level), but they'd all hit with the same accuracy, and they'd be usable after movement. It would be akin to removing all attack penalties for iteratives and allowing full attacks as a standard action.
As I recall, in 2e, you typically gained new attacks at an every-other-round rate (so 1 attack per round, 3 attacks per 2 rounds, 2 attacks per round, etc.). However, while this was pretty enough mathematically, not everyone grasped it readily and it meant having to track what you did last round in order to know what you can do in the current round. By my understanding, a desire to create a solution that was easier to grasp and play with while preserving a more gradual improvement than gaining full-powered new attacks, combined with a transition to a less abstract round, is where new attacks at a lower bonus came from. By that logic, the best equivalent to the 2e way of doing things would be a switch to -0, -0/-5, -0/-0, -0/-0/-5... but I'd prefer a solution that bears closer resemblance to cleaning up 3.x than to backporting a 2e rule -- in part because it would mean less system-rewriting and less explanation.
If you prefer Pounce for everyone, the basic math of a progression of -0, -0/-5, -0/-4/-8, -0/-3/-6/-9 isn't incompatible with such. -- Pteryx
