could this work?

[Fitz]

ok odd idea for making combat more dynamic.
Any combatant may make a full attack as a standard action 1/day for every 2 base attack?
Would this be overpowered?
Fitz

[Mordokai]

Personally, I don't think so. If I understand correctly, that would give level 20 fighter ability to use full attack as standard action, twice per day? Sounds cool with me.

But I'm no expert on balance, so I'm sure somebody else will have more to say.

[Bayar]

What if a level 20 fighter tried to full attack burning both his full standard attacks ?

[Fitz]

sorry prob my poor wording. Meant to be if you have base attack +2 you can do this 1/day, twice at +4 bab, 3 times per day at +6 and so on.
And if a lvl 20 fighter gets 16 attacks with an effectivly full round action 5 times a day i doubt its unreal for lvl 20?
Fitz

[Fitz10019]

If you don't have to be stationary to get a full attack, you'll get a lot more tactical movement during each combat. This means more options, more complicated decision-making, and possibly more time spent in each round of combat, making and executing those decisions. Aspects like reach, AoOs, and tumbling will become significantly more important.

I think 1 standard action full attack per 2 base attack bonus (1 safa / 2 bab) is too much at high levels. I suggest 1 safa / 6 bab, so it progresses along with iterative attacks.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

If you don't have to be stationary to get a full attack, you'll get a lot more tactical movement during each combat. This means more options, more complicated decision-making, and possibly more time spent in each round of combat, making and executing those decisions. Aspects like reach, AoOs, and tumbling will become significantly more important.

I think 1 standard action full attack per 2 base attack bonus (1 safa / 2 bab) is too much at high levels. I suggest 1 safa / 6 bab, so it progresses along with iterative attacks.
Seconded! 1 safa / 6 BAB seems best to me.

This could go a long way to bringing the fighter types up to speed with the casters for peak damage.
Maybe you could even restrict the ability, so the wizards, sorcerers, clerics and druids (and their variants) don't get it.

[Fishy]

This could go a long way to bringing the fighter types up to speed with the casters for peak damage.

This has never been the problem with melee types. :/

[Fitz]

was thinking that a) allows fighter to do something cool a little more often,
b) doesn't hurt anyone, but fighter/ranger/barbarian types benifit most.
c) allows much more battlefield mobility.

reason for 1/ 2 bab was to help twf , and to mean it happened a bit more than 1/day at 6th level (most games i play at vary between 1 and 10 so it would be a once per day for most of the campiagns i play at best)

Fitz

[Person_Man]

Actually, I'd be fine with making a Full Attack a Standard Action, period.

1) Casters, Psionics, Incarnum, Binders, ToB, etc - can all Move and do something awesome with a Standard Action.

2) The real damage from melee combat comes from the ability to Charge (a full round action) with Pounce, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and damage multiplying feats/abilities/weapons. So allowing PCs to make a Full Attack as a Standard Action gives non-ubercharge builds a chance to stay competitive in the damage realm.

I'd also be in favor of eliminating iterative attacks entirely. SWSE and 4E got that right.

[Fitz10019]

Speaking of 4e getting something right, perhaps the answer is 1 safa / 6 bab per encounter.

[FMArthur]

Why not just allow attacks after movement at a small attack bonus penalty? Full attacks on standard actions make absolute mincemeat of frail characters and monsters, and can't be prevented in the same way pounce can be (which is also very powerful as it is), so I don't think it should be given for absolutely nothing.

[Daremonai]

At higher levels, casters and the like suffer no penalty for having chosen to move, and in most cases can probably out-melee a fighter anyway, if they so wish.

I quite like the limited use version of 1 safa/ 6 BAB per day - in fact, it should be introduced as a Fighter class feature that scales with level, like Sneak Attack damage does. That way, the humble fighter has a reason to stick with the class.

Though on reflection, this thread may fare better in the Homebrew forum.

[ericgrau]

Pretty soon every attack would be a full attack, which would screw up normal combat flow & strategy (Bob, back away so he doesn't get a full attack!). Especially if monsters and NPCs get it too. And I never bought in to giving fighters haphazard bonuses just for being weaker than casters. That's no excuse to screw up the game. Use ToB, play 4e, give them SLA's, give them flat bonuses to rolls, or w/e, but don't "fix" things by screwing things up.

[ken-do-nim]

I don't like the whole standard attack / full attack dichotomy. I did some work a while back on fixing it, it went something like this:

Bob has a 30 foot movement rate and 4 iterative attacks.

Movement up to 5 foot step: 4 attacks
Move 10 feet and attack: 3 attacks
Move 20 feet and attack: 2 attacks
Move 30 feet and attack: 1 attack