PDA

View Full Version : Balance issues of full attacking and movement



Telasi
2011-01-25, 02:41 AM
I've been contemplating permitting full attacks to include movement instead of just a 5 foot step for my Pathfinder/3.5 game. I'm not planning to make full attack a standard action, but allow martial characters to move as part of their full round actions. I figure that since spellcasters can do most of their stuff as a standard action, it wasn't unreasonable to permit martial characters to be a bit more mobile. Is there a problem with this I don't see?

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 02:45 AM
In 1e and 2e a character could move half their full speed and make all their attacks that round. Of course realize that their full movement would be like spending two move actions to move in a round in 3.5.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-25, 02:45 AM
The only balance issue is that martial characters won't suck as much.

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 02:52 AM
The only balance issue is that martial characters won't suck as much.

It also devalues ToB but that is not a big issue. I wonder how that changes the dynamic. Warblades are still better at skills but full attacks on the go are sweet.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-25, 03:57 AM
It also devalues ToB but that is not a big issue. I wonder how that changes the dynamic. Warblades are still better at skills but full attacks on the go are sweet. Yeah, but the big reason ToB was needed in the first place was the fact that the martial classes were so poorly designed in comparison to the casters.

Dunno, though, you're right. Some of the earlier maneuvers might lose their value but I'm not sure how much they'd be effected. Having 5 attacks might be nice, but only the first two really have any chance of hitting a level-appropriate enemy, so it's not quite as huge as one might think.

Runestar
2011-01-25, 04:00 AM
Barbs can already pounce at 1st lv anyways...:smallamused:

MeeposFire
2011-01-25, 04:30 AM
Barbs can already pounce at 1st lv anyways...:smallamused:

Yes but having the option to full attack on the move is really nice even then since there are many things out there to ruin your charging fun and besides, it would be nice to have a non-charger to be a good choice for barbarians and fighters.

ffone
2011-01-25, 04:32 AM
Personally I would much rather upgrade melee in some other way. The move vs full attack tradeoff enriches tactical thinking and encourages choosing squares where you figure you're more likely to be able to attack from w/ moving next next round.

Also you kinda hose ranged combat's one big advantage.

That said, in high-op games people seem to in effect do this anyway, by making Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian-1 essentially an obligatory 1-level dip that everyone from paladins to sneak attackers takes. If you have a group where everyone knows about and does that, you could consider making Pounce free or a feat just to free people up from having to work in the same cheesy bit of fluff.

My solution, in my group, for higher level / wealth games is to point people to swift-move items like the Belt of Battle, Quicksilver Boots, Chronocharm and Anklet of Translocation, allowing some item customization (double the charges and price, combe items for greater + 1.5x lesser, etc.) and also use of random spell-casting wondrous items (cast Lion's Charge A times per day for a price of 1800 gp x spell level x caster level x charges/5).

Warlawk
2011-01-25, 04:36 AM
This has been used in our current game, and thus far, no problems. I think the first couple times it was just a mistake and the DM let it slide but I asked him about it and he's happy with the way it's playing so we're just going to keep using it this way and see how it goes. This was in reference to the monk and scout/ranger swift hunter with rapid shot. We've just hit 7 and starting to get to the point of people having more attacks, so we'll see how it goes.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-25, 04:46 AM
well my drow comrade...

I will say: mobility rulez for martial classes. But getting the chance to make a full attack while moving gives some martial class an edge over others.

imagine the difference between a rogue who can move and full attack and a full buffed combat cleric that do the same. If not SA, the rogue wont do to much damage, while the cleric will detroy plenty of heads with his weapon WHILE moving to the next target.

im telling you this because im using a Dervish right now. I oriented my feats and class features on mobility.

Full attacking while moving really made me:

1- Versatile in combat.
2- Tactical. I can position myself for SA and taking out enemies from my allies very easy.
3- Unreachable. Most of my enemies never surrond me nor reach me if they are not quick enought or have the terrain on their side.





So my advice is...
Test it before allowing it.
Its amazing for martial PCs, but there are LOTS of ways of abusing it.

ericgrau
2011-01-25, 11:46 AM
Yeah the issue is they'll get a lot more damage, obviously. So a) things vulnerable to damage drop a lot faster, b) this doesn't solve any complaints b/c it only gives them more of the same and c) the DM is now forced to send more things that have trouble being damaged in melee or else watch his monsters get quickly mowed down in a now boring game, then any issue you're trying to solve gets worse. Martial already gets a lot of damage, they don't need more. If they seem boring to you, then add more interesting things on the character side or more tactical fights (encouraging archery, cover, etc.) on the DM side. Or PCs can take one of the dozen weapons that sacrifice a whopping 1-2 damage to do something interesting or etc. Or proper control casters already divide enemies, buff the martial guys, etc. and basically make them beatsticks fight better. The supposed super batman control caster builds are overglorified support for the martial guys builds. There are plenty of RAW, splatbook and houserule ways to handle this, but more damage isn't it.

randomhero00
2011-01-25, 12:01 PM
OP that is a goop balance change I think. I've been toying with the idea as well.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-25, 01:37 PM
Eh, I would use somewhere inbetween. If you two extra iterative attacks on a full attack, you get one extra iterative attack when you move. That way movement has some tactical advantage.

gourdcaptain
2011-01-25, 01:59 PM
You could wing it halfway by giving everyone the PF Mobile Fighter LV 11 feature, or letting you move half speed and full attack. (If it's the first one, aka move and make iterative attacks -1 highest BAB attack, give the Mobile Fighter some sort of spring attack like move without provoking once feature on that action instead at that level to give him some advantage?)

Kuma Kode
2011-01-25, 02:39 PM
All it really does at 6th level is give them an extra attack. This doesn't really change.

Every iterative attack essentially has a -25% chance to hit than the previous, so if your first attack could hit on a roll of 1 (ignoring automatic success or failure), your second attack has a 75% chance to hit. Your 3rd has a 50% chance to hit. Your 4th has a 25% chance to hit, and your 5th has a 0% chance.

Most, if not all, of the time, your fighters will not have an attack bonus high enough to auto-hit. The general idea is that a fighter should need a 10 to hit a mook, and 15 to hit a boss. This varies, but that's a good starting line to measure encounter difficulty. Using that guideline, the fighter's primary attack has a 50% chance to hit, while the second has 25% and the 3rd and later have no real chance of hitting without mad buffs or automatic successes.

Telasi
2011-01-25, 06:37 PM
I'm getting the sense that this isn't a game breaking change. Half speed and attack has been mentioned in the last couple of posts, as has lose an iterative attack to move.

How does not being able to move and attack effectively improve the game? I really don't understand this objection, but I'm willing to listen if you care to explain.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-25, 08:16 PM
I'm getting the sense that this isn't a game breaking change. Half speed and attack has been mentioned in the last couple of posts, as has lose an iterative attack to move.

How does not being able to move and attack effectively improve the game? I really don't understand this objection, but I'm willing to listen if you care to explain.


Thats not an improvement. Its just the rules as they are.
I agree a little about moving half of your speed and attacking, but, maybe you reduce a bit their attacks.

I dont know you, but i dont want (again) that boosted shiny cleric to come near me and full attack when i tought being 20ft away was safe.

I think not moving for a full attack makes you think more tactically and twice before wasting precious movements in battle, something that applies to real life too.


Well....thats what i think tough.

VirOath
2011-01-25, 08:48 PM
Most, if not all, of the time, your fighters will not have an attack bonus high enough to auto-hit. The general idea is that a fighter should need a 10 to hit a mook, and 15 to hit a boss. This varies, but that's a good starting line to measure encounter difficulty. Using that guideline, the fighter's primary attack has a 50% chance to hit, while the second has 25% and the 3rd and later have no real chance of hitting without mad buffs or automatic successes.

I'm quoting this because I have a serious problem with this. Why?

Because if the Fighters need a 10 to hit a mook on the first attack, what chance in hell does a 3/4 BAB melee class have at hitting? Full BAB classes generally grab up as much to hit as they can, because Power Attack lets them exchange that directly for damage depending on the situation, changing that to be needing a 10 to hit before PA makes the feat almost unusable without the Shocktrooper AC dump.

15 for a Full BAB to hit a boss on the first swing? Well, that means 20s for anyone not playing a Full BAB class. What does that mean for the player? Being bored for the next half hour as there is nothing they can do.

Full BAB is supposed to be the advantage, not the normal to the scale. 3/4s are supposed to be able to function and hit, while Full BAB should be hitting more often. As a general rule of thumb, assume access to the same buffs, so assume that because of build direction that the Fighters and Barbs will have between +4 to +6 on other 3/4 classes at the narrowest points in the different careers.

Not to mention that tailoring the mobs to have such a high AC in the first place pretty much negates the point of having extra attacks and just functions to hurt melee in general. Judging Full BAB to measure the encounter difficulty only works if you start measuring at the second swing to avoid crippling other classes that rely on melee.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-25, 09:38 PM
I'm quoting this because I have a serious problem with this. Why? Technically, they'll have the same chance to hit as a fighter's second iterative attack, without adding in other bonuses.

Monsters in D&D are tailored to the best case. When comparing a monster's AC and attack power to that of the players, they're compared to the fighter, not the rogue or cleric. Likewise, the monsters that need a certain amount of magic to defeat is balanced against the wizard, not the bard. Search and Disable Device DCs are built around the rogue, for instance, not the fighter's cross-class usage.

I'm not saying it's "right," but the monsters in the monster manual are compared based on the best case scenario. 10 as a baseline for a skilled character vs. a level appropriate challenge is common even for skill DCs and such. A character who goes above and beyond and uses feats and tactics will of course find the challenge, whatever it may be, easier, as they should.

Obviously, monsters vary dramatically in AC, and it's part of the DM's job to balance the encounter. If the fighter can hit on less than 10, the fight will be easier, maybe even a pushover. If the fighter needs more than 10, the fight will be harder. 10 is a good baseline for judging difficulty, but it's in no way some kind of target.

Tael
2011-01-25, 10:03 PM
Except the whole "mooks are hit on a 10" stuff is just plain wrong. Attack bonus scales way faster than AC, and at higher levels, you should be hitting mooks on anything but a 1.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-25, 10:15 PM
Except the whole "mooks are hit on a 10" stuff is just plain wrong. Attack bonus scales way faster than AC, and at higher levels, you should be hitting mooks on anything but a 1. Eeesh, okay people, it was a general encounter balance suggestion I've heard repeatedly that I threw in without much thought. Let's not get too focused on that one (admittedly rather incorrect) suggestion and move on to something actually on topic, like the rest of what I said.

gourdcaptain
2011-01-25, 11:58 PM
Mostly I just raised the idea of slightly lowering the effectiveness of full attacks as an attack and move as not to obsolete a lot of the feats in the game.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-26, 12:08 AM
Making a standard action able to do the same potential damage as a full attack action makes mobility (the tactic set not the feat) almost meaningless in my opinion.

Boci
2011-01-26, 03:12 AM
Making a standard action able to do the same potential damage as a full attack action makes mobility (the tactic set not the feat) almost meaningless in my opinion.

Does ToB make mobility obselete? I don't think so, it was raised the default mobility of melee.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-26, 03:22 AM
In 1e and 2e a character could move half their full speed and make all their attacks that round. Of course realize that their full movement would be like spending two move actions to move in a round in 3.5.

Also, IIRC, only fighters even received multiple attacks in a round anyway. Well, not taking splat books into account.


-----


I've been toying with the idea of moving with a full attack as well, but haven't implemented it yet because my players are much better at playing (read - optimizing) fighter characters than they are at playing spellcasters.

I tend to run into the problem of 'bad guys don't have enough HP, because every character is built to do lots of damage'.

That being said, the idea of changing attack actions to something like this is appealing:

Full-Round: Standard full attack
Full-Round: Charge - full attack (dropping last iterative)
Full-Round: Move and full attack (drop last iterative, -2 to hit), attacks must be at beginning or end of movement (but can attack, move, finish attack, if desired)
Standard: Single Attack, or Twin Attack, w/2WF

Ravens_cry
2011-01-26, 03:24 AM
Does ToB make mobility obselete? I don't think so, it was raised the default mobility of melee.
I can't comment on ToB as I don't own it. But what is the point of moving so many spaces away from an enemy, if they can spit you just as well as if you were right next to them, if you are within their movement. It also makes no sense anyway, verisimilitude wise.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-26, 03:32 AM
I see what you mean there. Getting full attacks with movement is actually bad for PCs, because it makes it harder to control how much hurt a monster can put on you.

Of course, you could make it a Fighter-only thing, give the class something worthwhile. Like the old days, when making multiple attacks at all was a fighter thing.

edit- what if you take non-lethal damage in order to move and full attack? or become fatigued for a round to do so?

Boci
2011-01-26, 06:22 AM
But what is the point of moving so many spaces away from an enemy, if they can spit you just as well as if you were right next to them, if you are within their movement.

Maybe you're faster than the enemy, or at least are now that you've debuffed their speed. Maybe you get a bonus for moving more than 10ft every round. Maybe you knocked them prone. Maybe your wizard is about to drop an AoE spell that you do not want to be hit by and so would move anyway and this just ensures you can still full attack.


It also makes no sense anyway, verisimilitude wise.

How so?

VirOath
2011-01-26, 03:52 PM
I can't comment on ToB as I don't own it. But what is the point of moving so many spaces away from an enemy, if they can spit you just as well as if you were right next to them, if you are within their movement. It also makes no sense anyway, verisimilitude wise.

Yet, pounce and other methods of full attacking on a move are built into the more dangerous melee mobs.

MeeposFire
2011-01-26, 04:53 PM
Also, IIRC, only fighters even received multiple attacks in a round anyway. Well, not taking splat books into account.




I think you mean warriors not fighters as paladins and rangers did as well further all classes that can wield two weapons at once could get multiple attacks (default warriors and rogues) and there were slightly different but similar rules for missile combat and anybody who could use a bow got two attacks per round.

Mobility is a good thing to have since there are many creatures out there that can attack well and move and being able to attack after moving to catch an opponent is a good thing (especially if you just killed something and you need to move to attack, currently you lose much of your turn unless you can boost your damage on that one attack such as strikes).

lesser_minion
2011-01-26, 06:33 PM
I can't comment on ToB as I don't own it. But what is the point of moving so many spaces away from an enemy, if they can spit you just as well as if you were right next to them, if you are within their movement? It also makes no sense anyway, verisimilitude wise.

As the rules are written at present, if you run up to someone and attack them, then you only get to attack them for three seconds out of the six. In D&D, this is handled by limiting you to a single attack. So far, no problem.

If your opponent responds by attacking, however, he gets six seconds to attack you -- including the three seconds you spent running up.

Allowing full attacks on a move might be unrealistic, but it's fair at least. Disallowing them doesn't even manage that.

Note: The rules should make it harder to melee an opponent who is giving ground. As written, however, they're doing it wrong.

Roderick_BR
2011-01-26, 06:47 PM
It allows meelers to become meat grinders more often. They'll only overshadow wizards and sorcerers that try to play blasters.

I mentioned a few times, this little rule:
As a standard attack, a character can make all the attacks indicated at his class table, as normal. Characters with extra attacks can make them as well (hasted, speed weapon, etc).
As a full attack, all attacks are made without the standard -5, -10, and -15 penalties.
Abilities like Pounce will just give the character the ability to move and do a "full attack".
TWF allows 1 extra attack for each iterative of your main weapon (or you can demand characters to get Improved, Greater, etc, your group's pick). When full attacking, you can ignore the default -2 penalty.

It means that characters moving can use all those lots of attacks, and if they NEED to remain stationary, they get even deadlier.

Clerics being out to fight as well, or better than the fighter, is another issue. Remove Divine Might, and make Divine Favor a spell able to affect allies, and that's it. Leave Righteous Might if you want.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-26, 06:52 PM
I think there is more of an issue with monsters getting full attacks with a move, as it is more beneficial to say, a dragon, then it is to the party fighter.

Reason why include:
Many monsters are faster than PCs
Many monsters use natural weapons, and if they have multiattack, they only take a -2 to their "iteratives", whereas the fighter takes -5/-10/-15
Many monsters just plain hit harder than the fighter does, at least w/o some solid optimization.

Telasi
2011-01-26, 07:02 PM
I think there is more of an issue with monsters getting full attacks with a move, as it is more beneficial to say, a dragon, then it is to the party fighter.

Reason why include:
Many monsters are faster than PCs
Many monsters use natural weapons, and if they have multiattack, they only take a -2 to their "iteratives", whereas the fighter takes -5/-10/-15
Many monsters just plain hit harder than the fighter does, at least w/o some solid optimization.

I was only planning on making this change for creatures with martial PC levels. Definitely not dragons or other monsters. I thought I mentioned it in the first post, but it wasn't clear when I checked.

Ok, so the current version I'm thinking from this is either full attack at -2 or drop the highest iterative and move at half speed. That way it shouldn't be too bad and doesn't invalidate much if anything. Opinions on this version? Which variant sounds better?

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-26, 07:24 PM
Ah... I personally hate making 'special PC only rules'. Why should the world work differently just because you're a PC? A full attack is a full attack, it shouldn't matter whether you are a PC or not, or whether you have PC levels.

Unless by 'martial PC levels' you mean it is a special class feature for classes that give full BAB? In which case, at what level do you gain this class feature, because a one level dip would still be an issue in that case.

Heck, what about warrior levels?

Telasi
2011-01-26, 07:31 PM
Ah... I personally hate making 'special PC only rules'. Why should the world work differently just because you're a PC? A full attack is a full attack, it shouldn't matter whether you are a PC or not, or whether you have PC levels.

Unless by 'martial PC levels' you mean it is a special class feature for classes that give full BAB? In which case, at what level do you gain this class feature, because a one level dip would still be an issue in that case.

Heck, what about warrior levels?

Warrior levels included, I guess, and level 6, when you first get iterative attacks.

I hate it when PCs are given unfair advantage or disadvantage. The point here is that it's an edge trained, skilled warriors get over less skilled warriors.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-26, 07:34 PM
So a multiclass fighter/barbarian wouldn't get this until fighter 6 or barbarian 6 then?

Telasi
2011-01-26, 07:39 PM
So a multiclass fighter/barbarian wouldn't get this until fighter 6 or barbarian 6 then?

You're really dead set on killing this, aren't you?

As I said: when you first get iterative attacks from levels in one of the included classes, and only for iterative attacks from those classes or appropriate PrCs.

Person_Man
2011-01-26, 08:30 PM
OK, so in theory the rarity of movement + full attack is a good thing for PCs. Specifically, it makes it more difficult for enemies to just run around the meat shields and kill the squishy casters and ranged builds standing in back. Instead, they must Charge or Move to them, and then get only 1 attack. On the next round they can only make a full attack if the player doesn't Withdraw or Tumble away or whatnot. And in many low optimization games, this is exactly what happens.

However, if you acknowledge the existence of the internet and the fact that even new players will use it to improve their builds after a few games (or before their first), this theory quickly breaks down. It's fairly easy for a player or DM to work Pounce and/or free movement into pretty most builds by mid levels, and characters are only squishy if they player is ignorant of the many common and effective ways to optimize their defenses.


A non-theoretical point is that iterative attacks are far less interesting then spells, powers, vestiges, maneuvers, and soulmelds, and in some cases drastically slow down combat because they require so many rolls with ever shifting modifiers. I generally discourage players from "vanilla" classes for this reason - it's boring to watch and takes longer to do so. Your proposed change would encourage this, and for that reason I would be opposed to it.

But as others have said, it's not like it's game breaking or anything.

ffone
2011-01-27, 03:10 AM
I think there is more of an issue with monsters getting full attacks with a move, as it is more beneficial to say, a dragon, then it is to the party fighter.

Reason why include:
Many monsters are faster than PCs
Many monsters use natural weapons, and if they have multiattack, they only take a -2 to their "iteratives", whereas the fighter takes -5/-10/-15
Many monsters just plain hit harder than the fighter does, at least w/o some solid optimization.


You're confusing "PC vs monster" and "manufactured-weapon attacker vs natural weapon attacker."

MeeposFire
2011-01-27, 04:59 AM
And that many of the nastier monsters already have good uses for their standard actions. Right now a dragon that is not in reach of any targets can still use its breath weapon, spells, or spell like abilities to combat the party that are worth a standard action. Warriors for the most part do not get that in 3.5.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-27, 05:03 AM
You're really dead set on killing this, aren't you?

As I said: when you first get iterative attacks from levels in one of the included classes, and only for iterative attacks from those classes or appropriate PrCs.


Dont look at it like that.
What he is trying to do is fix a rule for a homebrew desire that MAYBE (you wont know until you test it for a period of time) will unbalance some fights.


On my point of view (the point of view of a person who used about 90% of martial PC in his D&D life) Martial PCs are great as they are.
Yeah, they dont have the same number of options a spellcaster have, but they are still fun to play and deadlier in combat if used right.

Imagine combining a full attack that comes after a charge + leap attack + knock down. <== an this chain is not the best way of abusing the "move+fullattack" option. Just a chain used by a friend of mind with his paladin/kensai with scythe build


If it was me, i would not implement it.

BUT

At this point i think you made up your mind and think that martial characters need this, and hope to use it somehow.
So if im going to vote for an option, i would choose...


"full movement, full attack, but with penalities for their attacks"


between -2 ~ -3 should be fine considering there are lots of way to nullify them (flanking, charging, bluffing, etc), but no less than that.

MeeposFire
2011-01-27, 05:10 AM
Wait are you saying full attack and a full attack charge in the same round? I certainly was not trying to get two full round attacks in one round.

Another option go more towards 4e in making individual hits being harder rather than numerous. This has a very big benefit of making the turn quicker. If you have played a character with a lot of attacks you know what I mean.

EDIT: For example making it so that for every attack you could make you add one weapon die to the damage and adding certain mods like enhancement bonuses. This would obviously take a lot of tinkering to make it work but it is one idea.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-27, 05:11 AM
Ah... I personally hate making 'special PC only rules'. Why should the world work differently just because you're a PC? A full attack is a full attack, it shouldn't matter whether you are a PC or not, or whether you have PC levels.

Unless by 'martial PC levels' you mean it is a special class feature for classes that give full BAB? In which case, at what level do you gain this class feature, because a one level dip would still be an issue in that case.

Heck, what about warrior levels?
Yeah, special PC rules bug me too. It just regiments the PC/NPC separation and makes things less immersive, in my opinion.

*lots o' good points*I agree d20 rules lack granularity, but it still breaks my verisimilitude MORE if someone can attack me just as easily if they walked 20 feet before attacking me then if I had just stood 5 feet away from them.

Loki Eremes
2011-01-27, 05:47 AM
Wait are you saying full attack and a full attack charge in the same round? I certainly was not trying to get two full round attacks in one round.

Another option go more towards 4e in making individual hits being harder rather than numerous. This has a very big benefit of making the turn quicker. If you have played a character with a lot of attacks you know what I mean.

EDIT: For example making it so that for every attack you could make you add one weapon die to the damage and adding certain mods like enhancement bonuses. This would obviously take a lot of tinkering to make it work but it is one idea.



If this was directed to me, no.
OMG NO, no 2 FA in a same round

BeltofBattle: but..
Loki: SHUT UP

i said "move at you full speed & make your Full Attack, but those attacks will be more difficult"

This way she can move and FA, and if she is stationary, her full attack will be even better.

lesser_minion
2011-01-27, 05:50 AM
I agree d20 rules lack granularity, but it still breaks my verisimilitude MORE if someone can attack me just as easily if they walked 20 feet before attacking me then if I had just stood 5 feet away from them.

Wouldn't it be better to just give them a penalty to hit then?

The thing about it being harder to fight a retreating opponent should be, if anything, more true for low level characters than for high level ones.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-27, 06:10 AM
Wouldn't it be better to just give them a penalty to hit then?

The thing about it being harder to fight a retreating opponent should be, if anything, more true for low level characters than for high level ones.
It is, based on the fact a low level, less experienced character, has a lower attack bonus. The way I look at it, an attack doesn't represent a single strike, but a series of strikes looking for an opening. The attack is the best chance, a more experienced warrior is able to find more openings (iterative attacks) and exploit them better, higher base attack bonus.
Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
But all this takes time, Daffy.

Runestar
2011-01-27, 06:16 AM
On a side note, it wouldn't be that hard to "ToB'ify" every monster to give them quality, standard-action attacks. :smallamused:

Actually, that sounds quite fun!

lesser_minion
2011-01-27, 06:41 AM
It is, based on the fact a low level, less experienced character, has a lower attack bonus.

But they're exactly as good at attacking a retreating opponent as they are at attacking one who's holding her ground -- whereas the higher level characters become vastly worse.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-27, 02:23 PM
But they're exactly as good at attacking a retreating opponent as they are at attacking one who's holding her ground -- whereas the higher level characters become vastly worse.
*shrug* Even a verisimilitude fiend like me agrees there should be some balance between verisimilitude and fun. Which is why I suggested losing an iterative.

Erom
2011-01-27, 02:34 PM
My simple houserule to cover this situation:

1) A full attack is a standard action.
2) A player takes a -1 to full attacks for every square he has moved this turn.

Boom, done. Full attacks can now be made after movement, but moving still imposes a very real penalty. Retreating now has a purpose (makes you harder to hit) but melee classes can still be mobile and get use out of their iteratives.

Balance the penalty as you see fit. -2 per square is too much, I have found from experience. -1 per 2 squares and -1 per square both work out OK.

Telasi
2011-01-27, 03:18 PM
At this point, I'm still undecided. It's a nice thing for melee, but I'm not fully convinced it's necessary. I have gotten the indication that it probably won't kill my game if I want to try it, though.

Concerning the suggestions to make melee work like ToB or 4e combat: That's something I want to avoid for the present. I already have those resources available, but I have little interest in ToB classes and I'm quite sick of playing 4e. If my players want to use ToB, fine, but I'm not going to make that the standard for my game.