Is Allowing Full Attacks as a Standard Action a Bad Idea?

[wayfare]

Hey All:

I am working on a mini-revision of 3.5, with a fighter class that has the ability to take a full move and full attack in the same round. As I thought about this ability, I realized that I wanted to expand it to all classes. Is this a bad idea?

I often hear folks say that this sort of thing takes tactical options away from classes, but I don't really think that is the case. If you want to use a combat maneuver, most of those are at least standard actions. Charging is a full action. You still have combat options, you just also have the same mobility as a mage.

[Benly]

It depends on what balance point your group is aiming for. If it's tier 3 or higher, then this is fine - it brings the lower martial classes up towards where the initiators live. If your group wants to balance towards tier 4 or lower, it may be too strong for the same reason.

[Exirtadorri]

In 3.5 combat options other then charging is pretty much never done. It's stupid imo.

As for full attacking...could you imagine a raging barbarian moving with his improved movement (and if you allow a full attack and a move) plus the bonus from fleet of foot. so...that's what...50 or 60 feet and then his 5 attacks power attacking for plus 60ish damage before crits. that just seems like unless you fought in an open field nothing could evade that. Also, the farther you move the more you can jump...so...a huge running leap with a full attack means nothing will live. just my take on it.

[Omegonthesane]

Among the factors that cause Fighters to suck at high level is the fact that upon reaching level 6, they drop from "20'/30' move and inflict full attack damage" to "5' step and inflict full attack damage". So, it helps on that front.

[Larkas]

If by full move you mean moving x1/x2 the base speed, it is alright. Most effective martial builds need a way to move and full attack, anyways. If by it you mean moving x3/x4/x5 the base speed, it might be too much.


It depends on what balance point your group is aiming for. If it's tier 3 or higher, then this is fine - it brings the lower martial classes up towards where the initiators live. If your group wants to balance towards tier 4 or lower, it may be too strong for the same reason.

Not really, Spirit Lion Barbarians are still Tier 4.

[wayfare]

I am aiming for tier 3, but i should clarify one thing -- this is a mini book my group is working on. Initiators don't exist, really -- we are trying to make combat competitive with spells.

[JoeYounger]

I don't think it will cause a problem. I've been thinking about it for a while, and will be starting my first campaign where it's applicable in the next month or so. I feel like it will help bridge the gap between melee and casters.

[Waker]

I think the idea is fine. One of the biggest disadvantages that mundane characters have is the inability to properly deal damage while staying mobile, unless they specifically build a charge character. The Scout class would certainly love to take advantage of this.
You may want to specify that a character cannot combine this full attack with a charge (unless they have pounce), limiting themselves only to a single move action.

[Ashtagon]

Among the factors that cause Fighters to suck at high level is the fact that upon reaching level 6, they drop from "20'/30' move and inflict full attack damage" to "5' step and inflict full attack damage". So, it helps on that front.

This is only a drop if they were doing TWF. If they are 2H or sword-and-board, there is no drop in power at level 6 -- merely a failure to take advantage of the iterative attack.

Personally, I'm cool with standard action full attacks.

[demigodus]

Depends on the optimization level of your group. If spell casters are your baseline of comparison, and they are played moderately well, then this is in no way a bad idea.

[wayfare]

Thanks for the help, guys!

Ok, so my fighter variant had this for a level 6 ability:

Footwork (Ex): You can make a full attack and a full move in the same round.

which has been replaced with this, as a result of this rules change:


Maneuver (Ex): Once per round, when an opponent attacks you and misses may take one of the following actions:


Move up to half your speed
Redirect the attack against any adjacent enemy, using the original attack roll.
Make an attack against the opponent who missed you


Thoughts?

[Misery Esquire]

Actually... Making this a feat (Not a feat chain, for Pelor's sake) of some variety would probably be a good idea.

Mostly because otherwise Wizards can just polymorph into a Hydra and take advantage. (This example may not be correct/perfect, but it gets the idea across.)

[JoeYounger]

Maneuver (Ex): Once per round, when an opponent attacks you and misses may take one of the following actions:


Move up to half your speed
Redirect the attack against any adjacent enemy, using the original attack roll.
Make an attack against the opponent who missed you


Thoughts?


I don't like any of the maneuvers. Unless you're playing a 1 or 2 person party I feel like that will just slow combat down WAY too much.

[JoshuaZ]

It might make sense to tie it to a minimum BAB. 7 would be an obvious minimum because that's one beyond where one gets two hits, and also just close to where melee starts heading downhill.

[Aurenthal]

Wait! Summoners will be way overpowered, especially with the ACF from UA for conjuration wizards that lets them summon a creature as a Standard Action, so their summoned monsters would be devastating.

[Ashtagon]

Wait! Summoners will be way overpowered, especially with the ACF from UA for conjuration wizards that lets them summon a creature as a Standard Action, so their summoned monsters would be devastating.

Make it a feat? Prerequisites: Fighter or monk level 6, or 11 levels in any combination of fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, or monk.

And in the name of $deity, give monks full BAB.

[Benly]

This is only a drop if they were doing TWF. If they are 2H or sword-and-board, there is no drop in power at level 6 -- merely a failure to take advantage of the iterative attack.

Personally, I'm cool with standard action full attacks.

The extra iterative is a drop in relative power, though. In theory, level 2 spells are balanced against the challenges at level 3 and 4, and level 3 spells are balanced against the challenges at level 5 and 6. Likewise, a fighter's attacks are (in theory) balanced against level-appropriate enemies. The difference is that the fighter can't deploy his level-appropriate ability (the full attack) if he moves, and the spellcaster can. (This is leaving aside the question of whether spells actually scale appropriately; it applies equally well to maneuvers, binder abilities, invocations, soulmeld powers, or any other standard-action-based class.)

In short, the level 6 fighter's single attack is a step forward from the level 4 fighter's single attack, but the things he's attacking have moved forward to the point where a double attack is what is expected to keep up with them.

[Person_Man]

It could actually makes things worse for many low-Tier melee builds.

Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Spirited Charge, Ride By Attack, and various other Feats all require a Charge action. If players avoid using Charge so that they can make a full attack every round, they're avoiding some of the best melee options in the game.

A superior solution would be to grant Pounce AND the ability to make a full attack as a Standard Action to all Tier 4 or lower builds. That way they would always have the option of making a full attack.

Whatever you do, I would strongly discourage you from making it a Feat or alternate class ability (if they have to trade something away to get it). If something in the rules is broken for your group, just fix it. Don't tax someone further so that they can play a cruddy low-tier class.

Alternatively, you could just white list Tier 3 classes. Even if the Tome of Battle doesn't exist in your game world, there's always the Psychic Warrior, Totemist, Incarnate, Binder, etc.

[JoshuaZ]

Make it a feat? Prerequisites: Fighter or monk level 6, or 11 levels in any combination of fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, or monk.

And in the name of $deity, give monks full BAB.

This is probably the best way to do it. So maybe either 6 levels of Monk or Fighter, or BAB 11? That way wiz 2/ranger 10 would still be able to pick it up?

[JoeYounger]

The extra iterative is a drop in relative power, though. In theory, level 2 spells are balanced against the challenges at level 3 and 4, and level 3 spells are balanced against the challenges at level 5 and 6. Likewise, a fighter's attacks are (in theory) balanced against level-appropriate enemies. The difference is that the fighter can't deploy his level-appropriate ability (the full attack) if he moves, and the spellcaster can. (This is leaving aside the question of whether spells actually scale appropriately; it applies equally well to maneuvers, binder abilities, invocations, soulmeld powers, or any other standard-action-based class.)

In short, the level 6 fighter's single attack is a step forward from the level 4 fighter's single attack, but the things he's attacking have moved forward to the point where a double attack is what is expected to keep up with them.

This was very well put. I thought you should know that I like this post.

[Benly]

Alternatively, you could just white list Tier 3 classes. Even if the Tome of Battle doesn't exist in your game world, there's always the Psychic Warrior, Totemist, Incarnate, Binder, etc.

Honestly, the problem with that would be that most T3 fighting guys don't "feel" like fighters. People talk about reskinning, but self-Enlarging or sprouting four arms with claws don't feel like what a lot of people want out of their fantasy fighting-man. Warblade is kind of the only good solution on that front without house ruling. (Even then, only certain warblade builds get the right "feel", but you can do it without nerfing yourself so it doesn't really bother me.)

[Waddacku]

People, he said that Maneuver ability is a Fighter class feature, not a general ability.

[Curmudgeon]

This change will remove much of the incentive for choosing Barbarian (the Lion Spiritual Totem ACF in Complete Champion to gain pounce is the single biggest power boost the class has received in all the supplements after 3.5 release), and give the Fighter and other martial classes a big improvement. However, I do suggest one simple modification: this option cannot be used by anyone with even a single level of a full spellcasting class. I think that's a simpler fix than trying to deal with all the combinations of feats and classes.

[SowZ]

The extra iterative is a drop in relative power, though. In theory, level 2 spells are balanced against the challenges at level 3 and 4, and level 3 spells are balanced against the challenges at level 5 and 6. Likewise, a fighter's attacks are (in theory) balanced against level-appropriate enemies. The difference is that the fighter can't deploy his level-appropriate ability (the full attack) if he moves, and the spellcaster can. (This is leaving aside the question of whether spells actually scale appropriately; it applies equally well to maneuvers, binder abilities, invocations, soulmeld powers, or any other standard-action-based class.)

In short, the level 6 fighter's single attack is a step forward from the level 4 fighter's single attack, but the things he's attacking have moved forward to the point where a double attack is what is expected to keep up with them.

Another problem with full attacks being used along with a move, though, is the enemies get this too unless it is a feat. And if it is a feat, it is a feat tax. And if it is a class feature, all martial classes need it. This would require some work to make functional but I think it could be done.

[wayfare]

This change will remove much of the incentive for choosing Barbarian (the Lion Spiritual Totem ACF in Complete Champion to gain pounce is the single biggest power boost the class has received in all the supplements after 3.5 release), and give the Fighter and other martial classes a big improvement. However, I do suggest one simple modification: this option cannot be used by anyone with even a single level of a full spellcasting class. I think that's a simpler fix than trying to deal with all the combinations of feats and classes.

We've done a few things to nerf spellcasters:

1) spells that summon monsters are rituals that take hours, and have serious consequences if they fail.

2) Shapeshifting is on a monster-by monster basis and only grants you Ex abilities.

3) You can only learn magic from all schools up to 2nd level. Beyond that its one school only (arcane casters).

4) Divine casters are limited to domain spells, along with a small general spell list.

5) The game only goes up to level 10, so a lot of the more dangerous magic is not an issue.

[FMArthur]

Give it exclusively to non-casting, non-ToB classes as a class feature. Everyone else manages it in their own abilities, don't depend on such things, or don't need the buff. But the biggest reason is monsters, which you should keep as-is so that it's actually a buff for your guys and not just keeping up with buffs to the things they fight (which you also don't need to make any better at one-shotting PCs...). That's not even taking into account the possibility that more powerful classes can bring an improved monster offense to bear for their own ends.

frivolity follows
Instead of giving them standard-action full-attack, I gave one of my groups a choice between different types of free movement for mundane melee with different limitations. It lets combat positioning actually matter (which isn't the case when you implement standard full-attacks) and provides some fun variety. It's not very involved:
Option 1: Pounce. Charges are long-ranged pure offense but have stringent conditions on usage (moreso than you'd think before carefully reading the charge rules); difficult terrain, objects, allies and other targets all block it by the corners of their spaces.
Option 2: Sudden Leap at-will. Move up to a Jump check as a Swift action. This is more versatile in positioning but eats up your Swift action and requires some work on the Jump skill to either pump it up or count as always running.
Option 3: 'Graceful Balance'. Move up to your speed as a Swift action and optionally make some of your attacks during movement if you use up the corresponding action for the attack (you can split a full-attack into the beginning, middle or end of your movement however you like). If you're threatened at the start, you make a Balance check -10 and anyone threatening you whose attack bonus exceeds the result can follow behind you (they forgo any AoOs and are valid targets for attacks made in-transit).
A player made the last one up for those delicate flowers who bring elegance to a fistfight instead of ferocity. It seems weird but it wasn't complicated, made stuff interesting and felt very cinematic for the two who used it. Balance being useful was a novelty.

Ideas for a 'sneaky' option bobbed around but never came to anything; something like using Hide to slide around the edges of walls, objects and allies.

[VGLordR2]

It's already possible to full-move into a full attack with the Barbarian's pounce ACF. It's not horribly broken in my opinion.

[TuggyNE]

Actually... Making this a feat (Not a feat chain, for Pelor's sake) of some variety would probably be a good idea.

Mostly because otherwise Wizards can just polymorph into a Hydra and take advantage. (This example may not be correct/perfect, but it gets the idea across.)

Side note; the 11-headed hydra's standard attack is as follows: "Attack: 11 bites +16 melee (1d10+6)". In other words, yes, this is already a thing. (Hydras make no distinction between full and standard attacks.)


But to respond to the OP, this is a sound suggestion:

Give it exclusively to non-casting, non-ToB classes as a class feature. Everyone else manages it in their own abilities, don't depend on such things, or don't need the buff. But the biggest reason is monsters, which you should keep as-is so that it's actually a buff for your guys and not just keeping up with buffs to the things they fight (which you also don't need to make any better at one-shotting PCs...). That's not even taking into account the possibility that more powerful classes can bring an improved monster offense to bear for their own ends.
In particular, taking the time to specifically allow various classes to do this (probably referencing a common ability in all of them) is preferable to making a general rule. Simply give it to each martial class at +6 BAB.

[wayfare]

Ok, but why limit it to martial characters?

Its not like spellcasters don't already have the ability to move and cast spells in the same round. Wizards will literally see 0 effect from this.

[Curmudgeon]

Ok, but why limit it to martial characters?

Its not like spellcasters don't already have the ability to move and cast spells in the same round. Wizards will literally see 0 effect from this.
So if there's no effect on them, keeping the non-spellcaster limit isn't a problem ─ right? :smallwink:

[Benly]

Ok, but why limit it to martial characters?

Its not like spellcasters don't already have the ability to move and cast spells in the same round. Wizards will literally see 0 effect from this.

I would guess the main reason would be to partially defuse the "casters are better fighters than fighters are" problem, where with appropriate prestige class selection and/or long-lasting buffs a cleric or wizard who decides to melee will outperform a fighter completely. If it requires a certain number of levels in a "fighting" class, then the cleric with Persistent Divine Power and whatever will still be at a disadvantage in melee compared to the fighter, which some people consider preferable.

[Red_Dog]

Ok, but why limit it to martial characters?

Its not like spellcasters don't already have the ability to move and cast spells in the same round. Wizards will literally see 0 effect from this.

Actually Wizards explicitly ALREADY have it as Polymorph line lets them to morph into aforementioned Hydra. If you give this ability to Wizards, than all other forms that are far superior to fighters will benefit from it and again outpace fighters at fighting with a blindfold and both hands tied behind their back.

=============================================>

Also random advise on all balance changes that you plan on making, as you are trying to fix the system for your gaming group.

The dreaded 4 encounters minimum. You have to deal with an issue that WotC REFUSED to deal with themselves. They based the system around a though that "attacking is unlimited, spells are limited, make spells absurd" while disregarding the main core book => The DMG.

The ways to deal with it are =>
Chuck it. Just forget this idea. You would than have to chuck the CR table and pit your players arbitrarily vs enemies that you would think give them enough challenge and deplete enough resources. Than you would arbitrarily award XP. Its not easy, if you are new to this, you can end up with encounters that are too easy or result in TPK. But to me, that's one of the big system fixes anyone can do quickly.

Use it and change the system to fit this. Nerf/ban a lot of spells, make skillful encounters[and change pass fail skill system], use smart monsters, let T4s gestalt, etc.

The trick is, that 4 "encounters"[to me Factotum defines it best => its "4 scenes" not "fights"] rule is actually sensible. If you give each scene to be resolved in a hour before the next just slams in it, you will end up with a nice style of both fast paced and interesting gameplay.

Good luck with balancing though! Its tough and eats time... like anything D&D related = ]

[Eldariel]

Actually Wizards explicitly ALREADY have it as Polymorph line lets them to morph into aforementioned Hydra. If you give this ability to Wizards, than all other forms that are far superior to fighters will benefit from it and again outpace fighters at fighting with a blindfold and both hands tied behind their back.

So basically, it changes nothing. In my opinion go with simplicity, just state "full attacks can happen as a standard action". If some abilities specifically cause problems with this, deal with those abilities individually. This is how it should've worked in the first place.

[Benly]

Currently, wizards have to polymorph into a non-spellcasting form to do it, which is a significant limitation.

[Eldariel]

Currently, wizards have to polymorph into a non-spellcasting form to do it, which is a significant limitation.

There's also Swift Lion's Charge-feat, Travel Devotion, Quicken Benign Transposition, etc. to do an approximation of it tho. And frankly, being good at melee isn't what makes Wizards strong.

[navar100]

Try this:

For every iteration of BAB you can move 5 ft and still full attack. That means at +6/+1 you can move 10 ft and full attack, +11/+6/+1 is 15 ft, and +16/+11/+6/+1 is 20 ft. You still provoke AoO for this movement but change Mobility feat to removing the provocation for this movement. Only give this to full BAB base classes and Prestige Classes.

Edit:And monk as part of Flurry of Blows

[Eldariel]

Try this:

For every iteration of BAB you can move 5 ft and still full attack. That means at +6/+1 you can move 10 ft and full attack, +11/+6/+1 is 15 ft, and +16/+11/+6/+1 is 20 ft. You still provoke AoO for this movement but change Mobility feat to removing the provocation for this movement. Only give this to full BAB base classes and Prestige Classes.

...isn't this illogical tho? Level 1-5 you can move 30' and "full attack" since you only have one attack anyways. Suddenly you can only move 10' and full attack...why?

[navar100]

...isn't this illogical tho? Level 1-5 you can move 30' and "full attack" since you only have one attack anyways. Suddenly you can only move 10' and full attack...why?

That's not a "full attack", it's a standard action one attack. "Full attack" is to mean get all your attacks based on BAB when you have more than one.

[Benly]

There's also Swift Lion's Charge-feat, Travel Devotion, Quicken Benign Transposition, etc. to do an approximation of it tho. And frankly, being good at melee isn't what makes Wizards strong.

You forgot Abrupt Jaunt. :smalltongue:

I think the argument here is coming from an essential difference in whether you want this to be a rule that makes melee as a strategy more viable or a rule that makes "melee classes" more viable. The two problems are related but not identical. Granting standard-action full attack to all classes makes melee a more powerful option but does not change any classes' relative positions very much - the one-level barbarian dip goes away, totemists move up a little, whatever.

Granting it only to certain classes, on the other hand, gives those classes a degree of niche protection and pushes them up slightly relative to classes that don't have it. People who see that as desirable may prefer that solution.

[Eldariel]

That's not a "full attack", it's a standard action one attack. "Full attack" is to mean get all your attacks based on BAB when you have more than one.

That's semantics tho. Full attack with BAB +1-+5 is equivalent to standard action attack (barring few very specific circumstances that rarely come into play on these levels, such as Haste or Whirling Frenzy). Why would it suddenly not be equivalent with BAB 6+, thinking logically?


Granting it only to certain classes, on the other hand, gives those classes a degree of niche protection and pushes them up slightly relative to classes that don't have it. People who see that as desirable may prefer that solution.

Just limit extra attacks to those classes then. Limiting move + attack to some classes but allowing all classes certain number of attacks on full attack just feels arbitrary.

[Benly]

Just limit extra attacks to those classes then. Limiting move + attack to some classes but allowing all classes certain number of attacks on full attack just feels arbitrary.

Sure, I'm fine with that too and that's how older editions did it. This is just a take on the original "changing full attack to a standard action" suggestion.

[Red_Dog]

So basically, it changes nothing. In my opinion go with simplicity, just state "full attacks can happen as a standard action". If some abilities specifically cause problems with this, deal with those abilities individually. This is how it should've worked in the first place.

There's also Swift Lion's Charge-feat, Travel Devotion, Quicken Benign Transposition, etc. to do an approximation of it tho. And frankly, being good at melee isn't what makes Wizards strong.

Well... The issue is that blanket rule change will once again boost T1. Even though wizards don't usually fight in HtH, making them better at it without taxing them seems counter-intuitive to the idea of balancing.

Wizards/CODZillas are already overpowered, no need to make them even more powerful.

I would just make it a class feature starting level one for SOME classes[namely paladin, fighter & w/e else fullBAB sporting that I am forgetting that isn't tied to T1-3 or Swift Hunter or Pouncing Barbarian]. I would also tie this feature to class levels somehow[the BAB tie in proposed by navar100 seems like a nice start] as to avoid simple dips. Fighter 2 is already one of 2 uses fighter sees in any optimized game as it is, no need to make it worse.

As a semi related question, why isn't this thread in Homebrew forum?O_0

[Eldariel]

Well... The issue is that blanket rule change will once again boost T1. Even though wizards don't usually fight in HtH, making them better at it without taxing them seems counter-intuitive to the idea of balancing.

Wizards/CODZillas are already overpowered, no need to make them even more powerful.

It really doesn't change anything either way tho. Wizards/CoDzilla already have easy access to moving and attacking; this would just remove a silly hoop. Overall, regardless of what you do with this change, it won't meaningfully affect high tier balance. Any level on which balance discussion exists already assumes moving and full attacks anyways.

Giving Wizards/CoDzilla e.g. few extra HP or skills isn't going to break them any more. They're broken solely because of their spells (aside from Druid which is spells + wildshape + animal companion, relevance depending on character level) so any attempts at balancing them should deal with their spells/casting.

Changing their full attack action or skills or whatever isn't going to change anything meaningful far as their power goes; they can just be quality of life changes to make something in the system less stupid or fix some silly oversight or some such. Even if they nominally "improve" casters, they aren't going to improve them on the important metrics that make them strong so thus the improvement in actual performance ranges from negligible to inexistent.


Overall, the blanket logic that "X is overpowered compared to other options so anything that improves X is automatically a bad change" really doesn't stand closer scrutiny.

Overall, Move + Attack is already built into the system but for some reason it forces you to jump through stupid hoops to get the ability in a completely illogical manner. I don't see any path but just removing the hoops and limitations entirely being very sensible; again, restricting the extra attacks themselves seems more logical than restricting full attacking, for instance.

[wayfare]

I love the idea of restricting the extra attacks themselves! Extra attacks were awesome in AD&D because they were relatively rare -- you had to either be a combat class, or you had to dual wield to get them.

Something like

Fighter, Monk: Extra attacks at 6, 12, 18
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger: Extra Attacks at 8, 16
Rogue, Cleric, Druid: Extra Attacks at level 10
Wizard: No extra attack

[ScrambledBrains]

I love the idea of restricting the extra attacks themselves! Extra attacks were awesome in AD&D because they were relatively rare -- you had to either be a combat class, or you had to dual wield to get them.

Something like

Fighter, Monk: Extra attacks at 6, 12, 18
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger: Extra Attacks at 8, 16
Rogue, Cleric, Druid: Extra Attacks at level 10
Wizard: No extra attack

:smallconfused: Why is the Barbarian, a primary combat class, lumped in with the Paladin and Ranger, both of which are explicitly hybrids? The Barbarian should be up with the Fighter and Monk.

[Benly]

:smallconfused: Why is the Barbarian, a primary combat class, lumped in with the Paladin and Ranger, both of which are explicitly hybrids? The Barbarian should be up with the Fighter and Monk.

Give the Barbarian an extra attack while he's raging, maybe?

[BlueEyes]

That's semantics tho. Full attack with BAB +1-+5 is equivalent to standard action attack (barring few very specific circumstances that rarely come into play on these levels, such as Haste or Whirling Frenzy). Why would it suddenly not be equivalent with BAB 6+, thinking logically?
Standard action attack at first level isn't the same as a full attack. Remember that there are ways to get more attacks at levels 5 and below, but most (if not all) of them require a full attack action.
Sure, you can move 30 ft. and attack, but that will be just a standard action attack, not a full attack.
Also remember that at 1-5th level you can still make a 5-ft. step and full attack.

[wayfare]

:smallconfused: Why is the Barbarian, a primary combat class, lumped in with the Paladin and Ranger, both of which are explicitly hybrids? The Barbarian should be up with the Fighter and Monk.

Mostly because the barbarian doesn't need it to keep up DPR.

[Eldariel]

Standard action attack at first level isn't the same as a full attack. Remember that there are ways to get more attacks at levels 5 and below, but most (if not all) of them require a full attack action.
Sure, you can move 30 ft. and attack, but that will be just a standard action attack, not a full attack.

...yes, that's precisely that's been said about a hundred times already. Fact is that for a large majority of potential low level characters they're equivalent and it's really silly that your full attack starts the same as standard action attack but then your standard action attack suddenly starts becoming weaker by comparison.

If a warrior needs 3 seconds to land a single damaging blow on level 1 and then can do the same twice in the same time on 6, there's just no reason for the standard action attack rules. It's even worse with TWF.

[MeeposFire]

You could go with a more AD&D solution. Allow you to use a full attack action so long as you move 1/2 your speed or less. Gives mobility back but charging is now a way to get even more mobility and powerful bonuses.

Another option is to beef up the attack action. One thing I thought to use was give attack actions bonus damage of 1d6 (or d8 depending on how powerful you want it) per point of BAB above 5. So BAB of 10 would give attack actions of weapon damage+5d6. ANother option is to go like 4e and make the damage dice based on your weapon die. This would be a lot swingier as 4e does not have very many ways to increase your size (and damage dice scale slower as well by size) but it would make your weapon choice more important. SO that same BAB 10 guy would deal 1d4+mods+5d4 with a dagger and 1d10+mods+5d10 with a bastard sword (I personally recommend that you make the bonus damage based on medium sized weapons of the same type to make things easier, quicker, less screwing of small characters, and make larger characters less insane).

[BlueEyes]

...yes, that's precisely that's been said about a hundred times already. Fact is that for a large majority of potential low level characters they're equivalent and it's really silly that your full attack starts the same as standard action attack but then your standard action attack suddenly starts becoming weaker by comparison.

If a warrior needs 3 seconds to land a single damaging blow on level 1 and then can do the same twice in the same time on 6, there's just no reason for the standard action attack rules. It's even worse with TWF.
So you're against it, because then... standard action attack will become less useful and that'll make it sad? :smallconfused:

[Gwendol]

I agree with Curmudgeon: keep this off the spellcasters. Think cleric. Or duskblade...

[mattie_p]

I agree with Curmudgeon: keep this off the spellcasters. Think cleric. Or duskblade...

... or swiftblade.

[Fitz10019]

If it is a feat, I suggest it be a new clause added to Weapon Focus. That way you overlap the feat tax with a common prerequisite for other feats.

If it is to be a built-in game option, I suggest it be a new clause added to the definition of martial and exotic weapon proficiencies for melee weapons, and noting that a monk's 'natural' attacks (hands, feet, knees, etc.) are considered exotic weapons for the purposes of weapon proficiency.

This leaves the staff-wielding monk and the dagger-wielding rogue in the cold. Is that bad?

[Raimun]

Eh, why not?

I'd limit this ability for humanoid characters with BAB as high as their HD.
Edit: For humanoids with unaltered BAB that high. Divine Power.

So...

Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc.: Out. Seriously. These guys don't need it.

Rogue, Bard, Fighter/Rogue, etc.: Out.

Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter/Barbarian, etc. : In.

[Pancritic]

If a warrior needs 3 seconds to land a single damaging blow on level 1 and then can do the same twice in the same time on 6, there's just no reason for the standard action attack rules. It's even worse with TWF.At level one, the warrior takes three seconds to strike a single solid blow and uses the other three seconds to move around ca. 30 ft.

At level six, the warrior takes the same three seconds to land a solid blow, and can choose to use the other three seconds to either move around or to strike a hasty blow with a lesser chance of hitting home.

Right?

[Benly]

Eh, why not?

I'd limit this ability for humanoid characters with BAB as high as their HD.
Edit: For humanoids with unaltered BAB that high. Divine Power.

So...

Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc.: Out. Seriously. These guys don't need it.

Rogue, Bard, Fighter/Rogue, etc.: Out.

Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter/Barbarian, etc. : In.

So a level 12 fighter takes a level of rogue and suddenly forgets how to do it?

Also, monks exist.

[BlueEyes]

In PF one Fighter archetype gets standard action full attacks at 20th level (and a move + full attack earlier). Just so you know.

[Raimun]

So a level 12 fighter takes a level of rogue and suddenly forgets how to do it?

Also, monks exist.

Good point.

Still, only the warrior types really need this.

Monks? As in monasteries? Scribing and brewing...? :smallconfused:
Oh... those monks!

[Curmudgeon]

Good point.

Still, only the warrior types really need this.
So who says a Rogue can't be a "warrior type"?

I've made a whole lot of Rogue characters, and many of them were focused on combat. One of the biggest appeals of the class is its flexibility. With Education and Knowledge Devotion feats a Rogue can sink skill points into the 6 Knowledges related to creature types and get bonuses to attack and damage everything in D&D. At level 12 such combat-centric Rogues will match Fighter attack bonuses and by about level 14 will stay consistently ahead in AB. Other options increase their sneak attack damage and the number of enemies against whom sneak attack can be applied. A Rogue can be constructed as a warrior.

Yes, obviously a Rogue can be built to emphasize non-combat capabilities. That is not, however, the only option. Is there some particular reason you wish to exclude Rogues from being able to fight? They'll still get significantly less benefit from this change due to only 3/4 BAB, so it's not like including them gives them the same boost as Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, and the like.

[Eldariel]

So you're against it, because then... standard action attack will become less useful and that'll make it sad? :smallconfused:

I'm against standard action attacks becoming less powerful after 6 BAB for three reasons:
- It's illogical. Why can a militiaman do the same with a standard attack and a full attack but an experienced warrior cannot? The ratio of attacks you get in standard vs. full attack would need to remain the same even if they were different things.
- It punishes melee types, who are already weaker. In practice, it means you need Pounce-dip, Travel Devotion or something equally retarded in every build just to overcome a stupid hoop in game design.
- It punishes two-weapon fighters and similar concepts. Simply put, the current standard action mechanic caters to people with fewer attacks. For no reason.


Mostly, my problems is that standard action being weaker doesn't improve the game in any way but makes it worse in a myriad of ways. It's also not especially logical due to my problem #1 up there; trained militiaman always gets exactly one chance to damage in a standard action attack or full attack action. A trained warrior gets one chance to damage in a standard action attack but multiples in a full attack action. Therefore it's a bad rule.

It fails the test of "does this add anything of substance to the game"; it doesn't. It also fails the test of "does this improve game balance"; it weakens it. Finally, it fails the test of "does this improve the simulationist qualities of the game". Ergo, it's a rule that has no reason to exist and should not be abided by.


At level one, the warrior takes three seconds to strike a single solid blow and uses the other three seconds to move around ca. 30 ft.

At level six, the warrior takes the same three seconds to land a solid blow, and can choose to use the other three seconds to either move around or to strike a hasty blow with a lesser chance of hitting home.

Right?

According to the PHB, melee combat presents chances to damage in a melee fight rather than mere attacks. Melee combat is a constant action; it doesn't take 6 seconds to deliver an attack.

Also, your example fails to account for the fact that:
At level 1, the warrior could take 6 seconds to do the same exact one attack. He can do the exact same thing in 3 seconds as he can in 6. Literally taking twice as long doesn't improve his performance at all.
At level 11, the warrior could take 3 seconds to do a single attack and then additional 3 seconds to do two more attacks.
At level 16, the warrior could take 3 seconds to do a single attack and then additional 3 seconds to do three more attacks.

[BlueEyes]

Mostly, my problems is that standard action being weaker doesn't improve the game in any way but makes it worse in a myriad of ways. It's also not especially logical due to my problem #1 up there; trained militiaman always gets exactly one chance to damage in a standard action attack or full attack action. A trained warrior gets one chance to damage in a standard action attack but multiples in a full attack action. Therefore it's a bad rule.

It fails the test of "does this add anything of substance to the game"; it doesn't. It also fails the test of "does this improve game balance"; it weakens it. Finally, it fails the test of "does this improve the simulationist qualities of the game". Ergo, it's a rule that has no reason to exist and should not be abided by.
Wait... what? What are you talking about? you're saying that standard action attacks are too weak? Well... DUH. That's why we're talking about fixes.
You were objecting to a reasonable fix by Navar just because it was illogical. But it wasn't and I explained why.

[Doug Lampert]

Wait... what? What are you talking about? you're saying that standard action attacks are too weak? Well... DUH. That's why we're talking about fixes.
You were objecting to a reasonable fix by Navar just because it was illogical. But it wasn't and I explained why.

All of his posts have in fact been in support of the change offered.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that he doesn't support the change.

[mattie_p]

By RAW:

Level 1 melee type: move 30', attack once.
Level 1 magic user type: move 30', cast one spell.

Level 11 melee type: move 30', attack once; OR move 5', attack 3? times.
Level 11 magic user type: cast quickened spell, move 30', cast another spell; ORcast quickened spell, move 5', cast another spell (but why move 5' when you can move 30'???)

Almost I want to say that if you BAB is above 6 (or some other number), a single attack is a swift action at full BAB and a full attack is a standard action. But I really hesitate because any change as drastic as that has potential to be broken. But maybe not, its just an attack.

[Eldariel]

Wait... what? What are you talking about? you're saying that standard action attacks are too weak? Well... DUH. That's why we're talking about fixes.
You were objecting to a reasonable fix by Navar just because it was illogical. But it wasn't and I explained why.

I was objecting to it because I find it to have extra complexity without sufficient reason for extra complexity. When it comes to rules, all else being equal, complexity should be minimized. If complexity does not achieve any goals, in other words if it's pointless complexity, then the less complex solution should be naturally preferred.

I have yet to see anybody present a reason for the existence of full attack action for melee combat in the first place. As such, I don't see the sense in any solution that keeps it in the game in its current form.

[FMArthur]

Man, I sure do hate TWF and other weak melee styles that depend on getting extra attacks!

Yeah let's give melee classes full attacks but only at 6th level. I mean it's not like the two-hander guy is even going to make more than one attack before then anyway so it doesn't matter, and this way you keep it out of reach of casters until their spells get good.

Actually, come to think of it, medium BAB classes like Monks, Rogues, Scouts, Ninjas, Psychic Warriors and Swordsages are clearly not real melee classes and are undeserving of buffs given to full BAB melee. If we hand it out by BAB and proficiencies, then the rule probably distinguishes between casters and melee classes automatically and we can avoid going through and looking at who actually gets affected by what. Brilliant!

:smallannoyed:

[Curmudgeon]

For every iteration of BAB you can move 5 ft and still full attack. That means at +6/+1 you can move 10 ft and full attack, +11/+6/+1 is 15 ft, and +16/+11/+6/+1 is 20 ft. You still provoke AoO for this movement but change Mobility feat to removing the provocation for this movement. Only give this to full BAB base classes and Prestige Classes.

Edit:And monk as part of Flurry of Blows
The response to this has gotten bogged down into discussions about standard attacks vs. full attacks, and I think we're missing the point.

The useful question is why are these changes an improvement over the original proposal?

You're going to keep pounce a much more powerful way of getting a full attack. That already allows double movement and 3 attacks at level 1. (Lion Spiritual Totem Barbarian with Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ) and Two-Weapon Fighting feat.) The OP's goal is to make all combat classes more competitive with spellcasters. How does nerfing this capability help achieve the aim? Most races plus the Quick trait can move 80' with pounce at level 1; how is allowing a maximum movement of 20' at level 16 an adequate improvement compared to what spellcasters can do?

Also wayfare wanted to open this up to all classes. Why is excluding 3/4 BAB classes (except Monk) from the benefit somehow better?

The goal is to make combat-oriented classes better compared to spellcasters. Your changes seem to be to intended to make only some combat-oriented classes slightly better compared to other combat-oriented classes. Isn't that just completely missing the OP's goal?

[PinkysBrain]

The problem with standard action full attacks is lethality (for PCs too, a couple of full attacking giants are not going to be kind on them). Making sure everyone has easy access to rocket launchers is one way to try to balance the game ... but it still doesn't really create much of a balance. Casters have rocket launchers and utility ...

Still if you allow lion barbarian dip, belt of battle etc then there is no real harm in just handing out standard action full attacks ... avoids all the dipping and item swapping.

[Eldariel]

The problem with standard action full attacks is lethality (for PCs too, a couple of full attacking giants are not going to be kind on them). Making sure everyone has easy access to rocket launchers is one way to try to balance the game ... but it still doesn't really create much of a balance. Casters have rocket launchers and utility ...

Less of a matter of balance and more of a matter of consistency. Full attack being so much stronger than standard attack makes for some ridiculously swingy situations; and since everybody has access to moving and attacking anyways, it just forces everybody to waste resources on something they should get for free.

The old solution of "if you fear full attack from whatever is too strong, use lower CR monsters" still work. Many of the ridiculously high damage melee monsters like Ettins and Hydras already have this ability and it can easily be built into any Dragons.

[navar100]

The response to this has gotten bogged down into discussions about standard attacks vs. full attacks, and I think we're missing the point.

The useful question is why are these changes an improvement over the original proposal?

You're going to keep pounce a much more powerful way of getting a full attack. That already allows double movement and 3 attacks at level 1. (Lion Spiritual Totem Barbarian with Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ) and Two-Weapon Fighting feat.) The OP's goal is to make all combat classes more competitive with spellcasters. How does nerfing this capability help achieve the aim? Most races plus the Quick trait can move 80' with pounce at level 1; how is allowing a maximum movement of 20' at level 16 an adequate improvement compared to what spellcasters can do?

Also wayfare wanted to open this up to all classes. Why is excluding 3/4 BAB classes (except Monk) from the benefit somehow better?

The goal is to make combat-oriented classes better compared to spellcasters. Your changes seem to be to intended to make only some combat-oriented classes slightly better compared to other combat-oriented classes. Isn't that just completely missing the OP's goal?

I was more responding to the concern that allowing any amount of movement and still have full attack could be a problem. It's certainly a nice thing to give to warriors, but giving nice things to warriors shouldn't mean making the game unplayable. If allowing any movement and full attack works fine, great. If it's troublesome, my idea offers measured temperance. If 5 ft is too short, then make it 10 ft per iteration. +16/+11/+5/+1 is thus move 40 ft and full attack. Makes barbarian's and monk's faster speed relevant again as class features, but fighters, rangers, and paladins can still appreciate a Haste spell or boots of speed for that extra 10 ft allowed.

Come to think of it, it would also help to remove the speed reduction of wearing medium or heavy armor as well.

[BlueEyes]

All of his posts have in fact been in support of the change offered.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that he doesn't support the change.
No, he was against Navar's fix and I was defending it.

My DM did it like this:
"Class abilities, feats, and magical effects that give extra attacks (such as TWF, Flurry of Blows, Haste, etc.) grant these extra attacks to standard action attacks as well (but only once during a full attack). For example, a 6th-level ranger with the TWF combat style tree could make a full attack involving two attacks with each weapon (for a total of 4), or move up to his speed and make 3 attacks (one with the on-hand, two with the off-hand via TWF and Improved TWF, each doing half Str mod to damage as usual for off-hand weapons). Similarly, a 5th-level monk who has been hasted could make 3 attacks with a standard action, taking the normal penalty for flurry of blows for all attacks that round."

[wayfare]

The problem with standard action full attacks is lethality (for PCs too, a couple of full attacking giants are not going to be kind on them). Making sure everyone has easy access to rocket launchers is one way to try to balance the game ... but it still doesn't really create much of a balance. Casters have rocket launchers and utility ...

Still if you allow lion barbarian dip, belt of battle etc then there is no real harm in just handing out standard action full attacks ... avoids all the dipping and item swapping.

Sorry for popping out for a few days -- moving is hard :(

I hardly think the full move and full attack is a rocket launcher -- figure two of your attacks will hit with any reliability, maybe three if you twf. Ubercharger is a rocket launcher, this is just a nice little buff.

Look, lets consider a non mail-man blaster. He is sub-optimal. All his mage buddies make fun of him because he likes fireball and meteorswarm instead of wish and gate. He is hanging out with his fighter buddy and they decide to get into a giant smacking contest.

Now, with a heavy feat investment in a completely non-flexible build, the fighter can put up colossal damage that can be defeated by...caltrops, or web, or solid fog. But lets say our fighter isn't that guy either. He's not an optimizer, he took weapon focus and weapon spec lines because he wanted to be that good with his favorite wolf-headed bastard sword. He is not a tripper or charger or a lightning mace ninja. He is a dude with a big sword. He power attacks. He cleaves, sometimes even greatly. When he feels like being a ninja, he pulls out a hatchet and twfs.

Ok, so these two guys, they want to smack around a few giants.

The fighter can lay a ton of damage on one giant, its true. Even if only two attacks hit, you're talking 50 damage between all the modifiers. After his attack, he is a sitting duck, just waiting for a POed giant to smoosh him.

The blaster wizard can do that to all the giants in the room. With a single spell. Then he can cast another spell to run away, and then he can move his normal speed.

This unoptomized blaster wizard already has broken action economy built in to his class. He doesn't need a spell like celerity to do it -- he gets more actions than a fighter gets just by casting his normal spells. And the fighter is only comperable to the UBW if he takes a full attack, and only against one foe.

How does this make sense in a world where mages have to use focused incantations, precise arcane gestures, and fumble around for special ingredients just to cast a spell? How is that less time and effort intensive than a full attack?

I think this is a question that is divided between game mechanics and logic. Logically, I think that applying the rule across the board makes sense. The definition of a full attack is a constant, and rules that apply to its implementation should be a constant.

Personally, I don't think this will help mages much. Clerics it helps a bit more, but I've always thought that if you are using your spells to become a fighter instead of cursing your enemies or rending the earth, you might want to examine your play-style and take a look at what you actually want to play.

[Raimun]

So who says a Rogue can't be a "warrior type"?

I've made a whole lot of Rogue characters, and many of them were focused on combat. One of the biggest appeals of the class is its flexibility. With Education and Knowledge Devotion feats a Rogue can sink skill points into the 6 Knowledges related to creature types and get bonuses to attack and damage everything in D&D. At level 12 such combat-centric Rogues will match Fighter attack bonuses and by about level 14 will stay consistently ahead in AB. Other options increase their sneak attack damage and the number of enemies against whom sneak attack can be applied. A Rogue can be constructed as a warrior.

Yes, obviously a Rogue can be built to emphasize non-combat capabilities. That is not, however, the only option. Is there some particular reason you wish to exclude Rogues from being able to fight? They'll still get significantly less benefit from this change due to only 3/4 BAB, so it's not like including them gives them the same boost as Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, and the like.

It's not about how far they can be twinked out but about the flavor of the class. As a rule of the thumb, I'd say anyone with full BAB-progression is a warrior type. Thing is, they just aren't lethal enough, barring uberchargers.

Rogues are already better off than Fighters. Fighters don't have tons of skill points, UMD, sneak attack and other actual class features.

[Rubik]

It's not about how far they can be twinked out but about the flavor of the class. As a rule of the thumb, I'd say anyone with full BAB-progression is a warrior type. Thing is, they just aren't lethal enough, barring uberchargers.

Rogues are already better off than Fighters. Fighters don't have tons of skill points, UMD, sneak attack and other actual class features.There are martial-types with Medium BAB, too. Psychic warrior is one major example.

[FMArthur]

Psychic Warrior, Swordsage, Scout, Rogue, Ninja, Marshal, Monk, Sohei, Soulknife...

These are all pretty pure melee classes. BAB is NOT an indicator of a class's melee-ness; please don't mistake it for being that and especially don't modify your game utilizing that misconception.

Do not distribute mass fixes by BAB or hit die. You have to go through the list of classes manually because variety in classes was something WotC specifically aimed for when making the game.

[navar100]

Psychic Warrior, Swordsage, Scout, Rogue, Ninja, Marshal, Monk, Sohei, Soulknife...

These are all pretty pure melee classes. BAB is NOT an indicator of a class's melee-ness; please don't mistake it for being that and especially don't modify your game utilizing that misconception.

Do not distribute mass fixes by BAB or hit die. You have to go through the list of classes manually because variety in classes was something WotC specifically aimed for when making the game.

I already allowed for monk to benefit. I was just going off of Core. If you feel a non-Core deserves the benefit as well, then fine. I find the rogue and his ilk as not to be warriors, so that's why they don't benefit. They have other talents. Psychic Warriors have psionic powers, including one that lets them move and full attack anyway, so I would be reluctant to have them benefit as well.

[Metahuman1]

I'm playing a PBP game with this as the standard rule for classes. So far it's been very helpful in allowing the martial classes to reduce the amount of gap between them and the casters.

[Tvtyrant]

I like this fix, but I think that there should be some full-round actions that are useful to a melee character.

And then I thought: Why not let them take 10/15/20? So if a character full attacks as a full round action they can automatically add a 20 to the first hit rather than rolling, and down the line. Makes it mechanically useful without being dominant.

For TWF purposes, the amount rolled on the offhands is determined by the associated onhand.

[Eldariel]

I like this fix, but I think that there should be some full-round actions that are useful to a melee character.

And then I thought: Why not let them take 10/15/20? So if a character full attacks as a full round action they can automatically add a 20 to the first hit rather than rolling, and down the line. Makes it mechanically useful without being dominant.

For TWF purposes, the amount rolled on the offhands is determined by the associated onhand.

Isn't the whole point here to free up the Move Action so that melee characters can position themselves properly without jeopardizing their combat contributions? Wouldn't a melee full attack action be against the point here?