Houserule to make melee more mobile

[Boci]

Maked the following changes to the charge action:

Charge: You may move in a straight line, attacking at the end of your movement. Doing this incurs a -2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn as the momentum unbalances you. Charging is a full round action. When you charge, you choose between the following option.
Long charge: Move up to twice your speed and make a single attack with a +2 bonus.
Short charge: Move up to your speed and make a full attack.

Would this work as a compromise? The spirit lion totem barbarian is no longer a must, but still a useful dip. More expensive forms of pounce may need to be beefed up now that the baseline is higher.

[rockdeworld]

I think you want to post this in the homebrew section.

And to answer your question: it depends on what you mean by "work."

Will this make fighters more fun to play? Maybe. Getting the +2 to attacks is nice, and IMO not a worthless use of a level. OTOH, getting more attacks is great for just about all melee combatants. At any rate, this is a rule that could be adjusted to.

The main problem, IMO, is that iterative attacks tend to miss. Especially numbers 3 & 4. So this rule would work nicely for people that can use it with TWF (like Scouts), while at the same time not really affecting 2H fighters/barbarians.

[Zdrak]

If it works also for monsters, it can really unbalance some creatures, so be careful!

[navar100]

Suggestion, instead of using charge mechanic:

Each BAB iterative allows an additional 5 ft of movement and still full attack. That is, at +6/+1 the fighter can move 10 ft and full attack. At +11/+6/+1 he can move 15 ft and full attack. At +16/+11/+6/+1 he can move 20 ft and full attack. Only allow this for full BAB classes. Rogues can spend a talent for the ability. Monks can do it as part of Flurry of Blows, allowing for more movement since they get more iterative attacks.

Make each extra 5 ft of movement a class feature for the appropriate level to handle multiclassing, stacking from 1st level between classes like Uncanny Dodge so that a fighter 4/barbarian 2 can have the 10 ft movement and full attack but a fighter 4/cleric 3 would not since cleric would not have the class feature to stack.

[Zdrak]

Suggestion, instead of using charge mechanic:

Each BAB iterative allows an additional 5 ft of movement and still full attack. That is, at +6/+1 the fighter can move 10 ft and full attack. At +11/+6/+1 he can move 15 ft and full attack. At +16/+11/+6/+1 he can move 20 ft and full attack.
I like this! But I don't like ...

Only allow this for full BAB classes.
Why? Partial BAB classes are already hobbled in combat by having, you know, lower BAB. And what about multiclassing? Seems like Barbarian 10 can do it, but after gaining a level and becoming Barbarian 10/Rogue 1 he suddenly cannot?

[jmelesky]

Why? Partial BAB classes are already hobbled in combat by having, you know, lower BAB.

Not sure the poster's intent, but I can see an argument made that it shold work this way to keep that ability out of the hands of big-bab monsters. Until they take enough levels in a martial class, they don't get that training.


And what about multiclassing? Seems like Barbarian 10 can do it, but after gaining a level and becoming Barbarian 10/Rogue 1 he suddenly cannot?

Well, he'd still have a +10/+5 BAB, and his Barb ability to take an extra 5 feet (from Barb 6). So he's not forgetting anything.

Still, it might work better as a single class feature that hits once and scales, rather than separate stacking features. So, at some hard-to-dip level, you get the ability to move an extra 5' per iterative during a full attack.

Put it at different levels for different classes. Fighters might get it at 5th (can't use it until 6th, but they have the best martial training and this makes it usable for prestige classes and whatnot), Barbs at 6th, Paladins not till 9th, or whatever.

Another pet rule of mine is to grant AoOs on a per-BAB basis. So, at +6/+1, you have two AoOs (one at +6, one at +1). If you make it a class feature, then, again, give it to Fighters somewhat early, maybe Rogues and Monks, too. Other classes ... maybe, maybe not.

[Keld Denar]

How to make melee mobile....use ToB.

Strikes, while often less awesome than full attacks are generally more awesome than single attacks. Thus, there is still an advantage to full attack, but if it its not a tactically sound option, you aren't working at 25% or less of your full potential.

[navar100]

I like this! But I don't like ...

Why? Partial BAB classes are already hobbled in combat by having, you know, lower BAB. And what about multiclassing? Seems like Barbarian 10 can do it, but after gaining a level and becoming Barbarian 10/Rogue 1 he suddenly cannot?

Yes. Rogue 10 sneak attacks for 5d6 damage. If at level 11 he multiclasses into wizard he doesn't get 6d6 sneak attack an 11th level rogue would.

The idea is warriors need more nice things while spellcasters don't. A spellcaster can move 30 ft and still cast his great spell of awesomeness. A warrior who moves 30 ft only gets one attack, even at 20th level, losing his other 3, more if hasted or uses two-weapon fighting. He's punished in his power for moving while the spellcaster is not. This house rule idea mitigates that problem if not accepting the idea of junking RAW entirely and let anyone full attack regardless of movement every time all the time. Limiting it to full BAB classes means clerics and druids don't get it. Druids get pounce in wild shape instead. By making it a class feature, a cleric couldn't even cast Divine Power which changes his BAB to get it. I don't think he'll cry because he has to cast Harm or Miracle instead.

[Curmudgeon]

Here's a simple house rule I use in my games: You can split a regular move around a non-moving move action. That lets you, for instance:

move to a door, open it, and go through (using the rest of your movement)
move a bit, strew a bag of caltrops, and continue moving
It's a small change in the rules, but occasionally a big difference in how long it takes to do fairly simple things in the mechanics of the game.

[Greyfeld85]

Yes. Rogue 10 sneak attacks for 5d6 damage. If at level 11 he multiclasses into wizard he doesn't get 6d6 sneak attack an 11th level rogue would.

The idea is warriors need more nice things while spellcasters don't. A spellcaster can move 30 ft and still cast his great spell of awesomeness. A warrior who moves 30 ft only gets one attack, even at 20th level, losing his other 3, more if hasted or uses two-weapon fighting. He's punished in his power for moving while the spellcaster is not. This house rule idea mitigates that problem if not accepting the idea of junking RAW entirely and let anyone full attack regardless of movement every time all the time. Limiting it to full BAB classes means clerics and druids don't get it. Druids get pounce in wild shape instead. By making it a class feature, a cleric couldn't even cast Divine Power which changes his BAB to get it. I don't think he'll cry because he has to cast Harm or Miracle instead.

Considering spellcasters, in general, don't actually use their BAB, by only giving the ability to characters with full BAB, all you're really doing is screwing over the martial characters with 3/4 BAB, and multi-classers.

The easiest way to apply this rule is to just let characters full attack as a standard action, and be done with it. But even then, you're looking at inadvertently beefing up melee monsters by giving them a full attack every round.

Honestly, the problem isn't a simple fix without arbitrary restrictions.

[navar100]

Considering spellcasters, in general, don't actually use their BAB, by only giving the ability to characters with full BAB, all you're really doing is screwing over the martial characters with 3/4 BAB, and multi-classers.

The easiest way to apply this rule is to just let characters full attack as a standard action, and be done with it. But even then, you're looking at inadvertently beefing up melee monsters by giving them a full attack every round.

Honestly, the problem isn't a simple fix without arbitrary restrictions.

Martial classes of 3/4 BAB tend to be ones who get a lot more stuff than full BAB classes. Psy Warriors, for example, can take Hustle to be able to move then full attack on their own already. Swordsage, maneuvers, done. Although, Crusaders and Warblades don't need this house rule.

Multiclass characters are not screwed over. Those who multi-class between full BAB classes get the benefit, as I said. Those who multi-class with spellcasters get spells instead.

I said nothing about monsters. This is for PC classes, but if an orc barbarian or drow ranger benefit I won't get apoplectic about it.

Edit: Clerics and druids do use their BAB. They don't need this house rule either.

[Greyfeld85]

Martial classes of 3/4 BAB tend to be ones who get a lot more stuff than full BAB classes. Psy Warriors, for example, can take Hustle to be able to move then full attack on their own already. Swordsage, maneuvers, done. Although, Crusaders and Warblades don't need this house rule.

This simply isn't true. The only full BAB class that doesn't have additional class features is the Fighter class. Ranger, Paladin, Crusader, Warblade, Barbarian, Hexblade, Duskblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knight... every single one of these classes has full BAB and additional class features (how useful these features are is up for debate, but the fact that they exist nixes your assertion), and/or more skill points.

This is by no means limited to 3/4 BAB classes.

[navar100]

This simply isn't true. The only full BAB class that doesn't have additional class features is the Fighter class. Ranger, Paladin, Crusader, Warblade, Barbarian, Hexblade, Duskblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knight... every single one of these classes has full BAB and additional class features (how useful these features are is up for debate, but the fact that they exist nixes your assertion), and/or more skill points.

This is by no means limited to 3/4 BAB classes.

I already said Crusaders and Warblades don't need this. Knight, Samurai, Paladin, Ranger can get it happily. Hexblade, Barbarian, go hog wild.

I haven't even touched upon prestige classes. If it's a full BAB prestige class that does not give +1 spellcasting level, then go for it. It can still benefit if it has its own small number of spells progression since I'm allowing paladins and rangers to have it. Correction: If the +1 spell progression is advancing paladin/ranger spell progression then it could have it. This makes it a case by case basis. A prestige class advancing paladin progression is a significant difference than the same prestige class advancing cleric progression. I'm perfectly happy it is such without it being a blanket rule for every prestige class everywhere in existence. I can't account for them all. A blanket rule isn't necessary. One only need concern oneself for the particular campaign that's happening at the moment.

[Keld Denar]

What about multiclassed characters? What about say...a Fighter2/Warblade18? Does he have enough "fighter" in him to get to do this? He is full BAB, after all. What about something gishy, like a Sorcadin? 2 levels of Paladin in there, that's on your approved list?

Its all fine and dandy when talking about straight classed characters, but it really falls apart when you throw multiclassing into it. How much is too much? How much is not enough?

I'm sorry, I don't think its a good rule. There are already tons of ways to decrease dependance on a full attack and/or increase mobility of a martial types. This is not it.

[Sutremaine]

For moving and full-attacking, how about being able to move a percentage of your current base speed for every point of BAB you have?

The obvious starting point is 5% per point of BAB, which grants a 20th level full-BAB character the ability to move all their speed and then full-attack. When it comes online at level 6, a character with 30ft move speed can move an extra five feet over the standard five-foot step you get in a full attack action. Not sure where that move has to be though -- before all the attacks, after them, split before and after (and between?) as the player desires?

[Rejakor]

I have run and played in games where full attacking was a standard action (i.e. you could charge and get one attack or move and full attack and get full attack) and zero ****s were given. It didn't 'unbalance' melee (pffffffffsh lol), and melee still gronked out compared to unoptimized casters at about level 8. What it really helped, though, was melee rogues.

[Gwendol]

Agreed. Full attack as standard action is a good houserule: it makes two-weapon fighting more viable, it gives martial classes more variety (not all have to have a lion totem barbarian dip, and be forced to charge every single round of combat).

[Firechanter]

The problem with making Move & Full Attack a default mode is that everybody can use it. This kind of nixes the need for tactical evaluation, and makes it almost impossible to deny the NPCs their Full Attacks against you (as PC).

In Conan D20, btw, the basic movement rule has been changed: by default, everyone can move both before and after an attack, as long as the total movement doesn't exceed their single speed.
So basically that comes down to much fewer Full Attacks (which kinda sucks for TWFers).
The one class that gets around this is the Barbarian, who at higher levels (15 or so) can both Move and Full Attack every turn. And yes, this does make the Barb the single best combat class in the game, as you might expect from a _Conan_ adaptation. ;)

So, long story short... it's desirable that not _everyone_ can move and full attack automatically.

[Darius Kane]

Agreed. Full attack as standard action is a good houserule: it makes two-weapon fighting more viable, it gives martial classes more variety (not all have to have a lion totem barbarian dip, and be forced to charge every single round of combat).
But that way single attacks become far less useful, if not obsolete. By single attacks I mean feats or abilities that give benefits, but only on a single attack.

I like Navar's idea, but personally I use a houserule that allows bonus/extra attacks from feats, spells, class features, etc. to be added to a normal standard action attack. That makes investing into TWF or other feats of that type actually worth it, because they get to be used much more often. It's a quasi-partial full attack.

Navar, I suggest the following change:
Instead of +5 ft. per iterative, make it a portion of the base speed of the creature, something like 25% per iterative, rounded up.
For a 30 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +1 BaB, 15 ft. at +6, 25 ft. at +11 and 30 ft. at +16.
For a 20 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +6, 15 ft. at +11 and 20 ft. at +16.
For a 40 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +1, 20 ft. at +6, 30 ft. at +11 and 40 ft. at +16.
What ya think?

[Rejakor]

That sounds unnecessarily complex and annoying.

Why not just make full attacks a standard action.

And hell, if you spend a full round attacking, you can have an extra attack. There you go.

[Darius Kane]

That sounds unnecessarily complex and annoying.
Why are you playing D&D if that's a problem?
I don't consider my houserule to be complex, nor annoying.


Why not just make full attacks a standard action.
Firechanter and I explained why.
And just because it might not unbalance things doesn't automatically mean it's a good idea.

[navar100]

What about multiclassed characters? What about say...a Fighter2/Warblade18? Does he have enough "fighter" in him to get to do this? He is full BAB, after all. What about something gishy, like a Sorcadin? 2 levels of Paladin in there, that's on your approved list?

Its all fine and dandy when talking about straight classed characters, but it really falls apart when you throw multiclassing into it. How much is too much? How much is not enough?

I'm sorry, I don't think its a good rule. There are already tons of ways to decrease dependance on a full attack and/or increase mobility of a martial types. This is not it.

Multiclassing stacks as in Uncanny Dodge, as I mentioned. A Fighter 4/Barbarian 2 gets to move 10 ft and full attack. A Sorcadin cannot count his Sorcerer levels because Sorcerer does not have full BAB and thus not have the class feature. However, every 6 Paladin levels he has will give him another 5 ft of movement. If he goes into a prestige class, that falls into case by case basis. I can't account for every prestige class everywhere and all ways one enters the prestige class. It only matters for that instance of the campaign.

As for Warblade, technically Warblade/Fighter would benefit because Warblade is a full BAB class. However, as I already mentioned, Warblade doesn't really need the house rule. In any case, if you really, really just want to use the idea for everyone regardless of class, such that the 20th level cleric or druid can move 15 ft and full attack, go ahead. My point was they didn't need the boost, but if you're so enraged by the denial, let them do it.

[navar100]

Navar, I suggest the following change:
Instead of +5 ft. per iterative, make it a portion of the base speed of the creature, something like 25% per iterative, rounded up.
For a 30 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +1 BaB, 15 ft. at +6, 25 ft. at +11 and 30 ft. at +16.
For a 20 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +6, 15 ft. at +11 and 20 ft. at +16.
For a 40 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +1, 20 ft. at +6, 30 ft. at +11 and 40 ft. at +16.
What ya think?

Not aesthetically pleasing to me. How does it interact with Slow, Haste, Fly, and wearing armor? Keeping it based on BAB alone ties it to the character's skill, not racial choice or possibly spells. I don't vehemently object to it, just not my cup of tea.

[Rejakor]

Why are you playing D&D if that's a problem?
I don't consider my houserule to be complex, nor annoying.


Firechanter and I explained why.
And just because it might not unbalance things doesn't automatically mean it's a good idea.

If you want DnD to be more complex and annoying than it needs to be, roll 3d20 and then roll 1d3 to choose which of the 3 you actually rolled.

Anything that requires looking up a table to see how far you can move is annoying. It slows down play, and people will get it wrong, and all the rest of that.

Firechanter and you said 'single attacks will become obsolete'. I respond with 'so what'. I even gave a reason to keep full round action attacks in the game if you want them to be in - a free attack if you do it. There you go.

Something that keeps a bonus for standing still right next to your opponent that doesn't mean that every melee character needs to be a lion totem barbarian, or go look up a table to see what their charge range is every time they gain a level.

[Darius Kane]

If you want DnD to be more complex and annoying than it needs to be, roll 3d20 and then roll 1d3 to choose which of the 3 you actually rolled.
D&D already is complex. I'm just accepting it and not making a big deal out of it.


Firechanter and you said 'single attacks will become obsolete'. I respond with 'so what'.
Some people care. You do not. That's cool for you.


Something that keeps a bonus for standing still right next to your opponent that doesn't mean that every melee character needs to be a lion totem barbarian, or go look up a table to see what their charge range is every time they gain a level.
I don't understand what you're saying. What about Lion Totem Barbarian? It still is useful, even with this houserule. :smallconfused:
And charge range doesn't change. It's always minimum 10 ft. and up to your double move speed, IIRC.


How does it interact with Slow, Haste, Fly, and wearing armor?
Other than armor, does any of this things change base speed? Spells or effects that change your form might if you change into something with a different speed.

[Rejakor]

DnD's complexity is at least arguably necessary for the game style (wargaming, simulationey) that it portrays.


No, really, So What? Not in the sense of I don't care, So What ACTUAL difference is made with that rule change? Especially if we add in a way for people to benefit on a full round attack action anyway? Fundamentally everything is the same except melee are less boned.


Charge range, according to your sheet thingy, changes at various levels of BAB. And by 'charge range', I mean 'charge + full attack, i.e. the action you care about'. If you think melee characters don't mind doing single attacks and love being useless and pointless for a round, then you a) play in very low op games and b) are different to literally 99% of other DnD players in that regard.

Theoretically yes people CAN be useless, i'm talking about that other thing, though, when melee characters get to contribute to the game and do damage and hit stuff and all those other things people like doing in dungeons and dragons.

And as for Lion Totem Barbarians, they are the cheap and easy way for people to get Pounce, which many, many people do in DnD as melee characters because otherwise you waste about half your rounds Not Full Attacking (tm).


And from that last question, perhaps you can already see the confusion people will have with your oh so simple houserule. Not to mention that it doesn't change anything about how full attacks work except extending the 'full attack range' from 5' to 10' (and hey, 15' or something at higher levels, amirite) unless you beg a polymorph from the wizard to turn you into something with a high base speed....................... why not just get turned into a werelion, and then have Pounce? Problem Solved!

[Darius Kane]

Charge range, according to your sheet thingy, changes at various levels of BAB.
Except I'm not talking about charging. This houserule is MOVE + full attack.


If you think melee characters don't mind doing single attacks and love being useless and pointless for a round, then you a) play in very low op games and b) are different to literally 99% of other DnD players in that regard.
{Scrubbed}

[Tvtyrant]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply add things to attacks so the single attacks are worth more? Things like free trips, bullrushes, grapple attempts, overruns, etc. whenever you make a lone unaugmented attack so that the attack is actually worth something.

[Darius Kane]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply add things to attacks so the single attacks are worth more? Things like free trips, bullrushes, grapple attempts, overruns, etc. whenever you make a lone unaugmented attack so that the attack is actually worth something.
I consider making one houserule to be easier than making multiple houserules.

[Tvtyrant]

I consider making one houserule to be easier than making multiple houserules.

That is one houserule. Those particular abilities normally take a standard action to use; just make it so you can use an attack along with them as a standard action.

[Darius Kane]

That is one houserule. Those particular abilities normally take a standard action to use; just make it so you can use an attack along with them as a standard action.
You're making at least two houserules - full attack as standard action and this.

We are talking about Navar's houserule. But what do you think about my houserule:

I like Navar's idea, but personally I use a houserule that allows bonus/extra attacks from feats, spells, class features, etc. to be added to a normal standard action attack. That makes investing into TWF or other feats of that type actually worth it, because they get to be used much more often. It's a quasi-partial full attack.

[Tvtyrant]

You're making at least two houserules - full attack as standard action and this.

No, I am replacing the idea of full attacks on a standard action with gaining the ability to use a special attack as part of a standard action attack. The rule of blasting is that damage should always have some sort of debuffing/controlling rider effect. Apply the same thing to melee and you make it less boring.

[Darius Kane]

My mistake, I thought you are suggesting your houserule as a solution to Rejakor's houserule obsoleting standard action attacks.

You didn't comment on my houserule.

[Sutremaine]

No, I am replacing the idea of full attacks on a standard action with gaining the ability to use a special attack as part of a standard action attack.
Which ones? Trip, Disarm, and Sunder seem like they'd definitely be in.

[Darius Kane]

Which ones? Trip, Disarm, and Sunder seem like they'd definitely be in.
Trip, Disarm and Sunder can be used in a full attack instead of the attacks. So Full Attack as standard action is still the better option.
Concerning Grapple, Bull Rush or Overrun... you would have to go into more details about how that would work, Tvtyrant, because I'm not seeing it.

[Tvtyrant]

Trip, Disarm and Sunder can be used in a full attack instead of the attacks. So Full Attack as standard action is still the better option.
Concerning Grapple, Bull Rush or Overrun... you would have to go into more details about how that would work, Tvtyrant, because I'm not seeing it.

Instead of attacks, yes. But this is an additional ability, not a replacement one. And I would make it work as follows:

Overall: You do not make separate roles for the special ability and the attack; you instead use your attack role as the role for your special ability check (you roll a D20 to hit, and your D20 role is used again for your opposed check. Saves time.) You still roll damage as normal.

Bullrush or Overrun: You move and make the attack; however much movement you have remaining is used to fulfill the Bullrush or Overrun. If you move your full movement and have none remaining, the bullrush simply moves the enemy back one square if they fail their check. If you do not have move remaining and you use Overrun, on a successful Overrun you shove the enemy prone and move into their square.

If you have enough move, you can push the enemy back as far as you have move left on the Bullrush, or you can move over them and move as far as your remaining move on the Overrun.

Grapple: You hit the opponent with your attack, and then you make an opposed grapple check (no need to make the touch attack to initiate, since you already did that with the hit). If you succeed the opponent is grappled, which forces it to use its own standard action to attempt to get free the following turn.

Trip: You attack. On a hit you make an opposed trip attempt, and on a success the opponent is knocked prone. If you have improved trip you get an additional attack as well.

Disarm: You hit the opponent (fluffed as in the arm or hand), and then make the disarm attempt. I would also add in an AoO against someone picking up their weapon.

Sunder: You hit the enemy, then make a lightning fast attack to hit their weapon. Opposed roles and all that.

Entangle: Hit with a rope or chain weapon (lasso, whip, spiked chain, etc). Make an opposed check (BaB or Use Rope vs. opponents BaB) and if successful the opponent is entangled. You lose your weapon afterwords.


If you wanted to go further, put some status ailments like stun and daze in there as special attacks.



personally I use a houserule that allows bonus/extra attacks from feats, spells, class features, etc. to be added to a normal standard action attack. That makes investing into TWF or other feats of that type actually worth it, because they get to be used much more often. It's a quasi-partial full attack.

It certainly gives a big boost to TWF! How would you deal with double weapons?

[dascarletm]

I consider making one houserule to be easier than making multiple houserules.

okay EXAMPLE A:
Houserule 1: Everytime a character casts a spell you need to say a Verbal component (if it has one) that includes the letters of spell name and the school.
This has to be made on the spot in 20 seconds if it is a Tuesday, 30 on a Monday, 10 on any other day. If it is a full moon then you can Square the day of the month and add it to the amount of time.

EXAMPLE B:
Houserule 1: Rogue sneak attack is gained at every level

Houserule 2: Every Fighter gets sneak attack on non-feat levels.

Obviously these examples are ridiculous and silly, but they prove my point.

Making full attacks standard, and single attacks combined with a maneuver is simpler than your deal.

[Rejakor]

Forcing melee, in any fight that doesn't involve multiple rounds of hammering on a foe from point blank range (and for most enemies, unless you are a sword and board AC focused fighter, that will actually kill you), to only get full attacks occasionally was a stupid idea in the first place.

Spellcasters, and to a lesser extent rogues, get damage that scales with their level per attack.

Fighters etc do not. They rely on multiple attacks in order to do damage appropriate for their level (except, y'know, uberchargers, but that is one specific build and not suitable for all levels of op). Removing their capacity to be able to do that unless the DM sets up fights where the enemies run headfirst onto the fighter's sword so the fighter can full attack them.. was a dumb idea.

Here's the easy fix for that idea; Full Attacks are Standard Actions.

People like this fix because; It makes fighters that aren't very specific combinations of classes and feats more viable in campaigns and combats not specifically designed for them i.e. it takes workload off the DM.

It preserves charge; There is still a reason to charge, i.e. if the enemy is more than one move action away, but still within the range of 2 move actions in a straight line. This can come up in lots of ways tactically and thematically, from chase scenes to getting into combat faster.


People don't like this fix because; They think it will make fighters overpowered; This is provably mathematically wrong. Melee full BAB classes are the weakest archetype in the game by a long shot. And this doesn't even push them up to parity. I can run the math for you if you want.

It removes the benefit for standing in one place attacking; I personally don't really see the point of this benefit as I like mobile combats. But you could very easily fix this by having standing still and then attacking provide you with an extra attack, or perhaps +4 AC (or just the normal benefit of not getting AoO'd by foes, which is, y'know, STILL a reason not to take a Move action when you can just 5' step)

[Rejakor]

It certainly gives a big boost to TWF! How would you deal with double weapons?

TWF needs the boost compared to THF or even sword and board, especially for anyone that isn't a rogue (and melee rogues suck compared to thrower or archery rogues for this exact reason, so don't try the 'OH BUT ROGUES WILL BE OVERPOWERED' argument), to the point where i've collapsed the entire TWF feat chain down into a single feat and only one person in 5 games actually took it (he was a rogue).

I had to write more feats for TWF, including adding dex to damage and giving free counterattacks (robilar's gambitesque) and disarms to TWF and all this other stuff contained in like, a feat, before anyone even tried it. And then they sucked and I had to make it even better because their character couldn't really contribute to the party and it was my fault.

[Darius Kane]

People don't like this fix because; They think it will make fighters overpowered;
Citations needed.


It removes the benefit for standing in one place attacking; I personally don't really see the point of this benefit as I like mobile combats.
And that's your preference. Other people might have different preference.

[TuggyNE]

Citations needed.

Being any more specific than "I've seen it before" is likely to run into the rule against bringing baggage from other threads in. Suffice it to say that I too have seen this attitude in various other places.

[Darius Kane]

Being any more specific than "I've seen it before" is likely to run into the rule against bringing baggage from other threads in.
Not really. He's making a statement. I'm asking for citations to support that statement. I'm not saying it's false. I just want to see it, because for example I personally don't think it is overpowered.

[TuggyNE]

Not really. He's making a statement. I'm asking for citations to support that statement. I'm not saying it's false. I just want to see it, because for example I personally don't think it is overpowered.

Er ... he was also saying it wasn't overpowered? Now I'm confused. :smallconfused:

[Darius Kane]

Er ... he was also saying it wasn't overpowered? Now I'm confused. :smallconfused:
Yes, but he also said that most people think it is. I'm asking for some support for this statement. What's confusing?

[Rejakor]

Yes, but he also said that most people think it is. I'm asking for some support for this statement. What's confusing?

At no point did I ever say most people think it is overpowered. I said 'people', which does not mean all, most, or any specific amount of people - it just means 'more than one'.

I also don't need to cite for things that are common knowledge. If you ask any person who has spent any amount of time on roleplaying forums (such as this one), you'll find that they have personal experience of many threads where people have objected, violently and at great length, to any houserule, supplement, build or ideology that gives fighters anything worthwhile. These are also typically the same people who think that Fireball is the strongest spell in core, and that wizards are weak because they can only fireball 'so many times per day'.

These people, and others less vehement but who assume that the first group has some kind of point (hint: they do not), are the reason 'Fighters Don't Get Nice Things', and view anything other than a Weapon Focus fighter as cheating and 'munchkinry', and view any houserule to increase fighter ability as the same.


As for your other complaint, considering that you intentionally misquoted it without the part where I said it was what I prefer, and your complaint was that I didn't state it was a preference... well. That's just dishonest, and a strawman, so i'm not going to respond to it.

[Darius Kane]

At no point did I ever say most people think it is overpowered. I said 'people', which does not mean all, most, or any specific amount of people - it just means 'more than one'.
My bad. But it doesn't matter. I'd still like to see some citations.


I also don't need to cite for things that are common knowledge. If you ask any person who has spent any amount of time on roleplaying forums (such as this one), you'll find that they have personal experience of many threads where people have objected, violently and at great length, to any houserule, supplement, build or ideology that gives fighters anything worthwhile. These are also typically the same people who think that Fireball is the strongest spell in core, and that wizards are weak because they can only fireball 'so many times per day'.

These people, and others less vehement but who assume that the first group has some kind of point (hint: they do not), are the reason 'Fighters Don't Get Nice Things', and view anything other than a Weapon Focus fighter as cheating and 'munchkinry', and view any houserule to increase fighter ability as the same.
{Scrubbed}


As for your other complaint, considering that you intentionally misquoted it without the part where I said it was what I prefer, and your complaint was that I didn't state it was a preference... well. That's just dishonest, and a strawman, so i'm not going to respond to it.
Can you point to me where exactly did I misquote you or was dishonest? I do not seem to recall ever complaining about you not stating something as your preference.

[Rejakor]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


It removes the benefit for standing in one place attacking; I personally don't really see the point of this benefit as I like mobile combats.
And that's your preference. Other people might have different preference.


per·son·al/ˈpərsənəl/
Adjective:
Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else.


pre·fer
   [pri-fur] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pre·ferred, pre·fer·ring.
1.
to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken.

Your quote, and the way it was phrased, heavily indicated that I had stated that it was one way, and your response was phrased as if reminding me that it was not a universal truth and only my opinion - when, in fact, I had already indicated through the text that it was my opinion I was expressing in that sentence - and the rest of the paragraph pretty clearly showed that that was an aside, further reinforcing the idea that I wasn't stating an absolute, but rather my personal preference.

Dishonest is perhaps a bit of a strong word - if you didn't mean it that way, or are ESL and don't understand the finer shades of the english language, i'll gladly rescind it - but as written it's simply a way of implying an opponent said something that they did not and then attacking it - or, a 'strawman argument'.

[Darius Kane]

It wasn't a "strawman argument". I was fully aware that you're stating your personal preference. I acknowledged it and just added that other people can have other preferences. Maybe I was stating the obvious. Sue me.
I do not appreciate that apparently you're taking me for an idiot. I know what "personal" means. You do not have to quote multiple definitions.

Your idea is to make full attacks standard actions. My problem is that it will almost obsolete single attacks. You might not care. I do, as might other people. Your solution is to make more houserules or homebrewed abilities to make single attacks worthwhile. Sure, we can do that, but then we're right back to my earlier point - one houserule vs. multiple houserules/homebrew.


I don't really feel the need to spend my time doing research for you.
Then don't make statements that you can't or won't back up.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Oh, I will.

[Rejakor]

If you're houseruling away AoOs in your game, then changing full attacks to standard actions does do away with full round attacks.

Otherwise, they remain, as if you are within reach to full attack someone, then you're next to someone (or have spent feats/spells to have more reach than enemies), and if you move, they can AoO you. So the point of full attacking is then to not get AoOed.


Otherwise, I suggested easy simple houserules to make full round full attacks better than standard action full attacks (+AC, +1 attack, whatever).

[Darius Kane]

I admit that AoOs slipped my mind, but even then the problem remains. Because unless you build your character for AoOs or for some reason most of your enemies are constantly provoking, making a full attack will be superior to making a single attack. And I know, you suggested, more than once, to make houserules for single attacks (or full round full attacks). But that's the thing - for your houserule to work properly we have to make even more houserules. Personally I prefer to make one houserule that works on its own and doesn't require add-ons.

[dascarletm]

Your idea is to make full attacks standard actions. My problem is that it will almost obsolete single attacks. You might not care. I do, as might other people. Your solution is to make more houserules or homebrewed abilities to make single attacks worthwhile. Sure, we can do that, but then we're right back to my earlier point - one houserule vs. multiple houserules/homebrew.


Multiple house rules doesn't automatically mean it'll be more complex. Two very simple house rules is basically the same as 1 very simple one.

[Darius Kane]

Multiple house rules doesn't automatically mean it'll be more complex. Two very simple house rules is basically the same as 1 very simple one.
But it does mean it'll be more work.

[Rejakor]

No.

Doing my tax return is more work than working out how much money it takes me to catch a bus, a ferry, another bus, and also buy lunch.

Two simple things are not automatically more complex than one complex thing.

[Darius Kane]

But it's not two simple things. You have to add multiple houserules to your houserule for it to work properly. That is more work.
And BTW, my houserule isn't very complex. So it's more like "Simple houserule vs. Simple houserule + more houserules".

[Rejakor]

I don't think anyone has agreed that your houserule would be simple so far.

In play, stuff that requires you to look things up and has multiple, table-like conditions is far more likely to be annoying than something that changes a mechanic once in an easily understandable way.

'You can full attack as a standard action, but if you spend a full-round action to do it instead you get one extra attack at your highest BAB.' - is a single sentence of rule text, is simple, uses existing terminology, does not require math, and is logical (you can full attack as a standard, or /better full attack/ as a full round).

Your rule is more fiddly than this admittedly simple fix.

[Darius Kane]

What part about my houserule is hard to understand? :smallconfused:

[dascarletm]

What part about my houserule is hard to understand? :smallconfused:

comprehension is not the issue. Unless I want to memorize that table, I'll need to look up everything when I want to use it.

On the other hand 2 simple changes that I now know even when looking at it once is much easier to implement. Yours could be a "better" or more desirable fix in terms of gameplay, but in terms of simplicity versus complexity yours is more complex.:smallwink:

[Sutremaine]

Your idea is to make full attacks standard actions. My problem is that it will almost obsolete single attacks. You might not care. I do, as might other people.
I'm in the 'don't care' camp. Single attacks are obsolete even in core.

[Darius Kane]

comprehension is not the issue. Unless I want to memorize that table, I'll need to look up everything when I want to use it.

On the other hand 2 simple changes that I now know even when looking at it once is much easier to implement. Yours could be a "better" or more desirable fix in terms of gameplay, but in terms of simplicity versus complexity yours is more complex.:smallwink:
My houserule doesn't have a table. :smallconfused:


I'm in the 'don't care' camp. Single attacks are obsolete even in core.
Not really. In Core you can't move and full attack too easily unless you build for it.

[Serpentine]

Suggestion, instead of using charge mechanic:

Each BAB iterative allows an additional 5 ft of movement and still full attack. That is, at +6/+1 the fighter can move 10 ft and full attack. At +11/+6/+1 he can move 15 ft and full attack. At +16/+11/+6/+1 he can move 20 ft and full attack. Only allow this for full BAB classes. Rogues can spend a talent for the ability. Monks can do it as part of Flurry of Blows, allowing for more movement since they get more iterative attacks.

Make each extra 5 ft of movement a class feature for the appropriate level to handle multiclassing, stacking from 1st level between classes like Uncanny Dodge so that a fighter 4/barbarian 2 can have the 10 ft movement and full attack but a fighter 4/cleric 3 would not since cleric would not have the class feature to stack.I like this idea, aside from the multiclassing issues and "only for full attack classes" stuff others have mentioned. What about just making it a specific Fighter feature, possibly some other select martial classes?

[Darius Kane]

I like this idea, aside from the multiclassing issues and "only for full attack classes" stuff others have mentioned. What about just making it a specific Fighter feature, possibly some other select martial classes?
Or a feat.

[Kesnit]

Or a feat.

If you make it a feat, classes that don't need the help can take it. Unless you set certain pre-reqs (i.e. "Fighter 4, Ranger 4, Monk 4, Sneak Attack +3d6" etc). But then you have to decide what level of what classes is appropriate and specifically spell them all out.

[Darius Kane]

If you make it a feat, classes that don't need the help can take it.
If they don't need the help then why are they taking it?
Personally I would just make it a change to the basic rule. Not a feat or class feature. Of course it would work only with BaB from actual class levels, so that monsters with high BaBs wouldn't get too dangerous.

[Rejakor]

Because they want to be strong?

This is why there are gishes with battle jump and leap attack.

{Scrubbed}

Also there is absolutely no reason to not let fighters move and full attack until like bab 11. What reasoning do you have for making fighters (especially anyone using TWF) terrible at fighting for 11 levels? Most games END before level 11.

[Gwendol]

Bah! DM's have ways to let monsters full attack the PC's anyway if wanted. It's a bit naive to think that only players have access to e.g. anklets of translocation. Allowing full attacks as standard action makes fighters and rogues (types) more effective, without being overpowering, and also makes for intense higher level boss fights. My guess is that it will drive up the want for higher AC (to de-risk the iterative attacks landing) coupled with a continued dependence on miss-chances and concealement.

In any case it is a good houserule as any to make melee more mobile and effective, while still keeping it simple. Full BAB classes will likely come up on top simply by virtue of having access to more iteratives (and better chance of landing them). Duskblades are likely to be very fun past level 13...

[Darius Kane]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Also there is absolutely no reason to not let fighters move and full attack until like bab 11. What reasoning do you have for making fighters (especially anyone using TWF) terrible at fighting for 11 levels? Most games END before level 11.
Please, save the strawmen for someone else.

[Serpentine]

Or a feat.You could do it that way, but I like the idea of it being available to Fighters, at least, without having to spend that precious resourse. To the point where I'm seriously considering adding it as a houserule.
Anyone know of a comprehensive compilation of alternate Fighter features, and if something like this is on it?

[Darius Kane]

Anyone know of a comprehensive compilation of alternate Fighter features, and if something like this is on it?
IIRC, there's nothing even remotely like that.

BTW, I'll repost MY houserule (for the second time):
"You can add any extra/bonus attacks (other than iterative attacks) to a standard action attack."

[Serpentine]

If there isn't, then I may go make one.

[Darius Kane]

What about other martial classes?

[Serpentine]

Fighter is the one most notorious for being subpar, at least in Core, and in my opinion it should be the easiest to fix. It's also possibly the most boring. I don't know enough about other martial classes, but if there's a bunch of them as bad as the Fighter there's a good chance they'd be alright sharing the Fighter's ACFs, and it's possible that part of it might be general houserules and homebrews that can work for any of them. I'd be mostly interested in making a Fighter-focused thread, though.

[Darius Kane]

Swashbuckler, Knight, Samurai, Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade. And arguably some not-exactly-martial classes could have a use for it too, like Monk, Rogue, Scout, Marshal, Ninja, Soulknife, non-T3 meldshapers.

[Serpentine]

They all have their own sets of class features, their own flavours and their own requirements. If anyone wanted to make, or knows of, a thread that caters to them, it'd be great if they'd share. At the moment I'm personally only interested in Fighters.
So, anyone else know of a thread that compiles all the Fighter ACFs and the like? Especially if it has a "mix'n'match" sort of a system?

[Darius Kane]

They all have their own sets of class features, their own flavours and their own requirements.
Doesn't change the fact that they could use it.

[Serpentine]

If you want to make a thread along those lines, you can. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it. It's not something I'm interested in doing, especially as my idea for the Fighter thread is already overly complicated.
I don't understand why you seem determined to pick a fight over this :smallconfused:

[Darius Kane]

If you want to make a thread along those lines, you can. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it. It's not something I'm interested in doing, especially as my idea for the Fighter thread is already overly complicated.
I don't understand why you seem determined to pick a fight over this :smallconfused:
I'm not picking a fight. I'm just saying, because you're talking like only Fighters need or deserve it. I'm just sticking to the topic at hand, which is ALL melee, not just Fighters.
So yeah. "If you want to make a thread along this lines, you can. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it." This one isn't just about Fighters though, so I'm not sure why exactly should I be the one to get out of it.


So, anyone else know of a thread that compiles all the Fighter ACFs and the like?
Let me google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fighter+handbook)

[Serpentine]

I never told you to "get out". I told you that I'll make a hypothetical thread about whatever I want, and if you want a hypothetical thread about something else you can hypothetically go make that thread. I am under no obligation to hypothetically make threads other people want that I'm not interested in when they can just do it themselves (hypothetically). I never said Fighters were the only ones that need the help, only that they're the ones I'm interested in helping right now.
The passive-aggression, and outright aggression, is unnecessary. And what's more, a "Fighter handbook" isn't what I was talking about, so that bit of snarkiness was pointless.
Does anyone ELSE know of anything like what I'm looking for kicking around the Homebrew section? Maybe I'll do it anyway, but there's just so many Fighter fixes already...

[Darius Kane]

I told you that I'll make a hypothetical thread about whatever I want, and if you want a hypothetical thread about something else you can hypothetically go make that thread.
Except I don't have to make another thread, because what I'm posting is on topic of this thread. :smallconfused:


I am under no obligation to hypothetically make threads other people want that I'm not interested in when they can just do it themselves (hypothetically).
That's... good for you? :smallconfused: Is someone forcing you to make threads you don't want? :smallconfused:


I never said Fighters were the only ones that need the help, only that they're the ones I'm interested in helping right now.
And that's great, but this thread isn't only about Fighters, so I have all the right to post about other classes. For some unexplained reason you seem to not like that.


The passive-aggression, and outright aggression, is unnecessary.
You're imagining things.


And what's more, a "Fighter handbook" isn't what I was talking about, so that bit of snarkiness was pointless.
Then WHAT are you talking about? Because the handbook I googled for you did actually include Fighter ACFs... :smallannoyed:

[dascarletm]

My houserule doesn't have a table. :smallconfused:


This:
Navar, I suggest the following change:
Instead of +5 ft. per iterative, make it a portion of the base speed of the creature, something like 25% per iterative, rounded up.
For a 30 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +1 BaB, 15 ft. at +6, 25 ft. at +11 and 30 ft. at +16.
For a 20 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +6, 15 ft. at +11 and 20 ft. at +16.
For a 40 feet base speed it will be 10 ft. at +1, 20 ft. at +6, 30 ft. at +11 and 40 ft. at +16.
What ya think?

That can easily be tabulated, in fact, it would be a lot easier to use if it were. That is why I called it a table.:smallannoyed:

[Darius Kane]

That's not my houserule, it's a suggestion to Navar's houserule, it even says so right there. I reposted my houserule earlier. :smallsigh:

[TuggyNE]

Does anyone ELSE know of anything like what I'm looking for kicking around the Homebrew section? Maybe I'll do it anyway, but there's just so many Fighter fixes already...

Fighter and Wizard fixes are like standards (http://www.xkcd.org/927/): bet you can't make just one.

And, unfortunately, I'm not aware of a single really good fix for Fighters; full casters are arguably made a little more tolerable by Ernir's vancian-to-psionics conversion, though. A somewhat unpolished and imperfectly balanced replacement for a lot of mundane classes can be found here.

You're probably already aware of the main problems with most fixes, but I'll put them up here anyway [:smalltongue:]:

Fighter fixes often aim for Tier 1, misunderstanding the point of the tier system
Fighter fixes often focus on adding more or better feats, and usually involve stacking bigger numbers
Some Fighter fixes, in their zeal to expand options, accidentally increase Fighter's usefulness as a dip even more than its usefulness as a straight class (e.g. allowing metamagic feats as fighter bonus feats*)
Wizard fixes mostly nerf low- and mid-op casters more than high-op
Some Wizard fixes simply remove any reason to play them at all


*I wish I was kidding.

[Serpentine]

edit @^: Well, my idea, such as I have one, would be a sort of pick'n'mix compendium of little fighter fixes. Things like that houserule I liked the look of, and anything else like that, stuff that can be added to the Fighter as it now exists, and preferably enough stuff that different Fighters can have a different selection. Ideally it'd be possible to tailor it to different tiers (e.g. Tier 3 would have X features/fixes/whatever, Tier 2 would have X+Y, a character aiming for Tier 1 would have X+Y+Z). But it really depends on how many ACFs and the like there already are.
All of which is moot, because I'm lazy and not especially interested in Fighters anyway (I tend to encourage players to look at ToB nowadays), so this most likely will never happen :I


Except I don't have to make another thread, because what I'm posting is on topic of this thread. :smallconfused:Then we have been talking across each other, because I've been talking about how I'm thinking about starting a DIFFERENT thread if there isn't already one like it, which would incorporate the houserule mentioned in this thread, and I just wanted to know whether something like it had been done before. I seriously have no idea why you seem to have such a big problem with that, but if you've been misunderstanding me that could explain it, I suppose.

That's... good for you? :smallconfused: Is someone forcing you to make threads you don't want? :smallconfused:You certainly appeared to be doing your darnedest to do so.

You're imagining things.Uh huh. I bet.

So what was the ultimate verdict of the original houserule, again?

[Darius Kane]

Then we have been talking across each other, because I've been talking about how I'm thinking about starting a DIFFERENT thread if there isn't already one like it, which would incorporate the houserule mentioned in this thread, and I just wanted to know whether something like it had been done before. I seriously have no idea why you seem to have such a big problem with that, but if you've been misunderstanding me that could explain it, I suppose.
No. I realized what you where saying, and I had no problem with that. But apparently you had a problem with me trying to continue this topic, which is melee in general. :smallconfused:


You certainly appeared to be doing your darnedest to do so.
Again, you're imagining things.

[dascarletm]

That's not my houserule, it's a suggestion to Navar's houserule, it even says so right there. I reposted my houserule earlier. :smallsigh:
{Scrubbed}

[Darius Kane]

I don't particularly care what you think about Navar's houserule or my suggestion to it. :smallconfused: If you're saying "your houserule" then talk about my houserule, not someone else's houserule.

[dascarletm]

I don't particularly care what you think about Navar's houserule or my suggestion to it. :smallconfused: If you're saying "your houserule" then talk about my houserule, not someone else's houserule.

That's nice

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for becoming a pointless snipe-fest.