Full attacks as standard actions - bad idea??

[Calimehter]

I've been looking into a commonly-discussed house rule, which is to allow full attacks to be taken as standard actions. One thing I'm worried about, though, is the fact that the PC's opponents would also be getting the potential benefit from this rule. The PCs melee types would be pretty happy to get the option to use their full attacks while moving, but might be pretty unhappy when that dragon they are facing pulls off a full attack charge on them.

I've googled a few discussions about this (though I've probably missed some) and while the point is often brought up, it is rarely discussed. The discussions I've found focus a lot more on specific wording of the proposed house rule and/or just devolve into "why melee doesn't get nice things".

So . . . would it really help fighting types, as is often suggested, or is it just a two-edged sword that just makes things more rocket-tag-ish?

Edit: conservation of detail

[Omegas]

The real issue is level. Surprise rounds could devastate the party, especially low health casters who dont have the time to get their defenses up. Expert classes would suffer as well but more so the casters. When given the choice who would you pick on first with a round of full attacks.

1 Clerics have to go (more so for their buffing abilities then anything else)
2 Glass cannons hurt get rid of them.
3 Surround the tank and exterminate.
4 Find the runt with the knife hiding in the grass and spank it.

The loss of a character at the start of a battle totally change the CR. Also it is bad enough to have a PC death. It is worse when you did not even have a chance to oppose your enemy. A fighter with a good initiative and two attacks would likely get off 3 ranged attacks in the surprise round and two more melee strikes before the first target got a turn.

How much damage could your level 6 fighter inflict with five attacks? Multiply that buy 2 or more foes on the same Hero. Is it enough to kill them? There is your answer.

[eggynack]

I think it'd be alright, primarily because most melee guys were moving and full attacking anyway, as were druids, if they wanted to, and summons, in effect, and also sometimes in fact, and maybe clerics, if they pick up travel devotion. It seems like it'd mostly just open up build options.

[AmberVael]

Generally, it's fine. Full attacks are expected to happen, and all this changes is that the game can be a bit more mobile. Pounce and similar effects are acquired readily enough that it doesn't change anything besides a bit of investment (and melee characters don't gain all THAT much by not needing to invest in it).

What you want to watch out for is ways to get more standard actions. Full attacking more than once per turn, and getting an extra full attack when normally you'd only have gotten one extra attack... that's different. Cunning Surge from Factotum springs to mind, specifically.

[Ziegander]

Many monsters already have pounce and/or movement + offense that outclasses melee PCs who don't have pounce, but still, I guess blanket ruling that full attacks are standard actions might cause some trouble.

To remedy that you could make standard action full-attacks: a) a Fighter feat, b) a class feature that a few melee classes get, c) limit standard action full attacks to "primary weapons" only, or d) all of the above?

[Omegas]

Many monsters already have pounce and/or movement + offense that outclasses melee PCs who don't have pounce, but still, I guess blanket ruling that full attacks are standard actions might cause some trouble.

To remedy that you could make standard action full-attacks: a) a Fighter feat, b) a class feature that a few melee classes get, c) limit standard action full attacks to "primary weapons" only, or d) all of the above?

If you did it would have to be something that a character could only access after level 10 maybe 12. As for mentioned a Surprise round could end a party members life. I would lean towards a class feature over a feat or make the prerequisites high like a BAB +10 with an appropriate selection of required feats.

[Anxe]

Yeah and for that action economy thing make it so the full attack action can only be taken once per round. Like Quicken Spell.

[Ziegander]

The real issue is level. Surprise rounds could devastate the party, especially low health casters who dont have the time to get their defenses up. Expert classes would suffer as well but more so the casters. When given the choice who would you pick on first with a round of full attacks.

1 Clerics have to go (more so for their buffing abilities then anything else)
2 Glass cannons hurt get rid of them.
3 Surround the tank and exterminate.
4 Find the runt with the knife hiding in the grass and spank it.

The loss of a character at the start of a battle totally change the CR. Also it is bad enough to have a PC death. It is worse when you did not even have a chance to oppose your enemy. A fighter with a good initiative and two attacks would likely get off 3 ranged attacks in the surprise round and two more melee strikes before the first target got a turn.

How much damage could your level 6 fighter inflict with five attacks? Multiply that buy 2 or more foes on the same Hero. Is it enough to kill them? There is your answer.

How often does a Fighter get a surprise round? Honestly? How stealthy is this guy? Are you in a dungeon and he's just hiding in a closet and ganks the Rogue searching for traps? It doesn't really happen that way. Fighters neither have the best initiative or anything close to decent stealth.


If you did it would have to be something that a character could only access after level 10 maybe 12. As for mentioned a Surprise round could end a party members life. I would lean towards a class feature over a feat or make the prerequisites high like a BAB +10 with an appropriate selection of required feats.

Pounce already exists as a 1st level Barbarian feature. Even if you think it's broken, allowing a 6th level Fighter to full attack as a standard action isn't going to break the game any more than that.

Combat Superiority
Prerequisite: Combat Expertise, Combat Focus, Combat Reflexes, Fighter level 6th
Benefit: You may make a full attack as a standard action, as an attack of opportunity, or at the end of a charge.

[eggynack]

If you did it would have to be something that a character could only access after level 10 maybe 12. As for mentioned a Surprise round could end a party members life. I would lean towards a class feature over a feat or make the prerequisites high like a BAB +10 with an appropriate selection of required feats.
I disagree. The fact is, melee characters are currently particularly underpowered in the surprise round, and this is a necessary buff because of that. As is, casters are already using that standard action to, y'know, cast a spell, while melee guys either have to convert to a move action, or do nothing. It's just sad. I like the class feature method though. No reason to buff casters who want to beat face.

[Calimehter]

Class limitations work, but the basic point remains: Expanding access to full attacks also expands access for your opponents. Limiting it to Level 6+ Fighters keeps it out of the hands of many monsters, but it still means that more (most? all?) NPC fighters will also have it.

I suppose if you play in campaigns where every serious melee character already had the ability, the rule is actually nothing but a negative. You end up expanding monster abilities - or at least increasing the number of monsters with said ability - with no concurrent change in PC abilities (other than to open up some extra build options).

I'm still not sure about it . . .

[ericgrau]

The general answer to these ideas is that it doesn't stop optimizers but it does ruin games with casual players. In both cases melee doesn't need more damage. In the first it will be useless, in the second it will break the game (with too much damage) whichever side has it. Also eliminates a basic part of melee strategy and makes the game more boring: to hit first or receive a hit then full attack. "Ugh, I full attack again" becomes twice as true.

[Endarire]

It also depends on DM and group style. I allow full attacks as standard actions (and as part of a charge) for everyone, if the group is interested. This works both ways.

[Firechanter]

Monsters will eat your face, since now you have no way of avoiding a Full Attack against you.

Move+Full Attack should be a selectable option for melee classes (and not for casters ffs!), but it should not be the default.

[Calimehter]

Monsters will eat your face, since now you have no way of avoiding a Full Attack against you.

Move+Full Attack should be a selectable option for melee classes (and not for casters ffs!), but it should not be the default.

Yeah, I'm becoming quite convinced that if I include it at all, the feat-based and/or melee-classed-based approach is better than just allowing it as a blanket option.

Thanks for the feedback, folks! :smallsmile:

[Ziegander]

Yeah, I'm becoming quite convinced that if I include it at all, the feat-based and/or melee-classed-based approach is better than just allowing it as a blanket option.

Thanks for the feedback, folks! :smallsmile:

Consider this as well: Barbarians already have Pounce available at 1st level via a Complete Champion ACF. Rangers already have Pounce available starting at 8th level via the Lion's Charge spell (I would have sworn that Paladins also had the Lion's Charge spell or at least some Pounce spell, but I can't find any proof of that). So that leaves Fighters, Paladins, and Rogues (if you think they deserve it) with no current ability to move and full attack (though Paladin's do get the Rhino's Rush spell). Crusaders, Warblades, and Swordsages don't need it, though even Warblades and Swordsages can get the Pouncing Charge maneuver at 9th level if they wish.

[The Insanity]

Bad idea. Not only will monsters become much more deadly, but also a lot of standard action options will loose their usefulness (not that they were very useful to begin with).

[eggynack]

Bad idea. Not only will monsters become much more deadly, but also a lot of standard action options will loose their usefulness (not that they were very useful to begin with).
Those problems go away a lot if you go the class feature route.

[Gwendol]

Aside from TWF suddenly becoming viable? No. It will enforce caution and tactical thinking, but the players will soon adapt.

[hymer]

There's no doubt that creatures like giants go considerably up in dangerousness with such a shift. They also will rely less on overruns and bullrushes, which I think is a shame. They are great for the images they give to the fight.
You'll also need to work out how it interacts with charging.

If I were to introduce this into one of my campaigns, I'd try to limit it to PCs and custom made NPCs somehow. Maybe tier 5s get to do it as long as they have 50% or more of their levels in tier 5 classes or something along those lines (and maybe add in rangers, rogues and scouts). I don't think I'd want to make battlefield control pretty much required by giving full attacks on standard actions to all monsters.

[Eldariel]

I suggest you make melee attack a full-round action that includes the ability to move up to your speed. Otherwise you get certain silly edge cases with e.g. Factotum, Celerity & co. - ways to get more standard actions.

Since you can use move actions to draw weapons or such too, you could make it an actual move action nested in the full-round action but unless you touch the ways to take extra standard actions, I'd rather tie attacking and casting to a full-round action (yeah, casting time should definitely be at least 1 round by default; it's way too fast making casters way too mobile and hard to touch even if they don't give one spec of ****s about defense).

But ya, bottom line:
- Ranged types, casters and many monsters (Hydras, Pounce creatures) can already do this. Allowing it to melee wouldn't break the game any further.
- This would make the game consistent. Warriors can already move and attack 1-5 without losing power. Full attack mechanic, as written, is absolute ****. Basically, above level 5 (and with extra attacks such as Haste), you suddenly get a complete paradigm shift for Warriors where the extra damage from a full attack is so much that you're required to take them or be useless.
- This would increase tactical versatility of core warriors and monsters. Get this: Melee cares the most about positioning. The difference between melee, range and casting is that melee has a passive threatened area that controls a part of the battlefield. Yet, melee cannot by default reposition without losing damage, while casting can. This basically means the passive threatened area cannot be utilized to the degree it should be possible without making yourself huge and using a chain. This basically makes melee underpowered on a theoretical level; not melee classes or melee weapons, just melee as a combat option in general.
- This would fix many problems with two-weapon fighting. Yeah, go for it.

Yeah, getting the first move will be more important for martial types too now; at least they get to play the same game as everybody else instead of being forced to jump through hoops. And at least you aren't punished for approaching your enemy.

One of the absurdities of high level D&D melee with Core abilities/monsters is that whoever takes the turn to move next to opponent and only use a single attack almost always loses since they take a full attack in return. It's hilariously stupid.

TL;DR: The current full attack system is horribly inconsistent and creates more problems than it solves. The sooner you get rid of it in your table the better your game experience will be.

[The Insanity]

Those problems go away a lot if you go the class feature route.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/mobile-fighter

And do they really go away? Monsters becoming deadly, sure. But nearly obsoleting other options? Doubt it.

I did consider standard action full attacks at one point, but decided against it, because IMO options that are supposed to be alternatives to a full attack would become useless and houseruling all of them to be more effective is too much work.
What I did was something in-between. There are a lot of feats, abilities, spells, etc. that add attacks, but have a clause "Can be used only with a full-attack action". I simply allow such attacks to be added to standard action attacks. That way, when you invest into more attacks, you get them. It's quick, simple and effective.

[Rubik]

Since you can use move actions to draw weapons or such too, you could make it an actual move action nested in the full-round action but unless you touch the ways to take extra standard actions, I'd rather tie attacking and casting to a full-round action (yeah, casting time should definitely be at least 1 round by default; it's way too fast making casters way too mobile and hard to touch even if they don't give one spec of ****s about defense).I don't think this should be a blanket case. Extend the casting time of higher level spells (say, 4+), but leave the 0-3 alone. That way, casters have incentive to cast lower level spells when they need to move and cast, and lower level casters still retain some mobility to help keep them alive, since they're relatively squishy.

[Eldariel]

I don't think this should be a blanket case. Extend the casting time of higher level spells (say, 4+), but leave the 0-3 alone. That way, casters have incentive to cast lower level spells when they need to move and cast, and lower level casters still retain some mobility to help keep them alive, since they're relatively squishy.

That, or make lesser effect spells shorter casts. Something like Burning Hands or Shocking Grasp doesn't really do all that much and is restricted by range. Being able to cast and deliver it in a standard action makes some sense, I suppose. In fact, it might actually make those spells desirable in certain situations.

Ultimately, magic always has stronger strong combat effects than physical combat simply by definition. If desiring to keep pure physical combat relevant (as D&D has always wanted to do), letting it be faster than magic gives you a fighting chance. How exactly you go about the details; well, there are many options but ultimately I'd always place the fastest magic at one step slower than the fastest melee attack.

I certainly think as it stands the speed envelope is pushed way too far in the magic direction by Celerity, Quicken Spell and the like, though I can totally get behind some minor defensive barriers and the like at Immediate Action. Interaction is good for the game, or at least the play experience.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/mobile-fighter

And do they really go away? Monsters becoming deadly, sure. But nearly obsoleting other options? Doubt it.

I did consider standard action full attacks at one point, but decided against it, because IMO options that are supposed to be alternatives to a full attack would become useless and houseruling all of them to be more effective is too much work.
What I did was something in-between. There are a lot of feats, abilities, spells, etc. that add attacks, but have a clause "Can be used only with a full-attack action". I simply allow such attacks to be added to standard action attacks. That way, when you invest into more attacks, you get them. It's quick, simple and effective.

Lemme ask you a question: Do you find games in the 3-5 level range are broken? 'cause people seem to consider those some of the most balanced levels in the game, to the point of creating E6 which restricts the game to pretty much that level range.

In that level range, full attacks practically don't matter (except for the poor chap who tries to TWF, and for ranged combatants who can afford to 5' step all day anyways). Now, in your play experience, does that create balance problems? In my experience, certainly not. In fact, I've yet to hear of a person who complains about the attacks being too strong aside from level 1-2 where the one-shot potential is annoyingly high with Crits (more a problem with 3x and 4x crit weapons TBH).

Higher up, full attack creates the dilemma where you're either useless without it or do too much damage for rational game design to be possible with it. Natural weapons make full attacks kinda obligatory even earlier. Now then, if the system can already handle creatures being able to full attack and move, and characters do have those options without really breaking anything (Shock Trooper/Pounce/Leap Attack/Valorous-style Charging is of course a completely different matter and does break the game from the design perspective, though not from the play perspective; makes non-casting even more monotonous tho), where is the rationale behind it actually being problematic?


To me it seems like all the systems that enable full contribution in 3.5 while moving point towards "full attack + move" being a non-issue as a rough bandaid fix.

Personally, my only problem with it is really that it involves too much die rolling and makes turns take way too long when you're looking at like 10 attacks per round or something but that's entirely a problem with the way attack count scales itself (damage could scale instead), not so much with being able to actually get full attacks - you can already guarantee full attacks if you feel so inclined.

[The Insanity]

Lemme ask you a question: Do you find games in the 3-5 level range are broken?
Why would I?
I find 1-2 level games unpredictable. That's why my games always start from at least 3rd level, unless the PCs are supposed to be kids/teens/complete newbs.


In that level range, full attacks practically don't matter (except for the poor chap who tries to TWF, and for ranged combatants who can afford to 5' step all day anyways). Now, in your play experience, does that create balance problems?
It doesn't for me.


Now then, if the system can already handle creatures being able to full attack and move, and characters do have those options without really breaking anything (Shock Trooper/Pounce/Leap Attack/Valorous-style Charging is of course a completely different matter and does break the game from the design perspective, though not from the play perspective; makes non-casting even more monotonous tho), where is the rationale behind it actually being problematic?
Creatures that can move and full attack have other weaknesses. Characters invest their resources into moving and attacking. I see no problems here.


To me it seems like all the systems that enable full contribution in 3.5 while moving point towards "full attack + move" being a non-issue as a rough bandaid fix.
And that's fine. I'm just not going quite as far.

[Person_Man]

This is a semi-perennially topic. The general consensus is usually:


Pounce and Free Movement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358) exists in great abundance. Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and almost every Tier 1-3 class have relatively easy access to it.

But some low Tier classes sometimes have a difficult time getting access to it without spending money on various magic items, particularly the Fighter, Rogue, Scout, Ninja, and other "stabby" Tier 4-5 classes who really "should" have access to it.

Therefore it's ok to give classes access to Standard Action full attack.

As long as jerks don't abuse it and get multiple full attacks per round. (Which you can already do anyway, but it requires a fair amount of resources).


It's also worth mentioning that in 4E and 5E, they basically including Standard Action full attacks by default, by rolling multiple attacks into single Actions packaged in different ways. Making a distinction between a single attack and full attacks in the rules was a mistake in 3.X. There should just be "Attack Action" - and your character gets to make X attacks.

[Gwendol]

Earlier editions didn't have the full attack option either, so yes, it's clearly a 3.X designer mistake.

[Maginomicon]

The crux of the issue is that a 5-ft step is very little movement. One simple fix you could do would be to change the distance that you can move as part of a full attack.

Change all instances of "5 feet" in the full attack movement descriptions to "half your racial base speed (round up to the nearest 5 feet)".
Moving more than 5 feet as part of this "step" provokes AoOs, but you get a deflection bonus to your AC against these AoOs equal to your BAB.
Character options that reference full attack speed use the new value for all calculations.
Character options that enhance full attack movement (if any exist) simply add that value on as normal (to a maximum of your racial base speed).

This solution doesn't futz with the action economy much, but does allow full-attackers far more mobility and viability.

[Eldariel]

The crux of the issue is that a 5-ft step is very little movement. One simple fix you could do would be to change the distance that you can move as part of a full attack.

Change all instances of "5 feet" in the full attack movement descriptions to "half your racial base speed (round up to the nearest 5 feet)".
Moving more than 5 feet as part of this "step" provokes AoOs, but you get a deflection bonus to your AC against these AoOs equal to your BAB.
Character options that reference full attack speed use the new value for all calculations.
Character options that enhance full attack movement (if any exist) simply add that value on as normal (to a maximum of your racial base speed).

This solution doesn't futz with the action economy much, but does allow full-attackers far more mobility and viability.

If you want to retain full attacks in the game, I think you need to standardize it so that there's some reason to use it with BAB 0-5. Otherwise it's basically only introduced to the game on BAB 6 which seems like a really strange way to treat a mechanic.

[hymer]

If you want to retain full attacks in the game, I think you need to standardize it so that there's some reason to use it with BAB 0-5. Otherwise it's basically only introduced to the game on BAB 6 which seems like a really strange way to treat a mechanic.

Well, there are plenty of cases of full attack before level 6. Flurry of blows, two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, whirling frenzy (I think), CR 2 black bear...

[Rubik]

Well, there are plenty of cases of full attack before level 6. Flurry of blows, two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, whirling frenzy (I think), CR 2 black bear...Don't forget psychic warriors, totemists, and web enhancement kobolds.

[broodax]

The larger "5 foot" step seems a very elegant solution to me. It doesn't mess with the action economy at all, doesn't overly benefit casters, and maybe best of all, it seems to me that it fits the spirit if he rules rather well. Combatants are supposed to be ducking and weaving, maneuvering around throughout the course of a round if combat. They should move more than 5' while doing so.

I think I could lead to some interesting tactical choices, trying to get just close enough that you can move in to full attack the next round. There's also a side effect that I originally didn't like, but is now growing in me. There we many times that you can't take a 5' step, and you would not be able I easily full attack at these times. These at situations when we want to preserve the danger of being th first to approach however: climbing an embankment, jumping over a wall, slogging across a moat, etc are all situations that should benefit the defender.

[eggynack]

Don't forget psychic warriors, totemists, and web enhancement kobolds.
Ooh, also razorclaw shifters, which can actually become a razorclaw longtooth shifter before level five if you're using flaws or human to get two shifter feats and extra shifter trait.

[Maginomicon]

If you want to retain full attacks in the game, I think you need to standardize it so that there's some reason to use it with BAB 0-5. Otherwise it's basically only introduced to the game on BAB 6 which seems like a really strange way to treat a mechanic.

Opting to get a deflection bonus (from your weapon parrying their weapon, something not often represented in D&D) equal to your BAB (which for martial types is up to +5 in those levels) is a significant benefit, even at low level.

Come to think of it. The way I've written it, this actually improves your sense of being a badass because the higher your BAB gets the more likely that the AoOs that moving (more than 5 feet) provokes will miss, making them essentially identical to not provoking at all (except on an auto-hit)

[Sam K]

How about just making a feat that grants pounce, with 6 BAB as a requirement?

This gives access to move-and-attack even for low level optimization games (where "dipping barb with ACFs" may not be desirable). It still leaves battlefield control as a very important thing (if they cant charge they cant move and full attack) and it keeps move and full attack out of the hand of every creature (although you can reasonably expect that intelligent NPCs will take this feat if it benefits them). Mid and high OP games wont be that effected as melees in those games get pounce one way or another anyway, but it would be a nice thing for single class fighters to have; you might even make a feat chain that removes some of the requirements from charging. Pretty much only fighters could afford that (without some significant sacrifices anyway).

[Scow2]

I don't think it's a bad idea at all. In fact, it's one that D&D Next and 4e are balanced against, sort of.

In fact, you could go further and wrap Spring Attack into the whole chain as well (Minus the "No AoO" clause) and it still wouldn't break the game.

Pounce is obnoxious and shouldn't exist. Besides, not every attack is supposed to be a charge.

[Big Fau]

Ooh, also razorclaw shifters, which can actually become a razorclaw longtooth shifter before level five if you're using flaws or human to get two shifter feats and extra shifter trait.

Wait, what? You can't be both a Human and a Shifter; they're mutually-exclusive races.

[eggynack]

Wait, what? You can't be both a Human and a Shifter; they're mutually-exclusive races.
Oh yeah. That was dumb. I'm just so used to human being a catch all answer to stuff. Anyways, probably the flaw thing then. Or, y'know, just razorclaw.

Edit: Also, I think that just regular wild shape was missing from the list of stuff that gets you more than one attack before level six, so that's a thing.

[Calimehter]

The comment about giving BAB-based defense bonuses via another feat really interests me. AC-based defense really suffers as levels progress in D&D. In general it can be boosted, but requires a lot of investment.

I think if I included a simple feat that gave access to full attacks (regardless of the various prereqs and/or attachments to Fighter levels), I would make a BAB-based defense-boosting feat available at the same time. I'm thinking of a feat that giving 1/2 your BAB as an deflection (or even untyped) AC bonus, or something close to that. Making sure both were available as fighter bonus feats, of course.

I see some nice things from 'pairing' the two feats as a house rule:

- It gives players the option to defend themselves from the increased access to full attacks that their foes have, *if* the player wants to invest (i.e. spend a feat) in such a defense.

- A player who wasn't even that interested in getting full attacks as standard actions (it could happen) could invest in the defense feat to avoid suffering from the increased amount of full attacks.

- Giving the option to bump your defense up to reasonable levels *might* even make one think twice about Shock Trooper, since AC doesn't have to be an pseudo-dump stat anymore. The opportunity cost of dumping AC rises a bit. Frankly, Shock Trooper would still be pretty cool, but at least it would require a little bit more thought.

Yeah . . . I like it.

[Hurnn]

How about just making a feat that grants pounce, with 6 BAB as a requirement?

This gives access to move-and-attack even for low level optimization games (where "dipping barb with ACFs" may not be desirable). It still leaves battlefield control as a very important thing (if they cant charge they cant move and full attack) and it keeps move and full attack out of the hand of every creature (although you can reasonably expect that intelligent NPCs will take this feat if it benefits them). Mid and high OP games wont be that effected as melees in those games get pounce one way or another anyway, but it would be a nice thing for single class fighters to have; you might even make a feat chain that removes some of the requirements from charging. Pretty much only fighters could afford that (without some significant sacrifices anyway).


why bab 6 when you can literally get it at bab 1 as an acf?

[Harrow]

why bab 6 when you can literally get it at bab 1 as an acf?



This gives access to move-and-attack even for low level optimization games (where "dipping barb with ACFs" may not be desirable).


I really like the idea of something like this as a feat, particularly something like Pounce that prevents abuse from extra standard actions. Alternatively, I could see something like a skill trick that let you tumble at half your speed as a swift action. You'd have to do something about Fighter's not having Tumble, of course...

[Person_Man]

I don't think it's a bad idea at all. In fact, it's one that D&D Next and 4e are balanced against, sort of.

In fact, you could go further and wrap Spring Attack into the whole chain as well (Minus the "No AoO" clause) and it still wouldn't break the game.

Pounce is obnoxious and shouldn't exist. Besides, not every attack is supposed to be a charge.

Yeah, 4E created the Shift action and 5E gives everyone the ability to move, take your Action, and keep moving with no down side.

Having said that, one of the things I really disliked about my 5E play tests was how "wobbly" combat became. Tactical movement, formations, and positioning is almost entirely meaningless, since everyone can basically attack anyone and then move away a bit. And being a meat shield that stands in a bottleneck to protect the casters and ranged attackers behind you is suicide, since every enemy in the room you're blocking can conga line attack their way past you.

It works well in the theater of the mind (don't worry about where you're standing and just assume you can hit whoever you want) but it's a terrible mechanic for a tabletop miniature game, which is how most people currently play D&D.

That's my long winded way of saying that Standard Action full attack or Pounce as a Feat is fine - you move then make attacks. But I would not make Spring Attack or Swift Action movement or any similar wobbly movement mechanic universally accessible RAW.

[Segev]

Wait, what? You can't be both a Human and a Shifter; they're mutually-exclusive races.

*plays the half-breed card*

(what a Munchkin I am)

[prufock]

Rather than full attack as standard, my class design goals aim at giving them more options to do as a standard. ToB classes get maneuvers, of course. I gave fighters the ability to deal double damage on a standard action attack, monks get their bonus flurry attacks as standard, rangers still get manyshot, but also get bonus attacks for 2-weapon style, rogues get a sneak attack ability, etc.

[Endarire]

Considering Wizards and other casters can already lock down entire battlefields or cast literal save or dies with a standard action (or less!), being able to full attack at will with no feat or other requirement (just as a system thing for everyone) goes a long way toward balancing things. Get those melee folks something nice.

Yes, it helps Warblades, Paladins, Druids, PsyWars, form-changed people, and summons. Yes, it helps the GM's side, too. It helps the people that need help, and basically says, "Melee's gonna rip you apart if you don't consider terrain and such to block it." Though, in the game currently, with Pounce, etc., we face a similar situation. Hood (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2462.0) already one-shots or one-rounds deities, assuming she can hit.

[Calimehter]

Since its been brought back, here's where I'm currently at:

- I've made "Improved" feats available for Dodge and Shield Specialization. Basically, you can take the Improved (x) version of a feat and add 1/3 of your BAB as an additional AC bonus of the appropriate type. Taking the 'unimproved' versions of such feats is the only prereq for these.

- I've added a feat that allows one to (once per turn!) use a full attack as a standard action at a -2 to hit penalty. I made +6 BAB a prereq, but didn't add any others.

What I hope to achieve with all this is to expand the flexibility of melee types who are willing to make the feat investment for all of it. You can now get some of the benefits of Travel Devotion/Pounce Barbarian dips with a straight-up feat. The aforementioned feat does have a minor Rapid-Shot-inspired penalty, which leaves Pounce as a "bonus" for those who still want to invest in it, but such an investment is no longer the only way to get at such an ability. Pounce Barbarians are now just a bit of a flavor dip for a minor mechanical advantage rather than something that 'all melee types must train in to be relevant '.

Making full attack available as a feat allows the DM to add it or not add it to his monsters/NPCs as the optimization level of the campaign dictates.

For those who are concerned about the possibility of opponents getting too deadly at the expense of just one feat and wanting some protection against that possibility, I've added the option for adding defence in the form of Improved Dodge and/or Improved Shield Specialization. Investing in passive defence still isn't that great an idea from a "grand tactics" point of view, but at least these extra feats give you the option to pump up your AC w/o the usual high-investment high-op methods of protecting yourself, and make some otherwise "dead" feats meaningful for something other than PrC qualification or feat tax prerequisites.

I personally feel its important to allow the option for improved defence at the same time as allowing the option for improved attack options.

[Person_Man]

Rather than full attack as standard, my class design goals aim at giving them more options to do as a standard. ToB classes get maneuvers, of course.

Oh, you may want to look at the Vanguard in my homebrew signiture then. It's a Tome of Battle class based around additional mobility options.

[Calimehter]

Oh, you may want to look at the Vanguard in my homebrew signiture then. It's a Tome of Battle class based around additional mobility options.

Looks fine at a glance. I am probably keeping the homebrew feat(s) in at the same time, though, since they work for all classes and even many non-classed monsters, which was part of what I was hoping to do.