PDA

View Full Version : Focused Attack [new combat action]



magic8BALL
2007-02-12, 08:11 PM
Unless your have a BAB of +6 or higher, there's no point in taking a full round attack action, and you may as well take your movement any time you cast a spell... untill now.

Focused Attack
You focus your attack on weak points of your target, and time it so it strikes true. As a full round action, you may make a single attack with a +2 bonus to hit. This includes melee attacks, ranged attacks, melee touch attacks to initiate grapple, disarm or trip attempts, or melee or ranged touch attacks as part of casting a spell. In all cases the combat action is extended to a full round action instead of a single standard action.
If you are given a number of attacks in a full round attack due to high Base Attack Bonus, your bonus to hit is equal twice the number of these attacks. This dose not stack with two weapon fighting, haste, flurry of blows, rapid shot, or any other spell, feat, class ability or effect that increases your number of attacks. For instance, a character with BAB +12 will gain a +6 bonus to attacks when useing the focused attack action, becouse a BAB of +12 grants three attacks in a full round action.



Well... what do you think?

Lord Iames Osari
2007-02-12, 08:15 PM
I like it.

blue chicken
2007-02-12, 08:16 PM
Oooh. Me too. A lot.

magic8BALL
2007-02-13, 03:07 AM
No balance regrets?

I've been using this for a long time, and even though it was core until I tried to prove it was... Only ever thought to use it at low levels though... higher levels means more attacks, and if you miss, lay off the power attack to me.

Jarl
2007-02-13, 05:24 AM
It reminds me of... darnit. It's in Ultimate Feats. It's basically revers-Flurry of blows, you sacrifice your extra attacks and get +2 for each one sacrificed to your remaining attack.

-Come to think of it... that's exactly what this is, innit?

Roderick_BR
2007-02-13, 06:07 AM
You use that too? I made it a feat, so a player can use it without mess with the core rules.
@Jarl: It already exists? Even better. No need for new rules :p