Full-Attack Action Proposals, from Fluff to Crunch

[Duke of Urrel]

Usually, the number of actions that a full-attack action represents equals the number of attack rolls that you make to determine its success. Indeed, a full-attack action must represent two or more separate actions if you target two or more enemies with your attacks.

However… here's the fluff that I'm proposing here… if you target one and the same enemy with all of your attacks, I allow your full-attack action to represent a single action. I imagine this attack to be either a very well-targeted ranged attack or a very well-placed mêlée attack.

Now for the crunchy part…

When your full-attack action represents a single action, I grant you three special benefits.

• Firstly, when you target one and the same enemy with two or more ranged attacks, I allow you, if you choose, to use only one thrown weapon or one piece of ammunition, for example one arrow, to complete all of these attacks. If you target two or more enemies with your ranged attacks, then every time you target another enemy, I require you to use another thrown weapon or another piece of ammunition.

• Secondly, when you target one and the same enemy with two or more ranged or mêlée attacks, I allow you to make a single Hide check at -20 to stay hidden while you attack. If you target two or more enemies with your ranged or mêlée attacks, then every time you target another enemy, I require you to make another Hide check at -20 to remain hidden.

• Thirdly, when you use the Invisibility spell and you target one and the same enemy with two or more ranged or mêlée attacks, I allow you to remain invisible until you complete all of these attacks.

What does the Playground think of these proposals? Are they in line with the RAW, or radical departures from them? Are they good or bad for the balance of the game?

In case you're wondering, my inspiration for these proposals came from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392690-Hide-in-Plain-Sight-Shadow-Dancer), which introduced me to some interpretations of the rules quite different from (and maybe better than) my own.

[Curmudgeon]

• Secondly, when you target one and the same enemy with two or more ranged or mêlée attacks, I allow you to make a single Hide check at -20 to stay hidden while you attack. If you target two or more enemies with your ranged or mêlée attacks, then every time you target another enemy, I require you to make another Hide check at -20 to remain hidden.
That's not even a house rule; it's just a specific interpretation of "something":
Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.
Because it's ambiguous, every DM gets to make an independent decision of what "something" means. It could be any of the following:

the same creature
the same creature in the same place
the same creature in the same place taking the same action
You've just chosen the last of these options. A creature attacking the same target is taking the same action; a creature attacking a different target is taking a slightly different action. Only something different allows a reactive (no action) Spot check. And of course if there's a new Spot check, there must be a new opposed Hide check.

[Duke of Urrel]

It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

It wouldn't be "practically impossible" to hide if your enemies didn't get granted (reactive) Spot checks every time you completed one of these three actions. But this raises an important interpretive question, namely: How many attacks are there in a full-attack action?

My proposal above is to answer the question in this way: I consider there to be as many attacks in a full-attack action as there are targeted opponents. If you target only one opponent with all of your attacks, then I allow you to count that as only one (well-placed) attack. But if you target two or more opponents, then I count that as one attack for each opponent. Consequently, you complete as many attacks as there are targeted opponents, every attack provokes Spot checks, and every time I grant Spot checks, I grant you a Hide check at -20. (This is the second consequence listed in my original posting above.)

However, this proposal has two other consequences, I think, for a dungeon master who wants to be consistent. (These are the first and third consequences in my original posting above.)

[Duke of Urrel]

Before I leave this thread alone, I'd like to play devil's advocate.

My proposals in the original posting above empower stealth options, and some of us may regard this as a plus. However, my proposals also collapse some distinctions that some of us may consider important.

For example, if say that I can make a single Hide check and stay hidden while taking a full-attack action that launches two or more ranged attacks (targeting the same enemy), then it becomes unclear why the sniping option exists. Sniping allows me to make a single ranged attack, then make a Hide check at -20 while taking a move action to go into hiding again. But suppose I can make a single Hide check at -20 while making two or more ranged attacks (targeting the same enemy). If I stay hidden, I don't have to move again. So I can either snipe, that is, make a single ranged attack and then make a single Hide check at -20 to hide again, or I can make a single Hide check at -20 to stay hidden while executing a full-attack action that launches two or more ranged attacks. That's a pretty easy choice to make, isn't it? So it seems that my proposals are not in line with what the game designers imagined as possibilities in the game.

What do you think of this criticism?