What are the consequences of having a standard action FAA?

[SangoProduction]

So, many understand that pounce is seen as quite necessary, as it means you're not lagging 1 or 2 turns (per enemy you switch to) behind the casters when combat starts (best case scenario, they start up to some short distance away in a straight line with no terrain to interfere with you, so you can just charge and start fighting).

Well, in the game I'm running, I don't much care to make barbarian a necessary dip for everyone who wanted to be competent with a weapon. I thought about making movement a swift action...then thought of how that would affect casters. I mean, most spells are standard action, so they can move anyway, but some aren't, and we don't need to buff them.

Well, what about this: just wrap Full Attack Actions in to standard Attack actions. I don't know if I should have charge still be 1 attack, so pounce still has a niche, just not an overwhelming one. I mean, you do effectively get double your movement range while you charge, and an attack bonus. But it seems...counterintuitive kind of.

Aside from that: are there any real consequences of letting this be? I can't think of any, aside from just being generally more mobile around the battlefield. I don't think it would really change how many fights start out: you basically need to charge in, if you're melee, but you've got more options once you're already in there.

[Venger]

just remember that casters get it too. aside from that, it'll just save melee brutes from having to burn a level, so it shouldn't meaningfully affect gameplay, since anyone who wants to be competent in melee pounced already anyway.

are you going to let monsters do it too? if you do, your pcs will all die really quickly. consider making it pc only.

[Godskook]

FAA is not as limitedly available as you think it is:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103358-3-X-Ways-to-get-Pounce-or-Free-Movement

So, ways to get Charge or other FAA without dipping Barbarian, using wonky restrictions, or otherwise being silly.
-Dip Paladin, and get a high CL Wand of Knight's Move(buffing this spell is reasonable, btw)
-Dip Ranger, and get a wand of Lion's Charge
-Dip Psychic Warrior and get a wand-equivalent of Psionic Lion's Charge
-Invest in UMD and any of the above.
-Travel Devotion for Charge+, works for archers, want to dip Cleric for Turning
-Ankelts of Translocation
-Belt of Battle
-Bind Sphinx Claws(Mostly for Totemists)
-Dip Swordsage/Warblade or get an item/feat for Sudden Leap

Note, though, that not all melee even *WANT* pounce. Trippers, ToB, Dungeoncrashers and a few others get only marginal benefit from the ability, and wouldn't go Barbarian to get it. In fact, offhand, the only thing I can think of that doesn't have "good" access to FAAs is Monk. Which suggests that you can just buff Sparring Dummy and be done with this thought experiment.

Also, if you wanna make FAA more available without letting casters have nice things, buff the things on this list. Especially Belt/Anklets. Allow additional charges, upgraded versions of the item, or even better charge-spends. Casters don't super-care for these items because they have a lot of good options for their swift actions already, but melee don't. As long as you don't make it a better use of a swift action than what Casters normally use them for(quickened spells, late game), it shouldn't be ~too~ OP.

[Darrin]

just remember that casters get it too.

This should be a non-issue. Casters tend to have lower BAB. There's not much incentive to full attack when the best BAB you can hope for at level 20 is +10. But more importantly, casters have much more interesting and effective things to do with their standard actions.



are you going to let monsters do it too? if you do, your pcs will all die really quickly. consider making it pc only.

My experience was the monsters were always getting shafted on the action economy, so I'd be inclined to let the monsters get this as well. I was always trying to figure out how to get the monsters more actions before getting wiped out by the PCs. But that could have been me being an idiot or me designing encounters badly.

I may be deluding myself here, but I'm not seeing any big downsides here.

[Venger]

This should be a non-issue. Casters tend to have lower BAB. There's not much incentive to full attack when the best BAB you can hope for at level 20 is +10. But more importantly, casters have much more interesting and effective things to do with their standard actions.
fair enough


My experience was the monsters were always getting shafted on the action economy, so I'd be inclined to let the monsters get this as well. I was always trying to figure out how to get the monsters more actions before getting wiped out by the PCs. But that could have been me being an idiot or me designing encounters badly.

I may be deluding myself here, but I'm not seeing any big negatives.

While monsters may get screwed on the action economy (because they're supposed to lose and all) if you give all monsters pounce, you will lose a PC an encounter because monsters can deal a lot more damage than normal characters.

If a troll, for example, goes up against an unoptimized level 5 party, I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to pick one of them off.

[Starbuck_II]

How about you make options: Full attk either way
Standard action with -2 penalty
or Full attack action with no penalty.

[OldTrees1]

How about you make options: Full attk either way
Standard action with -2 penalty
or Full attack action with no penalty.

Options are the best way to handle it. Specific depend on group specific context.

[SangoProduction]

Hmm. Right. The monsters might kill them. Could be troubling.

[Venger]

Hmm. Right. The monsters might kill them. Could be troubling.

This is easy enough to test for. Just run a couple of sims in the dice roller and see how often the monster is killed without pc casualty versus how many times he isn't, and see if there's a difference. I'm pretty sure there'll be a difference, especially when the party faces multiple, weaker monsters instead of just one boss, so the action economy's not on their side.

[Dagroth]

I still say if you want Pounce more universally available, the mechanic to do so exists in the game already.

Make it a feat.

[Venger]

I still say if you want Pounce more universally available, the mechanic to do so exists in the game already.

Make it a feat.

Melee characters are feat-starved as-is. Adding another to the mix will reduce their overall resource pool. Making it just part of the system is probably a better idea.

[Particle_Man]

Monks would become better. They would have both a high movement rate and the ability to full attack (flurrying) after moving.

[Eldariel]

Not many - monsters become more deadly, which I find is just a good thing (given the reliability of resurrection and the action advantage party has vs. an equal CR creature), and martials become more versatile and less restricted in their positioning and movement. Ultimately it makes melee more mobile and thus better able to threaten ranged users and casters (though the 5' step issue and the defensive casting/tumble still exists making it hard to be a reliable melee threat without reach; though said issues are much reduced if you just adopt the Pathfinder versions). I like playing this angle up further by making most standard action spells take 1 round to cast instead, leaving some blasting at standard action and nerfing Quicken Spell further. This allows for a system where spells are still insanely powerful (obviously this is pointless unless you remove free metamagic/Persistification too) but at least casting them in combat requires some degree of either personal or auxiliary protection allowing for a system where casters support martials and vice versa.

Overall, it's a step in the direction of a more sensible combat system. There's a reason basically every other D&D edition allows full attacking and moving - the very concept of "single attack" is flawed to the core in a system where the damage values are designed around full attacking. Particularly everyone but Two-Handed Fighters are shafted by the rule and thus the interbalance between the various combat styles becomes way better with this change.


Yes, there are ways around this but it's a basic ability; it should not require the waste of your swift action, a bunch of feats and daily resources, a clear line for charge and such or whatever. I personally like to allow full attack on charge but without clear multiplier attacks such as Mounted Charge or Shock Troopers & co. Charge bonuses only apply on the first attack and the others are resolved normally. Pounce still triggers Rake so it's not useless except on creatures that would try to use it for armed full attacks (where it makes no sense to start with, pouncing essentially allows bringing the hindlegs to bear on an attack; unless you tape daggers to your legs I guess).

[Troacctid]

It's still better to be a caster. With easy access to natural weapons via magic, you can pretty easily end up with more attacks than most non-casters, even with lower BAB. Especially if you're a Druid. Not to mention nonsense like Haste.

[Karl Aegis]

You have to deal with Run and Gun archers all the time.

[martixy]

The consequences, I think are further pigeonholing of mundanes into the "hit it with a stick" role.

What they need is not more of the same. It's options. So something like eliminating feat taxes, so they are left with more ways to diversify. One of which could be damage dealing, which is what this change would augment. Thing is, that's all it does.

[AnimeTheCat]

When I DM, I allow characters with the two weapon fighting feat to make an attack with each weapon as a standard action. It solely effects TWF, nothing else. This allows them to make two attacks from a charge or simply after moving. I don't extend this to ITWF, because you wouldn't normally get 2 attacks as a standard action with a +6/+1 BAB. To get your off-hand secondary attacks you must full attack and characters without TWF still only get a single attack after a charge or move. Additionally, make sure your players know that after a charge, they don't just have to swing a sword. They can also trip, disarm, grapple, or anything else that requires an attack roll.

Additionally, something I've done in the past (and that I don't condone under any circumstance) is stepping casting times for everything up a step so a standard action becomes full round and full round becomes 1 turn. I don't condone this because casters are the backbone of a party, like it or not. If you were gutsy and wanted to try it out, be ready for outrage from the players and possibly a melee character's death because full round for a healing spell means you can't have the cleric move then heal.

[Rerednaw]

You have to deal with Run and Gun archers all the time.

^This. Martials already get full attacks if they go ranged, this makes it much harder if the PCs are facing enemy archers.

In addition to the myraid ways of getting pounce or FAA, there's always Tome of Battle...here you can move, attack (with a standard action maneuver that's on par with a FAA in potential) AND take a full attack action in the same round. Right around level 5.

That said you could always make vital strike available and have it affect the modifiers as well as the dice...but again this will make npc mooks much more dangerous.

[OldTrees1]

The consequences, I think are further pigeonholing of mundanes into the "hit it with a stick" role.

What they need is not more of the same. It's options. So something like eliminating feat taxes, so they are left with more ways to diversify. One of which could be damage dealing, which is what this change would augment. Thing is, that's all it does.

Giving more options only really helps if they have the actions to spend on those options. So don't dismiss the extra actions granted by Full Attack & Combat Reflexes without thinking it thru first. Sure those extra actions currently can only be exchanged for things like knockback, trip, pin, & disarm but add more options and watch the hidden synergy bloom.

Summary: Why not both! Give them more actions per round & more choices per action.

[SangoProduction]

Giving more options only really helps if they have the actions to spend on those options. So don't dismiss the extra actions granted by Full Attack & Combat Reflexes without thinking it thru first. Sure those extra actions currently can only be exchanged for things like knockback, trip, pin, & disarm but add more options and watch the hidden synergy bloom.

Summary: Why not both! Give them more actions per round & more choices per action.

Because options for mundanes result in 4e. (actually had a DM ban ToB for being like 4e)

Anyway. OK. The Two-weapon Fighting adaptation of this idea is probably the most solid, helping to prop up an underdeveloped and/or underpowered style, with virtually no side effects. (Admittedly, the fighting style doesn't actually make sense IRL, but this is fantasy!) I'd probably add flurry effects in there as well for good measure. After all, the entire idea behind these types of effects is speed.

As far as ranged problem: good job pointing that out. I honestly never see someone take a ranged weapon except for aesthetic purposes (and that one example was me, see my journal in my sig). I forgot it existed. OK. Restrict standard action FAAs to melee attacks fixes that.

For natural attacks....yeah, those can get out of hand fairly quickly. So also restricting to manufactured weapons would fix that. (What would be the fluff reason for it? Probably don't need one, but I like fluff justification for mechanics.)

"It's still better to be a caster?" It's always better. Most casters, thankfully, do intend to play as part of a team instead of *trying* to show people up, so that'll rarely come up.