Tired of seeing Barb 1 on every melee build in the game

[Aetis]

Basically every melee build takes one level of barbarian for the pounce, and it's getting pretty crazy.

At this point, I'm considering just giving everyone pounce to allow people from having to burn a level in Barbarian in their melee builds.

I think that's fair, thoughts?

[Karl Aegis]

You could just not take that level of Barbarian.

[flappeercraft]

Honestly I have used it once only for a melee build. That is considering I have made around a dozen or two. The reason they are frequently used so much in forums with the Barb 1 is just for simplicity, there are lots of other ways of getting access to Pounce.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've never used it at all. The last barbarian I played was a Champion of Gwynharwyf and not designed around pounce. Most of my melee builds these days center around Warblade or Crusader and have other ways of doing lots of damage.

If you are DMing a bunch of players who all keep using that single strategy then you may want to encourage them to come up with some alternative ideas. Maybe offer to run a mid-level one-shot with all melee PCs and prohibit pounce for that session - to give them all a chance to try something different. Or introduce some NPCs built around other concepts to show what is possible.

[Celestia]

Yeah, seriously. It's annoying.

Going Barb 2 also gives you free improved trip.

[Aetis]

It's great that you guys at the GITP can come up with cooler builds than my players, but that doesn't help me in the slightest.

I bring out melee NPCs without pounce time to time, but honestly why would the PCs bother making a complicated build when they can just barb 1 and HUZZAH?

I'm just gonna give pounce to everyone. It's not like this will break the game, yeah?

[ryu]

It's great that you guys at the GITP can come up with cooler builds than my players, but that doesn't help me in the slightest.

I bring out melee NPCs without pounce time to time, but honestly why would the PCs bother making a complicated build when they can just barb 1 and HUZZAH?

I'm just gonna give pounce to everyone. It's not like this will break the game, yeah?

Not even a little. The most powerful thing in the game is casters. Melee is generally considered one of the least powerful niches. Giving melee people nice things is only going to make things more balanced.

[Deepbluediver]

Basically every melee build takes one level of barbarian for the pounce, and it's getting pretty crazy.

At this point, I'm considering just giving everyone pounce to allow people from having to burn a level in Barbarian in their melee builds.

I think that's fair, thoughts?
That's because it is pretty powerful as far melee-abilities go. You could try to give it a cooldown or limited uses per day or something like that, but I suspect that might come across as clunky and unnatural. Alternatively, push it further into the Barbarian class, so that you have to make a significant investment to grab it instead of just a 1-level dip.

I think a better idea that someone once mentioned to me though is to make it a combat maneuver, like Trip or Disarm. That way rather than just declaring you are pouncing, you have to make some sort of roll to see if you succeed. And then you can put whatever limits of bonuses you need to so that it feels more balanced.

[RoboEmperor]

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

[Venger]

Basically every melee build takes one level of barbarian for the pounce, and it's getting pretty crazy.

At this point, I'm considering just giving everyone pounce to allow people from having to burn a level in Barbarian in their melee builds.

I think that's fair, thoughts?

The problem isn't that barb1 is too strong, it's that the system doesn't give mundanes the power to move and full attack without it.

Go ahead and give everyone pounce to give mundanes another level to play around with. It's a good idea.

[Karl Aegis]

The problem isn't that barb1 is too strong, it's that the system doesn't give mundanes the power to move and full attack without it.

Go ahead and give everyone pounce to give mundanes another level to play around with. It's a good idea.

Wouldn't the solution be axing the "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step." clause? So you can start your full-attack action with a standard action and finish it with a standard action the next round with a move action in between.

[Aetis]

The problem isn't that barb1 is too strong, it's that the system doesn't give mundanes the power to move and full attack without it.

Go ahead and give everyone pounce to give mundanes another level to play around with. It's a good idea.

Yeah, I thought it was a good idea, too.

I'm hoping that someone has already done this with their group and shares their experience?

[Nifft]

Yeah, I thought it was a good idea, too.

I'm hoping that someone has already done this with their group and shares their experience?

Free Pounce for all non-casters is a great idea.

Make sure that taking a level of Cleric / Druid / Wizard / etc. will remove the free Pounce bonus. Of course, a Druid could get it back by taking the appropriate shape, but at least there's a (minimal) opportunity cost to that.

[Ignimortis]

Eh, I just slapped some nerfs onto full casters (no Natural Spell, no druid companion, no DMM, no Divine Power, extremely limited scroll access for Wizards, etc.) and let everyone full attack as a standard action. Doesn't seem to have changed things much - actually, it makes beatstick monsters a bit more of a threat.

[Doctor Awkward]

Basically every melee build takes one level of barbarian for the pounce, and it's getting pretty crazy.

At this point, I'm considering just giving everyone pounce to allow people from having to burn a level in Barbarian in their melee builds.

I think that's fair, thoughts?

I've made a couple of melee builds that don't use a Barbarian dip to get Pounce.

My Totemist builds usually all bind Sphinx Claws to get it.


One of the reasons E6 has grown on me so much is that certain abilities that hardly ever see high level play always remain relevant, and other abilities like Pounce aren't nearly as valuable.
One of my favorite builds was a Goliath Dungeoncrasher Fighter 6 that used Knockback to trigger the bull rush damage, and Three Mountains style feat on things too big to knock away. Didn't need Pounce, and it would have been counterproductive to the character.

[Aetis]

Eh, I just slapped some nerfs onto full casters (no Natural Spell, no druid companion, no DMM, no Divine Power, extremely limited scroll access for Wizards, etc.) and let everyone full attack as a standard action. Doesn't seem to have changed things much - actually, it makes beatstick monsters a bit more of a threat.

I'm leaning away from full attacking as a standard action because monsters will be able to easily slip past the front lines to reach the back line. This isn't 4e but I want positioning to somewhat matter.



I've made a couple of melee builds that don't use a Barbarian dip to get Pounce.

My Totemist builds usually all bind Sphinx Claws to get it.

One of the reasons E6 has grown on me so much is that certain abilities that hardly ever see high level play always remain relevant, and other abilities like Pounce aren't nearly as valuable.
One of my favorite builds was a Goliath Dungeoncrasher Fighter 6 that used Knockback to trigger the bull rush damage, and Three Mountains style feat on things too big to knock away. Didn't need Pounce, and it would have been counterproductive to the character.

I like E6, but I enjoy E10/12 a lot more. It sounds like the pounce problem is among the many things that get fixed in E6 though. Good for you!

[Troacctid]

I don't like tying it to charges. There just isn't a compelling reason to do that. I'm going to quote a post from an earlier thread where this came up.

I don't believe you've thought this through adequately. I think the most likely outcome of this house rule is that most non-spellcasting characters will start to look like they're interchangeable. Most everyone is going to use melee combat rather than ranged attacks, and most of the melee attacks will be Charges. And because Leap Attack grants improved damage when you Charge with Power Attack, you're going to get a lot of characters with those feats. And because Power Attack and Leap Attack give you more damage with two-handed weapons, you're going to see most everybody adapting to that arithmetic. So a Rogue will wait until somebody Pounces to attack an enemy, then they'll Pounce to attack from a flanking position, bashing two-handed with a quarterstaff.

Because you'll be shepherding your PCs to pick these options, you'll also be able to shut them all down easily. Just have enemies attack at range with difficult terrain, and their slight variations on one trick will have them literally stuck in the mud.

If you're going to skew the game toward one "optimal" fighting style, there will be consequences. If you want to avoid this scenario (any color you want as long as it's black), you need to come up with equal or superior improvements for ranged combat, stealthy combat, terrain mastery, and other options.
The reason why houserules like this fixate on pounce as the go-to ability for moving and full attacking isn't because it's the best implementation from a game design perspective, it's because it's the only way currently in the game to move and full attack. It's a tunnel vision solution. It would be much more elegant to simply make it a standard action to full attack, like in 5e.

[Falontani]

Perhaps make it a feat?

[Troacctid]

Perhaps make it a feat?
I posted a suggested feat for this in the same thread that had the post I quoted above. :smallsmile:

Troacctid's Swiftness
Why would you want to stand still for the whole fight? You think that's dumb. You've read the 5th Edition Player's Handbook and you have some better ideas.

Prerequisites
Base attack bonus +6, must be proficient with one or more martial weapons

Benefit
You can make a full attack as a standard action. You can also make a full attack with melee weapons while mounted, even if your mount moves more than 5 feet.

Normal
Making a full attack requires a full round action, and you cannot make more than one melee attack while mounted if your mount moves more than 5 feet.

Special
This feat can be used in conjunction with a Spring Attack, Flyby Attack, or Swim-By Attack, allowing you to make each of your attacks at any point during your movement. (This replaces the single attack made in a Spring Attack, although you may still avoid attacks of opportunity from one target as normal, and Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz still function normally if you have them.)

At 6th level, a monk may select Troacctid's Swiftness as her bonus feat, even if she does not meet the prerequisites.

A fighter may select Troacctid's Swiftness as one of his fighter bonus feats. A scout may select Troacctid's Swiftness as one of her scout bonus feats. A ranger using the Champion of the Wild variant may select Troacctid's Swiftness as one of his Champion of the Wild bonus feats.

[Celestia]

It would be much more elegant to simply make it a standard action to full attack, like in 5e.
This is definitely the ideal solution. I second this fix.

[LordEntrails]

Simplest solution, IMO, is to disallow multi-classing. Or at least put a level restriction like you have to have 10 levels before you can multi-class. Or use old school and if multi-classes aren't within one level of each other you take a 25% experience point penalty.

[Troacctid]

Simplest solution, IMO, is to disallow multi-classing. Or at least put a level restriction like you have to have 10 levels before you can multi-class. Or use old school and if multi-classes aren't within one level of each other you take a 25% experience point penalty.

Ewwwww

Honestly why even play this edition if you can't multiclass >_>

[Venger]

Yeah, I thought it was a good idea, too.

I'm hoping that someone has already done this with their group and shares their experience?

I've seen it done, it works fine.

Make sure you just give this ability to pcs, and not every monster, or they will get wrecked immediately.

[Celestia]

Simplest solution, IMO, is to disallow multi-classing. Or at least put a level restriction like you have to have 10 levels before you can multi-class. Or use old school and if multi-classes aren't within one level of each other you take a 25% experience point penalty.
So, chop off the legs of martial characters and lay out the red carpet for spellcasters? Sounds great.

[FaerieGodfather]

I'm just gonna give pounce to everyone. It's not like this will break the game, yeah?

In AD&D, if you had three attacks in a round and a move speed of 12, you could move twenty feet to roll one attack against a giant, move twenty feet to attack another giant, and then move twenty feet back to attack the first giant again, all at your full unpenalized attack bonus.

This is one of those things that worked perfectly well in AD&D that WotC crapped up for reasons I can only speculate about, and when they reverted to 3.5: 2.0 for 5e... they took the opportunity to make it work normally again.

Allowing Move + Full Attack is not going to break your game. If anything, it's going to help rectify some of the glaring balance problems that already existed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Simple solution; ban lion spirit totem. If pounce is something they -really- feel like they need, let 'em find it some other way. Unless they go down the two-weapon or whirling frenzy route it doesn't do anything until at least level 6 anyway.

[Eldariel]

In AD&D, if you had three attacks in a round and a move speed of 12, you could move twenty feet to roll one attack against a giant, move twenty feet to attack another giant, and then move twenty feet back to attack the first giant again, all at your full unpenalized attack bonus.

This is one of those things that worked perfectly well in AD&D that WotC crapped up for reasons I can only speculate about, and when they reverted to 3.5: 2.0 for 5e... they took the opportunity to make it work normally again.

Allowing Move + Full Attack is not going to break your game. If anything, it's going to help rectify some of the glaring balance problems that already existed.

This. Barb 1 is a bandaid fix to a system-wide issue that ****s over melee classes and monsters alike. And by "****s over" I mean "screws them over before they even get to start". It also makes no sense; level 1 warrior is equally good at attacking with or without movement but somehow by level 20 he's gotten way better at attacking without movement but is equally crappy at attacking while being active. It's basically a scaling penalty for wanting to move while attacking and some of the supposedly biggest, toughest monsters in the game (Dragons, Tarrasque, etc.) need to jump through hoops to not be trivialised by it. Barb is still a fine class without it so just fix the root of the problem and all the symptoms (including the need to jump through [generally supernatural] hoops as a warrior for basic competence) will go with it.

Just give everyone movement + full attack option and while at it, make all iteratives happen at the highest attack bonus, give bonus attacks at 5/10/15/20 BAB (to reward full BAB all the way), make divine power not alter BAB (so that BAB actually has a cost), make a BAB-based defense scaling and you've actually made levels in full BAB classes mean something. All of this is basic stuff that lets those classes play. No reason for people to have to jump through hoops for basic competence. While at it, grant them doubled HP from Con (they had basically this except more so in AD&D) so that if nothing else, warriors are better attackers and more durable than non-casters. Oh, and give them good save progressions; why do warrior classes have some of the worst saves overall in the game again if their shtick is literally "be hard to kill"?


It's hard to imagine what WotC was thinking when slapping warriors with a hundred nerf sticks while buffing casters to high heavens on the level of the basic game mechanics when the balance was already such that casters had nuclear missiles while warriors had AK-47s....

Like seriously:


Thing
AD&D 2e
3e


Moving and acting
Warriors can, Mages can't
Mages can, Warriors can't


Bonus attacks
Warriors only
Everyone


Bonus HP from Con
Warriors get extra
Everyone gets the same


Saves
Warriors have the best
Warriors tied for worst


Acting while threatened/hurt
Casters lose spell if damaged while casting
Concentration to avoid threat, another to keep spell



Casters literally got everything warriors had while warriors lost stuff they had and got nothing. And this is before going into class features (which warriors basically don't have while casters are laden with them - in spells). The whole basic system was turned on its head; 3e is basically D&D: the Caster Edition because there's literally nothing non-casters can do that casters couldn't do better.

[Venger]

Simple solution; ban lion spirit totem. If pounce is something they -really- feel like they need, let 'em find it some other way. Unless they go down the two-weapon or whirling frenzy route it doesn't do anything until at least level 6 anyway.
yeah, hamstring those melee brutes

his problem isn't that mundanes dare to dream of basic competence with pounce, but the fact that every melee character has to pay a 1 lvl tax in the first place so in this way all begin to look the same

[Kelb_Panthera]

yeah, hamstring those melee brutes

his problem isn't that mundanes dare to dream of basic competence with pounce, but the fact that every melee character has to pay a 1 lvl tax in the first place so in this way all begin to look the same

Lack of pounce is hardly a hamstring. Nearly all non-classed enemies lack it and it doesn't mean much against caster enemies.

In any case, the suggestion still answers the question. You won't see lion totem barbarian on every build if you tell them it's not available. I never said to ban pounce.

[FaerieGodfather]

It's hard to imagine what WotC was thinking when slapping warriors with a hundred nerf sticks while buffing casters to high heavens on the level of the basic game mechanics when the balance was already such that casters had nuclear missiles while warriors had AK-47s....

Monte Cook worked extensively for ICE before 2000. I see a lot of Rolemaster in everything that went wrong with 3.0-- ironically, using rules that also work perfectly well in the game they belonged to, because everything else was built around the same rules.

Basically, Fighters had a bunch of restrictions imposed on them out of a false and misguided sense of realism, while Wizards and CoDzilla had a lot of their old restrictions removed because they were, legitimately, frustrating and unfun. I can only express my own regret that those considerations had not been applied to the damn Fighter design until fourteen years later.

I'm working to repair a lot of this damage in my retroclone, though the 5e design fixed everything except the Saving Throws.

[Selene Sparks]

Basically every melee build takes one level of barbarian for the pounce, and it's getting pretty crazy.

At this point, I'm considering just giving everyone pounce to allow people from having to burn a level in Barbarian in their melee builds.

I think that's fair, thoughts?It wouldn't overly damage the game, I think, but would create some potentially damaging incentive structures, as noted above.

Do you use ToB? I ask because it's been my experience that ToB dramatically reduces the need for that kind of thing by making using a standard action to attack not complete garbage as well as giving mundanes more options in general.

Simplest solution, IMO, is to disallow multi-classing. Or at least put a level restriction like you have to have 10 levels before you can multi-class. Or use old school and if multi-classes aren't within one level of each other you take a 25% experience point penalty.This is a good way to make almost every problem in 3.5 even worse. All this does is make everyone not a caster significantly worse, in addition to cutting out one of the main draws of the game.

[skunk3]

If any DM I played for said that they weren't going to allow multi-classing I just wouldn't play, period. I play 3.5 because I love the amount of options available.

Back onto the 2nd edition vs. 3.5...

I totally agree that many/most martial classes got screwed while the casters got buffed through the roof. That said, I don't disagree with all of the changes to the casters. Requiring a concentration check to maintain a spell is a great mechanic IMO and a lot of caster builds should invest heavily in it. I think that instead of just having good, medium, or bad global save progression it should instead be based entirely on your class and what makes sense for the class. To me it makes sense that wizards would have excellent will saves, maybe average reflex saves at best (possibly even poor), and poor fort saves since they are known for being puny and weak a lot of the time. On the other hand, fighters should have excellent fort saves, above average reflex saves, and average will saves. A rogue would have excellent reflex saves, average fort and will saves. 3.5 isn't perfect by any means and I haven't played 5th edition yet (don't really want to tbh) but all in all I think it's a great system and a load of fun. The main problem is that people come on forums like this and want to gain system mastery to a degree that they can utterly optimize any character through the roof and start thinking of fun in terms like "power" and whatnot and don't have fun if they aren't an absolute beast, possibly the star of the show in whatever party they play in. They also begin to develop beliefs that certain dips here and there are utterly necessary (such as Barb 1/2) or that it's totally kosher to look up "builds" online and copy them, or try to implement theoretical optimization tricks in real games, like Dragonwrought Kobold nonsense.

Just have fun and roll some dice is what I say. I can have fun playing just about anything... except Paladins. Seriously, screw Paladins.

[noob]

It is more a story of equal participation.
now imagine sir boring druid just comes here and knows only a bfc spell and animal growth and have a regular bear animal companion(100% core build with not much thought)
Not only his bear will without effort other than casting animal growth out dpr melee characters but it will also be comparably tanky and then the druid will also be able to lock down the battlefield with his battlefield control spell.
That druid spent near 0 effort in optimizing and did not have to do any build choice other than picking a bear and deciding to prepare exactly two different spells.
Now a melee character that wants to participate as much as this druid will need tons of optimization and even with trip shenanigans he will have an hard time locking down as many opponents as this druid or dealing as much damage.
(and if you want to think about out of combat participation then maybe you should do a team with 0 mundane melee fighters(for example team cleric or team bard))

[Telonius]

I wouldn't limit this to just melee; just full attack as a standard action. Low-BAB will be getting one whole extra attack out of it, and without the feat investment that a melee type puts into it, it's just not giving much return. If you try to limit it to just "melee" classes, you end up having to make all kinds of rule kludges for what happens when somebody casts Divine Power, and what to do about Rogues, Monks, and archers generally. Better to have just one generally-applicable rule that benefits regular melee the most.

[Aetis]

I understand your concerns about tying the ability to full attack specifically to a charge, and I do agree that it would make the battlefield one-dimensional, but honestly it would still be an improvement over my current situation of everyone already using pounce anyway. They would just get 1 additional level (and hopefully more diversity) to play with.

I am hesitant about allowing people to full attack as standard action because I want positioning to somewhat matter. In an ambush scenario where monsters jump out from bushes close by, I wouldn't want the monster to be able to walk up to the party wizard and just full attack him on turn 1.

[Zombulian]

Simplest solution, IMO, is to disallow multi-classing. Or at least put a level restriction like you have to have 10 levels before you can multi-class. Or use old school and if multi-classes aren't within one level of each other you take a 25% experience point penalty.

It may be a simple solution, but it's a bad one.

[Aetis]

I've seen it done, it works fine.

Make sure you just give this ability to pcs, and not every monster, or they will get wrecked immediately.

What about NPCs? Why not monsters? I think my PCs will be able to handle some monsters with pounce.

[SirNibbles]

I'd prefer to allow everyone to move somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 their speed and be able to make a full attack after moving. Limiting melees to charging/Pouncing seems unnecessary.

[Eldariel]

I understand your concerns about tying the ability to full attack specifically to a charge, and I do agree that it would make the battlefield one-dimensional, but honestly it would still be an improvement over my current situation of everyone already using pounce anyway. They would just get 1 additional level (and hopefully more diversity) to play with.

I am hesitant about allowing people to full attack as standard action because I want positioning to somewhat matter. In an ambush scenario where monsters jump out from bushes close by, I wouldn't want the monster to be able to walk up to the party wizard and just full attack him on turn 1.

Combat Reflexes is a thing so I wouldn't worry; any competent melee threat is just as much (not enough TBH but that's because movement in combat is also broken) a threat as they are any other round of combat. If anything, positioning and formation matter more this way.

[Telonius]

I am hesitant about allowing people to full attack as standard action because I want positioning to somewhat matter. In an ambush scenario where monsters jump out from bushes close by, I wouldn't want the monster to be able to walk up to the party wizard and just full attack him on turn 1.

I'd consider that a feature and not a bug. Perception skills matter more, and the All-Powerful Wizard (TM) gets another thing to be paranoid about. Things like Combat Reflexes would become more important; positioning will matter there, as the Wizard (or any other squishy character) will want to stand close to somebody who has it.

[Aetis]

Alright, I will give the full-attack as standard action thing a go.

What about pounce? Do I still give it to everyone?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Some days, I quite like the fact that mundanes suck, because it encourages people to play gishes, which are clearly superior for every role, in terms of both style and effectiveness. Then I remember that full casters are typically better than gishes, too :smallfrown:.

Anyway, I agree that adopting 5e (or 2e) move-and-attack rules is probably a lot better than simply dropping Pounce on everyone; at the same time, I'd point out that gishes still beat mundanes, and that's a good thing. Not using magic in a fantasy kitchen sink is like not using... well, physics, in a modern setting. Sure, you don't have to be a bona fide supergenius with more PhDs than socks, and sure, you can rely on technological gizmos to do most of the work for you, but at the very least, a competent adventurer should be able to start a fire with a broken bottle. Basic magic competency is part of daily life, and making mundanes more efficient for having less magic is a Luddite impulse that should be resisted. Resist!

*ahem*

[Gullintanni]

Not using magic in a fantasy kitchen sink is like not using... well, physics, in a modern setting.

I disagree emphatically with this sentiment. Fantasy is full of outstanding warriors whose physical prowess is extraordinary to the point that it's almost supernatural.

Fighters moving faster than the eye can see, deflecting projectiles with swords, enduring magical attacks and piercing magical defense through combinations of might, fortitude and speed alone.

The fact that 3.5 doesn't represent that well is a failure, IMHO, to faithfully represent the genre of fantasy. Magic ought be only one path toward prodigous power in a fantasy setting.

[Zombulian]

I disagree emphatically with this sentiment. Fantasy is full of outstanding warriors whose physical prowess is extraordinary to the point that it's almost supernatural.

Fighters moving faster than the eye can see, deflecting projectiles with swords, enduring magical attacks and piercing magical defense through combinations of might, fortitude and speed alone.

The fact that 3.5 doesn't represent that well is a failure, IMHO, to faithfully represent the genre of fantasy. Magic ought be only one path toward prodigous power in a fantasy setting.

Which is why the Book of Nine Swords exists :)
But a regular Fighter that doesn't take advantage of any magic he can get his hands on shouldn't expect to be able to play with the big boys.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Introduce Spheres of Might and Pounce isn’t necessary

[Venger]

What about NPCs? Why not monsters? I think my PCs will be able to handle some monsters with pounce.

Only the pcs means not to give it to monsters or npcs.

Because if every t-rex or giant stag beetle or hydra or whatever can move and full attack the pcs with all their much stronger attacks, then any pc who is vulnerable to hit point damage is kind of screwed.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I disagree emphatically with this sentiment. Fantasy is full of outstanding warriors whose physical prowess is extraordinary to the point that it's almost supernatural.
And they're all incredibly boring people and/or author's favourites (*cough* all "mundane" superheroes *cough*). Seriously. Look at Hercules' powers. They amount to the ability to do things people already do, but heroically--killing annoying birds, cleaning stables, tipping cows, stealing apples. Ninety-nine percent of these "outstanding warriors" are exactly the same. Do I need a whole magic system to represent that? No thanks, I'll just add a few points to Strength.

If you want a real magic system, something that goes beyond the cliché "super warrior", something like the 3.5 magic system, you're going to need to accept that you can't achieve greatness without magic. That doesn't mean experience, training, and talent don't have a place, but they had better damn well cover the magical half of the universe as thoroughly as the mundane half.

[Nifft]

Look at Hercules' powers. They amount to the ability to do things people already do, but heroically--killing annoying birds, cleaning stables, tipping cows, stealing apples.

Okay, but like, let's just take one example.

He did pick up a river and point it at the stables to clean them.

The result was mundane ("clean stables") but the specifics of the act by which it was accomplished could not be framed as mundane.

[Elkad]

Iterative penalties went away a long time ago at my table.
I tried full-attack as a standard as well. It was VERY hard on the back-line types (on both sides of the screen), as often they didn't have a positioning option to keep from being shredded.

My current houserule.

Full-attack includes either your full standard movement in a straight line (same restrictions as charge regarding terrain/obstacles, but no other bonuses/penalties from charge). The movement must come before the attack(s).
Or move HALF your speed, but you can turn, cross difficult terrain (with speed penalty of course), make a Balance check, etc.

It feels kinda fiddly, but I've tried other variants and I'm liking this one best. I think my players do too.
As long as the squishy keeps a single ally or terrain feature between him and the opposing BSF, and stays 30' away, he's OK. So he shifts side-to-side in the battle, and can still use "close" range spells.

Pounce works as listed. Only helps when you charge.
Spring Attack, etc. Work like Troacctid's feat upthread. Full attack, full movement.

[heavyfuel]

Only the pcs means not to give it to monsters or npcs.

Because if every t-rex or giant stag beetle or hydra or whatever can move and full attack the pcs with all their much stronger attacks, then any pc who is vulnerable to hit point damage is kind of screwed.

This strikes as very video-gamey.

One of the best parts of 3.5 IMO is that the same rules apply to every creature. Be them monsters, NPCs, or PCs.

Raising the CR for bruisers (such as the t-rex or giant stag beetle or hydra or whatever) is a better solution that requires very little effort.

[Aetis]

This strikes as very video-gamey.

One of the best parts of 3.5 IMO is that the same rules apply to every creature. Be them monsters, NPCs, or PCs.

Raising the CR for bruisers (such as the t-rex or giant stag beetle or hydra or whatever) is a better solution that requires very little effort.

Agreed. I think my players will be disappointed if they realize that they have an inherent unfair advantage in my world.

"We are winning not because we are good at the game. Rather, we're winning because rules favor us."

[Nifft]

This strikes as very video-gamey.

One of the best parts of 3.5 IMO is that the same rules apply to every creature. Be them monsters, NPCs, or PCs.

Same-rules-for-everyone is one type of video game: Mortal Kombat, Civilization, etc.

Different-rules-for-protagonist is a different type of video game: Asteroids, Doom, etc.


Both can be video-gamey when they're used by video games.

Neither is video-gamey when used by a table-top RPG.

[Aetis]

Iterative penalties went away a long time ago at my table.
I tried full-attack as a standard as well. It was VERY hard on the back-line types (on both sides of the screen), as often they didn't have a positioning option to keep from being shredded.

Yeah, this is what I'm worried about. Casters wouldn't be able to position their way through combat, if the melee bruiser types can just move up and dump a full attack. You'd have to position yourself from a full movement or so from the frontline itself, and that's not possible in every encounter.

[Deepbluediver]

"We are winning not because we are good at the game. Rather, we're winning because rules favor us."
That can work, but you kind of need to build the entire game-world around that concept from the ground-up. Think "Exhalted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exalted)".

Also, I didn't see anyone respond to my suggestion to make it a combat maneuver like Sunder or Feint- is there a reason why people think this might not work?



Yeah, this is what I'm worried about. Casters wouldn't be able to position their way through combat, if the melee bruiser types can just move up and dump a full attack. You'd have to position yourself from a full movement or so from the frontline itself, and that's not possible in every encounter.
Part of that relies on encounter-design, I think, but what about putting more restrictions on the way you can move during a "pounce"? The limitation that you have to "Charge" isn't really much of a limitation when most combat takes place in relatively large, open rooms. What if instead of being able to move TWICE your movement, you where only able to move HALF your movement, and then full-attack? In certain situations it might still be more advantageous to move farther than just a 5-ft. step and still attack, but it doesn't require you to hold every combat inside the Astro-dome to prevent melee-types from full-attacking every round.

[Zombulian]

That can work, but you kind of need to build the entire game-world around that concept from the ground-up. Think "Exhalted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exalted)".

Also, I didn't see anyone respond to my suggestion to make it a combat maneuver like Sunder or Feint- is there a reason why people think this might not work?

How *would* it work? Those maneuvers you listed are opposed checks.

[Deepbluediver]

How *would* it work? Those maneuvers you listed are opposed checks.
Ok, I'll be honest, I haven't really thought long and hard about this, but just off the top of my head....

In order to Pounce you must make a check against DC 10 + (1/2 your target's CR). Your bonus on the check is equal to your BAB+ 1/2 your Jump (skill) check bonus. On a successful attempt you can move up to your movement-speed and full-attack. On a check your fail by 5 or less, you can move up to your movement speed and make a single attack (i.e. the same thing as a move-action followed by a standard action, so only failing by a little doesn't cost you significantly). On a check that you fail by 6 or more, you fall prone and your turn ends (that provides a penalty to discourage people from Pouncing as a way to check CR).


Edit: And the GM should feel free to modify the check as the situation dictates- for example, rather than saying you can't "Charge/Pounce" over difficult terrain or obstacles, instead say that every 5-ft. square of difficult terrain you pass over increases the DC by 1. Depending on how much you're homebrewing, you can even include conditions like Bloodied (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Bloodied), and have it give certain penalties on the check. And then have certain class features, like Rage, modify THAT (ex. when Raging, instead of a penalty, the Bloodied condition gives you a bonus on Pounce checks, etc).

Ultimately the point is: once you require a roll, that allows any individual group to further modify as necessary for fun and balance.


Edit2: I used the Jump-skill as part of my check because the ability is called POUNCE, but outside of a handful of mounted-PC builds, I hardly ever saw the Charge special attack used anyway. Maybe this should be taken back to square-zero of the drawing board, and re-worked from the ground up.

[heavyfuel]

Same-rules-for-everyone is one type of video game: Mortal Kombat, Civilization, etc.

Different-rules-for-protagonist is a different type of video game: Asteroids, Doom, etc.


Both can be video-gamey when they're used by video games.

Neither is video-gamey when used by a table-top RPG.

Hey, good thing I said it strikes as not that it is.

And this line of thought is very incorrect. Just because something is used in a video game, doesn't mean it's automatically video-gamey, and the reverse is also true.

Having different rules for the Player when compared to NPCs - especially monsters - is a staple of video-game RPGs, and houseruling it in in a table-top game that didn't previously work like that strikes me as very video-gamey indeed.

[Deepbluediver]

Having different rules for the Player when compared to NPCs - especially monsters - is a staple of video-game RPGs, and houseruling it in in a table-top game that didn't previously work like that strikes me as very video-gamey indeed.
This strikes me as a very chicken-or-egg sort of issue; it's only exclusive to one until example on the other side starts using it and then it isn't exclusive any more.

Like I said, it's the kind of thing that I think should be considered from the ground up, sort of like 4th edition's "minions (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Minion)" rules, but borrowing good ideas from other systems is not an invalid design-strategy.

[Venger]

there are many ways where pcs are different from npcs, such as diplomacy.

[FaerieGodfather]

You will not often hear me praising D&D 5e, but I think this is one of their better anti-innovations.

Getting more than one attack in a round isn't a function of Base Attack Bonus; it's a special ability for classes and monsters.

For 3.5:

Fighters get Extra Attack at 6th, 11th, and 16th.
Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins get Extra Attack at 6th and 16th, with some other combat enhancement at 11th.
Monks get Extra Attack at 8th and 15th, plus Flurry of Blows at 1st and 11th.
Rogues can select Extra Attack as one of their high-level Talents starting at 10th.

There are stacking rules here, where a Fighter 5/Barbie 5/Ranger 5/Swashbuckler 5 has at least two Extra Attacks, but a Fighter 1/Ranger 15 doesn't get three.

Non-core classes follow that pattern. Full BAB classes get two Extra Attacks at 6th and 16th with a combat boost at 11th. Medium BAB but non- or half- spellcasters can spend resource to get it at 10th.

Monsters get the number of attacks per round that makes sense. Monsters with only one big natural attack only get one big natural attack. Armed humanoids are based on their combat training. Dragons will murder you. (They probably need some limits on what they can do as a Standard versus a Full, actually.) Grells. Just grells, man.

[heavyfuel]

there are many ways where pcs are different from npcs, such as diplomacy.

Many? I think you'd be hard pressed to find many ways PCs are different from NPCs.

Even if they were poorly implemented, the mechanics of Diplomacy at least makes sense being different, as they give players the tools to interact with NPCs (all role-played by the same person, the DM) while actually having the diplomatic abilities their characters are supposed to have. While there are many arguments against it, from roll-playing, to the DCs being ridiculously low, the fact is that the mechanics makes some semblance of sense.

The same cannot be said for combat mechanics. Why is it that local hero 6th level PC Fighter can full attack with a standard action, while continental world-saving legend lv 25 NPC cannot?

[Venger]

Many? I think you'd be hard pressed to find many ways PCs are different from NPCs.

Even if they were poorly implemented, the mechanics of Diplomacy at least makes sense being different, as they give players the tools to interact with NPCs (all role-played by the same person, the DM) while actually having the diplomatic abilities their characters are supposed to have. While there are many arguments against it, from roll-playing, to the DCs being ridiculously low, the fact is that the mechanics makes some semblance of sense.

The same cannot be said for combat mechanics. Why is it that local hero 6th level PC Fighter can full attack with a standard action, while continental world-saving legend lv 25 NPC cannot?

Once more, because it would disproportionately affect pcs, like fumble rules, which is why you shouldn't use them.

[Deepbluediver]

Once more, because it would disproportionately affect pcs, like fumble rules, which is why you shouldn't use them.
Huh? So long as the rule is applied evenly, why is this a problem? Can you spell it out for me in more detail?

[heavyfuel]

Once more, because it would disproportionately affect pcs, like fumble rules, which is why you shouldn't use them.

Fumble "rules" aren't rules, however. Though I'm AFB, I'm pretty sure they didn't even make it into UA as an optional rule.

[Venger]

Huh? So long as the rule is applied evenly, why is this a problem? Can you spell it out for me in more detail?

sure:

npcs exist for one (or occasionally a couple) of encounters, and are then unceremoniously killed by the pcs. they will roll dice maybe a half dozen times in their sole encounter. consequently, the chances for them to fumble and decapitate themselves or drop their weapon or whatever other nonsense is extremely remote

the pcs by definition are present for every combat encounter. over the course of the campaign they will roll thousands of dice (or the mundanes will anyway, as usual, it punishes them and leaves the casters largely unscathed since fumble houserules almost always apply solely to attack rolls) so it is inevitable that they will be slammed by them many times over.

if simple arithmetic doesn't convince you, then an emotional appeal, with the lvl 20 fighter being 4 times as likely to eviscerate himself while taking a poke at a wooden training dummy than a lvl 1 fighter, under the rationale that leveling up is supposed to make you better at stuff is another common proof for why you should not do this.


Fumble "rules" aren't rules, however. Though I'm AFB, I'm pretty sure they didn't even make it into UA as an optional rule.

Right, I know they're not real rules (though like nat 20ing on a skill check, a lot of people new to the game just kind of assume they are), they are terrible house rules, so it seemed relevant in discouraging the application of the easy full attack house rule to monsters.

[Pleh]

Giving pounce to everyone should be fine.

I think full attack as standard is a bit more refined, since it makes the same important change (melee isn't penalized action economy for repositioning) without making every melee move a charge. This is neat, because it means people who want to build into charge still have a special niche of melee because not every melee character needs to charge to maintain action economy

Or more succinctly, it means that SLT barb characters can go back to being a neat hat trick, because anyone can move and full attack, but only SLT barbs can do it at the end of a charge (which can be done at double movement). For everyone else, charging remains a give and take tactic, which has less merit when it actually costs them attacks (but can close the gap so they can full attack next round).

[sorcererlover]

Why exactly are you tired of seeing Barb 1 on every melee build? It's like complaining that everyone goes a dip in cleric for free devotion feats.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, this is what I'm worried about. Casters wouldn't be able to position their way through combat, if the melee bruiser types can just move up and dump a full attack. You'd have to position yourself from a full movement or so from the frontline itself, and that's not possible in every encounter.

If the frontline can actually hold their zone, it's not a problem. TBH that problem exists without this, but it's a separate issue that should not be confounded with the full attack issue. Enabling melee types to physically attempt to block things moving through their threatened range, and to ready their move action to follow someone's movements or block an area would be a good start. It's just another problem of the system that disproportionately favours enlarged reach trippers (which can also be chargers because it takes basically no investment).

Though casters being threatened by melee types is more a feature than a bug IMHO. Casters already have a million ways to avoid being threatened; being blanket never gonna get hit because there's a bruiser in front of them just feels dumb. They're still in combat, if they put no resources beyond positioning in their defense, mayhap they do deserve to take a full attack. It's worth noting that full attack from an average monster/NPC without optimisation still generally isn't enough to drop a mage and mage can just counter by casting a save-or-lose targeting the attacker's weak save so it's kind of a wash anyways.

[Deepbluediver]

npcs exist for one (or occasionally a couple) of encounters, and are then unceremoniously killed by the pcs. they will roll dice maybe a half dozen times in their sole encounter. consequently, the chances for them to fumble and decapitate themselves or drop their weapon or whatever other nonsense is extremely remote

the pcs by definition are present for every combat encounter. over the course of the campaign they will roll thousands of dice (or the mundanes will anyway, as usual, it punishes them and leaves the casters largely unscathed since fumble houserules almost always apply solely to attack rolls) so it is inevitable that they will be slammed by them many times over.
A particular NPC only exists for a single encounter (usually), but NPCs are present for nearly every encounter, and over the course of a campaign the GM will make thousands of roles to represent their actions. The odds of a particular action affecting a particular NPC are small, but you're not comparing the PC to just one NPC, you should be comparing the PC to all NPCs in aggregate.


if simple arithmetic doesn't convince you, then an emotional appeal, with the lvl 20 fighter being 4 times as likely to eviscerate himself while taking a poke at a wooden training dummy than a lvl 1 fighter, under the rationale that leveling up is supposed to make you better at stuff is another common proof for why you should not do this.
That's simply an issue of bad design, it doesn't mean a fumble-system is inherently unworkable.

[Elkad]

Yeah, this is what I'm worried about. Casters wouldn't be able to position their way through combat, if the melee bruiser types can just move up and dump a full attack. You'd have to position yourself from a full movement or so from the frontline itself, and that's not possible in every encounter.


Part of that relies on encounter-design, I think, but what about putting more restrictions on the way you can move during a "pounce"? The limitation that you have to "Charge" isn't really much of a limitation when most combat takes place in relatively large, open rooms. What if instead of being able to move TWICE your movement, you where only able to move HALF your movement, and then full-attack? In certain situations it might still be more advantageous to move farther than just a 5-ft. step and still attack, but it doesn't require you to hold every combat inside the Astro-dome to prevent melee-types from full-attacking every round.

That's why I chopped it in half.

Charge (with or without Pounce). Regular double move, can't get through marbles, or a dog, or anything else to get to the wizard.
Full-attack - A standard fighter-type can move 20-30' in a straight line and full attack.
Alt-Full-attack. Move 10-15' and full attack. Can turn or cross a difficult square (or more than one if you are really fast)
Move+standard. Take your 20-30' however you want, then get 1 swing.
So the Wizard has a goal to keep something between him and the badguy at ALL times, and stay at least 20' away (more for faster creatures) even with that blocker.



Ok, I'll be honest, I haven't really thought long and hard about this, but just off the top of my head....

In order to Pounce you must make a check against DC 10 + (1/2 your target's CR). Your bonus on the check is equal to your BAB+ 1/2 your Jump (skill) check bonus. On a successful attempt you can move up to your movement-speed and full-attack. On a check your fail by 5 or less, you can move up to your movement speed and make a single attack (i.e. the same thing as a move-action followed by a standard action, so only failing by a little doesn't cost you significantly). On a check that you fail by 6 or more, you fall prone and your turn ends (that provides a penalty to discourage people from Pouncing as a way to check CR).

That doesn't help at all. Lets try a L5 guy vs CR TWENTY(!) target. We'll make him Ranger4/Barb1 just for fun, and give him a paltry 18str.
DC:20. BAB+5, 8 ranks in Jump (+4), +4 Str, and has Longstrider up (+4), and Fast Movement (another +4). Total +21. He can't fail, and can cross two difficult terrain squares. And he still has Rage and a cheap skill boost item to tack on top of that. Even if it's just Masterwork Jumping Reeboks, he's at +25. So even if you used the FULL CR of the target (DC30), he'll get the full attacks 75% of the time, one attack 25%, and can't ever fall down. Start it at 20+CR (DC:40) and he's still in pretty good shape, because at L5 he'll have Haste up about 80% of his fights, (for another +8, doesn't stack with Longstrider), for +33.
And we still haven't optimized for Jump at all. Tail, Wings, Ring of Jumping, more Str, Tumble synergy and various other things can get him past +50 easily.

(I'll just skip over the speed:40, +30 to jump and 4 arms for Thri-kreen - they break +100 to Jump at mid levels if they try at all, and get a whole pile of Pounce attacks - because jumping on people is kinda their thing)

[Enixon]

Hey, good thing I said it strikes as not that it is.


Having different rules for the Player when compared to NPCs - especially monsters - is a staple of video-game RPGs

It's also a staple of 4 out of 5 editions of D&D :smallbiggrin:

[Arkain]

If you're bothered, I'd second to try what Elkad suggested, as it makes movement a bit more tactical, but doesn't turn melee into the single attack show either, if no enemy is nearby that round. You could also try figuring out a system where you sacrifice mobility for enhanced fighting prowess, e.g. while standing still or making at most a 5 foot step you can use all your attacks. If you have four attacks, you lose one per 10 feet moved, if your speed is only at 20, you lose one per 5 feet beyond the 5 foot step, double those intervals if hasted. Or give out additional penalties when not using full attacks to do your additional attacks. But that seems all very convoluted (especially when you can't divide everything up into neat intervals) and probably slows the game down quite a bit, while still punishing mundanes for being mundanes.

[Deepbluediver]

That doesn't help at all. Lets try a L5 guy vs CR TWENTY(!) target. We'll make him Ranger4/Barb1 just for fun, and give him a paltry 18str.
DC:20. BAB+5, 8 ranks in Jump (+4), +4 Str, and has Longstrider up (+4), and Fast Movement (another +4). Total +21. He can't fail, and can cross two difficult terrain squares. And he still has Rage and a cheap skill boost item to tack on top of that. Even if it's just Masterwork Jumping Reeboks, he's at +25. So even if you used the FULL CR of the target (DC30), he'll get the full attacks 75% of the time, one attack 25%, and can't ever fall down. Start it at 20+CR (DC:40) and he's still in pretty good shape, because at L5 he'll have Haste up about 80% of his fights, (for another +8, doesn't stack with Longstrider), for +33.
And we still haven't optimized for Jump at all. Tail, Wings, Ring of Jumping, more Str, Tumble synergy and various other things can get him past +50 easily.

(I'll just skip over the speed:40, +30 to jump and 4 arms for Thri-kreen - they break +100 to Jump at mid levels if they try at all, and get a whole pile of Pounce attacks - because jumping on people is kinda their thing)
I did say it just off the top of my head- if skill checks are to easy to spoof to absurd levels, we can leave that out. Give me a day or two to think about it and I'll see if I can't come up with anything better.

[Nifft]

Hey, good thing I said it strikes as not that it is.

And this line of thought is very incorrect. Just because something is used in a video game, doesn't mean it's automatically video-gamey, and the reverse is also true. It sounds like you're using "video-gamey" in a way that doesn't actually have any meaning.

If it does have a meaning, and it's not just a content-free edition-war signal, could you provide that meaning?


It's also a staple of 4 out of 5 editions of D&D :smallbiggrin: 5 out of 5.

3.x doesn't consider CR to be equal to ECL, so a monstrous opponent will appear far earlier than that same monster as a PC.

Monsters don't get PC stats, nor PC equipment, nor are NPCs supposed to be commonly found with PC classes -- NPC classes exist specifically so humanoid NPCs can be inferior to humanoid PCs.

NPCs also don't get Action Points, which are a mechanic in Eberron / UA.

The equality of PCs to NPCs has always been a delusion.

[Ignimortis]

The equality of PCs to NPCs has always been a delusion.

In 3.5 they're built on the same rules, only using different classes (and RHD are "classes" too, just without actual class features after 1st level). The Elite Array is considered "the norm" for PCs and monsters alike, except few DMs actually use it.

The inequality is not enforced by the system, and a monster with low LA and no RHD can function as a PC with PC classes perfectly fine. The issue is the disparity between NPC classes/RHD and actual PC classes, but that doesn't mean that the basic rules are treating them unequally.

[heavyfuel]

It sounds like you're using "video-gamey" in a way that doesn't actually have any meaning.

If it does have a meaning, and it's not just a content-free edition-war signal, could you provide that meaning?

It has a different meaning for each person.

For example, if you implemented a "Limit Break" mechanic to the game, I'd find it video-gamey. You might not.

I feel that the PCs having different combat mechanics than NPCs is video-gamey. OP apparently also shares this opinion. You clearly don't.

It's my expectation that, in 3.x, PCs and NPCs abide by the same set of rules. This is what I feel distinguishes 3.x from many traditional video-game RPGs. A classic example of this is dealing 99999 points of damage and have the enemy survive, while my character only has 999 max HP. Or what happened in 5e with Legendary Actions. So the monster has 1 action per round on a 1v1, but as soon as you make 3v1 it gains two extra actions because reasons.

If you don't find this stupid, hey, go nuts. I do. It strikes me as video-gamey.

And don't get me wrong. I love video-games. I just don't think these particular conventions should be implemented in table-top.

[Nifft]

It has a different meaning for each person. So it has no actual meaning? Then why say it?

If you use made-up nonsense words, you're no better than a common oolmgkropfhlish njkoooiniffer.


I feel that the PCs having different combat mechanics than NPCs is video-gamey. OP apparently also shares this opinion. You clearly don't. Nah, what I see is that 3.x also has different mechanics for NPCs than for PCs.

They make a show of using the same mechanics, but if you dig even a just a little, then you see that mechanics are not the same for PCs vs. NPCs.

Examples (including those already listed above):
- ECL vs. CR
- Stat Generation -- and you ought to be aware that monsters get the non-elite array by default, so even PCs stuck with the elite array are by default better
- Available Classes
- Expected Wealth
- Action Points
- Interaction with the Diplomacy skill
- etc.

PCs and NPCs do not play by the same rules.


It's my expectation that, in 3.x, PCs and NPCs abide by the same set of rules. This is what I feel distinguishes 3.x from many traditional video-game RPGs. Ironically, there is an excellent 3.x video game -- the Temple of Elemental Evil.

It uses the old 3.0e rules, not 3.5e, and that's great because 3.5e (like 4e and 5e) has a lot of interrupt abilities. Interrupts don't play well with video game interfaces, so 3.0e -- like 2e and earlier -- is relatively better suited to be implemented as a video game than any later rules.


Perhaps NOT being used as the basis for a video game is what you meant by "video gamey"?

[SirNibbles]

That's why I chopped it in half.

Charge (with or without Pounce). Regular double move, can't get through marbles, or a dog, or anything else to get to the wizard.
Full-attack - A standard fighter-type can move 20-30' in a straight line and full attack.
Alt-Full-attack. Move 10-15' and full attack. Can turn or cross a difficult square (or more than one if you are really fast)
Move+standard. Take your 20-30' however you want, then get 1 swing.
So the Wizard has a goal to keep something between him and the badguy at ALL times, and stay at least 20' away (more for faster creatures) even with that blocker.


I like your idea but I think it should be scaled down a bit, not allowing a full move and full attack just because it's a straight line.

Charge/Pounce (Full round action) - as is. Maybe allow Pounce to be gained as a feat, and add it to FBF list.
Engage (Full round action) - Move up to 1/3 your speed and make a full attack. Can't move over difficult terrain. -2 AC vs AoOs and -2 to Reflex saves while you are moving in this manner.
Move + Standard (Move action and Standard action) - as is.

If you want to allow a straight-line full attack, it should be limited to 1/2 speed or something like that.

[heavyfuel]

So it has no actual meaning? Then why say it?

Do you read? I said its meaning, much like almost every adjective in every language, varies from person to person and from situation to situation.

Never had a silly discussion about a color? Where some people see it as shade of green others see it as a shade of blue.
What you might consider beautiful, someone else might find ugly.
While you might know someone you consider an exemplar human being, someone else might think they're an a-hole.
If I say something strikes me as video-gamey, you don't get to decide it doesn't.

[killem2]

And this is why I don't care if my players play monsters for melee characters lol.

[Nifft]

Do you read? I said its meaning, much like almost every adjective in every language, varies from person to person. Do you communicate? Words do have meanings even if those meanings are inexact, or vary in application.

Without that commonality of meaning, communication would be impossible.


Never had a silly discussion about a URL=" UYHSggGBolHRUVITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDQ0N FQ0PDysZFRktLS0tKy0rKysrLS0tLS0tLSstKy0rLTctNysrLS srLTctLSstLSsrKy0rKysrNystK//AABEIAOEA4QMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAYAAEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIFA//EABkQAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABESESAv/EABcBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBgL/xAAUEQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDvLio7Y0xcARFAARQSrAA1KYoqYuItEMA gAtiAJjSAmFWIKmLgugzhVwBkUkAwMAagRREopQQUBJFwMARQB AAFlAVDDAMKAAFBFkABFSAGGAIQwFQXoCqKIgaAuGCQAFoCLUA hhpoAigQDQXDE0AMFgJigAmKgAUARdSAAoLhiKBhgAYYuoIAAV KuoKCoCiAKIsBUDBDAUEAwDQgKlKugGMrTQNF4ACLAFRRAhgBY mqAlIUFEVLQAUBYEEQVACGKACAaKgChgMjTIpgoISKkpgKqYsB DAAKIBhooJoFBUiKKpqKImqAAAAYsgILUBKRbDAQphYAqAqKas ENVAFQhgIVSAhBQSlpqgigCLAgIpQAXSgYmKgGmKAhFTQKjSUE 8gAsEUA0WwAMQAKUEqoAGqgBigAAGEhVgBgKAGAgqIBooIKgAg AsSLgLqBAFQwEqqgIaoAimABFgMrqoBqwQFMMAASqACBoAGpVN BlVAQC0F0RQMDADQAJDAAEqwDAXQSioBFCKCCgGIqCLiAGLiGA QAARQRUICmhgAFA0DQAABUAVNAXEWpAVMJQAtACKgCpS0AVAC1 FSgaqaAACkVFESmCgBCgURQDCoC4AAKgGEFwBFTAUEwFRUADAB lpMAVnFBCQ0FUSqCwxnV0RUWICooBBIugKlAMABdQUEoYAqUNB MXSoCoqAFQBRAVIqaSgohAaggCiEBRAFVEBoQEKqABooAlKCoF ApqVRUaTQRKAKgAJCgKoAgVQFZABABqEAAAFigIAAJQAqUBVIA H0lAEi1QHmAK//Z"]color[/URL]? Is that the color out of space?

It's certainly not in my visible gamut.



Some people say it as shade of green other as a shade of blue. None the less, "blue" and "green" have meaning, which is why we can discuss whether borderline colors should be classified as one or the other.

Beauty has a meaning, even if what I would use as an example of beautiful isn't what you would use. It's factually wrong to claim that disagreement about what constitutes a beautiful thing should somehow imply that beauty isn't commonly understood.


If I something strikes me as video-gamey, you don't get to decide it doesn't. Since that phrase apparently has no coherent meaning, you aren't communicating anything by claiming that a thing is or is not video-gamey.

The only facts we have are:
- Real, popular, well-known video games have been build on 2e and 3.0e rules.
- You consider those to be non-video-gamey editions.

So yeah, it looks like a vacuous edition-war insult, not a coherent term of critique.

[Aetis]

I don't want to intrude in you guys' discussion, but...

I don't actually use ECL vs CR. I write my own monster stat blocks and assign CR as I see fit. I grew to trust the WotC's CR system less and less over the years.
I generate NPC stats with point buy, just like PCs. I do use the average array for the nameless mooks, though.
I generally give NPCs PC classes. I do sometimes use NPC classes as well.
I don't follow the Expected Wealth table, and I arm NPCs with appropriate gear.
I don't use Action Points.
I don't use Diplomacy skill by RAW. I don't think any sane DM does, tbh.

I'm sure there are groups out there that follow all the things you've mentioned, but I try my best to keep the PCs following the same rules as NPCs in my games. My players, (and I), wouldn't want a special treatment for the PCs.

[AnimeTheCat]

So it has no actual meaning? Then why say it?

If you use made-up nonsense words, you're no better than a common oolmgkropfhlish njkoooiniffer.

To be fair, HeavyFuel told you what his interpretation of "Video-Gamey" was and then proceeded to further state that your opinion may be different from his. As for reasons that one would say it is because it portrays a certain perception. Clearly, HeavyFuel perceives the distinction between NPC and PC mechanics from other editions or house rules to be very similar to that used in video games (with the example of HP that can be seen in a broad spectrum of video games such as Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, etc). Saying "Video-Gamey" is less of a made-up nonsense word and more of a made-up word that smashes together the generic feeling or perception one is given by certain non video game sources.

If you really want an actual meaning, try "The rough description one uses when mechanics, themes, ideas, or other abstract parts of a non video game source reminds or elicits feelings that remind one of a video game based source."


Nah, what I see is that 3.x also has different mechanics for NPCs than for PCs.

They make a show of using the same mechanics, but if you dig even a just a little, then you see that mechanics are not the same for PCs vs. NPCs.

Examples (including those already listed above):
- ECL vs. CR
- Stat Generation -- and you ought to be aware that monsters get the non-elite array by default, so even PCs stuck with the elite array are by default better
- Available Classes
- Expected Wealth
- Action Points
- Interaction with the Diplomacy skill
- etc.

PCs and NPCs do not play by the same rules.

I disagree that they don't operate on the same framework or play by the same rules. I'll explain below:
- ECL vs. CR: NPCs and PCs alike both have an ECL and a CR. The two are loosely tied to each other in some ways, but nothing binding. The ECL of a character has nothing to do with CR, except as described in templates or other similar sources.
- Stat Generation: While yes, typically NPCs and PCs have differing ability score values, they still have the same six core attributes; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Exceptions to this are on a sweeping basis and are bound to a unique feature particular to a race or type of creature (for example, undead don't have constitution scores.) Additionally, NPCs with PC class levels should be made using the same standards for stat generation as the PCs.
- Available Classes: I'm not sure what you mean by this. NPCs are made using typically MORE classes than PCs since all of the PC classes are available to them at city/culture creation (each town will have a plethora of the core classes if you only use DMG rules) in addition to the NPC specific classes (which are intentionally reduced in power, most likely to make the PCs feel more heroic). The classes all play by the same rules though, they all have HD, BAB, Base Saves, and "Class Abilities", and skills. An NPC class just gets less of those things than a PC class, but PC classes are not shut off from all NPCs, therefore the NPCs and PCs all play by the same rules.
- Expected Wealth: Expect wealth is not a rule, it is a general guideline put forward by the DMG to help DMs know approximately how much combined item, magic, and monitary wealth a character is expected to have to handle a CR appropriate Challenge. A CR appropriate Challenge for a commoner is going to be much lower than a CR appropriate Challenge for a fighter even (unless you're using april fools editions of Dragon). Therefore, the expected wealth for a commoner is lower than that of a fighter. That's not playing by different rules, simply because there are no rules saying "An X level player must have Y wealth and an A level NPC must have B wealth."
- Action Points: I can't speak to this personally as I've never (as a player) used them.
- Interactions with the Diplomacy Skill: I feel like you're false, even on this one. An NPC can interact with another NPC just fine with the Diplomacy skill, just like a PC can interact with an NPC with the Diplomacy Skill. However, just like a PC can't interact with a PC using the diplomacy skill, neither can an NPC interact with a PC with the diplomacy skill. This is no fault of PCs or NPCs playing by different rules, this is the fault of the Diplomacy Skill as it is written.


Ironically, there is an excellent 3.x video game -- the Temple of Elemental Evil.

It uses the old 3.0e rules, not 3.5e, and that's great because 3.5e (like 4e and 5e) has a lot of interrupt abilities. Interrupts don't play well with video game interfaces, so 3.0e -- like 2e and earlier -- is relatively better suited to be implemented as a video game than any later rules.

Perhaps NOT being used as the basis for a video game is what you meant by "video gamey"?

The core mechanics of D&D (and other stat+probability based games) being what they are, they lend themselves very well to being used in video games, especially of the strategy variety. The difference between feeling like a video game on the table-top and not feeling like a video game on the table-top is up to each individual and there really isn't a metric by which feeling or opinion is measured. There are some certain ways that someone can quantify why they feel a certain way, such as 4e abandoning more "classic D&D" features like Spells per day and adopting daily/hourly/encouter type abilties, similar to what one might see in an MMO or other video game. However, I've personally never played a video game that has abilities like that, so I don't personally find such a thing to be video-gamey. It's relative to the individual.


To the OP: If you want to balance out the game truely, you'll need to put a lot more work in than just putting a bandaid on a bleeding Aorta. If you really want any form of balance, you'll need to figure out a way to create some kind of subsystem that grants martial focused characters the ability to do things independent of magic. If you can find a way to do that without making the abilities innately magical, more power to you. If you think you're going to be happy in the long run with every martial character move+full attacking every turn instead of other things, then go for it. I feel like free pounce or free move+full attack for everyone just makes martial characters even less useful/desirable because when the wizard polymorphs, the druid wild shapes, the cleric DMM buffs, you're still going to have the same problem, just now you've made those big three even bigger... and as soon as you start saying "well fighter, barbarian, etc. can do it but not cleric" you stand the chance of disenfranchising your spellcasting players. My advice, either build a mechanic and give it to the Martial characters, or just deal with Barb 1 on all the melee builds.

[Eldariel]

Examples (including those already listed above):
- ECL vs. CR
- Stat Generation -- and you ought to be aware that monsters get the non-elite array by default, so even PCs stuck with the elite array are by default better
- Available Classes
- Expected Wealth
- Action Points
- Interaction with the Diplomacy skill
- etc.

PCs and NPCs do not play by the same rules.

While it's true that there are discrepancies, 3e is much closer than basically any other game and even WBL is just a guideline intended to give you approximate expectations of how much wealth level X characters need to beat CR X challenges (since CR is broken to the extreme and the same amount of wealth can amount to basically nothing or Pun-Pun, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that these guidelines aren't worth much) that you're free to ignore. Even the other points; nothing stops PCs from playing NPC classes, and action points are a variant that you should probably dole out to NPCs and PCs alike (if you like a "chosen by fate"-kind of mechanic). And yeah, the Diplomacy goof-up is just silly especially since Bluff, Intimidate, Charm, Dominate, etc. lack similar statements. You can run 3e with complete transparency (use approximate ECL/CR for monster ECL á la PF, ignore Diplomacy rules, throw WBL outta the window and let PCs master their own fate, use action points for everyone or nobody) relatively effortlessly compared to just about every other system.

And yeah, standard monsters use standard array but elite monsters should get elite array and nonelite classed monsters should get the nonelite array. The fact that PCs are from the higher end of the power pool of a given race doesn't necessarily mean they play by different rules; NPCs from the same power pool exist (in droves by DMG).

[Gullintanni]

Which is why the Book of Nine Swords exists :)
But a regular Fighter that doesn't take advantage of any magic he can get his hands on shouldn't expect to be able to play with the big boys.

Exactly. Interesting, powerful mundanes without magic. 3.5 out of the gates fails to represent that well. But ToB and the like go a long way toward representing the legendary, non-magical warrior, and repairing that hole in 3.5 mechanics.

[Aetis]

Grrrr.... I don't like using ToB.

It's coarse, rough, irritating, and it gets everywhere.

And by that, I mean everywhere.

[AnimeTheCat]

Grrrr.... I don't like using ToB.

It's coarse, irritating, and it gets everywhere.

And by that, I mean everywhere.

I agree. I don't personally like ToB either. I use it very sparingly and only when the paltry maneuvers and mechanics exactly fit the theme of the character I'm trying to build. Even then, it's begrudgingly. It's probably the least used book in my cricle of friends, but then again we don't have wizards that polymorph into hydras and make the party fighter obsolete or CoDzilla that ruins the fun for the party.

[noob]

Grrrr.... I don't like using ToB.

It's coarse, irritating, and it gets everywhere.

And by that, I mean everywhere.
Getting the poly-valance of spells without spells would need to have a very free-form game where when the fighter asks "can I swim so good I can create rainbows and swim on the rainbows" the gm says yes.

[AnimeTheCat]

Getting the poly-valance of spells without spells would need to have a very free-form game where when the fighter asks "can I swim so good I can create rainbows and swim on the rainbows" the gm says yes.

not necessarily. If there was a system built in that gave the fighter the extraordinary ability to push his body to the limit and slow his descent the allow him to absorb the impact of a fall without damaging himself, he's effectively mimiced feather fall, but without mirroring it exactly. If a fighter had a system that would allow him to surge and take a turn as an immediate action, he could effectively mimic celerity. It's not really all that difficult to mimic most spells through extraordinary ability, but there needs to be a system and measurable mechanic for it to be usable in a game.

[Aetis]

Errr... most players I've encountered don't lock in fighters expecting to summon rainbows and swim on them.

They expect to chop monsters in fights.

[noob]

not necessarily. If there was a system built in that gave the fighter the extraordinary ability to push his body to the limit and slow his descent the allow him to absorb the impact of a fall without damaging himself, he's effectively mimiced feather fall, but without mirroring it exactly. If a fighter had a system that would allow him to surge and take a turn as an immediate action, he could effectively mimic celerity. It's not really all that difficult to mimic most spells through extraordinary ability, but there needs to be a system and measurable mechanic for it to be usable in a game.
There is such as system and it is tome of battle.
that you do not like it means that you will have to create one yourself or find one created by the community but then it is not wizard of the coast 3.5 dnd.
and the wizard have hundreds of spells that are all very useful(from teleport to create food while going through stone to mud and fabricate) so if you plan to give extra-ordinaries abilities to do all those roles the spells have then you will need hundreds of extra-ordinaries abilities on your fighter.
Most people become too tired while doing their homebrew and stop at 50 or less.
Which is why there is few fighter classes that match the wizard in usefulness.(ps: mimicking feather fall only on yourself is not useful most of the time the reason the feather fall spell is good enough for being prepared is that you use it on everybody at once thereby solving the problem for the whole team)
Even tob only reach tier 3 and not tier 1 or 2 like wizards or mindbenders(they got their tier raised in the latest tier system decided by vote).

[AnimeTheCat]

There is such as system and it is tome of battle.
that you do not like it means that you will have to create one yourself or find one created by the community but then it is not wizard of the coast 3.5 dnd.
and the wizard have hundreds of spells that are all very useful(from teleport to create food while going through stone to mud and fabricate) so if you plan to give extra-ordinaries abilities to do all those roles the spells have then you will need hundreds of extra-ordinaries abilities on your fighter.
Most people become too tired while doing their homebrew and stop at 50 or less.
Which is why there is few fighter classes that match the wizard in usefulness.(ps: mimicking feather fall only on yourself is not useful most of the time the reason the feather fall spell is good enough for being prepared is that you use it on everybody at once thereby solving the problem for the whole team)
Even tob only reach tier 3 and not tier 1 or 2 like wizards or mindbenders(they got their tier raised in the latest tier system decided by vote).

Tome of Battle doesn't fix the underlying problem that Spellcasters have options and Martial characters don't. It tried, but Tome of Battle boils down to "I hit it with my stick in a really cool way that did something else kinda cool". There are very few maneuvers or stances that actually give a character more options aside from hitting things. I was saying that there could be a system built (Yes, i'm fully aware it would be homebrew... That's obvious) that would give further, non-combat options to martial characters. That's where they are distinctly lacking.

EDIT:
This isn't the thread to do it, but if you want to go more into detail about my opinions about Tome of Battle and such, either PM me or start a new thread asking. I'm happy to share my opinions and views on the matter.

[noob]

Yes basically if you want out of battle maneuvers you just get that maneuver that gives an extra turn(for races against the clock) and that maneuver that allows to teleport.
Then there is some stances that can get an out of battle effect in some situations such as getting to turn any roll in a 11 once per turn(really solve problems with gms that bothers you with rolls at each action until they decide you have only one chance on three to succeed to eat a trail ration)
Then there is that heal maneuver which is very useful out of battle because they forgot people can use at will healing on people other than their own team(it probably was not meant to be used for curing all the villagers of the pest)
That adds stuff to do out of battle but not many.
Still you get like 3 times more options than a tobless fighter.
Which is why some people instead of trying to make their fighter fix redo all the abilities it needs as ex abilities take the tob system and some tob schools and add a bunch of extra schools and also give a bunch of extra ex abilities.
Then there is some people who also tries to do fighter fixes from scratch such as the hypermundane veteran or the veteran(not the same one at all I assure you) which somehow stills lacks abilities when compared to a wizard(but which gets to be quite polyvalent and include a wide range of abilities including stuff like shouting furiously at people making them obey you for weeks or just being so fast you always have two turns per turn or being able to go anywhere in the universe or to follow someone who teleports by entering the rift he left because you are really good at twisting yourself or yet inventing flying machines or making potions that heals without magic)

[Deepbluediver]

3.x doesn't consider CR to be equal to ECL, so a monstrous opponent will appear far earlier than that same monster as a PC.
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a single PC was supposed to have a 50/50 chance of victory against an equal-CR monster. Now obviously the classes vary wildly in power and many monsters are badly mis-CR'd, but the point was supposed to be that to reliably beat equal CR'd monsters you needed a group.
Unless I'm completely mistaken about what I thought I read.



I'm sure there are groups out there that follow all the things you've mentioned, but I try my best to keep the PCs following the same rules as NPCs in my games. My players, (and I), wouldn't want a special treatment for the PCs.
Just to clarify something, is the issue you are trying to address that you don't want all your players to have Pounce, or are you OK with them having Pounce and you just want them to get it from other sources? I didn't really stop and think about it much when I made my first reply, but the answer would kind of direct us in two different directions. One to nerf pounce and/or buff alternatives (i.e. making Pounce less attractive), while the other would look for a way to keep dips from being as attractive.

In the vein of the second, what about this for a suggestion: Pounce is an extraordinary ability that you can use a number of times per day equal to your Barbarian level (or for monsters, equal either their CR or HD). That way anyone going straight-Barb should get all the Pounces they need by mid level at the latest, but it's less attractive to other classes as a 1-level dip.

[Pleh]

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a single PC was supposed to have a 50/50 chance of victory against and equal-CR monster. Now obviously the classes vary wildly in power and many monsters are badly mis-CR'd, but the point was supposed to be that to reliably beat equal CR'd monsters you needed a group.
Unless I'm completely mistaken about what I thought I read.

Not sure if this was ever a direct claim from the books, but it certainly is a consequence of how CR is described.

If an NPC is defined as a playable core race with X levels in a core class, it's defined as a CR X encounter assuming a neutral playing field.

Ergo, a 10th level Fighter is supposed to be a CR 10 encounter and a fair fight for a party of four 10th level PCs. Of course, "fair fight" in this case is meant to represent about a fourth of a standard adventuring day. For D&D CR, "fair fight" is meant to represent nearly a guarantee of having to expend party resources with minimal chance of losing a party member, while a "fair fight" where either side could win it all or lose it all is actually defined as "overpowering."

A PC party comprised of only a single 10th level adventurer constitutes a Party Level 6th, which against a CR 10 threat is an "overpowering" encounter (like a party of four 6th level adventurers against a CR 10 monster), which means 50% chance of losing the combat or higher.

I don't remember how explicitly the DMG says it, but the math works out that way. A 10th level PC is a 50/50 fight with an equal level NPC, but a fight at 50/50 odds are meant to be much harsher a combat than D&D was intended to present for most encounters, which are meant to be a battle of attrition, not a duel between peers.

[Aetis]

In the vein of the second, what about this for a suggestion: Pounce is an extraordinary ability that you can use a number of times per day equal to your Barbarian level (or for monsters, equal either their CR or HD). That way anyone going straight-Barb should get all the Pounces they need by mid level at the latest, but it's less attractive to other classes as a 1-level dip.

I'm perfectly fine with them having pounce. I think limiting pounce to X per day is a bad idea.

[Elkad]

I like your idea but I think it should be scaled down a bit, not allowing a full move and full attack just because it's a straight line.

Charge/Pounce (Full round action) - as is. Maybe allow Pounce to be gained as a feat, and add it to FBF list.
Engage (Full round action) - Move up to 1/3 your speed and make a full attack. Can't move over difficult terrain. -2 AC vs AoOs and -2 to Reflex saves while you are moving in this manner.
Move + Standard (Move action and Standard action) - as is.

If you want to allow a straight-line full attack, it should be limited to 1/2 speed or something like that.

1/3rd speed means the armored guys can't use it at all. Speed 20' and you get 5*(ceil(4/3))=10'. The poor halfling in medium armor gets 5*(ceil(3/3))=5', gaining NOTHING over a 5' step.
They might as well still take the Barb level and Pounce-Charge everywhere 40'-60' at a time.

If people are going to have full-attacks with movement, it shouldn't be something that requires Haste to work.


I'm perfectly fine with them having pounce. I think limiting pounce to X per day is a bad idea.

Almost anything / day is a bad idea. Encounter powers work much better. It's a lot easier to balance Nova vs running out.
If people want a limit, how about "Pounce tires you rapidly. You can Pounce a number of times equal to your Con Mod, then become Fatigued until (you spend 10 minutes resting? / the encounter is over?)."

[Aetis]

Yeah, restricted-speed mini-pounce doesn't really work when we consider 20ft speed characters.

Now that I think about it, even move + full attack folds to pounce users in the open field. They got outranged.

I think I'll just give everyone pounce. No exceptions.

[Elkad]

I like the split.
Pounce and you get the Charge bonuses, AC penalty, and double-move.
Advance and you get a full move and full attack, but no bonuses or penalties. And it doesn't take a feat/feature.

[Aetis]

So give both?

[Elkad]

Yeah. If they want to dip for Pounce, let them have it.
Give everyone something not-quite-as-nice. Like the poor monk or paladin who can't dip Barb because of alignment restrictions.

[Deepbluediver]

Almost anything / day is a bad idea. Encounter powers work much better. It's a lot easier to balance Nova vs running out.
If people want a limit, how about "Pounce tires you rapidly. You can Pounce a number of times equal to your Con Mod, then become Fatigued until (you spend 10 minutes resting? / the encounter is over?)."
I used to not really like "encounter" powers because the limit felt to meta-gamey, but if you instead just have some sort of refresh mechanic that isn't good to use in combat I feel like that fits better (it's what I think they should have gone with for ToB).


My groups never used Pounce that much, how often to players really use it within a single combat? Is it something that they do every round, and you're setting yourself up for a scenario where the whole group fights like grasshoppers? Or could you get away with just having it as an opener/gap closer for occasional use?
I'm still thinking about other ways to limit it, like maybe a 1d4 round cooldown. Or 1d6-Con bonus or something like that.

[Nifft]

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a single PC was supposed to have a 50/50 chance of victory against an equal-CR monster. Now obviously the classes vary wildly in power and many monsters are badly mis-CR'd, but the point was supposed to be that to reliably beat equal CR'd monsters you needed a group.
Unless I'm completely mistaken about what I thought I read.

You may be correct about the intent -- honestly I don't know -- but what I'm talking about is the mechanical difference between PCs and NPCs, so even if you were correct, it wouldn't be relevant to my argument.

Here's another example:

For an NPC, every class level is either associated or non-associated. Non-associated levels "cost" half as much CR.

For a PC, every level costs one full ECL.

PCs and NPCs do not use the exact same rules.

[Cosi]

If everyone is dipping Barb 1 to get pounce, that is probably because everyone needs pounce. That's the problem you should be trying to solve. The alternative is just beating people over the head for daring to try to solve the problems their characters have. Do you get really angry that all the Cleric buy holy symbols, or that everyone is carrying around trail rations?

[noob]

Trail rations are obviously overpowered and waterskins are overpowered too.

[Deepbluediver]

If everyone is dipping Barb 1 to get pounce, that is probably because everyone needs pounce. That's the problem you should be trying to solve. The alternative is just beating people over the head for daring to try to solve the problems their characters have. Do you get really angry that all the Cleric buy holy symbols, or that everyone is carrying around trail rations?
Giving melee-types unique and interesting class abilities and/or subsystems that let them participate to a similar degree as casters is a good goal, but it requires a lot more homebrewing. If your game is running mostly fine, it may not be a good idea to sit down and try to rewrite massive chunks of the rules right in the middle of a campaign.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I nerfed Lion Spirit Totem to only let you pounce for a charge distance of 10 ft per Barb level, and at Barb 5 it becomes pounce w/ no restrictions.
Of course, I also nerf casters a lot.

I think it's also fine to just give pounce for free. I would at least ask that you throw archers a few bones then, since they already get the shaft in 3E, even worse than melee.
At a bare minimum, giving non-magical ranged attacks the effects of the Arrow Mind spell for free (ranged attacks don't provoke AoOs, and you threaten your natural reach and can make the AoOs w/ a ranged attack) seems totally fair since the main benefit of archery being dangerous in melee reach was that it was supposed to have the benefit of "always full attacking," and now melee pretty much has that, too.
Applying Power Attack to ranged attacks would also be totally fair at that point.
(And...regardless it should be nerfed, but definitely get rid of wind wall's ridiculous archery negation....I make it 30% miss chance for any ranged attack, myself)

[Cosi]

Giving melee-types unique and interesting class abilities and/or subsystems that let them participate to a similar degree as casters is a good goal, but it requires a lot more homebrewing. If your game is running mostly fine, it may not be a good idea to sit down and try to rewrite massive chunks of the rules right in the middle of a campaign.

Then it's also a bad idea to ban something because "people are using it a lot" without thinking about the consequences.

[RoboEmperor]

Giving melee-types unique and interesting class abilities and/or subsystems that let them participate to a similar degree as casters is a good goal, but it requires a lot more homebrewing. If your game is running mostly fine, it may not be a good idea to sit down and try to rewrite massive chunks of the rules right in the middle of a campaign.

Isn't this ToB?

[Aetis]

Guys, I'm not trying to balance casters vs melees, or trying to buff ranged weapons or whatever. I'm already happy with where they are right now.

I like pounce and I support everyone having it. I'm not trying to take that away either.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

@The subsystem discussion

I again suggest Spheres of Might (possibly in combination with ToB/PoW) as that subsystem. It won’t give a Fighter the power/versatility of a 9th level Vancian caster, but if you also use Spheres of Power to rein those in a bit that isn’t a problem.

[Kobold Esq]

Eh, I just slapped some nerfs onto full casters (no Natural Spell, no druid companion, no DMM, no Divine Power, extremely limited scroll access for Wizards, etc.) and let everyone full attack as a standard action. Doesn't seem to have changed things much - actually, it makes beatstick monsters a bit more of a threat.

I've played 3.5 off and on for 15ish years. I can count on one hand the total number of DMM using clerics (1), and Natural Spell using druids (2). This is over a span of 50+ characters over 3-4 extended campaigns. Ditto the "pounce barbarian 1" issue. You guys are playing very different games from me.

[Kish]

I've played 3.5 off and on for 15ish years. I can count on one hand the total number of DMM using clerics (1), and Natural Spell using druids (2). This is over a span of 50+ characters over 3-4 extended campaigns. Ditto the "pounce barbarian 1" issue. You guys are playing very different games from me.
THANK YOU.

Sometimes I really feel like not being obsessed with hyperoptimizing makes me alone on the GitP forum.

[Deepbluediver]

I've played 3.5 off and on for 15ish years. I can count on one hand the total number of DMM using clerics (1), and Natural Spell using druids (2). This is over a span of 50+ characters over 3-4 extended campaigns. Ditto the "pounce barbarian 1" issue. You guys are playing very different games from me.

Sometimes I really feel like not being obsessed with hyperoptimizing makes me alone on the GitP forum.
Yes, the majority of my games never had any serious issues either. But homebrewing usually falls into one of two categories: making interesting new content, or fixing old problems. Since 3.5 was out for so long it tried out a lot of different things in the official material and accumulated a lot of imbalanced combos, particularly when optimization is brought into the question. This means that there's a natural push to at least consider those sort issues when homebrewing.

[RoboEmperor]

THANK YOU.

Sometimes I really feel like not being obsessed with hyperoptimizing makes me alone on the GitP forum.

So many people telling everyone they're playing the game badwrong for using material not in core...

[magicalmagicman]

So many people telling everyone they're playing the game badwrong for using material not in core...

Amen to that.

[Deepbluediver]

So many people telling everyone they're playing the game badwrong for using material not in core...
I think the parts of the game that have the most math applied to them (i.e. your mechanical build) are the things that can most objectively be said "you're doing it wrong sub-optimally". Even if you're here for the role-play and not the roll-play (which often includes myself), there's a tendency to say things like "if you just swap this one feat and dip this one class and exchange this one item, you can be 95% of the same character you want to be, but twice as powerful so why not take it?" It's not so much "you're doing it wrong!" as it's "let me help you do you, but better". It may me misguided and/or unwanted, but in my experience the majority of the time it's not done with an intent of malice.

[RoboEmperor]

I think the parts of the game that have the most math applied to them (i.e. your mechanical build) are the things that can most objectively be said "you're doing it wrong sub-optimally". Even if you're here for the role-play and not the roll-play (which often includes myself), there's a tendency to say things like "if you just swap this one feat and dip this one class and exchange this one item, you can be 95% of the same character you want to be, but twice as powerful so why not take it?" It's not so much "you're doing it wrong!" as it's "let me help you do you, but better". It may me misguided and/or unwanted, but in my experience the majority of the time it's not done with an intent of malice.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying there's lots of people that say optimization in any form is playing d&d badwrong.

DMM:Persist, Natural Spell, and Pounce are all fine unless the players go out of their way to optimize these to hell and back, and even then, I really only see DMM:Persist as a possible problem, never Pounce or Natural Spell, yet we have lots people who say those are OP, anyone who uses them is a TO player set out to break the game, and you're playing d&d wrong if the DM includes them in his game.

Notice the person I quoted. He's claiming these mid-op strategies are "hyperoptimization".

[Aetis]

They are not broken, and I see them at my table all the time.

Even DMM Persist is pretty manageable as long as you don't let the PCs double dip turning attempts/eat nightsticks like french fries.

Casters aren't broken, as long as you ban the obvious abuses.

[Deepbluediver]

They are not broken, and I see them at my table all the time.

Even DMM Persist is pretty manageable as long as you don't let the PCs double dip turning attempts/eat nightsticks like french fries.

Casters aren't broken, as long as you ban the obvious abuses.
If you have to ban obvious stuff to keep the balance in check, it's broken (and even leaving out the truly game-breaking stuff there's still a lot of things that are pretty badly balanced). Can you play a fine game without homebrew and have the casters get along with everyone else? Yes, so long as people abide by the gentleman's agreement. But that's because the players are playing well, not because the mechanics aren't abusable.

Most people operate under a "worst case scenario" type of mindset, and try to take that into account.


I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying there's lots of people that say optimization in any form is playing d&d badwrong.
I'm still not sure I get what point you're trying to make, then; could you please explain it another way?

[Aetis]

I never disagreed with you; there are broken things in the game.

I'm telling you to go ban them so the game stops being broken.

If you think something is badly balanced, ban them. If you think something is too strong and should be avoided as per gentlemen's agreement, ban them.

Eventually, you'll see that the game stops being broken.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm still not sure I get what point you're trying to make, then; could you please explain it another way?

There was no point. I was being snide. I was expressing my disapproval of Kish's comment.

You and I have no disagreements. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

[Akal Saris]

Yeah, seriously. It's annoying.

Going Barb 2 also gives you free improved trip.

Exactly! I never make builds with barb 1. 0 levels or 2 is where it's at! :P

[Deepbluediver]

I never disagreed with you; there are broken things in the game.

I'm telling you to go ban them so the game stops being broken.

If you think something is badly balanced, ban them. If you think something is too strong and should be avoided as per gentlemen's agreement, ban them.

Eventually, you'll see that the game stops being broken.
But when you choose to stop banning things depends largely on what kind of game you are trying to run- a Tier 3 Rogue might seem imbalanced compared to a Tier 5 Knight. Plus, while stuff might be mechanically imbalanced it has some cool ideas behind it, and I'd rather fix than ban.

Just as an aside, it's often a good idea to state any assumptions you're making at the start of a thread so people know what kind of group or game you are running, or what power-level you're aiming for. If you say something like "my games primarily use core 3.5 material and very rarely run into issues because of the level the players play at" that gives us some idea of what sort of setup you like. As a contrast, if someone said "I'm trying to keep it at Tier 3 or lower while being open to all 3.5 material but have had to ban large chunks of it because powergamers keep breaking the game world" then that presents a different scenario to take into account.



There was no point. I was being snide. I was expressing my disapproval of Kish's comment.

You and I have no disagreements. I pretty much agree with everything you said.
Ah ok, I see. Thank you.

[Flickerdart]

Exactly! I never make builds with barb 1. 0 levels or 2 is where it's at! :P
In my opinion, barbarian is a very well designed class for the first few levels.

Barbarian 1 is good, obviously. You get Pounce, your favourite flavor of Rage, big fat hit point boost, actual real skills and skill points. But a whole class level is a big price to pay! It delays class features! If your other class doesn't have class features that you want sooner, maybe it's not a good class. It's also not the barbarian's fault that melee prestige classes are gated behind BAB.

Barbarian 2 is juicy because Uncanny Dodge is out and Improved Trip is in. This is also not the barbarian's fault - Improved Trip is an important melee feat that's gated behind pointless ability score and feat prerequisites. Note that by taking 2 barbarian levels, your Reflex save has not been progressing, and your Will is only good if you have the right rage, and even then only when you rage. Suddenly, level 4 (for more rage) is looking good...

Level 3 is nifty if you didn't take Wolf Totem because now you can get more AC vs spells, or maybe the ability to smell traps with your cool senses and then smash them with your muscles. Some of the totems also give you stuff at this level.

Level 4 gives more rage, because your barbarian is mad that he doesn't get anything else this level.

Level 5 gives you some legitimately interesting options that a lot of melee classes don't get natively (fear aura! Track! climb speed! fortification!)

Level 6 is the start of disappointment since you traded out Trap Sense so you don't really get anything, it's a good time to jump ship. Unless you really want Streetfighter sub levels or can't take Extra Rage for some reason, 7+ is not worth it.

[ericgrau]

Aetis:

It sounds like your players found a good optimization trick and can't optimize well enough to find anything else. Personally I would just ban it and solve the problem in 5 seconds. It is way stronger than what it replaces and better than all other choices common to your table; that's practically the definition of what to ban in any game.

Giving it to everyone for free is also a semi-viable solution that's at least fair and won't ruin the game too much. Yeah, it's a little better than everyone dipping. But it also won't solve anything. More damage on melee does not help melee vs caster balance or anything else. If anything it breaks the game in more casual games while failing to address the issue on more highly optimized games. As people are pointing out it also reduces battle options instead of increasing them, which is generally a way to reduce fun and make melee battles more boring. But like I said if you instead want to give free pounce and move on, it's not the end of the world either. At least it opens up more build options that way.

It seems like your group is only moderately optimized and is unwilling to bring in certain things like ToB to take it further. The simplest way to keep everything fun and varied with no automatic choices like this is to chop off the top and bottom 5% of tricks and play with the 90% in the middle which mostly tends to be similar to each other. Playing with the top 5% that you see in optimization forums and then trying to bring everything else up to it without doing too much or too little is a big mess. Especially since the top 5% varies a lot more than the middle stuff. It may seem a little mean like you're taking away that 5% of options, but actually you're making the 90% more viable and giving many more fun choices to make.

What you can also do with many options instead of a ban is a nerf. For example if your players like the flavor of pounce and aren't just taking it because they have to, you could make them trade away more abilities (rage or rage+fast movement for example). Or limit the power of pounce somehow. For example with an attack roll penalty. Many people vastly underestimate attack roll penalties though, so go easy. Against tough foes -1 is 10% less hits, not 5%. So -5 practically negates any benefit, or worse if you're stacking penalties. -2 or -3 is good. Nerf enough so that players still take it sometimes because they like the style, but it isn't on most melee builds. For any ability "will take it sometimes but not most of the time" tells you that it is about right. "Never" or "automatic choice" is a red flag.

[Aetis]

Just as an aside, it's often a good idea to state any assumptions you're making at the start of a thread so people know what kind of group or game you are running, or what power-level you're aiming for. If you say something like "my games primarily use core 3.5 material and very rarely run into issues because of the level the players play at" that gives us some idea of what sort of setup you like. As a contrast, if someone said "I'm trying to keep it at Tier 3 or lower while being open to all 3.5 material but have had to ban large chunks of it because powergamers keep breaking the game world" then that presents a different scenario to take into account.


It's hard to describe the assumptions I play with, because I've taken so many bits and pieces from various books of 3.5.

Core, PHB2, Completes minus Divine + Psionic but Divine Metamagic Legal, Most of the Races books banned, Miniatures is legal, Libris banned but Nightstick is legal 1/day, Variant classes minus domain wizard and racial paragons from UA is legal, Riposte, Wild Cohort, Dead Eye, Hellfire Warlock, Swiftblade, Chameleon, Gun Mage is legal, Weapon Finesse is free and replaces str for damage, Hexblade uses the unofficial fix, glitterdust nerfed as per PF, polymorph and alter self banned, Caster level cap on damage spells removed, minor crowd control added to higher level damage spells like cone of cold, sorcerers and other classes with sorcerer-like casting progression added 0 to their highest spell per day at odd levels to equalize spell progression with wizards, various buffs to Barbarian, Bard, Knight, Paladin, Swashbuckler is gestalted with Duelist, Arcane Archer converted to PF, Archmage prerequisites and abilities adjusted down so that you can take it at lv 9 instead, changed pseudonatural subtype's true strike to quickened (Alienist buff), and countless other small buffs/nerfs to modulate the game.



It sounds like your players found a good optimization trick and can't optimize well enough to find anything else. Personally I would just ban it and solve the problem in 5 seconds. It is way stronger than what it replaces and better than all other choices common to your table; that's practically the definition of what to ban in any game.

I considered banning pounce, but I'm afraid that changes the combat metagame for the worse, since whoever charges in is now at an immense disadvantage, it will make for very passive fights where melees angle for positioning while ranged attack users and casters pound them.

[Deepbluediver]

It's hard to describe the assumptions I play with, because I've taken so many bits and pieces from various books of 3.5.

*snip*
....and countless other small buffs/nerfs to modulate the game.
Honestly it sounds a lot like you already have a pretty good handle on what your group wants and needs.

[Elkad]

It's hard to describe the assumptions I play with, because I've taken so many bits and pieces from various books of 3.5.

Core, PHB2, Completes minus Divine + Psionic but Divine Metamagic Legal, Most of the Races books banned, Miniatures is legal, Libris banned but Nightstick is legal 1/day, Variant classes minus domain wizard and racial paragons from UA is legal, Riposte, Wild Cohort, Dead Eye, Hellfire Warlock, Swiftblade, Chameleon, Gun Mage is legal, Weapon Finesse is free and replaces str for damage, Hexblade uses the unofficial fix, glitterdust nerfed as per PF, polymorph and alter self banned, Caster level cap on damage spells removed, minor crowd control added to higher level damage spells like cone of cold, sorcerers and other classes with sorcerer-like casting progression added 0 to their highest spell per day at odd levels to equalize spell progression with wizards, various buffs to Barbarian, Bard, Knight, Paladin, Swashbuckler is gestalted with Duelist, Arcane Archer converted to PF, Archmage prerequisites and abilities adjusted down so that you can take it at lv 9 instead, changed pseudonatural subtype's true strike to quickened (Alienist buff), and countless other small buffs/nerfs to modulate the game.




I considered banning pounce, but I'm afraid that changes the combat metagame for the worse, since whoever charges in is now at an immense disadvantage, it will make for very passive fights where melees angle for positioning while ranged attack users and casters pound them.

Are all your houserules collected somewhere you can share them?


My list wishes it could be like that.
Ideally, I'd take my copy of the USRD (starting point available at better tools of dnd illegal sites everywhere, or make your own starting with the OGL stuff - just don't publish it) and start editing the darn thing to reflect my houserules.
Realistically, I'll just houserule on the fly as it comes up, and then next campaign probably forget (or regret) that change and do something different. And because I don't keep any version control other than my own memory and maybe some old notes, I end up solving the same problems over and over.

[ericgrau]

I considered banning pounce, but I'm afraid that changes the combat metagame for the worse, since whoever charges in is now at an immense disadvantage, it will make for very passive fights where melees angle for positioning while ranged attack users and casters pound them.
I'd think the melee would have enough damage to still do well without pounce. Unless fights are all starting at long range or across obstacles. In which case maybe the party needs an archer. Or the melee can't figure out damage well. Oh well, it's not the end of the world. It's more like it creates a situation where the melee always rushes in instead of deciding whether or not to position and receive or to rush in.

It also sounds like you buffed ranged spell damage a little and tons of other house rules I don't know about so there's that. So who knows what works well with all that. I just know from what I can see that I'd play a sorcerer and BFC + blast away. PHB2 has sorcerer quicken too right? Then prestige right into archmage and grab mastery of elements. And maybe melee damage needs a bump to keep up with that or with who knows what. Once you open the pandora's box of changes new stuff just keeps coming.

[Aetis]

Sorry, let me explain a little bit better.

If I remove pounce, then melees are incentivized against moving into other melee creatures' range.

Like why should I get in close so that the other guy can full attack me to death? No, thank you.

I'm going to sit right here and let the other guy come into my melee range so I can full attack him first and kill him. (melee outdamages everything else in the game by a mile)

And then we have a stalemate.

[AnimeTheCat]

Sorry, let me explain a little bit better.

If I remove pounce, then melees are incentivized against moving into other melee creatures' range.

Like why should I get in close so that the other guy can full attack me to death? No, thank you.

I'm going to sit right here and let the other guy come into my melee range so I can full attack him first and kill him. (melee outdamages everything else in the game by a mile)

And then we have a stalemate.

I mean... there's such things as fighting defensively and combat expertise for that... enter combat defensively in preparation for the full attack. At level 5 you can get a +7 to your AC which should be enough to protect against a full attack.

Or if the character is based on tripping they can move+trip and prevent an effective full attack. There are quite a few effective tactics when move+full attack is off the table. Additionally, the knock down feat can be used for a standard charge +power attack (even on a one handed weapon attack).

I know that, as a player, it's always best to take out the target in one shot, but that's just not going to happen 100% of the time and it's unrealistic to expect it.

[ericgrau]

Sorry, let me explain a little bit better.

If I remove pounce, then melees are incentivized against moving into other melee creatures' range.

Like why should I get in close so that the other guy can full attack me to death? No, thank you.

I'm going to sit right here and let the other guy come into my melee range so I can full attack him first and kill him. (melee outdamages everything else in the game by a mile)

And then we have a stalemate.
Except it's usually better to hit first too. Especially compared to sitting there and doing nothing. Especially if others join in and you kill the guy, then he can't hit back. Only his buddy can maybe if he's in the right spot by coincidence. And melee are also usually better at receiving hits than their allies. The 2nd attack is at -5, it isn't everything. Maybe you're overthinking it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

(melee outdamages everything else in the game by a mile)

This makes me think there are more houserules at play that we don't know about.

[Kish]

Except it's usually better to hit first too. Especially compared to sitting there and doing nothing. Especially if others join in and you kill the guy, then he can't hit back. Only his buddy can maybe if he's in the right spot by coincidence. And melee are also usually better at receiving hits than their allies. The 2nd attack is at -5, it isn't everything. Maybe you're overthinking it.
Indeed. Aetis, I'm somewhat confused by your apparent belief that getting in a full attack is priceless but getting in one attack valueless.

However, making a "you can move and full attack" house rule, with or without requiring that movement to be a charge, will only buff melee, as long as it applies to NPCs as well as PCs.

[Aetis]

I mean... there's such things as fighting defensively and combat expertise for that... enter combat defensively in preparation for the full attack. At level 5 you can get a +7 to your AC which should be enough to protect against a full attack.

Or if the character is based on tripping they can move+trip and prevent an effective full attack. There are quite a few effective tactics when move+full attack is off the table. Additionally, the knock down feat can be used for a standard charge +power attack (even on a one handed weapon attack).

I know that, as a player, it's always best to take out the target in one shot, but that's just not going to happen 100% of the time and it's unrealistic to expect it.

Ah, yes. We reached the natural conclusion. In order to move into the enemy melee range, you must have sufficiently high AC to survive his full attack.

With this paradigm, high AC melee dominates the scene, armor-clad creatures bumping into each other like bumper cars, with access to very little mobility, and devoting what actions they have left into defense. As for tripping, well, fly is a 3rd level spell, so it's a tactic probably best reserved for campaigns that take place before fly comes online.

This probably describes what melee was like before pounce became a thing through the barbarian spirit totem. Low/clunky mobility and easily outmaneuvered by casters. While I certainly believe that it can be balanced and enjoyed, I think I would prefer to put a little bit more strength into the power of melee in my games.


Except it's usually better to hit first too. Especially compared to sitting there and doing nothing. Especially if others join in and you kill the guy, then he can't hit back. Only his buddy can maybe if he's in the right spot by coincidence. And melee are also usually better at receiving hits than their allies. The 2nd attack is at -5, it isn't everything. Maybe you're overthinking it.
Indeed. Aetis, I'm somewhat confused by your apparent belief that getting in a full attack is priceless but getting in one attack valueless.

However, making a "you can move and full attack" house rule, with or without requiring that movement to be a charge, will only buff melee, as long as it applies to NPCs as well as PCs.


Sorry, I'm more used to intense damage outputs of hasted pouncing uberchargers, easily capable of dealing max hp of generic characters and monsters alike. Unless you devoted a decent amount of your build to defense, opening up yourself to multiple pounce charges by enemy creatures usually meant losing most, if not all, of your hp in a single round.

You are probably right in that in the absence of all these feats that empower the damage output of 2 handed chargers, melee damage is more manageable, that you can afford to go in and go toe-to-toe with enemies, all while absorbing full attacks for your allies.

[Aetis]

This makes me think there are more houserules at play that we don't know about.

There aren't any. I found the damage output of uberchargers to be higher than anything else in the game. I guess you could beat it if you stack a lot of metamagic or something on a spell, but you can only do that few times a day, and you certainly wouldn't waste it on generic mooks, I don't think.

[ericgrau]

Sorry, I'm more used to intense damage outputs of hasted pouncing uberchargers, easily capable of dealing max hp of generic characters and monsters alike. Unless you devoted a decent amount of your build to defense, opening up yourself to multiple pounce charges by enemy creatures usually meant losing most, if not all, of your hp in a single round.
And monsters are all doing this too?

It seems like you're boosting the number of attacks but not the single attack damage? I mean if damage is boosted in other ways then that improves the odds of dropping a foe with a single attack in one round. Especially with ally help.

With adequate AC not all of those many attacks hit too. More like 1/4 to 1/2. So then it's not auto drop unless 1 hit is also a potential auto drop (depending on luck).

EDIT, sorry, I really should use preview more: Either way this isn't a 1v1 fight. Attacking first and letting the enemy full attack you is almost always better than standing there and doing nothing and letting the enemy single attack a non-melee ally... and you still can't full attack. And that's assuming the enemy doesn't die to allies after you single attack him.

[Aetis]

Yeah, actually, now that I think a bit more about it, I may have been overvaluing full attacks.

I think your argument makes sense, damage-to-hp ratio wise.

[Endarire]

For balance reasons, consider giving Pounce as a free ability to everyone with at least one class level so enemies don't just overwhelm parties due to Pounce, especially with Animals, Magical Beasts, and Vermin.

[Pleh]

For balance reasons, consider giving Pounce as a free ability to everyone with at least one class level so enemies don't just overwhelm parties due to Pounce, especially with Animals, Magical Beasts, and Vermin.

Or, to be possibly a bit more refined, specifically creatures that benefit from mutiple iterative attacks (not including natural attacks, obviously), so the martial characters still get a bit of a leg up on access to it than casters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There aren't any. I found the damage output of uberchargers to be higher than anything else in the game. I guess you could beat it if you stack a lot of metamagic or something on a spell, but you can only do that few times a day, and you certainly wouldn't waste it on generic mooks, I don't think.

Mail-man > ubercharger. But that's not super important.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that it's the full attack from pounce that makes charging dangerous. Not so. It's the PA modifiers that do it and most of them require the charge action. The full attack from pounce is just a chance to deliver all that gooey charging goodness more than once in a single turn.

Without the charge modifiers, most PC/ NPC full attacks can be weathered by nearly any front-liner and even some middle-row classes. Monster full attacks are another matter but smart PCs fight the enemy where they're weakest, not where they're strongest and "a fair fight is a fool's fight."

[Aetis]

Yes, charge based PA multipliers while full attacking using pounce is what I mean.

I agree that without the multipliers, PCs can handle the full-attack damage output, be it from other NPCs or monsters.

I've already banned excessive metamagic reducers you need for mailman builds.

You agree that nothing else in the game outdamages ubercharging, yes?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, charge based PA multipliers while full attacking using pounce is what I mean.

I agree that without the multipliers, PCs can handle the full-attack damage output, be it from other NPCs or monsters.

I've already banned excessive metamagic reducers you need for mailman builds.

You agree that nothing else in the game outdamages ubercharging, yes?

Eh, massive strength with myriad attacks is also doable but it's a lot more involved. Gets a lot more out of pounce than a typical ubercharger too since it's much more reliant on full attacks.

To answer your question though: barring a defender with the elusive target feat, nothing out damages stock ubercharging once you take a nerf bat to the mailman. Not if you're going for broke, anyway.

[Aetis]

Well, anyway, I'll give both move + full attack and pounce to everyone and see how that works out.

[Deepbluediver]

Well, anyway, I'll give both move + full attack and pounce to everyone and see how that works out.
Let us know! It's always cool to see reports on how homebrew worked for different groups, and what people concluded about the change.