Allowing Standard Action Full Attacks

[heavyfuel]

For my next game, I intend to allow characters to make a full attack as a Standard Action.

This does present some peculiarities that the system didn't intend, and the point of this thread is to try and solve these "issues".

Peculiarity #1 - Being on the receiving end of a Dragon

Gargantuan dragons have 6 natural attacks and very high move speed. This makes dragons able one-shot or at least deal massive amounts of damage to anyone.

Personally, I don't think this is a big problem because larger dragons are extremely under-CRed (A Red Wyrm at CR 24 is laughable), but I can see why some people might take issue with it.

You can swap the word "Dragon" there for any big bruiser, but I think the conclusion will be similar.

Peculiarity #2 - Scouts deal too much damage

Yeah, this makes Skirmish on a full attack pretty much automatic. Which is not really a problem because every scout already finds ways to do this. Dipping Cleric or Lion Totem Barbarian are very common, as is using Anklets of Translocation (assuming the DM allows teleports to activate Skirmish)

This makes the class more straight forward and that's a good thing.

Peculiarity #3 - Factotums deal too much damage

Don't even get me started on this poorly written class. If your DM allows you to stack IP every fight and use Cunning Surge as a free action a dozen times so that you can one-shot anyone when needed, then it's a problem.

This can be solved by saying that Cunning Surge is a Swift Action to activate. Or by straight up banning the class, which I'll probably do

Peculiarity #4 - Belt of Battle

It already allows for swift action full attack, this only saves you one charge, which can only be used for a movement. A small buff to an already strong piece of equipment. Can be solved by a raise in price or by letting it be.

Peculiarity #5 - Manyshot is now useless

I like the idea behind the Manyshot feat. Maybe we can say that Manyshot lets you add one arrow similar to Rapid Shot with -4 penalty (instead of -2 for every attack). Dunno how to make it useful.

Did I miss any? Any feedback is welcome.

[OgresAreCute]

Regarding point #1, I've seen people suggest allowing player characters to full attack on a standard action, but not NPCs. This does create a rule asymmetry between players and monsters that some won't like, but it makes life easier for martials without messing with the game's "balance" too much.

[heavyfuel]

Regarding point #1, I've seen people suggest allowing player characters to full attack on a standard action, but not NPCs. This does create a rule asymmetry between players and monsters that some won't like, but it makes life easier for martials without messing with the game's "balance" too much.

I'm definitely part of the group that doesn't like such asymmetry. If I'm going to allow it, it's gonna be for everyone.

[Nifft]

To point #1, many Dragons could just take a level of Spirit Totem Lion Barbarian. For the Lawful bunch, there's the Wyrm of War sovereign archetype, or level(s) of Warblade or Swordsage. That means it's already at the DM's discretion to allow Dragons who do or don't Pounce.

Personally I'd like to take a few pages from 5e and even 4e solo critter design, and make Dragons have fewer on-turn attacks but in trade gain more interesting off-turn retaliation / interrupt abilities.


To point #2, Scouts and Rogues are more of a threat as NPCs, but that's not terrible -- the evolved 3.5e meta has given PCs a lot of interrupt abilities, and they'd already want those against other threats so it's not a new niche defense. Rogues getting a full-attack after Tumbling into position is frankly stronger than anything a Scout could do, but that's not terrible since it's much more easily interrupted.


#3 -- Yeah if you allow Factotum that's your own problem, it's not a good class even with this change.


#4 -- That belt could use a re-price, sure. Also stuff like White Raven Tactics might be modified to give a single attack, or not modified if your balance point is spellcasting and you want sword-people to have nice things.



Overall I think where this change breaks the game is just a few monsters, and those monsters should be re-written to be more interesting anyway.

[heavyfuel]

snip

Nice feedback as usual, thanks! You did ninja my edit about point #5, Manyshot. Care to comment about it?

[Deophaun]

This can be solved by saying that Cunning Surge is a Swift Action to activate.
For me, that would make take the class from being marginal to just being unplayable. Swift actions get stretched very thin later on, and limiting a class's primary feature to them just kneecaps the class. Factotums aren't overpowered and don't need the nerf. Just have the pool reset every encounter and there's no problem.

[Nifft]

Nice feedback as usual, thanks! You did ninja my edit about point #5, Manyshot. Care to comment about it?

Yeah, I think you're basically right. Manyshot is largely obsolete with this.

It could be replaced with a different mechanic that allows you to trade your iterative attacks for one bigger attack, with some kind of bonus damage to help you punch through tough DR -- ideally this would deal less than maximum critical damage, but more than double base damage, and with lower variance (since the whole point would be to punch through DR or hardness).

Something like...
- As a standard action, make one attack with 5e advantage (i.e. roll twice, take better), but you can't crit.
- If you hit, deal base damage and add your BAB as bonus damage for each iterative you could have made -- so +6 damage at BAB 6, +22 damage at BAB 11, +48 damage at BAB 16, up to +60 damage at BAB 20.

Call it Sharpshooter or Sniper maybe.


... or just throw it away and give Rangers something else.

[zlefin]

brainstorming some possible solutions;

1 - standard action full attacks are limited to 4 attacks
or some sort of requirement to spread around the full attack a bit.

2- just lower the skirmish damage bonus?

4- price raise seems best.

5- manyshot - for each arrow you'd normally fire due to your iteratives (including the first), you fire an extra arrow at -6 (-6 relative to that iterative)? each of these arrows has to be fired at the target its associated iterative was fired at.

[Telok]

I think the real benifit with manyshot is that it is one attack roll, so it benefits from 'next attack' boosts more than a full attack. Cut the pre-reqs down to bab 6+ and it will be ok.

[daremetoidareyo]

The 1st level synchronicity power (use hidden talent!) just got way better.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The "monster gets to full attack" problem is mostly an issue at the lower levels, where for instance a couple of wolverines might pop up from a burrow and tear a flatfooted PC apart on round 1. I'd make "full attack as a standard action" a feature of obtaining BaB +6 and call it a day. Maybe throw a bone to Monks and let them flurry as a standard action before level 8.

[Bucky]

The main pitfalls I see here are:
* A character can full attack during the surprise round. Combine with a bit of, say, Sneak Attack, and it means a PC is likely to start combat on the floor and bleeding out... so in practice you need to avoid running a stealth ambush scenario with sneak attack involved.
* A character can full attack as a readied action. The best uses for this are probably forcing concentration checks from casters *without* giving up DPR to do so, and disarming with the first strike of a full attack while also doing damage.

A bunch of advanced melee tactics also get comparatively worse. For example, tripping or disarming is worth less when the victim can stand up or retrieve their weapon and then full attack (the readied action version works because the target has already used an action), charging is comparatively less effective so plugging charge lanes isn't a big deal except for long charges and initiators give up DPR to use their fancy strikes.

[ManicOppressive]

I give Fighters Pounce at 6 and Full Attacks as Standard Actions at level 12. (I also give them some other goodies but that's not the point.) I also give them feats at every level they don't get a class feature, and the end result is a usable class that gets around a rule I agree definitely should be more cirumventable.

NPCs can just not be Fighters, or the Fighters can be few and far between.

[heavyfuel]

Yeah, I think you're basically right. Manyshot is largely obsolete with this.

It could be replaced with a different mechanic that allows you to trade your iterative attacks for one bigger attack, with some kind of bonus damage to help you punch through tough DR -- ideally this would deal less than maximum critical damage, but more than double base damage, and with lower variance (since the whole point would be to punch through DR or hardness).

Something like...
- As a standard action, make one attack with 5e advantage (i.e. roll twice, take better), but you can't crit.
- If you hit, deal base damage and add your BAB as bonus damage for each iterative you could have made -- so +6 damage at BAB 6, +22 damage at BAB 11, +48 damage at BAB 16, up to +60 damage at BAB 20.

Call it Sharpshooter or Sniper maybe.


... or just throw it away and give Rangers something else.


I think the real benifit with manyshot is that it is one attack roll, so it benefits from 'next attack' boosts more than a full attack. Cut the pre-reqs down to bab 6+ and it will be ok.

Good points regarding Manyshot. A single attack that has more power to it can be used to help pierce DR, which is something archers struggle with. What do you guys think about drawing inspiration from the Vital Strike line of feats from PF? Double/triple/quadruple weapon damage dice at 6/11/16 BAB but add other modifiers only once?



5- manyshot - for each arrow you'd normally fire due to your iteratives (including the first), you fire an extra arrow at -6 (-6 relative to that iterative)? each of these arrows has to be fired at the target its associated iterative was fired at.

I'm not sure I understood your idea, can you elaborate it?


The 1st level synchronicity power (use hidden talent!) just got way better.

That's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Things that get potentially broken. Guess I'll have to work something if anyone wants to play a Psion.


The "monster gets to full attack" problem is mostly an issue at the lower levels, where for instance a couple of wolverines might pop up from a burrow and tear a flatfooted PC apart on round 1. I'd make "full attack as a standard action" a feature of obtaining BaB +6 and call it a day. Maybe throw a bone to Monks and let them flurry as a standard action before level 8.

Fair enough. I imagine monks and TWFers should get standard action full attack from the get go. Maybe also allow creatures with Multiattack to do it.


The main pitfalls I see here are:
* A character can full attack during the surprise round. Combine with a bit of, say, Sneak Attack, and it means a PC is likely to start combat on the floor and bleeding out... so in practice you need to avoid running a stealth ambush scenario with sneak attack involved.
* A character can full attack as a readied action. The best uses for this are probably forcing concentration checks from casters *without* giving up DPR to do so, and disarming with the first strike of a full attack while also doing damage.

A bunch of advanced melee tactics also get comparatively worse. For example, tripping or disarming is worth less when the victim can stand up or retrieve their weapon and then full attack (the readied action version works because the target has already used an action), charging is comparatively less effective so plugging charge lanes isn't a big deal except for long charges and initiators give up DPR to use their fancy strikes.

Interesting points. I hadn't thought about full attack during the surprise round but this helps out mostly Ranged Rogues, and they need some love with half the creatures being immune to their main damage source.

As for the readied actions, this is actually good. Allows for a more tactical approach rather than hitting things till they die.

I know this is going to sound controversial after my last phrase, but trippers need to be taken down a peg. I'd argue it's the one change Pathfinder did right was stopping annoying trippers. Disarming does get the unfortunate short end of the stick. Maybe I can let people disarm by tossing the weapon into a different square (so now they need to use a move action to get to the square, and another move action to equip their weapon)

Initiators getting less DPR is ok, I guess. They trade damage for utility. It's fine, and usually considered a good trade.


I give Fighters Pounce at 6 and Full Attacks as Standard Actions at level 12. (I also give them some other goodies but that's not the point.) I also give them feats at every level they don't get a class feature, and the end result is a usable class that gets around a rule I agree definitely should be more cirumventable.

NPCs can just not be Fighters, or the Fighters can be few and far between.

I'm actually re-working the Fighter class for this game. This is more to help martials in general, from Rogues to Paladins.

[Elkad]

This discussion comes up a lot.
I split the difference.

Quoting myself.




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.

[Telok]

Good points regarding Manyshot. A single attack that has more power to it can be used to help pierce DR, which is something archers struggle with. What do you guys think about drawing inspiration from the Vital Strike line of feats from PF? Double/triple/quadruple weapon damage dice at 6/11/16 BAB but add other modifiers only once?

That's fine if you also drop the attack penalty. Because arrows are only a d6/d8 it's your bonus damage that's doing the heavy lifting, just like Power Attack. As printed, Manyshot is only good for people who can throw a bunch of +damage on and then use Truestrike or something similar. Even then it's either a niche build thing or for some reason you don't have anything better to do with your feats.

[Ghen]

Maybe I can let people disarm by tossing the weapon into a different square (so now they need to use a move action to get to the square, and another move action to equip their weapon)

If you're doing this, consider adapting the rules for missing with a thrown weapon as an easy way to determine where the weapon lands. That should be fair.

What if we just tone down the big rules change a bit? Like, instead of getting to full attack as a standard action, just say you can only do that after you've been not flat-footed for one round. This is still a drastic change, but just not quite as drastic as it was.

Here's how it would look in combat:

Surprise round- works just like it normally does, with no modification.

Round following the surprise round- For creatures who went in the surprise round, this is the first round following them being "not flat-footed", so they can now do full attacks as standard actions. Every body who didn't go in the surprise round can't, because this is still their first round of non flat-footed-ness.

Round following that round- Now everyone can full attack as standard actions. Duskblades rejoice.

Note that allowing manyshot to do one big attack instead of it's current function will make it very easy to do massive damage in one hit, forcing the fort-save-or-die scenario much more often. If you use that unpopular rule, that is.

[heavyfuel]

That's fine if you also drop the attack penalty. Because arrows are only a d6/d8 it's your bonus damage that's doing the heavy lifting, just like Power Attack. As printed, Manyshot is only good for people who can throw a bunch of +damage on and then use Truestrike or something similar. Even then it's either a niche build thing or for some reason you don't have anything better to do with your feats.

Yeah, dropping the attack penalty is kind of the point. It's one attack that's very easy to hit and can better pierce DR.

I did do some calculations, and found it somewhat underwhelming, though. I might allow for weapon damage and some bonuses to multiply, so you also multiply enhancement bonuses and special properties (like flaming)


If you're doing this, consider adapting the rules for missing with a thrown weapon as an easy way to determine where the weapon lands. That should be fair.

What if we just tone down the big rules change a bit? Like, instead of getting to full attack as a standard action, just say you can only do that after you've been not flat-footed for one round. This is still a drastic change, but just not quite as drastic as it was.

Here's how it would look in combat:

Surprise round- works just like it normally does, with no modification.

Round following the surprise round- For creatures who went in the surprise round, this is the first round following them being "not flat-footed", so they can now do full attacks as standard actions. Every body who didn't go in the surprise round can't, because this is still their first round of non flat-footed-ness.

Round following that round- Now everyone can full attack as standard actions. Duskblades rejoice.

Note that allowing manyshot to do one big attack instead of it's current function will make it very easy to do massive damage in one hit, forcing the fort-save-or-die scenario much more often. If you use that unpopular rule, that is.

It's been so long since anyone used a thrown weapon that I honestly don't remember this rule. Is it 1d8 to determine the square? Anyway, that's how I intend to make it.

I don't see why you paint full attacks during surprise round as a bad thing. It only helps Ranged Rogues, and Ranged Rogues need that help.


This discussion comes up a lot.
I split the difference.

Quoting myself.

It's at most a 60ft move before the full attack. In many situations it's a 20ft move. If the squishy caster is in a position to be hit after 60ft it's because they are badly positioned. Like I said, Dragons are a problem because of very high move speed, but they should be a problem anyway.

Did it really come up so often that you had to make it half move?

[Bucky]

I would make the disarming rule "the weapon flies 5' in the same direction as the attack". But regardless of the implementation, the target can draw a second weapon and full attack.

[ngilop]

I think you should just limit it to classes that are meant for combat (i.e full Base Attack Bonus classes) and monsters where BaB=HD.

I have done this for ever with my games and at no point did anything seem to be too powerful, after all a wizard at 10th level can do like 100-ish acid damage to everything, and still move (that's without regular GiTP optimizing) why is a fighter ony allowed 1 attack if he moves 10 feet?


I think giving it to classes who main focus is NOT combat, like a factotum, scout, or rogue but other things is where it falls apart as you pointing out in your introductory post.


in regards to dragons; they are dragons and a party SHOULD be worried about fighting one and suffering a loss or three.

[heavyfuel]

I would make the disarming rule "the weapon flies 5' in the same direction as the attack". But regardless of the implementation, the target can draw a second weapon and full attack.

They still lose their main weapon though. How many enemies have a side arm that's as magically improved as their main weapon?

[heavyfuel]

I think you should just limit it to classes that are meant for combat (i.e full Base Attack Bonus classes) and monsters where BaB=HD.

I have done this for ever with my games and at no point did anything seem to be too powerful, after all a wizard at 10th level can do like 100-ish acid damage to everything, and still move (that's without regular GiTP optimizing) why is a fighter ony allowed 1 attack if he moves 10 feet?


I think giving it to classes who main focus is NOT combat, like a factotum, scout, or rogue but other things is where it falls apart as you pointing out in your introductory post.


in regards to dragons; they are dragons and a party SHOULD be worried about fighting one and suffering a loss or three.

So, screwing over Monks and Rogues? What about multiclassing characters?

I don't think things fall apart. Scout's DPR is already pitiful if they can't get full attack skirmish, same for the rogue. The factotum is a problem in and of itself, regardless of better standard actions.

And yeah, I agree with you on the Dragon matter.

[Elkad]

It's at most a 60ft move before the full attack. In many situations it's a 20ft move. If the squishy caster is in a position to be hit after 60ft it's because they are badly positioned. Like I said, Dragons are a problem because of very high move speed, but they should be a problem anyway.

Did it really come up so often that you had to make it half move?

Making it a straight line was the important change. Allowing half-move was throwing a small bone back to the mobile melee types, and I'm less convinced I like that part. I may pull it back out next campaign.

Yes, it (full attack as a standard) was a problem. Mr Barbarian (with a simple haste) runs 70' around all the frontliners (or past, tanking the AoOs) and shreds the wizard/archer/healer in the back, who was trying to work within the confines of 30' precision damage range or Close range spells or Touch range support spells or simply trapped in a room.

And the Barbarian isn't even really fast compared to people who put even a tiny bit of optimization into speed.

So I settled on "as a full round action, you can move up to your speed in a straight line and then full attack"

[heavyfuel]

Making it a straight line was the important change. Allowing half-move was throwing a small bone back to the mobile melee types, and I'm less convinced I like that part. I may pull it back out next campaign.

Yes, it (full attack as a standard) was a problem. Mr Barbarian (with a simple haste) runs 70' around all the frontliners (or past, tanking the AoOs) and shreds the wizard/archer/healer in the back, who was trying to work within the confines of 30' precision damage range or Close range spells or Touch range support spells or simply trapped in a room.

And the Barbarian isn't even really fast compared to people who put even a tiny bit of optimization into speed.

So I settled on "as a full round action, you can move up to your speed in a straight line and then full attack"

Isn't that just allowing Mr. Barbarian to be effective at what he's supposed to be doing?

[Bucky]

It's making the strikers and tacklers so good at doing their jobs that it makes the area-control melee role impossible.

[Endril]

Something I'm considering doing in my games is allowing a "blitz" attack. This would work like a charge, but instead of getting to move double, you can move up to your base movement and make a full attack. This would allow you to do something similar to what you're suggesting, and it may not mess with as many mechanics.

[cartejos]

Perhaps an answer lies in the qualities that facilitate iterative in the first place.

You get iteratives for every 5 points of base attack bonus you have above 1.

Would the baseline for standard action iteratives be a simply higher BAB quality?

Perhaps every 7 or 8 points of BAB you have above 1 allows you to make an additional melee attack as a standard.
This would limit the number of attacks pre-epic to 3, giving the full-attack action still some merit and use, while not leaving anyone too in misery about their standard actions going to waste later.

[Nifft]

So I settled on "as a full round action, you can move up to your speed in a straight line and then full attack"

That's also pretty good.

Your rule preserves the (limited) boost from White Raven Tactics / Belt of Battle, and also preserves the nerf that Slow and Trip each usually impose.

Pounce still retains value because it allows you to Charge (for +2 to attack rolls) and make a full attack, but it's no longer the main way to move and full attack. Hmm.

Actually on reflection I think your idea is excellent, and I'll probably use it for my own games.

[BassoonHero]

Peculiarity #5 - Manyshot is now useless

Just rewrite the feat:


Whenever you make a ranged attack with a bow, you can fire two arrows simultaneously at the same target. Make a single ranged attack with a -4 penalty. If you hit, then the attack deals additional damage equal to the base damage of the extra arrow, plus any special damage modifiers that apply to the extra arrow (such as a magical enhancement bonus). If the bow bestows effects upon its ammunition, it only bestows that effect upon the first arrow.

The feat could also apply to throwing light weapons like daggers or darts.

[Elkad]

Isn't that just allowing Mr. Barbarian to be effective at what he's supposed to be doing?

When the tank stands in front of the wizard, the barbarian should have to waste a round killing the tank. Or at least waste a round going around him.
Same with a Grease square instead of a Tank.


That's also pretty good.

Your rule preserves the (limited) boost from White Raven Tactics / Belt of Battle, and also preserves the nerf that Slow and Trip each usually impose.

Pounce still retains value because it allows you to Charge (for +2 to attack rolls) and make a full attack, but it's no longer the main way to move and full attack. Hmm.

Actually on reflection I think your idea is excellent, and I'll probably use it for my own games.

Yup. Mobility boosters (Hustle, Sudden Leap, Travel Devotion, etc) retain their value. Area control still works. Positioning matters, as you can still hide behind a friendly. Charge (possibly with Pounce) still gets you a double-move and that to-hit bonus (plus possible charge-enhancers to damage). Move+fullattack doesn't overwrite move+maneuver either, it's just competitive. Spring attack lets you spread your attacks all over your move, and change directions, so it still has value.

[heavyfuel]

Just rewrite the feat:

The feat could also apply to throwing light weapons like daggers or darts.

It's what I intend to do. Nice idea to allow light weapons as well.


When the tank stands in front of the wizard, the barbarian should have to waste a round killing the tank. Or at least waste a round going around him.
Same with a Grease square instead of a Tank.

It's making the strikers and tacklers so good at doing their jobs that it makes the area-control melee role impossible.

Isn't BFC a really strong strategy? There's a reason God Wizards and Druids are considered super strong combatants and it's because both of these classes have BFC spell out the wahzoo. This without even mentioning their other options.

For mundanes, trippers are widely considered the one of, if not the best form of melee.

If BFC takes a hit from characters being able to move and full attack, I see little downside.

[Elkad]

I thought much the same. I ran a game that way. It got out of hand. Formations and positioning were useless. You just built for speed and full-attacked whoever you wanted, anywhere on the battlefield. Especially once flight was involved.

After discussion with the players, we went to my current system.

Maybe your players are different. Go ahead and try it.

[heavyfuel]

I thought much the same. I ran a game that way. It got out of hand. Formations and positioning were useless. You just built for speed and full-attacked whoever you wanted, anywhere on the battlefield. Especially once flight was involved.

After discussion with the players, we went to my current system.

Maybe your players are different. Go ahead and try it.

Why are you thinking about disallowing half-move plus full attack? Even with flight you can't usually close in someone with half a move action.

[gooddragon1]

I'd just go for a feat that gives decisive strike as a standard action. Prerequisites of +6 BAB for 2x and +15 BAB for 3x.

You effectively get the results of 2 or 3 attacks consolidated into a single attack. Your accuracy is higher (without iteratives) and it allows you an easier time of getting through DR. You don't get all 4 attacks (or more) and things like the flaming enhancement don't carry over, but you could power attack for more in some cases. Does have the disadvantage of being riskier against miss chances.

[Elkad]

Why are you thinking about disallowing half-move plus full attack? Even with flight you can't usually close in someone with half a move action.

It's the more fiddly bit of the system, and less necessary.

As to not closing? People close with Tumble all the time, and that's half-speed for at least part of the move.
A move rate of 60-70 (30-35 when halved) is pretty much normal by 5th level, and speeds just keep increasing after that. Haste is the biggest jump, but people will add more.

The game I'm in as a player (so not using this rule), my 9th level character typically moves 100' on the ground, plus Hustle or Dimension Hop as needed. (Xeph with Freedom Mantle and Haste. Only moderate speed optimization).

With flight (especially fast flight - like the 150 unbuffed from most dragons) then Pounce starts to lose it's value. Might as well just fly over at half and bash away.

[Zombimode]

If you are absolutely set with the idea of allowing full attacks in some way as Standard Actions I think it is worth it to give it a try - just to see the results.


Full attacks as Standard Actions remove one of the most vital aspects of the combat portion of the game and results in the removal of a huge chunk of viable tactical decisions, especially defensive maneuvers.

That doesn't mean this rule should never be modified. But one should be aware of how central and critical this rule is.

[Kelnath]

Isn't this a big bad nerf on every Spellcaster class?

[heavyfuel]

It's the more fiddly bit of the system, and less necessary.

As to not closing? People close with Tumble all the time, and that's half-speed for at least part of the move.
A move rate of 60-70 (30-35 when halved) is pretty much normal by 5th level, and speeds just keep increasing after that. Haste is the biggest jump, but people will add more.

The game I'm in as a player (so not using this rule), my 9th level character typically moves 100' on the ground, plus Hustle or Dimension Hop as needed. (Xeph with Freedom Mantle and Haste. Only moderate speed optimization).

With flight (especially fast flight - like the 150 unbuffed from most dragons) then Pounce starts to lose it's value. Might as well just fly over at half and bash away.

Tumble (usually) is only half move for one square till you're in the clear and, even then, I often I see people using a double move to close in on the backliners.

Your table seems indeed more optimized on speed than mine. I think the fastest character we ever had was one of mine with a 90ft move speed. That's just one character, everyone else had 40 (20 + haste) or so.

And isn't optimizing for speed an already viable tactic? This character of mine's strategy was to swift action move (Travel Devotion) and full-attack with Spring Attack (the Premium PHB's version allows for it) then run back to avoid an enemy full attack.

He was strong, but he wasn't by any means broken strong.

I think I might allow a full-round action with half move + full attack. See how it goes. I honestly don't think there will be many problems.


If you are absolutely set with the idea of allowing full attacks in some way as Standard Actions I think it is worth it to give it a try - just to see the results.

Full attacks as Standard Actions remove one of the most vital aspects of the combat portion of the game and results in the removal of a huge chunk of viable tactical decisions, especially defensive maneuvers.

That doesn't mean this rule should never be modified. But one should be aware of how central and critical this rule is.

I'm very aware this is a big change. It's the reason I posted here. Despite a dozen older threads on the topic, I felt none of them fully answered my questions about such implementation.


Isn't this a big bad nerf on every Spellcaster class?

Only indirectly. Buffing melee characters just makes them squishier, but they are still very strong. This also helps gishes, who are also spellcasters but like to full attack as well

[Aetis]

I am greatly interested in this subject, and I will be glad if you could update the thread with how your experimentation goes.

[Cosi]

Isn't this a big bad nerf on every Spellcaster class?

Only relatively speaking. The real problem is that it doesn't really make the gap between Gishes and traditional Martials any smaller. Your Gish usually has a full attack routine at least as good as an equal level Martial, so he's getting as much advantage or more from this (not to mention he's probably faster). Providing uniform buffs to weapon combat just makes the gap between Cleric Archers and everyone else bigger.

[Aetis]

I am greatly interested in this subject, and I will be glad if you could update the thread with how your experimentation goes.

I attempted to fix the problem by just giving everyone pounce. Now, only thing people play is uberchargers.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, but I would like to explore other options that allow for more than one melee archetype.

[BassoonHero]

To prop up tanking, I suggest the following:

- Instead of making a full attack a standard action, let characters move their speed during a full attack.
- Make tumbling more difficult. For example, make the DC to avoid an AoO the defender's Combat Maneuver Defense.
- Give martial characters a built-in way to limit foes' mobility. For example, taking an AoO might cost you half your movement.

[Troacctid]

You could also limit standard action full attacks to only the extra attacks granted by BAB, not natural weapons or Haste or whatever.

[Elkad]

Your table seems indeed more optimized on speed than mine. I think the fastest character we ever had was one of mine with a 90ft move speed. That's just one character, everyone else had 40 (20 + haste) or so.

When you can standard+full, speed becomes more valuable.

Or maybe your DM just doesn't make you run for your life as often :)
If you can't outrun a dragon in flight, you may just be doomed at an early level.

[ManicOppressive]

I'm actually re-working the Fighter class for this game. This is more to help martials in general, from Rogues to Paladins.

Yeah, I've got individual reworks for them too. I tried to make Fighters into the most flexible class--I give them feats every level except the 3s where I give them, in order, 1/2 Fighter level to Initiative and AC, Pounce, all Exotic Weapon Proficiency, standard action full attacks, a DM custom signature fighting move, and finally an 8th level maneuver and stance regardless of prereqs at 18 because I ran out of ideas. (I also let Fighter levels count 1 for 1 as Initiator Levels)

I gave Paladins /at will Smite Evil that progresses to allow more and more of a full-attack to be Smite Evils as the Paladin levels, instead of uses/day; etc.

I mostly bring this up to say, I've been making sweeping buffs across the martial and skillful classes over a lot of gaming groups and still haven't had any trouble with them overpowering casters. By the time a full pounce build can come online in any sort of meaningful way a caster can respond by readying a Plane Shift targeting whichever enemy enters melee range first. Earlier than that, casters still have absolute dominion over teleportation and flight. Later than that, casters start absolutely breaking the game with crap like gates and time stops, so why not let the martials break the game by breaking faces? This is 3.5, nothing is balanced because Thanos died in one round to a Gibbering Orb before he could close his fist and some GM homebrew chaos god stole the infinity gauntlet.

Hell I've been specifically designing feat lines spun off of the Mage Killer. Nothing says "indirect nerf to spellcasters" like a Disjunction strike feat on a feat-chain that lowers CL by 16.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Isn't BFC a really strong strategy? There's a reason God Wizards and Druids are considered super strong combatants and it's because both of these classes have BFC spell out the wahzoo. This without even mentioning their other options.

For mundanes, trippers are widely considered the one of, if not the best form of melee.

If BFC takes a hit from characters being able to move and full attack, I see little downside.

I'd say it makes BFC more important, not less. In addition to making the game even more into rocket tag.
It doesn't matter if you can move and full attack as a standard action if you can't move into attack range or need to use your move action to stand up after being tripped by someone with more reach.
Trippers aren't just considered one of the best forms of melee because BFC is good, it's also because it's one of the few things they can do that isn't pure damage.

In my experience melee have no problem doing enough damage. Between various forms of swift action movement and pounce being able to move + full attack is pretty much a given in a mid-op game.
So the only thing your change will do is make builds and itemization more flexible and free up melees swift actions. Which is a buff, sure, but if you want to actually make melee more relevant you have to give them options to contribute that aren't just damage, not more damage.

[Eldariel]

Dragons with at least 1st level casting already have access to Blood Wind-spell, which allows them to make full melee attacks at 100' with all their attacks as a swift action. Any Dragon with any casting probably has it, so there's that. This way they at least have to close in to melee to do it.

Bottomline, the game works much better and smoother this way but you'll have to look into Pounce options and Charges in general to see if it's in line; if standard action allows full attack and charges don't, charges are a really poor idea, but charge has so many multipliers available that charge full attacks are inherently problematic.

[liquidformat]

Perhaps an answer lies in the qualities that facilitate iterative in the first place.

You get iteratives for every 5 points of base attack bonus you have above 1.

Would the baseline for standard action iteratives be a simply higher BAB quality?

Perhaps every 7 or 8 points of BAB you have above 1 allows you to make an additional melee attack as a standard.
This would limit the number of attacks pre-epic to 3, giving the full-attack action still some merit and use, while not leaving anyone too in misery about their standard actions going to waste later.

Honestly I think this sounds like perhaps the best way to handle the full attack on a standard, it gives a bonus based on BAB and doesn't require a massive overhaul or evaluation of other rules to be functional.

To give you an example of how easily I can break your full attack as a standard I present to you blade dancer prc, going barbarian6/duskblade1/blade dancer10. Screw your difficult terrain and most of your battlefield control spells, I will use my leap attack feat and just jump around the battle field avoiding anything I don't want to deal with and kill everything.

[heavyfuel]

Dragons with at least 1st level casting already have access to Blood Wind-spell, which allows them to make full melee attacks at 100' with all their attacks as a swift action. Any Dragon with any casting probably has it, so there's that. This way they at least have to close in to melee to do it.

Bottomline, the game works much better and smoother this way but you'll have to look into Pounce options and Charges in general to see if it's in line; if standard action allows full attack and charges don't, charges are a really poor idea, but charge has so many multipliers available that charge full attacks are inherently problematic.

Yup, this spell was made for Dragons. Ubercharging will still be a valid thing to do, this just opens up more opportunities for being able to smash face without having to dip Barbarian.


I'd say it makes BFC more important, not less. In addition to making the game even more into rocket tag.
It doesn't matter if you can move and full attack as a standard action if you can't move into attack range or need to use your move action to stand up after being tripped by someone with more reach.
Trippers aren't just considered one of the best forms of melee because BFC is good, it's also because it's one of the few things they can do that isn't pure damage.

In my experience melee have no problem doing enough damage. Between various forms of swift action movement and pounce being able to move + full attack is pretty much a given in a mid-op game.
So the only thing your change will do is make builds and itemization more flexible and free up melees swift actions. Which is a buff, sure, but if you want to actually make melee more relevant you have to give them options to contribute that aren't just damage, not more damage.

Meh, game is already super rocket tag. This just expands rocket tag capacity from "Uberchargers and Caster only" to "Hey, you can kill this guy in a round even if you're not super optimized to deal a billion damage or cast OP spells"

You can't move and full attack after the trip, but you can still full attack the tripper in the face (assuming you can take a 5ft step). Even if trippers is about utility, they bring the game to a freaking halt. Nerfs to them are most welcome.

If your table has everyone already moving and full attacking, then why are you complaining about me allowing move and full attack? :smallconfused: Is streamlining builds that big of a deal?


Yeah, I've got individual reworks for them too.

I mostly bring this up to say, I've been making sweeping buffs across the martial and skillful classes over a lot of gaming groups and still haven't had any trouble with them overpowering casters. This is 3.5, nothing is balanced because Thanos died in one round to a Gibbering Orb before he could close his fist and some GM homebrew chaos god stole the infinity gauntlet.

Hell I've been specifically designing feat lines spun off of the Mage Killer. Nothing says "indirect nerf to spellcasters" like a Disjunction strike feat on a feat-chain that lowers CL by 16.

Hahahaha I really like these feats. I might allow for them if I decide to implement new feats to the game.


When you can standard+full, speed becomes more valuable.

Or maybe your DM just doesn't make you run for your life as often :)
If you can't outrun a dragon in flight, you may just be doomed at an early level.

Fair point. We are usually pretty careful with our fights and tend to not pick fights we can't win hahaha.


You could also limit standard action full attacks to only the extra attacks granted by BAB, not natural weapons or Haste or whatever.

It was the thought, originally. I didn't mention in my first post because I wanted to see the consequences of allowing these extra attacks. See if anything broke.


To prop up tanking, I suggest the following:

- Instead of making a full attack a standard action, let characters move their speed during a full attack.
- Make tumbling more difficult. For example, make the DC to avoid an AoO the defender's Combat Maneuver Defense.
- Give martial characters a built-in way to limit foes' mobility. For example, taking an AoO might cost you half your movement.

I like the idea of making it a full-round action that allows movement. Might try that and see how it goes.

We already use Tumble DC = CMD equal to Pathfinder.


I attempted to fix the problem by just giving everyone pounce. Now, only thing people play is uberchargers.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, but I would like to explore other options that allow for more than one melee archetype.

Yeah, I don't want literally every melee being an ubercharger.

I am greatly interested in this subject, and I will be glad if you could update the thread with how your experimentation goes.

Will do!


To give you an example of how easily I can break your full attack as a standard I present to you blade dancer prc, going barbarian6/duskblade1/blade dancer10. Screw your difficult terrain and most of your battlefield control spells, I will use my leap attack feat and just jump around the battle field avoiding anything I don't want to deal with and kill everything.

You can't use Leap Attack with a standard action. It must be a charge, which is still a full round action with a single attack at the end. If you take pounce, then you're just another ubercharger and the rule changed nothing.

[BassoonHero]

I like the idea of making it a full-round action that allows movement. Might try that and see how it goes.

Just to add onto this:

I think that the fundamental problem here is that martial characters are screwed over in the action economy. Wizards get to cast their high-level spells while moving, but fighters don't get their high-level attack routine unless they stand still. Even monsters often get special abilities that can be used while moving. In such an environment, many opponents can expend a move action to deny a fighter several attacks, and the opportunity cost is usually very low.

In order to build a good martial character at mid-to-high levels, you need to address this somehow. Some solutions:

- Play an initiator class to get scaling standard-action attacks.
- Play a gish who can channel scaling spells.
- Find a source of free movement such as the Belt of Battle, Travel Devotion, or Anklets of Translocation.
- Gain an ability that explicitly lets you move and full-attack. The most accessible is pounce.
- Deal so much damage on one attack that you don't need to attack more than once.

You will scarcely find a mid-tier martial character who does not do at least one of these things. In fact, this list of workarounds to the underlying action-economy is basically a list of the viable mid-tier martial archetypes.

It's no surprise that so many martial characters take the barbarian dip. If you're not going all-in on maneuvers, and you're not playing a gish, and you don't want to rely entirely on magic items or Travel Devotion, then you have few choices remaining, and by far the most flexible and accessible is a dip into Lion Spiritual Totem Barbarian to gain pounce. Of course, the barbarian dip itself steers the character in a certain direction, and this tends to have an effect on character diversity.

Some DMs respond by giving out pounce as a house rule. I think that this is not quite the right approach. Pounce is a treatment; the disease is the action-economy problem. Solving that problem at a lower level allows for more diversity among martial characters.

Full attacking as a standard action is much better, but it still steers players toward all-out attacks on a single foe (as pouncing does). The alternative of allowing movement during a full attack is probably more powerful overall, but I hope that it will lead to fewer problematic characters by empowering alternative strategies as well.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Meh, game is already super rocket tag. This just expands rocket tag capacity from "Uberchargers and Caster only" to "Hey, you can kill this guy in a round even if you're not super optimized to deal a billion damage or cast OP spells"

You can't move and full attack after the trip, but you can still full attack the tripper in the face (assuming you can take a 5ft step). Even if trippers is about utility, they bring the game to a freaking halt. Nerfs to them are most welcome.

If your table has everyone already moving and full attacking, then why are you complaining about me allowing move and full attack? :smallconfused: Is streamlining builds that big of a deal?


I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out that if your goal is to make BFC less important standard-action full-attack is unlikely to get you what you want. The opposite, really.
Same for nerfing tripping and expecting it to change mundane/caster balance in favor of the former.

I'm saying that if your goal is to "make melee better" you're coming at it from the wrong angle. Because melee can already move & full attack. It's not something they're lacking.
You can make it easier on them and open up a wider variety of build options, and if that's your goal your houserule makes sense.
But it's not going to change caster/melee balance the way you want it to unless your players don't know about the options that are already there.

At least concerning player characters. It'll certainly make melee monsters tougher, but from what you're saying that's not what you're going for.

[liquidformat]

You can't use Leap Attack with a standard action. It must be a charge, which is still a full round action with a single attack at the end. If you take pounce, then you're just another ubercharger and the rule changed nothing.
Ah yes, forgot about that but still you now have a character that can be hitting 120 as their base movement speed, and is capable of using jump to avoid pretty much any and all bfc abilities including placing another character between you and said enemy blade dancer. As such using the spring attack chain while power attacking the blade dancer has the potential to kill four enemies per round who are all within 240' of each other.

Maybe another way to look at this rather than full attack on a standard action is a movement increase on a full attack action based on bab? maybe 5'/bab to a maximum of your land speed or 2x land speed or something similar?

[martixy]

Perhaps an answer lies in the qualities that facilitate iterative in the first place.

You get iteratives for every 5 points of base attack bonus you have above 1.

Would the baseline for standard action iteratives be a simply higher BAB quality?

Perhaps every 7 or 8 points of BAB you have above 1 allows you to make an additional melee attack as a standard.
This would limit the number of attacks pre-epic to 3, giving the full-attack action still some merit and use, while not leaving anyone too in misery about their standard actions going to waste later.

Hm... you have something here.
Maybe:
+8/+15 - additional attacks as standard action.
+12 - 1 attack as swift action.
(maybe?) +18/+19 - 1 attack as a free action.

Properties of this progression:
1. For the price of a standard and a swift, at BAB+15 you do get 3 extra attacks, but not technically a full attack action, which some bits of the game specifically interact with(hence why it's okay to get these a BAB earlier than a regular 4-attack full attack).
2. You get a nice progression in the mid levels, where you keep getting interesting new options regularly.
3. A default use of your swift action, which for certain builds is a very good idea.
4. Swift actions count as free. So anytime you can act - including around AoOs, immediate actions, etc.
5. 1 attack as a free action is strong, but still pales in comparison to what casters do at these levels. Abuse potential indeterminate. Food for thought. Only counterpoint might be that it adds more of the same rather than interesting things to do. Quantitative rather than qualitative. Martials are significantly better served by the latter.

[noob]

Ah yes, forgot about that but still you now have a character that can be hitting 120 as their base movement speed, and is capable of using jump to avoid pretty much any and all bfc abilities including placing another character between you and said enemy blade dancer. As such using the spring attack chain while power attacking the blade dancer has the potential to kill four enemies per round who are all within 240' of each other.

Maybe another way to look at this rather than full attack on a standard action is a movement increase on a full attack action based on bab? maybe 5'/bab to a maximum of your land speed or 2x land speed or something similar?

Now I imagine sir awesome fighter wearing an umbrella for protecting itself from a rain of barbarians.

[Deophaun]

Ah yes, forgot about that but still you now have a character that can be hitting 120 as their base movement speed, and is capable of using jump to avoid pretty much any and all bfc abilities including placing another character between you and said enemy blade dancer. As such using the spring attack chain while power attacking the blade dancer has the potential to kill four enemies per round who are all within 240' of each other.
What you're describing at level 17 is hardly broken. Tornado throw comes on at that level, which is capable of annihilating an entire battalion and then capping it off by throwing the BBEG across the battlefield to explode in a violent shower of blood and viscera on the other side.

[Endril_69]

Utilizing swift actions is a good idea imo. Would it make more sense to use a swift action to get pounce, or to allow movement with a full attack?

[liquidformat]

Hm... you have something here.
Maybe:
+8/+15 - additional attacks as standard action.
+12 - 1 attack as swift action.
(maybe?) +18/+19 - 1 attack as a free action.

Properties of this progression:
1. For the price of a standard and a swift, at BAB+15 you do get 3 extra attacks, but not technically a full attack action, which some bits of the game specifically interact with(hence why it's okay to get these a BAB earlier than a regular 4-attack full attack).
2. You get a nice progression in the mid levels, where you keep getting interesting new options regularly.
3. A default use of your swift action, which for certain builds is a very good idea.
4. Swift actions count as free. So anytime you can act - including around AoOs, immediate actions, etc.
5. 1 attack as a free action is strong, but still pales in comparison to what casters do at these levels. Abuse potential indeterminate. Food for thought. Only counterpoint might be that it adds more of the same rather than interesting things to do. Quantitative rather than qualitative. Martials are significantly better served by the latter.

I like where you are going with this, it gives benefits based on your bab which signifies gaining greater martial skill rather than just giving stuff out to everyone. Hmm, I feel like maybe adding a clause so it doesn't work with divine power would be good as well.

[martixy]

I like where you are going with this, it gives benefits based on your bab which signifies gaining greater martial skill rather than just giving stuff out to everyone. Hmm, I feel like maybe adding a clause so it doesn't work with divine power would be good as well.

Divine power is... really something that should be addressed on its own. Rather than trying to put out the fires it sets around the rest of the system. It's flat-out a stupidly designed spell. A single 4th level spell invalidates a major chunk of the game system. I mean COME ON.
I'd just make it give half your level in attack bonus(and not mess with BAB altogether) - let martials have their own unique schtick in having a high BAB and the perks it grants.