Full attacking as a standard action

[VladtheLad]

I am tinkering with my houserules for 3.5 and other games these days and one rule I haven't used in my games is full attacking as a standard action. I have seen this suggested in various places in 3.5 dnd internet and it always seemed weird to me.
I mean its an obvious attempt to buff melee classes, but the big thing it changes for me is that monsters can move and full attack. Move and full attack dragons doesn't seem to add to the game.
Even if you apply it only to certain classes or iterative attacks then you end with martials that will have every reason to full attack and move away from a monster that benefits from full attacking.
So I am asking the forums what will be the effects of applying this rule in the game?

[Fouredged Sword]

I am tinkering with my houserules for 3.5 and other games these days and one rule I haven't used in my games is full attacking as a standard action. I have seen this suggested in various places in 3.5 dnd internet and it always seemed weird to me.
I mean its an obvious attempt to buff melee classes, but the big thing it changes for me is that monsters can move and full attack. Move and full attack dragons doesn't seem to add to the game.
Even if you apply it only to certain classes or iterative attacks then you end with martials that will have every reason to full attack and move away from a monster that benefits from full attacking.
So I am asking the forums what will be the effects of applying this rule in the game?

So, interestingly enough this doesn't change the amount of damage martials do as much as it increases the amount of mobility they have. Without this change martial characters are punished for moving rather harshly and basically are forced to pick up some form of movement or pounce that allows them to full attack at the end.

Essentially wizards can move and cast as much as they please with most spells being standard actions. This evens the score for warriors. It makes combat more dynamic with martial classes moving around in combat, free to both move and attack targets, but also mindful to position themselves to prevent monsters from moving around them an full attacking the party back line.

[Clementx]

If you want to limit the effects on monsters, don't make a full attack a standard action. Change "attack as standard" to "attack at BAB+0, -5, -10, and -15 as a standard action". This prevents natural weapons from getting the boost.

Depending on how you feel about TWF, Flurry of Blows, and other PC accessible full-attack effects, you may want to improve them in other ways. They aren't great as written anyways, so you need to address them.

[Zombimode]

I am tinkering with my houserules for 3.5 and other games these days and one rule I haven't used in my games is full attacking as a standard action. I have seen this suggested in various places in 3.5 dnd internet and it always seemed weird to me.
I mean its an obvious attempt to buff melee classes, but the big thing it changes for me is that monsters can move and full attack. Move and full attack dragons doesn't seem to add to the game.
Even if you apply it only to certain classes or iterative attacks then you end with martials that will have every reason to full attack and move away from a monster that benefits from full attacking.
So I am asking the forums what will be the effects of applying this rule in the game?

Full attack as a standard is a horrible suggestion that can only come from ignorance about 3.5 combat dynamics.

Full attack denial is major component of combat tactics and the most important part in that is that in general you can't move more then 5 feet in combination with a full attack.

It can also result in neverending mexican standoffs where Full Attackers just Ready their full attacks.

It removes the major point of using ranged weapons.

It makes the higher levels gameplay even more rocket tag and polarizing.


but also mindful to position themselves to prevent monsters from moving around them an full attacking the party back line.

How so?
The contrary is the case: full attack as standard will actually enable enemies splattering the back line with a full attack.

[VladtheLad]

So, interestingly enough this doesn't change the amount of damage martials do as much as it increases the amount of mobility they have. Without this change martial characters are punished for moving rather harshly and basically are forced to pick up some form of movement or pounce that allows them to full attack at the end.

Essentially wizards can move and cast as much as they please with most spells being standard actions. This evens the score for warriors. It makes combat more dynamic with martial classes moving around in combat, free to both move and attack targets, but also mindful to position themselves to prevent monsters from moving around them an full attacking the party back line.

You mention wizards and I wonder how different the game would be, if standard action spells and spell like abilities were full round actions, while full attacks were standard actions.
How does positioning matter, at least compared to RAW game? I mean its basically an attack of opportunity. The actual improvement I see is that many times martial move+attacks monster with attack, then monster moves provokes attack and attacks caster, then martial attacks monster. In this case the martial pressures the monster much much if he full attacks as a standard action.


If you want to limit the effects on monsters, don't make a full attack a standard action. Change "attack as standard" to "attack at BAB+0, -5, -10, and -15 as a standard action". This prevents natural weapons from getting the boost.

This would result with monsters having more power in certain cases. I am thinking monsters with only one big natural attack for example. I think, as I mentioned in my original post, making it class specific or iterative attack specific is a better solution. Though writing this I am not sure there is any difference between iterative attacks only and what you write about.




Depending on how you feel about TWF, Flurry of Blows, and other PC accessible full-attack effects, you may want to improve them in other ways. They aren't great as written anyways, so you need to address them.

I think they work fine if you allow full attack as a standard action. There are problems with the monk class and twf requiring 3 feats and not allowing off hand attacks in attacks of opportunitty and charges IMO.



Full attack as a standard is a horrible suggestion that can only come from ignorance about 3.5 combat dynamics.

Full attack denial is major component of combat tactics and the most important part in that is that in general you can't move more then 5 feet in combination with a full attack.

It can also result in neverending mexican standoffs where Full Attackers just Ready their full attacks.

It removes the major point of using ranged weapons.

It makes the higher levels gameplay even more rocket tag and polarizing.


I share some of your concerns that why I still dont go all the way and allow it in my games. I allow -10 iterative attacks as standard action though.
Readying full attacks could get a bit silly I guess, ofcourse you have to specify certain conditions
Ranged weapons is another matter entirely. Contrary to 3.0 and pathfinder ranged weapons are on the weaker side in 3.5, though I could be missing sth, that said even with this rule you still can move and full attack with a ranged weapon. My experience is that the ranged weapon advantage is their range, which honestly isn't that important if combat is in a dungeon or begins less than 100feet away, flying creatures not withstanding. Certainly the suggested rule can make matters worse I guess.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho it is a bad idea, even if it sounds good at first glance.

It is better to widen your game-knowledge about things that improve your movement.

e.g.

Anklet of Translocation 700g
2/day swift teleport up to 10ft.
since they are so cheap, you can buy several of em to exchange after the encounter

Belt of Battle (12k g)
3/day extra move-action

Just these 2 (imho) easy affordable items will solve most movement problems in your average adventuring day.

_______________
Travel Devotion is another option.

Drunken Master's (2lvl) Stagger ability is a nice option for unarmed uberchargers

_______________
This way, your players will have the needed mobility without overbuffing certain enemies^^

[liquidformat]

Full attack as a standard is a horrible suggestion that can only come from ignorance about 3.5 combat dynamics.

I mean it is already a major part of the game to try and get full move action along with full attack, between pounce and the list of items, feats, and class features Gruftzwerg pointed out...

I have actually used the following in quite a few games and found it to work quite well:
+8 and +15 - additional attack as standard action.
Rather than just waving your hand and saying full attack as a standard action expanding the capability of your standard action as you gain BAB allows for more tactical leverage of standard action while still keeping full attack unique and different.

I have also played around with 1 attack as a swift action at +12 BAB which also seems ok and doesn't dramatically change the power dynamic.

[Wildstag]

I really don't get how this affects the backlines much at all. In combat the enemy might be able to make it past the frontline, but unless they're rocking full knowledge of the caster's spell list, the casters still win. Sure, it means that the casters can't just play "balls-deep no retreat" and actually have to use defensive spells in combat, but that's not the end of the world.

There's more than enough caster options to increase defenses that allowing martial-focused enemies more mobility doesn't really change much. It's not like ALL the natural attackers you encounter are going to be rocking weapons that miss chance, to do so you'd have to be increasing your party's wbl through the roof from all the loot they'd pick up.

At most it just means that people could actually play around difficult terrain and the various forms of mobility easier. And the only form of movement that'd really annoy me with it is burrow speed, since martials can get swim and fly speeds a lot easier than a burrow speed.

P.S. The backlines only suffer if every encounter is a surprise to the party. If there's any amount of planning or prep-time available, the casters still win hands down.

[blackwindbears]

It depends on your metagame. What builds do your players like? What books do they have access to? Are they hardcore optimizers? Are they roughly exhausted but not dead after 4 equal CR threats? "

What sort of enemies do you generally throw at them?

How does ranged combat generally work out?

These are all important questions to assess how such a change might impact your game.

[gijoemike]

There are a number of feats, class abilities, and even some gish spells that become worthless or very near worthless. Now some of the abilities are not great to begin with.

Spring Attack - still avoids the AOO but one can never get out of range for the full attack counter.
Dual Strike - This is covered by the FA. Worthless
Tempest - A terrible Pc anyway. Now even more worthless.
Bull Rushing - why knock enemies 10 feet away from the caster when they just walk back and kill said caster.


The concept of hit and run is suddenly pointless as they just walk and full attack resulting in the same number of blows dealt if you had just stood base to base. As a Tank how do I mitigate the # of attacks against my casters? I stand in front and put space between caster and badguy. Since the space no longer matters that makes the job of meat wall even harder. Also i second that the game turns into rocket tag. Combats end in round 1.


NOTE:
Not every table plays with travel devotion and lion totem barbs. I have sat at dozens of tables in which a PC never had pounce or anklets of translocation. Lots of GM's allow Cape of the Monatebank but not the anklets.


Allowing Full attack as standard in 3.5 actually WEAKENS melee because it buffs the monsters which outnumber the PCs. The only reason it works in 5e is because they completely reworked crits, damage vs Hp totals, and monster actions.

[gijoemike]

I really don't get how this affects the backlines much at all. In combat the enemy might be able to make it past the frontline, but unless they're rocking full knowledge of the caster's spell list, the casters still win. Sure, it means that the casters can't just play "balls-deep no retreat" and actually have to use defensive spells in combat, but that's not the end of the world.

There's more than enough caster options to increase defenses that allowing martial-focused enemies more mobility doesn't really change much. It's not like ALL the natural attackers you encounter are going to be rocking weapons that miss chance, to do so you'd have to be increasing your party's wbl through the roof from all the loot they'd pick up.

At most it just means that people could actually play around difficult terrain and the various forms of mobility easier. And the only form of movement that'd really annoy me with it is burrow speed, since martials can get swim and fly speeds a lot easier than a burrow speed.

P.S. The backlines only suffer if every encounter is a surprise to the party. If there's any amount of planning or prep-time available, the casters still win hands down.

This won't affect the casters much. This can be countered by the casters. Casters will survive. Finally the casters can use a few defensive spells as intended.

This line of thinking is what got us the huge disparity between casters and martials. Replace every single mention of caster from above with ranger, fighter, and rogue. I hope that you now see the problem.

That elf ranger with a bow and multishot is screwed. All the benefits of the build are dead. They will take a full attack every single round no matter where on the battlefield the enemy starts.

That assassin with poisoned bolts in the shadows. Worthless. They should just use poisoned daggers. Being at range just like the elf above has NO benefit.

Spring attacking rogue? They eat the full attack anyway. .

Winged warrior with fly by attack? The enemies that fly just flutter over and full attack.

The fighter suddenly has no way to trip/10 Ft throw/Repositions/Bullrush/translocate away to cancel 2 claw attacks and only taking a single bite or force the enemy to take all the minuses for fighting while prone. The enemy gets up eating the AOO then full attacks or walks back and full attacks. Pls note: I crossed to pathfinder with that.

The big dragon just walks around/flys over the paladin eating the Aoo. Remember they have a large fly movement. Then claw/claw/bite/wing buffets the wizard. Allowing the enemy to multiattack your caster every round as heavily armored melee means you are not doing your job.




But pounce on fighters is a thing!! This cannot be that bad.

Pounce requires a straight line with no hazardous terrain. Imagine giving all melee the drunken master's charge ability where they can take turns in a charge while tumbling to avoid all Aoo. That is a totally different game and not a very good one.

[Fouredged Sword]

This won't affect the casters much. This can be countered by the casters. Casters will survive. Finally the casters can use a few defensive spells as intended.

This line of thinking is what got us the huge disparity between casters and martials. Replace every single mention of caster from above with ranger, fighter, and rogue. I hope that you now see the problem.

That elf ranger with a bow and multishot is screwed. All the benefits of the build are dead. They will take a full attack every single round no matter where on the battlefield the enemy starts.

That assassin with poisoned bolts in the shadows. Worthless. They should just use poisoned daggers. Being at range just like the elf above has NO benefit.

Spring attacking rogue? They eat the full attack anyway. .

Winged warrior with fly by attack? The enemies that fly just flutter over and full attack.

The fighter suddenly has no way to trip/10 Ft throw/Repositions/Bullrush/translocate away to cancel 2 claw attacks and only taking a single bite or force the enemy to take all the minuses for fighting while prone. The enemy gets up eating the AOO then full attacks or walks back and full attacks. Pls note: I crossed to pathfinder with that.

The big dragon just walks around/flys over the paladin eating the Aoo. Remember they have a large fly movement. Then claw/claw/bite/wing buffets the wizard. Allowing the enemy to multiattack your caster every round as heavily armored melee means you are not doing your job.




But pounce on fighters is a thing!! This cannot be that bad.

Pounce requires a straight line with no hazardous terrain. Imagine giving all melee the drunken master's charge ability where they can take turns in a charge while tumbling to avoid all Aoo. That is a totally different game and not a very good one.

The ranger isn't standing and full attacking. He's moving and full attacking as well, keeping himself out of reach of the melee fighters who are trying to chase him down. The warrior will eventually overtake him, but only after chasing him for a round or two, and those are rounds the melee attacker isn't doing anything but chase the ranger while the ranger is free to continue shooting the whole while.

The Spring attack rogue likely needs some adjustment, but if he gets a full attack during his sprint attack then he's all burst damage and his allies can move to lead targets close enough to his hiddy hole that he can pop out, turn into a sneak attack blender, and then pop back out of sight and make a hide check to vanish.

[Xervous]

The ranger isn't standing and full attacking. He's moving and full attacking as well, keeping himself out of reach of the melee fighters who are trying to chase him down. The warrior will eventually overtake him, but only after chasing him for a round or two, and those are rounds the melee attacker isn't doing anything but chase the ranger while the ranger is free to continue shooting the whole while.

The Spring attack rogue likely needs some adjustment, but if he gets a full attack during his sprint attack then he's all burst damage and his allies can move to lead targets close enough to his hiddy hole that he can pop out, turn into a sneak attack blender, and then pop back out of sight and make a hide check to vanish.

With endless streams of full attacks the ranger probably kills the fighter in the given example before the fighter can close, and the combat is decided mostly in absence of the rogues... 1 turn of contribution?

Though for archery I’m rather fond of including hit and run fighter. From first level you’re boasting a +7 init mod and your opening volley is sure to eliminate at least one target who hasn’t acted yet at 2x +4, 1d8+5. A second level of fighter for improved init wouldn’t be misplaced if progressing from level 1. Probably wander off to ranger/scout from there or similar. With it being trivial to assure improved skirmish the combined benefits of abnormally high initiative displace the competing STR builds.

Anyone being able to move +full means the only comfortable distance is out of reach. The decision changes from “full attack the guy I’m on or eat an AoO to go bonk the squishy once” to “chip this guy, or take a chip and go eviscerate the squishy”. Everyone will always pile on the target with highest threat: durability ratio because positioning now matters a whole lot less.

[Telonius]

Might be channeling Nash here, but I would think that "full attack as a standard action" results in making melee more of a credible, immediate threat. If you know the other side can eviscerate your Wizard in a round, that gives a lot more reason to consider a melee combatant to be a target worthy of your attention. The other side will have a similar incentive. So the melee guys pair off trying to occupy each other rather than breaking through to fight the other Wizard. Basically, they act like meatshields are supposed to act - absorbing damage so the Wizard doesn't have to.

[Wildstag]

But pounce on fighters is a thing!! This cannot be that bad.

Pounce requires a straight line with no hazardous terrain. Imagine giving all melee the drunken master's charge ability where they can take turns in a charge while tumbling to avoid all Aoo. That is a totally different game and not a very good one.

It's not pounce, you're kinda missing the entire point. It's a move and full attack action. A move is not limited by difficult terrain in the same way that a pounce or charge is. And there'd still be reasons to use pounce, since charges cover more distance than a move action does.


The ranger isn't standing and full attacking. He's moving and full attacking as well, keeping himself out of reach of the melee fighters who are trying to chase him down. The warrior will eventually overtake him, but only after chasing him for a round or two, and those are rounds the melee attacker isn't doing anything but chase the ranger while the ranger is free to continue shooting the whole while.

The fighter only overtakes the archer by using double move actions, which has always been an option available to them in the first place. And even then, the archer probably has a higher move speed uninhibited by armor, so whereas they can move 30 feet in a move action and then fire off all their arrows, the heavily armored fighter moves 40 feet in a double move. So the fighter would need to move within 40 feet of the archer, which means eating damage over the course of many rounds and reducing the gap in 10 foot increments. And if that archer has allies that can interrupt the fighter's movement? Then it becomes harder. It doesn't really change much about archery unless you're trying to sneak attack, but then there's good options that increase the range necessary for sneak attacking. And if the fighter does start closing the gap? Just take a double move and make the gap larger, give yourself a couple more rounds of arrows fired before you're in danger.

The melee warriors still have to worry about all the things that would normally effect them.

P.S. I think this would actually make Knights a much stronger class, since now their difficult terrain ability would be far more effective.

[Elkad]

This question comes up a lot.

I've tried it. It made positioning for the squishy party members damn near impossible. Same thing on the other side, hard to keep your BBEG from getting 1-rounded when the party just runs around all his mooks. And heavily devalues a lot of mobility options. (spring attack, rideby, pounce, tactical teleportation, etc)


I'm currently using "move half your speed in a straight line prior to making a full attack". It's still a full-round action, you just get a step or seven. Can't zip around the spearcarriers up front.
I like it a lot better.

[gijoemike]

The ranger isn't standing and full attacking. He's moving and full attacking as well, keeping himself out of reach of the melee fighters who are trying to chase him down. The warrior will eventually overtake him, but only after chasing him for a round or two, and those are rounds the melee attacker isn't doing anything but chase the ranger while the ranger is free to continue shooting the whole while.

The Spring attack rogue likely needs some adjustment, but if he gets a full attack during his sprint attack then he's all burst damage and his allies can move to lead targets close enough to his hiddy hole that he can pop out, turn into a sneak attack blender, and then pop back out of sight and make a hide check to vanish.

Multishot does that already. What you are describing is the standard game. Ranger shoots, move a single move action. Fighter either charges ( at 2x move) or double moves around the corner and is standing in the rangers face. But now if that fighter ever gets to the ranger its a full attack instead of just 1 swing. The moving away to mitigate attacks was nullified. The ranger might as well just stand there. That is literally what I am saying.



Rogues
I am glad we both acknowledge many feats and abilities need to be addressed so they even remotely function. Also, this is not 5th Ed. The rogue doesn't get a bonus action to auto-hide. In fact in combat they don't get to hind once revealed.

[gijoemike]

It's not pounce, you're kinda missing the entire point. It's a move and full attack action. A move is not limited by difficult terrain in the same way that a pounce or charge is. And there'd still be reasons to use pounce, since charges cover more distance than a move action does.


No, that is the entire point. Now melee can just move with a few 5 diagonal adjustments bypassing the grease spell or the longsword fighters reach. As a melee combatant I can full attack anywhere within a X square radius.



The fighter only overtakes the archer by using double move actions, which has always been an option available to them in the first place. And even then, the archer probably has a higher move speed uninhibited by armor, so whereas they can move 30 feet in a move action and then fire off all their arrows, the heavily armored fighter moves 40 feet in a double move. So the fighter would need to move within 40 feet of the archer, which means eating damage over the course of many rounds and reducing the gap in 10 foot increments. And if that archer has allies that can interrupt the fighter's movement? Then it becomes harder. It doesn't really change much about archery unless you're trying to sneak attack, but then there's good options that increase the range necessary for sneak attacking. And if the fighter does start closing the gap? Just take a double move and make the gap larger, give yourself a couple more rounds of arrows fired before you're in danger.

The melee warriors still have to worry about all the things that would normally effect them.

P.S. I think this would actually make Knights a much stronger class, since now their difficult terrain ability would be far more effective.

Mythral armor is a thing. So heavy armor doesn't actually slow down all armored enemies. Also boots of striding and springing exist. In both of these cases the ranger loses 20 ft per round unless they also have haste, exp retreat, Boots of S&S. But you know what.... This is how the game is already played. Manyshot is a feat that lets the Ranger let lose multiple arrows as a standard action.

But say the ranger has allies in between, as they should. The big bad walks 30ft up the first guy and full attacks. That is multiple extra attacks they wouldn't have taken. Next round he FULL attacks again killing the ally and then walks their full movement feet even in heavy armor. Once again a bonus for the bad guys.



Replying to this point has made me realize something though. HASTE. Haste increases the base move by 30 ft. A single haste spell would now allow melee to make large circles around the enemy front line to get to the caster. Save with Exp retreat. Those spells are much better now since it extends the move+FA threat.


Also, I see the Knight being less effective. The enemy can just walk up and full attack. The knight isn't stopping the charge which was to prevent pounce.

[Morty_Jhones]

Jez as someone who regulary plays Large toons this would be INSANLY powerfull, untill i met someone bigger than me.

A large oponent already can dominate an encounter and if you let them make a normal move and then full attack they could assainate anyone in one round.

Cleric or wizard hiding behind a fighter... walk round the fighter and then Splat your dead.

Squishy classes would just get decimated by this. thers a very good resion wizards, clerics and sorcers have low HP, its to make up for the fact that there intended to STAY BACK. if you nullify there range advantage in any way they you will usaly spat them in 1 or 2 turns.

[Serafina]

Do it.
Throw in one of the variants of the Stand Still feat (the 3.5 one works fine) as something everyone has by default (ignoring prerequisites). Now, frontliners can actually prevent movement through their threatened spaces.
If ranged kiting ever turns into a problem, make it so that if you move, your range is limited to your first range increment, or more extremely 30 feet. Don't do this by default though.

It feels great if your character actually gets to be competent at moving around.
People who have played Tome of Battle, Path of War, Spheres of Might, 5E, or any other option that effectively lets you do this, all know that.

Is it more powerful?
Yes sure. But is it hiterefore unknown power? No, Pounce (+ ignoring difficult terrain) already exists, in part in absurd extremes (Uberchargers), and in general experience it actually works better if you make an option generally available rather than only if you heavily invest into it. This way, you can just let everyone have this - the basics of "you can move and have your proper attack" - without being way above their peers, way swingy, or also ignoring things like difficult terrain or the like.

So do it. It'll be fun and good and the game can handle it, this is known.

[noob]

I am tinkering with my houserules for 3.5 and other games these days and one rule I haven't used in my games is full attacking as a standard action. I have seen this suggested in various places in 3.5 dnd internet and it always seemed weird to me.
I mean its an obvious attempt to buff melee classes, but the big thing it changes for me is that monsters can move and full attack. Move and full attack dragons doesn't seem to add to the game.
Even if you apply it only to certain classes or iterative attacks then you end with martials that will have every reason to full attack and move away from a monster that benefits from full attacking.
So I am asking the forums what will be the effects of applying this rule in the game?
There is people who takes a 4 level dip in telflamar shadowlord for getting the ability to full attack and move as a standard action(and also full attack and move as a move action and full attack and move as a swift action for 3 full attacks and 3 moves in a turn) but not every character should need 4 levels in a specific prc for reaching that basic level of competence.
A single level dip in cleric allows to get travel devotion for moving and full attacking before you get enough wealth for magical items but it is limited in uses per day.

[VladtheLad]

Thank you for the responses, I read them all, great food for thought, I will mull over them and then decide what to do.

[Wildstag]

Mythral armor is a thing. So heavy armor doesn't actually slow down all armored enemies. Also boots of striding and springing exist. In both of these cases the ranger loses 20 ft per round unless they also have haste, exp retreat, Boots of S&S. But you know what.... This is how the game is already played. Manyshot is a feat that lets the Ranger let lose multiple arrows as a standard action.

But say the ranger has allies in between, as they should. The big bad walks 30ft up the first guy and full attacks. That is multiple extra attacks they wouldn't have taken. Next round he FULL attacks again killing the ally and then walks their full movement feet even in heavy armor. Once again a bonus for the bad guys.

Also, I see the Knight being less effective. The enemy can just walk up and full attack. The knight isn't stopping the charge which was to prevent pounce.


So what, are we just arguing in hypothetical fights that the party just stands there doing nothing? Because that's literally what you just described. If the big bad has access to this stuff, so too does the party.

Here's an example: last night in a session we fought 9 CR 7 enemies in a dungeon room against a party of level 13 and 14 characters. It's a fair encounter for a "multiple encounter per day" kinda game. If the enemies had full attack and move actions available, they could get to the backlines. However, a front-line Knight of that level with a reach weapon and a simple Enlarge buff could cover effectively a Huge area. Anything that starts its turn there has halved speed. So even if it could move its full move action before attacking, it'd have far less speed to do so. And a Test of Mettle becomes even more useful because those enemies would otherwise be a threat to the backlines (they normally are, but can't reasonably reach the casters without trickery.

Now, my character wasn't a Knight last night. It was a Psychic Warrior. And fun fact, they already have a "move and Full Attack" option with the power Hustle. With a Torc of Power Preservation and Earth Power, it costs me 1 power point to get a move and full attack. Guess what, it doesn't break the game. A gm could reasonably adjust an enemy to have psionic abilities and some power points. That enemy would still have to get through the Psychic Warrior to get to the back lines.

Granted, we've been fighting in a dungeon where the melee forces a bottleneck upon the enemy. If we're fighting on a featureless plain of great size then sure, the big bad has significantly more options. But tell me when was the last time you actually had a DM that lazy that the map was just a straight 30x30 grid with no difficult terrain or terrain features to speak of? That's not how the game is played at all. Movement spent to avoid obstacles is movement in their round that forces a double move and a single attack. That's alright, because the party still has access to options that restrict the movement of enemies. They could easily just use solid fog and cast defensively (not every big bad is going to have Mage Slayer, and if all of them do, your GM's kinda boring for the lack of variety.

And even then, generally with unoptimized characters (I rarely play strong characters), an on-level fight is still going to result in an AC that leaves the enemy hitting no more than 45% of their attacks. So even if the front line (me) takes 8 attacks when otherwise I'd take 5, that's a difference of 2 attacks that I can expect to hit me. If the front-liner is building glass cannons, they'll die in those four attacks. But then why have a front-liner that dies that quickly?

Basically, the entire premise of your argument hinges on the laziest possible character design from the party and the most punishing character design from the GM. In the time it takes for the Big Bad to eliminate the front-line, the casters still have time for Dispel Magic or its Greater form. If you have a Wizard and Cleric in combat, then you have two potential Dispels. All the mobility buffs (Haste, Freedom of Movement, etc.) that the Big Bad has get dispelled and now you have a guy using normal speed. Woop-dee-friggin-doo.

Already, there's plenty of options out there for a player to get Pounce or "Move and Full Attack". Any of those options available to a player is available to a Big Bad, and I would feel patronized if the GM wasn't using those options. The option already exists with a resource cost; removing that resource cost just allows for more variety in Big Bad character design and more challenging (and honestly, engaging) encounters.

[Arael666]

So, interestingly enough this doesn't change the amount of damage martials do as much as it increases the amount of mobility they have. Without this change martial characters are punished for moving rather harshly and basically are forced to pick up some form of movement or pounce that allows them to full attack at the end.

Essentially wizards can move and cast as much as they please with most spells being standard actions. This evens the score for warriors. It makes combat more dynamic with martial classes moving around in combat, free to both move and attack targets, but also mindful to position themselves to prevent monsters from moving around them an full attacking the party back line.

wouldn't it be more logical to just make all standard action spells full round? Or just a clause "you can't cast a spell and move in the same round"

[Troacctid]

So, interestingly enough this doesn't change the amount of damage martials do as much as it increases the amount of mobility they have. Without this change martial characters are punished for moving rather harshly and basically are forced to pick up some form of movement or pounce that allows them to full attack at the end.
I'm sorry, but this is a laughably innumerate take. It absolutely changes the amount of damage martials do, since it grants multiple additional attacks over the course of a combat. More attacks = more DPR. This is, like, basic math.

[Xervous]

With all the grand assortments of monsters that outspeed the typical 30ft adventurer movement rate the decision tree for bypassing frontliners gets even more skewed. If the back line is out of reach of the opposition, they’re well out of reach of their own frontline. The choice when engaged in melee for a speedy monster weighs in as (jump on the back row, eat 1 AoO, avoid the frontline for a round) vs (hit the frontline and get pummeled by everything). The only reason to strike the frontline will be in passing en route to the squishy targets. So there’s probably a speed arms race or stat check, else the party can’t even space properly to keep combat from being target-whomever.

One thing of note is that marching order matters a whole lot less since you get to freely target anyone in an unaware group.

[noob]

With all the grand assortments of monsters that outspeed the typical 30ft adventurer movement rate the decision tree for bypassing frontliners gets even more skewed. If the back line is out of reach of the opposition, they’re well out of reach of their own frontline. The choice when engaged in melee for a speedy monster weighs in as (jump on the back row, eat 1 AoO, avoid the frontline for a round) vs (hit the frontline and get pummeled by everything). The only reason to strike the frontline will be in passing en route to the squishy targets. So there’s probably a speed arms race or stat check, else the party can’t even space properly to keep combat from being target-whomever.

One thing of note is that marching order matters a whole lot less since you get to freely target anyone in an unaware group.

I think it could also end with frontlines getting abilities that helps blocking opponents or just end with rocket tag the way it already happens normally.

[NigelWalmsley]

wouldn't it be more logical to just make all standard action spells full round? Or just a clause "you can't cast a spell and move in the same round"

Why? That also levels the playing field, but I don't see why it's particularly a better change. You have to decide if you think "move and attack" or "move or attack" is a better paradigm. Just saying "make casters like martials" isn't really productive without examining whether the caster paradigm or the martial paradigm is structurally superior.

[soullos]

This question comes up a lot.

I've tried it. It made positioning for the squishy party members damn near impossible. Same thing on the other side, hard to keep your BBEG from getting 1-rounded when the party just runs around all his mooks. And heavily devalues a lot of mobility options. (spring attack, rideby, pounce, tactical teleportation, etc)


I'm currently using "move half your speed in a straight line prior to making a full attack". It's still a full-round action, you just get a step or seven. Can't zip around the spearcarriers up front.
I like it a lot better.

Good to see some actual playtest results. I was thinking of doing full attack + full move as well. Been mulling it over a bit but never tried it out. But I feared it'll turn out exactly as you have experienced in your games. How's the results for 1/2 speed in a straight line working for you? :) Would removing the "you can only move in a straight line" bit change anything you think? I'm leaning towards that.

[NigelWalmsley]

Good to see some actual playtest results. I was thinking of doing full attack + full move as well. Been mulling it over a bit but never tried it out. But I feared it'll turn out exactly as you have experienced in your games. How's the results for 1/2 speed in a straight line working for you? :) Would removing the "you can only move in a straight line" bit change anything you think? I'm leaning towards that.

Not him, but removing the straight line part of the rule would make it much harder to body-block people. As-is, the houserule is essentially a way of making it less important for melee builds to get Pounce, which seems entirely reasonable given the importance of Pounce.

[Elkad]

Good to see some actual playtest results. I was thinking of doing full attack + full move as well. Been mulling it over a bit but never tried it out. But I feared it'll turn out exactly as you have experienced in your games. How's the results for 1/2 speed in a straight line working for you? :) Would removing the "you can only move in a straight line" bit change anything you think? I'm leaning towards that.

Since we've only managed 5 sessions all year (stupid global sniffles), I don't have a lot of data yet...

But no, it likely wouldn't. Unless someone builds for super high mobility (Xeph Barbarian with Haste = speed 100' at 9th level, and that's not even trying), and if they build for it, maybe they should get it...