Full Attacks Houserule

[Tinydwarfman]

Many people have instituted the houserule that you can full attack with a standard action. I don't want to obsolete regular full attacks, so I was thinking of the following rule:

Full Attacks are made at +20/+15/+15/+15

Standard actions attacks can either be +20, or +15/+10/+5/+0

What do you think?

[Ernir]

The one I was thinking:

Standard action attack = 20/15/10/5
Full attack = 20/20/15/10/5

Your version... well, I can't see myself wanting to effectively give up my highest iterative all that often, so I'd probably be desperate for a pounce/free movement effect anyway.

[Mastikator]

How about full attack iterates at a loss of only 4 per attack. So it's 20, 16, 12, 8, 4, 0. And standard it's 5, and you lose the first, 15, 10, 5, 0
Overall this will boost warrior types on higher level. Not to the point where they're equal to casters, but it doesn't hurt either, right?

[Tinydwarfman]

The one I was thinking:

Standard action attack = 20/15/10/5
Full attack = 20/20/15/10/5

Your version... well, I can't see myself wanting to effectively give up my highest iterative all that often, so I'd probably be desperate for a pounce/free movement effect anyway.

Well I didn't want to completely invalidate pounce, just give players that don't know how to get it/can't a way to do a little more with standard actions.

[Ernir]

Well I didn't want to completely invalidate pounce, just give players that don't know how to get it/can't a way to do a little more with standard actions.

IMO, you got what you were looking for, then.

[bosssmiley]

Many people have instituted the houserule that you can full attack with a standard action. I don't want to obsolete regular full attacks, so I was thinking of the following rule:

Full Attacks are made at +20/+15/+15/+15

Standard actions attacks can either be +20, or +15/+10/+5/+0

What do you think?

Interesting and worth mulling over.

[Critical]

I say, if the players asked for it, leave it as it is. It's a part of gameplay.

[Yakk]

Why do you not want to invalidate full attack?

I believe the original logic behind full attack was that it made "charge and kill the wizard" a less effective strategy than "stand next to the fighter and whale on him". And the opposite thing for players.

What do you want the game-play to look like?

[Hawriel]

My group changed how full attacks worked because it was a pain in the ass to have different target numbers flying around. For every attack after the first we have a -2 penalty to all attacks. A player is not restricted to eather 1 or all of their possable attacks in a round. It works well to speed up are combat.

[RagnaroksChosen]

We have a rule of any Full bab'ers get full attacks as a standard action. and we have a customer feat that allows for pounce for every one else.


although we are thinking abotu adding in a rule about how every one else gets half there irriatives.
mainly to prevent abuse with rogues and some other classes.

[Eldariel]

We have a rule of any Full bab'ers get full attacks as a standard action. and we have a customer feat that allows for pounce for every one else..

This is quite excellent. As it stands, warriors are pretty much locked in place by the rules while casters are free to cast and move. Removing the distinction between full attack and standard attack solves that entirely. And before someone mentions it doesn't make sense, it's worth noting that it doesn't make any more sense as it stands; on 1st level, you get one attack after move and one attack on full attack. On 20th level, you get one attack after move and four attacks on full attack. The numbers don't add up no matter how you look at them. So...yeah, sensibility is not a reason to keep the present rules.

[RagnaroksChosen]

This is quite excellent. As it stands, warriors are pretty much locked in place by the rules while casters are free to cast and move. Removing the distinction between full attack and standard attack solves that entirely. And before someone mentions it doesn't make sense, it's worth noting that it doesn't make any more sense as it stands; on 1st level, you get one attack after move and one attack on full attack. On 20th level, you get one attack after move and four attacks on full attack. The numbers don't add up no matter how you look at them. So...yeah, sensibility is not a reason to keep the present rules.

we have wierd formulas for charging and doing other things to but it adds a complexity to the game that we like.
this however is my simpler fix its what led us to the more complicated stuff.

example of complicated stuff:
When charging you get 1/2 the number of your attacks. actualy gaining the pounce feature lets you full attack at a charge.
we make a destinction between charging and moving because we felt that it would be more interesting that way.

[Gametime]

Someone in another thread posted that their rule was standard attacks are at 20/15/10/5 and full attacks are at 20/15/15/15. You get your full iterative either way, but your secondary attacks only take a -5 penalty each if you full attack.

[Iban]

Newby question here:

What is the different between a Full Attack and a non-Full Attack?

And what does +20/+15/+10/+5 actually mean?

Thanks

[DragoonWraith]

Full-Attack requires both Move and Standard Actions, at once. The +X means your Base Attack Bonus, and at higher Base Attack Bonuses (6, 11, 16), you get an extra Iterative Attack, at your lowest bonus -5. Hence, at 16 BAB, you're Full Attack is +16/+11/+6/+1 - you make four attacks, one with a +16 bonus (plus Str and whatever else is appropriate), then +11, then +6, then finally +1.

However, you do not get Iterative Attacks unless you use the Full Attack, so if you just use a Standard Action to attack, you get one single attack at your highest bonus (so +16 above).

Also, perhaps worth mentioning: I had a similar thought last night.

[Iban]

0.o thats nasty... but I'm the DM, so its funny instead

[Tinydwarfman]

Full-Attack requires both Move and Standard Actions, at once. The +X means your Base Attack Bonus, and at higher Base Attack Bonuses (6, 11, 16), you get an extra Iterative Attack, at your lowest bonus -5. Hence, at 16 BAB, you're Full Attack is +16/+11/+6/+1 - you make four attacks, one with a +16 bonus (plus Str and whatever else is appropriate), then +11, then +6, then finally +1.

However, you do not get Iterative Attacks unless you use the Full Attack, so if you just use a Standard Action to attack, you get one single attack at your highest bonus (so +16 above).

Also, perhaps worth mentioning: I had a similar thought last night.

As always, you continue to outclass me. I was originally thinking of doing your way, but I thought the Full attacks and standard actions would be too similar. Now I see that it would be perfect, since players still want to full attack, but are not penalized for doing so.

[Eldan]

How about this: as a full attack, on level twenty, a fighter attacks at +20/+20/+20/+20 as full-attack, while as a "standard full attack", he attacks at the normal +20/+15/+10/+5.

Edit: Oh, that's pretty much DW's idea. Nevermind, then.

[DragoonWraith]

+20/+20/+20/+20 might be better, in that you don't have the issue where a level 6 Fighter has a +6/+1 standard action attack and a +6/+1 full attack. Though it's not really any different from the level 5 Fighter who has a +5 full attack or +5 standard attack.