[3.P] What sort of action should a full attack require?

[Endarire]

Martial types are notorious for losing versatility with multiple attacks per round. Casters can do their greatest tricks with mere standard actions or less. Martial types need to use a full-round action to attack more than once, barring special circumstances.

Action-wise, how long should a full attack require?

[TaintedLight]

Martial types are notorious for losing versatility with multiple attacks per round. Casters can do their greatest tricks with mere standard actions or less. Martial types need to use a full-round action to attack more than once, barring special circumstances.

Action-wise, how long should a full attack require?

I think the first thing that needs to be acknowledged here is that it is simply more feasible to attack faster with certain weapons than it is to do the same with others. I'll bet you most people can swipe with a dagger two or three times at least in the same time that it would take them to swing a greatsword once, but D&D 3.5 treats it as being exactly as exhausting and slow to do either.

Obviously, for the sake of avoiding needless and possibly further imbalancing complexity, there aren't really rules that govern weapon attack speed as there are in many MMOs and computer RPGs. In the PHB, I seem to remember a paragraph somewhere that said a full attack or even just a single standard action attack represents more than just one swing of the weapon, more like a thrust-parry-thrust-parry-strike sort of maneuver. Does that core assumption need to be changed? If so, should it reflect that idea of weapon weight and difficulty to wield?

EDIT: Also, it seems to me that for 5 levels or so, it kind of sucks to have a full BAB because you get to use it exactly as often as the rogue with his 3/4 and you major advantage from it is making use of Power Attack. This is, of course, speaking outside of any PrCs and the like that have BAB requirements.

Personally, I think it's not totally unreasonable to create a blanket game rule that, upon reaching a BAB of 6, grants a character the ability to make one additional move action in a round if all other actions (with the obvious exceptions of swift and free actions) are spent performing a full attack. That lets you actually put that sexy BAB of yours to work instead of watching the guy soak one AoO and avoid the full press of your attacks next round. Also, it gives the feeling that a character learns to act faster and more purposefully as he learns more about fighting and gains practical combat experience. It always kind of bothered me that, no matter how powerful you get, you never get more actions outside of spells and wierd abilities like the marshal. Of course, it does make sense from a balance perspective that things stay more or less the way they are and that is really important too.

[0Megabyte]

Balance... isn't really gonna cut it here. :D

"I attack four times" versus "Celerity-timestop-force cage-incendiary cloud and/or acid fog and/or stinking cloud, plus one or two delayed blast fireballs."

Or get rid of the Celerity and just go core only. :D

Or "I attack four times" versus "contingency: time stop (if attacked)". Etc.

[TaintedLight]

Balance... isn't really gonna cut it here. :D

"I attack four times" versus "Celerity-timestop-force cage-incendiary cloud and/or acid fog and/or stinking cloud, plus one or two delayed blast fireballs."

Or get rid of the Celerity and just go core only. :D

Or "I attack four times" versus "contingency: time stop (if attacked)". Etc.

Contingency can only hold up to 6th level spells, but yes you can abuse that.

Regardless, getting rid of celerity and other multi-action boosters like it (arcane spellsurge, schism psionic power, etc.) goes a long way towards preserving the action economy. Nixing Time Stop is also a good idea, but I personally like the spell when it is used to set up weird battlefield control conditions in what looks more or less like the blink of an eye. That said, it's pretty IMBA even when used in what could conceivably be called innocuous ways.

[Rixx]

..a full round action.

Man, it's like right in the name.

(Also, read the Pathfinder APG, it has tons of cool new options for warriors.)

[Rad]

..a full round action.

Man, it's like right in the name.

I am pretty sure he is aware of it, yes.
I am in the field of those that would get rid of single attacks. High BAB just gives you the ability to take multiple attacks, period. In a standard action. Or in a Spring attack. Or whatever. The only exception could be things like the extra attack you can get on a trip or with the Gambit feat.

[Rixx]

It was a problem in 3.5, but Pathfinder addresses the full attack dilemma in a lot of different ways. If you put in huge sweeping changes like allowing a full attack as a standard action, the whole system would just fall apart.

[Boci]

It was a problem in 3.5, but Pathfinder addresses the full attack dilemma in a lot of different ways. If you put in huge sweeping changes like allowing a full attack as a standard action, the whole system would just fall apart.

Not really. ToB essentially does that with standard action strikes. This fix is a bit more clunky, but doesn't have the flavour/mechanic aspects that cause people to dislike ToB.

[Ernir]

Full attacking as a standard action rather than a full-round action would be an improvement, IMO.

It was a problem in 3.5, but Pathfinder addresses the full attack dilemma in a lot of different ways.

Please explain.

[Rithaniel]

It was a problem in 3.5, but Pathfinder addresses the full attack dilemma in a lot of different ways. If you put in huge sweeping changes like allowing a full attack as a standard action, the whole system would just fall apart.

...you must live a charmed existence, cause if allowing a guy to get move and get multiple attacks at the same time breaks your world, you must not be aware of half of everything out there.

As for the actual question being asked, well, it really depends. There are ways to get 2 entire full round attacks as a swift action already. For the most part, being able to do it in less time than a full round action, is reserved for melee characters, in the form of class features (or even feats). You can generally keep it being a full round action and still keep the game making sense, for the most part.

[Powerfamiliar]

If I were to use Full Attack = standard action there would be a lot more dead PCs in my campaigns. It's somethign only 1 or 2 PCs will take advantage of, yet most monsters would benefit from it. Particularly when playing at levels 1-5 when it makes no difference to most PCs, yet many monsters will benefit.

If you are already optimizing you monsters, and most have Pounce or relly on casting, then it's not a big deal, but using stock monsters I tihnk it's too powerful a buff for most monsters.

[Boci]

If I were to use Full Attack = standard action there would be a lot more dead PCs in my campaigns. It's somethign only 1 or 2 PCs will take advantage of, yet most monsters would benefit from it. Particularly when playing at levels 1-5 when it makes no difference to most PCs, yet many monsters will benefit.

If you are already optimizing you monsters, and most have Pounce or relly on casting, then it's not a big deal, but using stock monsters I tihnk it's too powerful a buff for most monsters.

In a low optimization game you could make it that as a standard action you can make as many attacks as you BAB allows, bust haste or extra natural attacks can only be used via full attacking.

[Kobold-Bard]

I believe the Tomes (the D&Dwiki ones, not the book ones) series ook the approach of letting you take your standard BAB for a standard attack, and then take a -5 maximum on a full attack.

eg. A level 20 Fighter making a standard attack uses a BAB of 20/15/10/5, and can still take a move action that round. Whereas if he makes a Full Attack je uses a BAB of 20/15/15/15, signifying that he's able to focus more into the attacks since he isn't running round he battle field.

Never seen it in use, but I quite like the idea.

[Shademan]

isnt your attack supposed to be abstract?
I mean, at LV 1 you do not just swing your sword once. you fight and interact with the bugbear and your chance to hit is exactly that... a CHANCE to do damage.
or sumfin'
anyways: If you're the DM, just make full attacks be ...whatever single attacks are

[Ravens_cry]

I think the first thing that needs to be acknowledged here is that it is simply more feasible to attack faster with certain weapons than it is to do the same with others. I'll bet you most people can swipe with a dagger two or three times at least in the same time that it would take them to swing a greatsword once, but D&D 3.5 treats it as being exactly as exhausting and slow to do either.

A single attack isn't a single swipe, it is an exchange of strikes and dodges and finally finding an opening. It's an abstraction. Also, with training ( the two weapon feats) it does become easier, if you use two weapons. And someone who has trained their who lives in the use of their fists or certain other weapons (flurry of blows) are also better at finding openings.
It is abstracted, but it does exist.

[Rixx]

The Pathfinder APG has the Mobile Fighter, who can give up his first attack in order to move during a full attack action. It also has the Two Weapon Warrior, which can attack with both weapons as a standard action. Besides that, it has a lot of feats that give more to do when you can't take a full attack action.

I think my feeble, closed minded brain can live with that. I'll continue to lead a charmed existence, which apparently focuses entirely around tabletop roleplaying game rules.

[TaintedLight]

A single attack isn't a single swipe, it is an exchange of strikes and dodges and finally finding an opening. It's an abstraction. Also, with training ( the two weapon feats) it does become easier, if you use two weapons. And someone who has trained their who lives in the use of their fists or certain other weapons (flurry of blows) are also better at finding openings.
It is abstracted, but it does exist.

I see you didn't read the entirety of my post before responding:

Obviously, for the sake of avoiding needless and possibly further imbalancing complexity, there aren't really rules that govern weapon attack speed as there are in many MMOs and computer RPGs. In the PHB, I seem to remember a paragraph somewhere that said a full attack or even just a single standard action attack represents more than just one swing of the weapon, more like a thrust-parry-thrust-parry-strike sort of maneuver. Does that core assumption need to be changed? If so, should it reflect that idea of weapon weight and difficulty to wield?

My point was not that greatsword wielders should get fewer attacks than dagger users. Rather, I was pointing out that the system already abstracts the idea to a certain point and other assumptions follow. A fighter with Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword can wield a bastard sword in each hand (a terrible idea, but he can do it if he wants to). A different fighter could be wielding a pair of short swords. They each get the same amount of "opportunity" to hit the opponent, where opportunity here is measured in number of attacks. If each attack represents a span of lunge-defend-counterlunge etc., the same amount of dancing around and looking for an opening is going on no matter how unwieldy your weapons of choice are.

Flurry of blows is utter crap as presented and poorly constructed. That's a whole separate argument though.

[Boci]

I think my feeble, closed minded brain can live with that. I'll continue to lead a charmed existence, which apparently focuses entirely around tabletop roleplaying game rules.

I think Rithaniel's point was if you think moving and full attacking in the same round brakes the game than what do you think of magic, widely considered to be too good in D&D 3.5.

[Rixx]

When I say it breaks the game, what I mean is that it changes a core assumption of how the game works. Example: The Oracle who takes the Battle mystery gains the ability to move and full attack at level 20. It stands to reason, then, that giving every character this ability at level 6 would have huge consequences - you'd have to redesign huge parts of the game.

Magic's pretty broken, but that's neither here nor there.

[Boci]

When I say it breaks the game, what I mean is that it changes a core assumption of how the game works. Example: The Oracle who takes the Battle mystery gains the ability to move and full attack at level 20. It stands to reason, then, that giving every character this ability at level 6 would have huge consequences - you'd have to redesign huge parts of the game.

Or that the makers of the game overestimate the value of moving and full attacking. As I said, ToB did this, but I've yet to meet someone who hated it because of that.

[Greenish]

When I say it breaks the game, what I mean is that it changes a core assumption of how the game works.

Well, in 3.5 there are ways to gain movement and full attack if you're prepared to jump through the hoops.

Besides, I don't think "change" is synonymous to "break".

[Rixx]

Hey, you guys wanna rewrite the system, be my guest! Because that's what you'd be doing. Regarding jumping through hoops, expanded 3.5 is written by so many different people that it's about as solid as whipped cream. If we're talking about Pathfinder, it's more singular focus (one lead designer who oversees all the core rulebooks) brings it's consistency to... butter, or something. It's not a perfect metaphor.

If you play with all the 3.5 books, allowing full attacks as a standard action is probably fine, as the system's been pretty much cracked open eight ways to Sunday already.

God, I hate the 3.5 expanded materials...

[Boci]

Hey, you guys wanna rewrite the system, be my guest! Because that's what you'd be doing.

And its what is widely accepted as a good thing. Whats different is how much it should be rewritten.

If you play with all the 3.5 books, allowing full attacks as a standard action is probably fine, as the system's been pretty much cracked open eight ways to Sunday already.

And yet with a pinch of common sense, still more balanced than core.

[Rixx]

Sure, assuming lots of free time and optimizer friends, of which I have neither.

Just telling you right now, it's not worth it to try and convince me that expanded 3.5 is good.

But yeah. Full attacks on standard actions would change the system irrevocably. That's my two cents and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[Greenish]

Full attacks on standard actions would change the system irrevocably.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. If you don't like a change you've made, change it back.

Other than that, obviously changing the system will cause the system to be changed. The point is on whether or not it should be done.

[Boci]

Sure, assuming lots of free time and optimizer friends, of which I have neither.

You could always use someone elses stuff. Thats partially why they post it online.

Just telling you right now, it's not worth it to try and convince me that expanded 3.5 is good.

Meh, I'm stuborn.

But yeah. Full attacks on standard actions would change the system irrevocably. That's my two cents and I'm stickin' to 'em.

Not really. Ask anyone whose actually played with all the 3.5 books under the sun. Its a boost to melee, and allows them to use tactical movement and other options such as readied action without sacrificing offensive power, making batles more mobil, but it is still clearly 3.5 D&D.

[Rixx]

Well, I never said it would be a change for the worse, just that it would be a big change.

Granted, I'm primarily talking about Pathfinder, which adresses this problem, and not 3.5, which seems to largely ignore it.

[Subotei]

Forgive me if I'm wrong (3.5/PF isn't my major system) but bullrush/overrun would be more effective if you could actually do the manouver as part of your move action and attack. Not game breaking, but it would be nice if you could charge the front rank and engage in one round.

[Urpriest]

Rixx, I understand your point. Pathfinder (and to some extent 3.5) has design intent, and editing the rules beyond design intent creates odd interactions. This sort of reasoning is more pronounced in 4e rules discussions because 4e has much more explicit design intentions behind it and much more thought is put into them. (While Pathfinder has a central design authority, it also is forced by its nature to borrow from 3.5 in order to maintain its market, so it has more limited control).

Endarire, however, is considering changes to the design intent itself. Much like his metamagic thread, he's wondering what design principles would lead to a balanced 3.5/Pf. That said, I'm not entirely sure why he doesn't migrate to 4e, where many of his concerns are addressed. I'd be interested to hear a list of those things that he thinks are worth preserving in 3.5 that 4e does not preserve.

[Rixx]

That's much morenelegant than what I've been saying. Urpriest, can we be super pals?