New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 32 of 32
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Drelua's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Translating 5e Movement Economy to 3.5e

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackOnyx View Post
    "Standard Action (Attack):

    You can strike/shoot/throw (etc.) at any opponent within range once per each iterative attack allowed by BAB. For characters granted more than one strike/shot/throw from BAB, these strikes/shots/throws can be broken up amid one's movement."


    Traditional full attacks (those that would incorporate any bonus attacks/damage/effects specific to full attacks from feats, spells, and class features) would still restrict movement.

    Any spells, feats, or class features that specifically replace/modify a standard attack would completely replace all available "strikes/shots/throws" the standard attack would typically allow, regardless of how many strikes/shots/throws a creature's BAB grants them. (Again, looking more toward lower levels of play where most creatures/characters would be maxing out at two "strikes" per standard attack.)

    Traditional methods of getting move + full attack would still give martials an edge, but this could make their old standby, the standard attack, a more attractive choice (in regards to allowing movement) from time to time. It would be a bit of a compromise from what you see in 5e, but it might help to avoid reworking too much of the balance inherent to full round actions in 3.5e.
    The problem I see with this is that it really favours two-handed or sword and board characters. This would basically give them the ability to just do a full attack and move, while TWF characters and monks still have to worry about getting a full attack. I think the best way to do this would be to keep it simple, just say "You may move up to your speed during a full attack. This movement may be broken up between attacks." This seems like a better idea to me that turning standard attacks into full attacks but only with one weapon, which is a distinction without a difference for a lot of martial characters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronikoce View Post
    If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2017

    Default Re: Translating 5e Movement Economy to 3.5e

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    Basically give the cleric dip for travel devotion to all the martial characters?

    Hmm...perhaps not exactly what I'd envisioned, but I suppose it could have a similar effect (at least how as far as how movement on the board would play out in practice).

    Travel devotion would end up granting additional movement (which may exacerbate kiting concerns), eats up a swift action (which could hurt some martial builds, particularly those based out of ToB?), and still has some stricter limitations on how movement must be spent (all movement must be utilized or otherwise wasted during the discrete action in which it is granted).

    Still though...an interesting idea to consider.



    Quote Originally Posted by Fitz10019 View Post
    Failing a Tumble check results in an AoO from the foe you tumble past. Falling prone is not associated with Tumble, normally.

    Huh. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

    It seems this was one of those house rules I'd always assumed was a written rule since I'd never bothered to look.

    If the result of failing a tumble check is simply failing to avoid the attack, that makes using tumble a lot less risky. Good thing to be aware of.


    I think Tumble DC 15 + BAB is too high. I suggest 15 + (My foe's BAB - My BAB). It's usually medium BAB characters that Tumble, so I think that would keep it interesting over many levels.

    Hmm...interesting idea. My only thought is that it seems somewhat odd that having a better to-hit would also make it harder for others to hit you...

    I might have to think on that one a bit more. I would hate to make it too difficult for melee focused characters to take advantage of the new movement scheme compared to their ranged/caster counterparts.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drelua View Post
    The problem I see with this is that it really favours two-handed or sword and board characters. This would basically give them the ability to just do a full attack and move, while TWF characters and monks still have to worry about getting a full attack. I think the best way to do this would be to keep it simple, just say "You may move up to your speed during a full attack. This movement may be broken up between attacks." This seems like a better idea to me that turning standard attacks into full attacks but only with one weapon, which is a distinction without a difference for a lot of martial characters.

    Mm. Fair. I'd hate to de-incentivize players who like to go down the route of gaining additional attacks.



    That said, after reading through some of these responses and reflecting on some of my own games, I've actually started to find myself hesitant to go down the route of buffing full attacks to that extent.

    It may be a bit of an edge case, but in my last e6 game, one of my players—a shapeshift variant orcish druid—ended up splicing together a few vile feats and special items with Girallon's Blessing to frightening effect...the idea of some martials spreading out five/six attacks over their full range of movement while others struggle to reach two gives me a bit of pause.

    As things stand, bonus attacks are fairly easy to come by in 3.5e if you know where to look. The ceiling for 5e seems to be a lot lower and that's probably why that sort of movement scheme works as well as it does under that system.



    Thinking on it a bit more, making it that easy to use all of a character's additional/bonus attacks during a full attack also negates a lot of the attractiveness of many of the abilities/options you see in ToB.

    If you have the choice of performing one slightly flashy/flavorful standard attack that might hit or four attacks against four different enemies that will probably end up doing more damage...acquiring additional attacks is quickly going to become the name of the game at the expense of all else.



    The more we talk about it though, the more I find myself thinking that simply allowing the move action to be broken up is the safest change to attempt.

    Full attacks would still eat up movement, but at least melee based characters (martials in particular) would have the chance to position themselves more effectively while dealing out some damage via standard attacks if they wanted. It's not a 1-for-1 analogue to 5e, but I still see some promise in it.
    Last edited by BlackOnyx; 2020-10-20 at 01:47 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •