How bad would it be if you could get all of your attacks as long as you moved up to your normal speed? I think the 5' step would still be relavant as in doing so, you would take no AoEs. Spring Attack, Bounding Assault, and Rapid Blitz perhaps would need to be modified. Mobility, could simply go back to providing a +4 to AC as in the PHB.
I recall this being discussed in Alpha 1, with the possibility of losing iterative attacks to gain making more than one attack when moving more than 5 feet.
Any thoughts?
Not so enthused. Would basically make the whole single attack/full attack destinction moot.
I'd rather see feats and abilities that make movement+attack more attractive without stepping on full attack's toes.
I think it would make for a great monk only class ability.
Regardless as to how it is done, I think it would serve the new ruleset well (and us gamers too) to come up with some way for the martial classes to make more than one attack when moving more than 5 feet. I would also like to see this resolved in the rules for combat rather than as additonal feats. Backwards compatability can be preserved that way, and all those powerful monsters and NPCs in older material would automatically benefit as well (they would not if it were feat related unless DMs did some homework).
Perhaps the amount of movement you could take on a full attack is directly related to your BAB? Forgive me for not codifying this into rules... but here is the concept.
Right now this is where it's at: (I'll use a paladin in heavy armor as an example)
1st level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take a 5' step and make one attack (full attack).
6th level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take a 5' step and make 2 attacks (full attack).
11th level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take a 5' step and make 3 attacks (full attack).
16th level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take a 5' step and make 4 attacks (full attack).
The paladin progresses in number of attacks, but because of the movement rules, he cannot get as much use of the additional attacks, being able to affect one target or a few if they are bunched up around him. At 1st and 6th level, it remains interesting, but at 11th and 16th, it looks a little dull and the 5' step rule becomes a hinderance to getting the fullest out of all of the paladins attacks.
Would it not be better if were more akin to the following?
1st level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take a 5' step and make one attack (full attack).
6th level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take a 5' step and make 2 attacks (full attack).
11th level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take up to two 5' steps (10') and make 3 attacks (full attack).
16th level paladin: Can move 20' and make a single attack (standard action). Can take up to three 5' steps (15') and make 4 attacks (full attack).
Again, I'm trying to relate total movement during a full attack to BAB.
Why not make a feat chain? That would favor fighters, but that's a good thing, to my mind.
Mobile Strike
Prerequisite: BAB +6
Benefit: You may make one additional attack when attacking in the same round after making a full move action. This additional attack is at a -5 penalty (as if it were a normal iterative attack).
Mobile Strike, Improved
Prerequisite: BAB +11, Mobile Strike
Benefit: When using your Mobile Strike, you gain a third attack as part of your standard attack action, albeit at a -10 penalty.
Mobile Strike, Greater
Prerequisite: BAB +16, Mobile Strike, Improved Mobile Strike
Benefit: When using your Mobile Strike, you gain a fourth attack as part of your standard attack action, albeit at a -15 penalty.
I would like to see the option for any character to give up an iterative attack for an extra move of 1/2 their normal movement and peform a full attack minus the one iterative attack given up.
So an 11th level paladin with +11/+6/+1 attacks could give up his +1 attack to move 1/2 of his normal movement (so 10' in the case of a paladin with a 20' movement) and still make his +11 and +6 attacks.
If you allowed a character to give up more than 1 attack and gain 1/2 movement each time it would add some nice options. For example, a 16th level paladin (+16/+11/+6/+1) with a 30' move could:
1) Do a 5' step and attack 4 times (+16/+11/+6/+1)
2) Move 15' and attack 3 times (+16/+11/+6)
3) Move 30' and attack 2 times (+16/+11)
4) Move 45' and attack once at +16
5) Charge 60' and attack once
Eric, I like your idea an awful lot as well, but I'd keep it away from rogues (run... flank... two sneak attacks! Dead BBEG!). Somehow limiting it to classes with full BAB/d10 HD would work for me, though.
Eric, I like your idea an awful lot as well, but I'd keep it away from rogues (run... flank... two sneak attacks! Dead BBEG!). Somehow limiting it to classes with full BAB/d10 HD would work for me, though.
Hmm, yes the rogue could be an issue. I suppose that's another reason why I would like to see the damage for sneak attacking reduced and an additional attack bonus given to rogues when sneak attacking. Something like:
1st level: +1d6 sneak damage
3rd level: +1 attack while sneak attacking, +1d6 sneak damage
5th level: +1 attack, +2d6 sneak damage
etc.
OR
Just limit sneak attack to 1 time a round if you give up ANY iterative attacks to move.
I would like to see the option for any character to give up an iterative attack for an extra move of 1/2 their normal movement and peform a full attack minus the one iterative attack given up.
So an 11th level paladin with +11/+6/+1 attacks could give up his +1 attack to move 1/2 of his normal movement (so 10' in the case of a paladin with a 20' movement) and still make his +11 and +6 attacks.
If you allowed a character to give up more than 1 attack and gain 1/2 movement each time it would add some nice options. For example, a 16th level paladin (+16/+11/+6/+1) with a 30' move could:
1) Do a 5' step and attack 4 times (+16/+11/+6/+1)
2) Move 15' and attack 3 times (+16/+11/+6)
3) Move 30' and attack 2 times (+16/+11)
4) Move 45' and attack once at +16
5) Charge 60' and attack once
Yes I agree, this is very nice as well. I like that it is not feat related, so that all characters have a chance to benefit, with good BAB classes benefitting the most. I do think that your movement suggestions are a little skewed on the high side of things. Many characters will have speed boosting magic items at high levels. And also there is the Monk with his super speed. It may be balanced though as he has an average BAB ( at least for now).
It may be better to keep total movement on a full attack under your total movement so as not to interfere with a standard action, as KaeYoss said earlier.
Also, under this, what would a 6th level paladin look like? An 11th level paladin? Would the movement be less?
A 6th level paladin wouldn't benefit from this as giving up his iterative attack would only net him 1/2 of his move and 1 attack - and a standard action + move is better.
An 11th level paladin would be(assume 30' move):
5' step and +11/+6/+1
15' move and +11/+6
30' move and +11
So the 11th level paladin only benefits from the existing rules if he gives up 1 attack to move 15' and take his remaining 2 attacks at +11 and +6.
|
Regardless as to how it is done, I think it would serve the new ruleset well (and us gamers too) to come up with some way for the martial classes to make more than one attack when moving more than 5 feet. I would also like to see this resolved in the rules for combat rather than as additonal feats. Backwards compatability can be preserved that way, and all those powerful monsters and NPCs in older material would automatically benefit as well (they would not if it were feat related unless DMs did some homework).
I think this should be taken all the way back. (To 1st edition rules!)
Not only should the whole distinction between an attack and a full attack be eliminated, but the penalty for iterative attacks should be eliminated as well.
Yes, that means rogues will do nasty damage at high levels when they flank. They are supposed to.
And let two weapon fighters get off a full routine of attacks every time. The bonuses for two-handed fighting, and the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting, are already enough to make the constant full routing nothing special.
If the most it costs is making pounce obsolete, then why not make high level weapon fighters, particularly melee fighters, a little more powerful by eliminating the concepts of full attacks and iterative attacks completely?
I think this should be taken all the way back. (To 1st edition rules!)Not only should the whole distinction between an attack and a full attack be eliminated, but the penalty for iterative attacks should be eliminated as well.
Yes, that means rogues will do nasty damage at high levels when they flank. They are supposed to.
And let two weapon fighters get off a full routine of attacks every time. The bonuses for two-handed fighting, and the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting, are already enough to make the constant full routing nothing special.If the most it costs is making pounce obsolete, then why not make high level weapon fighters, particularly melee fighters, a little more powerful by eliminating the concepts of full attacks and iterative attacks completely?
Thay may be simple, but I don't like it. I feel movement should result in some sort of loss to attack ability or there's no sense of strategy, just a lot of random running around the battlefield.
Just get rid of general iterative attacks and you won't have this sort of problem...
In previous discussions in Alpha 1 Jason already said iterative attacks are staying and I'm glad to hear that. I'm just trying to find interesting ways to use iterative attacks so the incentive to stay rooted in one place at high levels isn't so bad.
Yes, getting rid of iterative attacks would make the martial classes a little dull for me. I'm fond of them as are all the players in 2 groups I play in. We like our extra attacks (two fighters and a ranger in one particular group). I'm glad they are staying.
But what gets a little annoying, (let's assume 16th level, since that's where most of our characters are in one group) is when attack opponent A, down him, and then you move toward opponent B who is 10' away, and that's it. And this despite having 3 more attacks. A 1st level character can do this.
Or how about when you charge opponent C, who is 15' away, make one attack, and then take a full attack from opponent C in response?
I have to say, Eric's idea is really growing on me (even though he spells his name "wrong" -- have to forgive him for that one -- parents' fault, not his!). Yeah, it requires a slight nerf for sneak attack, but he and I have always agreed on that point anyway.
We'd still have to address the imporant points that anthony brings up, however. Let me think about it a bit.
--Erik
I would like to see the option for any character to give up an iterative attack for an extra move of 1/2 their normal movement and peform a full attack minus the one iterative attack given up.
Balance- and flavor- wise this is pretty good, and in a video game would play great. I fear that it's unplayably complicated for a tabletop game.
Balance- and flavor- wise this is pretty good, and in a video game would play great. I fear that it's unplayably complicated for a tabletop game.
It's pretty simple Orion, any time a character can use a full attack option and instead of just 5' step plus all attacks like normal, they can choose to give up their lowest remaining iterative attack for a move of up to 1/2 their normal movement rate.
With 4 iteratives this would even allow 1/2 move, attack, 1/2 move, attack. Or attack, 1/2 move, attack, attack.
Trust me, with my players it would be a nightmare. Especially once that had three or more attacks. Seriously, taking your movement, dividing by three, rounding, then counting squares to every enemy to decide if I'd rather get 2 swings on my real target or three swings on a different guy? Way, way to complex.
I like the double attack feat though.
The recent comments lean me back toward tying extra movement during a full attack to BAB. While I like the idea of giving up iterative attacks for extra movement, it does seem like it would be problematic in certain instances. We haven't even discussed the 2-weapon wielder yet.
Essentially, to condense my initial thoughts, at BAB +11 you could take two 5' steps, and at BAB +16 you could take three 5' steps during your full-attack.
I also don't want this to only benefit the fighter. I would like to see it benefit any good BAB character, be ok for any average BAB character, and not be useful to any poor BAB character.
Then there is the monsters. I believe they should benefit as well. Feat related extra movement makes it hard to give this to monsters.
I'm really looking for a rule to benefit anyone or anything that has a high BAB, and extra movement on full-attacks would be nice.
Trust me, with my players it would be a nightmare. Especially once that had three or more attacks. Seriously, taking your movement, dividing by three, rounding, then counting squares to every enemy to decide if I'd rather get 2 swings on my real target or three swings on a different guy? Way, way to complex.
I like the double attack feat though.
Where did you get dividing your movement by 3? The rule I proposed is giving up 1 attack to move 1/2 your movement.
What about losing and iterative attack to gain 5' extra movement? This is sort of a combination of both my and Eric Tillmans idea.
I had been thinking about my initial proposal and realized you'd be able to move 15' and make full attacks. Since you could take your extra 5' steps, at 16th level, you could:
1) take all your attacks then move up to 15'
2) move 15', then take all your attacks
3) any combination inbetween... 1st attack, 5' step, 2nd & 3rd attack, 5' step, 5' step, 4th attack for example
I was wondering maybe this could get too complex or seem a little wonky in actual practice at high levels. I'll have to play test and see. Also, I want to make sure that a standard action remains an important choice. Spring Attack and the like would certainly diminish in value. Noone would want to be within 15' of anyone with a +16 BAB (assuming 5' reach... it could get much worse with longer reach, especially large bruisers like giants and such). Would it be too powerful?
So with the idea of giving up an iterative attack to gain an extra 5' of movement the options might look like, with said Paladin from above:
At +16 BAB: +16,+11,+6,+1
1) Standard action: move 20', make 1 attack
2) Full-Attack action: move 5' step, make up to 4 attacks
3) Full-Attack action: give up 4th attack, move up to two 5' steps, make up to 3 attacks
4) Full-Attack action: give up 3rd and 4th attacks, move up to three 5' steps, make up to 2 attacks
This could work.
|
|
Thay may be simple, but I don't like it. I feel movement should result in some sort of loss to attack ability or there's no sense of strategy, just a lot of random running around the battlefield.
There is still strategy.
Moving for flanks.Moving for cleaves.
Moving so that when you down one opponent early in your sequence you can still make the rest of the attacks.
Even more, you can now move so you can make multiple bull rush's in the same round to really drive an enemy back into some danger.
And the various feats all offer the potential to expand that, so you can make full attacks along your whole move, or start attacking, move, then finish attacking.
Where did you get dividing your movement by 3? The rule I proposed is giving up 1 attack to move 1/2 your movement.Trust me, with my players it would be a nightmare. Especially once that had three or more attacks. Seriously, taking your movement, dividing by three, rounding, then counting squares to every enemy to decide if I'd rather get 2 swings on my real target or three swings on a different guy? Way, way to complex.
I like the double attack feat though.
My pardon, halved then tripled. Still teetering on the edge of too complex.
What about losing and iterative attack to gain 5' extra movement? This is sort of a combination of both my and Eric Tillmans idea.
I had been thinking about my initial proposal and realized you'd be able to move 15' and make full attacks. Since you could take your extra 5' steps, at 16th level, you could:
1) take all your attacks then move up to 15'
2) move 15', then take all your attacks
3) any combination inbetween... 1st attack, 5' step, 2nd & 3rd attack, 5' step, 5' step, 4th attack for exampleI was wondering maybe this could get too complex or seem a little wonky in actual practice at high levels. I'll have to play test and see. Also, I want to make sure that a standard action remains an important choice. Spring Attack and the like would certainly diminish in value. Noone would want to be within 15' of anyone with a +16 BAB (assuming 5' reach... it could get much worse with longer reach, especially large bruisers like giants and such). Would it be too powerful?
So with the idea of giving up an iterative attack to gain an extra 5' of movement the options might look like, with said Paladin from above:
At +16 BAB: +16,+11,+6,+1
1) Standard action: move 20', make 1 attack
2) Full-Attack action: move 5' step, make up to 4 attacks
3) Full-Attack action: give up 4th attack, move up to two 5' steps, make up to 3 attacks
4) Full-Attack action: give up 3rd and 4th attacks, move up to three 5' steps, make up to 2 attacksThis could work.
Yes, it could work. I prefer the higher movement I proposed, but I understand why others wouldn't like it. A 5' move per attack given up is still better for melee types than the current rules.
There are a lot of good ideas here. How about if only one 5' move could be made after each iterative attack? So the +16 BAB fighter could go +16 attack - move - +11 attack - move - +6 attack - move - +1 attack - move.
Could we be clear as to whether these are 5' steps or just 5' moves. I feel reluctant to have them 5' steps since those deny Attacks of Opportunity.
I had thought about the former at first. It seems that it might be a bit choppy and really not that useful in the long run. Although it may work well when fighting hordes, how often does that actually happen?
About the latter, I've been describing them as individual 5' steps partly for simplicity's sake, but I would not mind if the 5' step is preserved and any additional movement is treated normally for attacks of opportunity. That would help to preserve the Spring Attack feats I think. Also, keep in mind that the rules and options we're discussing here won't be of any benefit until at least 11th level (or for monsters with BAB +11 or more). I feel that this simple little addition would really spice up melee combat at high levels, and help to close the gap between casters and martial characters.
I would prefer just having an Improved, Greater, etc. versions of Spring Attack that allows you to use you're additional attacks. Two Weapon Fighting does it, just continue the precedent. No reason for new rules or twitchy new feats or maneuvers.
Don't these already exist in Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz? A large limiting factor of these are the prerequisites for them, which would prohibit most characters and monsters access, especially, Rapid blitz, with BAB +18 as a prerequisite.
I do like the efffects of these feats however and one of my characters currently is investing in this feat chain.
If extra attacks were granted with more than a 5' step, through feats, it would be prohibitive to all character classes save the fighter.
As a general question to anyone: Do you think that this is a good thing?
Iterative attacks are a case in point - going by the rules they all take place simultaneously. So lets say there's an +16 BAB archer who wants to shoot at a monk with a 60' move running across a 50' wide corridor, so he starts and ends his movement in full cover. Even though the target's exposed for five-sixth of the duration of a combat round, and the archer can shoot four arrows in a round, there's no way he can shoot at the monk unless he happened to have a readied action to do so, and even then he'd only be able to fire once. Of course there may be feats to give the archer some chance of firing, but that doesn't alleviate the existence of the problem in the core rules.
That's why I'd allow a fighter to hold iterative attacks for use later on (before his next turn) as immediate actions.
|
This is a general query, about iterative attacks, since many see them as useless;
Is there any reason attacks have to be carried out in order, highest to lowest?
I ask, since, I can see how it could be frustrating to blow your +11 Base Attack (and Cleave) on two minions, 5'step up to the boss, and flail away with your +6 & +1.
But is there an actual rule preventing you declaring your weakest attack first? Cut down the weak minion(s) with your weak attack(s), then step forward to clobber the boss with your best shot?
Anyone out there already allowing this?
This is a general query, about iterative attacks, since many see them as useless;
Is there any reason attacks have to be carried out in order, highest to lowest?
I ask, since, I can see how it could be frustrating to blow your +11 Base Attack (and Cleave) on two minions, 5'step up to the boss, and flail away with your +6 & +1.
But is there an actual rule preventing you declaring your weakest attack first? Cut down the weak minion(s) with your weak attack(s), then step forward to clobber the boss with your best shot?
Anyone out there already allowing this?
I wouldn't recommend this myself. I'm not sure if it is explicitly stated, but I think you have to make the attacks in order. The boss is smart in using his minions to soak up your best attacks.
|
|
Fair enough. I guess I've seen enough players use their lower-strength, off-hand, light weapon to drop a minion, before letting rip with their dominant hand on the boss (which is allowed in the text above). I assumed it was a totally free choice.
That's not to say it shouldn't be a free choice, though.
Although I would rule that doing so would mean you had commited yourself to a full attack. No declaring an out-of-sequence iterative attack, finding your target is an illusion, then saying 'Well, I've only made one attack, I can still move away, right?'.
That sounds reasonable. If I remember the rules alright, a character can make the first attack of an iterative sequence and then change their mind to make standard attack & move actions instead of a full attack.
That sounds right to me too JRM
|
|
I would like to see the option for any character to give up an iterative attack for an extra move of 1/2 their normal movement and peform a full attack minus the one iterative attack given up.
So an 11th level paladin with +11/+6/+1 attacks could give up his +1 attack to move 1/2 of his normal movement (so 10' in the case of a paladin with a 20' movement) and still make his +11 and +6 attacks.
If you allowed a character to give up more than 1 attack and gain 1/2 movement each time it would add some nice options. For example, a 16th level paladin (+16/+11/+6/+1) with a 30' move could:
1) Do a 5' step and attack 4 times (+16/+11/+6/+1)
2) Move 15' and attack 3 times (+16/+11/+6)
3) Move 30' and attack 2 times (+16/+11)
4) Move 45' and attack once at +16
5) Charge 60' and attack once
Eric, I think you're on to something here! This is great stuff! My group and I have thought of ways to allow such things to occur for some time. I think the simple - trade an attack for half your movement is brilliant.
So far - by reading through the thread the pitfalls to watch out for would be:
1) move - not 5' step - so that the movement still does provoke AoOs when applicable.\
2) two-weapon wielders. My suggestion is that even if such a combatant doesn't choose to attack with his off hand at the same time as his on hand for his first attack that round - he does not get to use the 'first attack' BAB with his off-weapon after moving to get his second attack that round. Thus only someone with Imp.Two Weapon fighting could hope to attack with his off hand during his second attack that round (at -5).
Furthermore, it's potentially not over-balanced because many of the combat feats like Cleave, Overhand Chop, Backswing etc are not stackable with this type of manuevering.
Someone suggested adding "improved spring attack" feats. I disagree wtih this logic. Spring Attack already requires two prereq feats - both of which are not useable whenever spring attacking (so they're effectively inert) then once you take the improved spring attack, you've got two inert feats and one that is no longer applicable now that you've got improved versions. Plus due to the lengthy feat chain - creatures would rarely if ever have such an ability to do these manuevers.
One of the brainstormings we had was "wouldn't it be nice if 'theoretically' a fighter (assuming +6 BAB allowing for a second attack) 1) attack, killing his foe, and 2) then deciding to "ready" his second attack to see how the battle unfolds. For instance: Kelnor kills the wolf he has been attacking with his first attack, but he's not sure which wolf to move to attack next. Then on the wolves turn, one of them charges the wizard, trips him and drops him to negative hit points, Kelnor now decides for his second attack, he will "partial charge" the wolf (up to single movement) to go save his wizard buddy from being mauled to death by the rest of the creatures that are about to have their turn.
Currently the rules do not allow for this. Theoretically it makes sense and could work. Cinematically it sounds great!
I think that your idea, Eric, can help establish this as a possibility. Even if it's not take seriously by the game designers - I'd like to yoink this for my own campaign as a combat rule....
Robert
I am not sure I understand -- and please forgive a newbie to these boards -- can someone explain to me WHY we would want to add the ability to make iterative attacks and more than a five-foot step? How does this improve the game? Does it make the game simpler? more balanced? more realistic? more backwards compatible?
What are the guiding goals that we use here to evaluate the reason for making a change?
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm guessing that if we can offer the Powers That Be a solid REASON for a particular change, maybe they will be more likely to adopt it.
The proposed addition is nifty because it opens up more combat options for PCs with higher BABs? That to me seems mostly to increase character power, and the Alpha rules already do plenty of that. Are "Add more options for combat maneuverability" and "Boost PC power" goals that we should pursue?
Thanks for the good words Robert. I'm also doing to add the 'sacrifice an iterative' in order to do a 1/2 move into my campaign.
As far as two weapon fighting goes, I like your suggestion.
I am not sure I understand -- and please forgive a newbie to these boards -- can someone explain to me WHY we would want to add the ability to make iterative attacks and more than a five-foot step? How does this improve the game? Does it make the game simpler? more balanced? more realistic? more backwards compatible?
What are the guiding goals that we use here to evaluate the reason for making a change?
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm guessing that if we can offer the Powers That Be a solid REASON for a particular change, maybe they will be more likely to adopt it.
The proposed addition is nifty because it opens up more combat options for PCs with higher BABs? That to me seems mostly to increase character power, and the Alpha rules already do plenty of that. Are "Add more options for combat maneuverability" and "Boost PC power" goals that we should pursue?
The proposal is put forth in an effort to add a more tactical element to a combat and move away from the current static feel of combat... I can move 5' and attack with all 4 of my attacks, but if I move 10' now I can only attack once? Spellcasters get so much variety from their spell choices. It would be nice if martial characters have something in between a full attack, and a standard action attack.
I also like the idea of holding one of your iterative attacks for an immediate action.
|
|
The proposal is put forth in an effort to add a more tactical element to a combat and move away from the current static feel of combat... I can move 5' and attack with all 4 of my attacks, but if I move 10' now I can only attack once? Spellcasters get so much variety from their spell choices. It would be nice if martial characters have something in between a full attack, and a standard action attack.
I also like the idea of holding one of your iterative attacks for an immediate action.
Actually, thats a point I hadn't even thought of. In perspective - a 16th level wizard vs a 16th level fighter; the former can move his full distance and cast his most powerful spell. The latter can only move 5' to take advantage of his fullest potential. Move more than that and he gets about 33% of his effectiveness (I know its only 1/4 attacks and thus 25%, but I accounted for the fact that the iterative attacks are at a less viability to hit.) Furthermore after moving that additional 5'+ the warrior loses the use of many of his combat options: Cleave, Backhand, Overhand chop, etc - further lessening his best options and potential; whereas the wizard can still take advantage of his highest level spell, along with any metamagic feats, etc. and god forbid one of em isn't quickened to get two such powerful spell attacks and a full move vs the one sword attack with movement.
Anthony, I think the idea brings even more viability after you brought up this point.
Robert
I don't know what else to say at this point. Hopefully, Jason and the developers will take notice of this thread and entertain some of our ideas :)
Seconded! This option promises, to my mind, to make the fighter a viable and interesting class -- without simply increasing damage output or AC.