After playtesting various options and considering several fixes I have come to the conclusion that they should probably leave the Full attack action as is and instead add a feat or two that would enable a fighter to make more than one attack as a standard action.
I think this would be the easiest solution for backwards compatibility, while still granting fighters the ability to move and make more than one attack. This feat could be taken by monsters as well. With the increase in feats gained in Pathfinder this would be no problem to pick up for a fighter.
The feat could be something along the line of:
Rapid strike [Combat]
Requirement: Base attack +6
When you take the attack action as a standard action, you may make one additional attack at a -5 penalty. This attack can occur at any time after you have made your regular attack even in between or after you have moved for the round.
Normal: You can only make multiple attacks as a full round action
with an improved and greater version allowing for even more attacks.
|
After playtesting various options and considering several fixes I have come to the conclusion that they should probably leave the Full attack action as is and instead add a feat or two that would enable a fighter to make more than one attack as a standard action.
I think this would be the easiest solution for backwards compatibility, while still granting fighters the ability to move and make more than one attack. This feat could be taken by monsters as well. With the increase in feats gained in Pathfinder this would be no problem to pick up for a fighter.
The feat could be something along the line of:
Rapid strike [Combat]
Requirement: Base attack +6
When you take the attack action as a standard action, you may make one additional attack at a -5 penalty. This attack can occur at any time after you have made your regular attack even in between or after you have moved for the round.
Normal: You can only make multiple attacks as a full round action
with an improved and greater version allowing for even more attacks.
I'd suggest only having two of these. And kicking in at 11+ and 15+, for two and three attacks on a standard action respectively. That way Full Attack still has an advantage over moving. Although as you're giving up feats for this, that might not be as big a concern.
I'd suggest only having two of these. And kicking in at 11+ and 15+, for two and three attacks on a standard action respectively. That way Full Attack still has an advantage over moving. Although as you're giving up feats for this, that might not be as big a concern.After playtesting various options and considering several fixes I have come to the conclusion that they should probably leave the Full attack action as is and instead add a feat or two that would enable a fighter to make more than one attack as a standard action.
I think this would be the easiest solution for backwards compatibility, while still granting fighters the ability to move and make more than one attack. This feat could be taken by monsters as well. With the increase in feats gained in Pathfinder this would be no problem to pick up for a fighter.
The feat could be something along the line of:
Rapid strike [Combat]
Requirement: Base attack +6
When you take the attack action as a standard action, you may make one additional attack at a -5 penalty. This attack can occur at any time after you have made your regular attack even in between or after you have moved for the round.
Normal: You can only make multiple attacks as a full round action
with an improved and greater version allowing for even more attacks.
You could add an additional benefit that reduced the penalty for the secondary attacks made when you take the full attack action, say a reduction of one for each feat f.ex.
How I handle this is simple...your Full attack class must be able without the BAB from other classes to multi attack
meaning fighter 6/ rogue 5 can.......rogue 8 fighter 1 can not
seems simple and I really do not see how it would brake down?
If I may ask, what's your rational behind this rule? I consider a 8th level rogue to be on par with the fighting abilities of a 6th level fighter, albeit 2 levels later; why wouldn't the rogue perform the same. The fighter's weapon training isn't really an argument, as the ranger also benefit from a good BAB progression and isn't much "trained" than the rogue in that regard.
This would also rule-out any animal (including dire animals and dinosaurs) and magical beast from doing what good BAB progression classes do. As a matter of fact, it would rule out most monsters other than dragons and outsiders if my memory does not fail me...
'findel
How I handle this is simple...your Full attack class must be able without the BAB from other classes to multi attack
meaning fighter 6/ rogue 5 can.......rogue 8 fighter 1 can not
seems simple and I really do not see how it would brake down?
If I may ask, what's your rational behind this rule? I consider a 8th level rogue to be on par with the fighting abilities of a 6th level fighter, albeit 2 levels later; why wouldn't the rogue perform the same. The fighter's weapon training isn't really an argument, as the ranger also benefit from a good BAB progression and isn't much "trained" than the rogue in that regard.
This would also rule-out any animal (including dire animals and dinosaurs) and magical beast from doing what good BAB progression classes do. As a matter of fact, it would rule out most monsters other than dragons and outsiders if my memory does not fail me...
'findel
I agree, If one were to implement such a rule I think it should apply equally to all characters and monsters. I guess the reasoning was to give the classes with full bab an edge in combat, but I think they already have that by the fact that they gain a bab bonus every level.
If I may ask, what's your rational behind this rule?
Simple it is a test, to see if full BAB if limited to just full BAB classes are an issue. Some had real issues saying allowing everything full attack is to much, so I limited it for this test
So for this I will just have full BAB classes and monsters gaining this power...how is that any diff then making it a melee only class ability?
Now I would like to try if for everyone but i need to see how it works if only the melee classes have it. Then I will allow everyone else to have it
Then I have both sides to test and see which worked better or what the issues was
AS for the 6 level rule, its there for this test to prevent dipping braking the system
|
|
After playtesting various options and considering several fixes I have come to the conclusion that they should probably leave the Full attack action as is and instead add a feat or two that would enable a fighter to make more than one attack as a standard action.
I think this would be the easiest solution for backwards compatibility...
Actually, anything affecting the underlying combat rules chassis wouldn't affect BC one bit. Pathfinder isn't trying to be BC with the 3.5 PHB & DMG, it is trying to replace them. All Pathfinder has to accomplish is being BC with the splats and the adventures and whatnot. Changing full attack to a standard action would not invalidate much of anything, 3.x adventures-wise. It wouldn't affect stat blocks, just how those stat blocks are used.
Other than that, you have a good suggestion :)
There are already such feats in the PHB2 like Rapid Blitz. Pathfinder can just do something similar.
You could add an additional benefit that reduced the penalty for the secondary attacks made when you take the full attack action, say a reduction of one for each feat f.ex.I'd suggest only having two of these. And kicking in at 11+ and 15+, for two and three attacks on a standard action respectively. That way Full Attack still has an advantage over moving. Although as you're giving up feats for this, that might not be as big a concern.After playtesting various options and considering several fixes I have come to the conclusion that they should probably leave the Full attack action as is and instead add a feat or two that would enable a fighter to make more than one attack as a standard action.
I think this would be the easiest solution for backwards compatibility, while still granting fighters the ability to move and make more than one attack. This feat could be taken by monsters as well. With the increase in feats gained in Pathfinder this would be no problem to pick up for a fighter.
The feat could be something along the line of:
Rapid strike [Combat]
Requirement: Base attack +6
When you take the attack action as a standard action, you may make one additional attack at a -5 penalty. This attack can occur at any time after you have made your regular attack even in between or after you have moved for the round.
Normal: You can only make multiple attacks as a full round action
with an improved and greater version allowing for even more attacks.
Not the best option.
Consider the fact that these feats will be nearly mandatory. They will be so good that everyone will take them as soon as they are eligible.
So they become, in essence, a "Feat Tax" - a "tax" you pay by spending your precious feats to get a mandatory ability.
You might as well write these feats onto every melee class' list of abilities so that it says "At level x, you can make multiple attacks as a standard action, but you don't get to select a feat this level".
Have you considered the implied penalty to non-fighters?
How many feats does a Paladin get during his career? Is it really fair to him to have to spend 3 (or 2) feats to keep up with the fighter? Can a paladin afford to get these feats, given his limited number of feats and his wider assortment of class features on which to spend feats?
What about rangers, monks, barbarians, rogues, wildshaping druids, and a whole bevy of prestige classes? Are all these melee-heavy classes also going to be subject to the "Feat Tax" to "pay" for essential combat options?
What about monsters? They don't get many feats. Do we need to look at our Mariliths and remove 5 of her feats and replace them with 5 new feats that allow her to multiattack with all her 6 arms after a normal move? Do we need to re-engineer all high-level monsters with multiple attacks to replace their existing feats with the necessary move/attack feats?
No, I don't think setting this up as a chain of feats really works as well as it sounds when we first blurt it out.
|
|
After playtesting various options and considering several fixes I have come to the conclusion that they should probably leave the Full attack action as is and instead add a feat or two that would enable a fighter to make more than one attack as a standard action.
I think this would be the easiest solution for backwards compatibility, while still granting fighters the ability to move and make more than one attack. This feat could be taken by monsters as well. With the increase in feats gained in Pathfinder this would be no problem to pick up for a fighter.
The feat could be something along the line of:
Rapid strike [Combat]
Requirement: Base attack +6
When you take the attack action as a standard action, you may make one additional attack at a -5 penalty. This attack can occur at any time after you have made your regular attack even in between or after you have moved for the round.
Normal: You can only make multiple attacks as a full round action
with an improved and greater version allowing for even more attacks.
Star Wars SAGA edition got rid of iterative attacks all together, and there is a feat very similar to this that allows you to make two attacks with one weapon. BOTH attacks take a -5 penalty (but they still take a full round). Its not optimal in SAGA, and I ended up houseruling an Attack Action version.
I would suggest that you leave your feat as is, but make both attacks suffer the same penalty.
Not the best option.
Consider the fact that these feats will be nearly mandatory. They will be so good that everyone will take them as soon as they are eligible.
So they become, in essence, a "Feat Tax" - a "tax" you pay by spending your precious feats to get a mandatory ability.
You might as well write these feats onto every melee class' list of abilities so that it says "At level x, you can make multiple attacks as a standard action, but you don't get to select a feat this level".
Have you considered the implied penalty to non-fighters?
How many feats does a Paladin get during his career? Is it really fair to him to have to spend 3 (or 2) feats to keep up with the fighter? Can a paladin afford to get these feats, given his limited number of feats and his wider assortment of class features on which to spend feats?
What about rangers, monks, barbarians, rogues, wildshaping druids, and a whole bevy of prestige classes? Are all these melee-heavy classes also going to be subject to the "Feat Tax" to "pay" for essential combat options?
What about monsters? They don't get many feats. Do we need to look at our Mariliths and remove 5 of her feats and replace them with 5 new feats that allow her to multiattack with all her 6 arms after a normal move? Do we need to re-engineer all high-level monsters with multiple attacks to replace their existing feats with the necessary move/attack feats?
No, I don't think setting this up as a chain of feats really works as well as it sounds when we first blurt it out.
I have played with house-rules allowing multiple attacks as a standard action, guess what, the players still didn't move more than 5 feet because of attacks of opportunity and the fact that they liked to kill the enemies that threatened them before they moved on.
As for monsters, they would become much more dangerous if allowed to make all their natural attacks as a standard action, so I think they should be limited to a few attacks with penalties to secondary attacks just like players. Also giving every monster the ability to move and full attack would leave the pounce special ability almost useless.
While the feat I presented might seem a "must have on paper", I don't think every fighting type character would take it, some builds are made for more static combat anyways. I will test this feat chain in my current campaign and see if my players like it and give more feedback then.
I have played with house-rules allowing multiple attacks as a standard action, guess what, the players still didn't move more than 5 feet because of attacks of opportunity and the fact that they liked to kill the enemies that threatened them before they moved on.
Sure, in the middle of combat. But getting into combat, moving from one dead guy to the next (if the next is more than 5' away), getting around hazards or obstacles, dealing with enemy mages who like to cast walls, etc., can all require more than just 5' movement.
Heck, even taking a few AoOs to get past the mooks up front and kill the BBEG in the back is often worth it - building a fast, tumbling guy with Mobility can be extremely deadly to enemy defensive positions, and much more so if he can get full iterative/multiple attacks when he gets there.
As for monsters, they would become much more dangerous if allowed to make all their natural attacks as a standard action, so I think they should be limited to a few attacks with penalties to secondary attacks just like players. Also giving every monster the ability to move and full attack would leave the pounce special ability almost useless.
C'est la vie.
You're talking about making the PCs much more dangrous if allowed to make all their multiple attacks as a standard action (feat or no feat). Why shouldn't monsters do it too?
Pounce was silly and misnamed anyway. Why do pouncing animals get to bite? Easy enough to just replace the description of Pounce to simply allow them +2 to their attack rolls when pouncing, or something like that.
While the feat I presented might seem a "must have on paper", I don't think every fighting type character would take it, some builds are made for more static combat anyways. I will test this feat chain in my current campaign and see if my players like it and give more feedback then.
Right. Archers probably won't take it. But anyone who expects to melee effectively at high levels will absolutely take it, especially when the DM (at least if the DM is me) is using it relentlessly against the players. No, not to be mean or vicious, but because I try to play my bad guys like they want to live, like they want to win fights, and accordingly, they use every tool at their disposal - especially "must have" feats.
I am looking forward to your feedback.
I still suggest considering that any combat ability, this one or anything else, that is turned into a feat benefits fighters far more than it ever benefits monsters or other melee classes. And making a really useful "must have" kind of feat is not so much a benefit to the fighters (because everyone in melee combat will have it), but a penalty to the other classes and monsters who have far fewer available feats to pay the "tax" for the "must have" feat.
|
|
Wow. Having a fighter get a second attack after moving is so "unbelievable", but having a wizard make a full move (maybe even tumbling!) AND cast a complex spell requiring a specific material component and precise somatic gestures is perfectly ok. Got it!
...tumbles: "By the power of..."
...cartwheels: "Grayskull and the mists of..."
...flying punch: "Avalon, I smite thee!"
...Punch connects: "Suffer the wrath of my Chill Touch!"
|
|
Wow. Having a fighter get a second attack after moving is so "unbelievable", but having a wizard make a full move (maybe even tumbling!) AND cast a complex spell requiring a specific material component and precise somatic gestures is perfectly ok. Got it!...tumbles: "By the power of..."
...cartwheels: "Grayskull and the mists of..."
...flying punch: "Avalon, I smite thee!"
...Punch connects: "Suffer the wrath of my Chill Touch!"
"the Mists of Avalon"...
I'm trying to picture that poor twisted druid doing this...
Maybe he wouldn't have been sealed in the tree had he been a 3x druid :)
Ya know next session I think I will allow everything to full attack while moving to see how it goes
I tried it but we limited it to just full bab classes...it worked without issue however
What about this? As a standard action, you're allowed to make a full-round attack. However, you make one less attack than normal, and all of your attacks have a -5 penalty. You can move and perform a Flurry of Blows as well, and the penalties stack.
No thanks. the -5 killed that
Think that's too much of a nerf for melee folks?
yes as the caster[which I DO NOT want nerfed at all] get no pently for doing something just as complex will moving 30 feet
Heck they could do backflips while casting 9th level spells easier then a 20th level fighter can attack 2 CR1 goblins 10 feet away
I would consider a 50% or 66% chance for every iterative (not the first, that one goes off ) attack to be taken, with no other modifiers. A simple 1d6 roll before each iterative attack can resolve this. That way, there is a potential detriment for moving more than 5', but it gives a chance for character with two attacks to possibly get their iterative attack. This would make the concept of charging more appealing in most encounters. (I hate those Fighter/Dragon stand offs too).
You can explain it by the attacker not quite being sure of “timing” as he or she concentrates on approaching. The attacker just strikes as he or she sees opportunity... This random opportunity concept is used in some wargames.
Peace,
Aratus
We doing the same thing with spells? Not sure if the timeing is right to let it go off?
sorry man this is messy
I think two attacks @ -2 is about right as a standard action.
This is not bad. I would allow them all or near all at a -2 but not bad
Hmm maybe -2 is better. But keep in mind that I am also testing a houserule where traditional full casters (those that get 9th level spells) must use a full-round action to cast their top 2 level of spells starting from 4th level spells with a few exceptions made for Swift action spells. No more tumbling and then casting Wish.
ya know I really like that rule, it sounds like it may balance out with the -2.
I like the ideal, as must folks will not budge on just a straight up full attack and move, which as far as i can tell works fine.
Forget "most folks",
Mr. Buhlman has stated specific reasons he doesn't like Full Attack + Move.
He's also mentioned specific options, like "Weak Iterative Standard Attack" (1 less attack) simultaneous with "High Level Spells as Full Round Casting Action" to engender more Casting/Combat parity. I find it bizarre that people keep discussing this issue with no reference to the statements coming from Paizo itself on this.
|
|
Forget "most folks",
Mr. Buhlman has stated specific reasons he doesn't like Full Attack + Move.
He's also mentioned specific options, like "Weak Iterative Standard Attack" (1 less attack) simultaneous with "High Level Spells as Full Round Casting Action" to engender more Casting/Combat parity. I find it bizarre that people keep discussing this issue with no reference to the statements coming from Paizo itself on this.
Meh, it could prove to be a good houserule...
Or, maybe we could change his mind. We don't know if every option has been considered yet, and perhaps he could come to change his mind.
:shrug
Forget "most folks",
Mr. Buhlman has stated specific reasons he doesn't like Full Attack + Move.
He's also mentioned specific options, like "Weak Iterative Standard Attack" (1 less attack) simultaneous with "High Level Spells as Full Round Casting Action" to engender more Casting/Combat parity. I find it bizarre that people keep discussing this issue with no reference to the statements coming from Paizo itself on this.
Most of us know his thoughts on this. That does not change the fact that we want to talk of other ideals
Jason also wont move on the 2 skill per level thing but that stops no one from house ruling ti like half do anyhow
Trading an attack for a move is not a far trade as it makes it pointless till you get 3 and even then for the ability to move your cutting down you damage when everyone around you is doing more not less
I tried something a while back, which worked for us.
We kept the rules as is, except that every pc, npc and monster could give up an attack to take a ten foot step. It could be a natural attack, a missile attack, any attack that allowed a to-hit roll could be dropped for a ten foot step. A ten foot step provokes attacks of opportunity for leaving threatened squares as normal.
If people did a full attack, they could get an extra attack at their lowest iteration, to reward full attack, but they were flat footed until their next round action, to reflect that over extension left one off balance. Spell casters could not take this option, even if the spell allowed a to-hit roll.
I found neither of these options broke the game, because they were assumed to be open to everybody.
As for monsters, they would become much more dangerous if allowed to make all their natural attacks as a standard action, so I think they should be limited to a few attacks with penalties to secondary attacks...Wouldn't that imply that monsters must use other rules than PCs. That sounds rather 4e'ish.
The cliffhanger from our last session is that our melee guy got sucked into an really nasty trap and is now alone, facing a Marilith on what might be a different plane. As the rules are now he has a slim chance that he can evade the demons full-attacks long enough that the rest of the group can think something up to get him out in one piece or at least retrieve his dead body. I shudder at the though if that monster could make a full-attack, even one with one or two less attacks, after a move action ...
This is the very dangerous other side of the knife, whatever changes are devised to give the fighters more offensive relative to mobility. And it's something I've been increasingly concerned about too. Kudos to you for bringing up the particularly nasty marilith example. She could be expected to be another primary beneficiary of any changes in full attack mobility.
It's one reason I'm more in favor of slowing the spellcasters than giving full attack abilities to moving fighters willy-nilly.
|
I haven't seen anyone really arguing about the gain 10 ft. for every attack sacrificed approached mentioned above. Give it to everyone and this seems to look good...
I think I'd rather trade to-hit for movement, because otherwise trading attacks for movement doesn't do much good in terms of multiple attacks until you've got three iteratives, ie, at least 11th level. Or if there was some way to combine the two options (ie, say, -2 per 5' or 10' moved, and/or trade an attack for 10' of movement with no additional penalty, all up to the amount you can normally move in one move action) that would also be cool with me.
I tried something a while back, which worked for us.
We kept the rules as is, except that every pc, npc and monster could give up an attack to take a ten foot step. It could be a natural attack, a missile attack, any attack that allowed a to-hit roll could be dropped for a ten foot step. A ten foot step provokes attacks of opportunity for leaving threatened squares as normal.
If people did a full attack, they could get an extra attack at their lowest iteration, to reward full attack, but they were flat footed until their next round action, to reflect that over extension left one off balance. Spell casters could not take this option, even if the spell allowed a to-hit roll.
I found neither of these options broke the game, because they were assumed to be open to everybody.
While this must be considered when the DM brings monsters into play, monsters becoming more dangerous in combat is not an issue in itself.
As long as the CR (or whatever alternate scale of power) is adjusted in proportion, those monsters are bigger threats, but so are the players...
So yeah, watch out for those pouncing mariliths, 12-headed hydras and "rending" trolls! Players (and DMs) will have to review some of their strategies to match this reality, but thing should balance themselves out in no time. Correct me if I'm wrong here...
The problem lies more in printed material, where some encounters will become unbalanced to favor either the PCs or the monsters.
'findel
|
|
Wouldn't that imply that monsters must use other rules than PCs. That sounds rather 4e'ish.
As for monsters, they would become much more dangerous if allowed to make all their natural attacks as a standard action, so I think they should be limited to a few attacks with penalties to secondary attacks...
It's mighty 1e, 2e, OD&D, Basic, BEMCI and Rules compendium-ish as well. Actually, every edition except 3.x.
Why a full attack with a full move is a bad idea:
Because it's fairly easy to create a high-level fighter who can cause 200-250 points of damage on average from a melee full attack. Unlike spells, there are no saves for half, elemental resistances or immunities, effects like death ward, etc. to keep this from becoming a Russian Roulette on who wins initiative (activate boots of speed, charge or move, full attack, opponent is dead).
Do the combat types need a bit of a boost at high level? Yes, IMO. However, allowing a move and a full attack makes them too powerful (again, IMO). A melee version of Rapid Shot or a Standard Action version of Cleave would give that boost without things getting out of hand.
|
|
Multi-Chop
Prereq: Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefit: You are adept at making multiple attacks when swinging on an opponent. As a standard action you may make a single attack roll at a -2 penalty representing your multiple attacks. If you successfully hit multiply your weapon damage die by x1.5 (so if you roll a 4 it does 6 damage) before you apply any other modifiers.
Well, what do you guys think?
"The problem is: why should the fighter run and attack the dragon, if in the his turn the dragon will be able to make a full attack against him?"
Because then the red dragon will fly up (150' or 200'!)and full attack the fighter, or frail caster.
Weird tentacle creatures will rush up and improved grab the whole party before anyone acts, battlefield control and movement denial magic will become everything, fast moving bruisers will become substantially more dangerous, and Lord Hommungus will RULE the Wasteland!
Why a full attack with a full move is a bad idea:
Because it's fairly easy to create a high-level fighter who can cause 200-250 points of damage on average from a melee full attack. Unlike spells, there are no saves for half, elemental resistances or immunities, effects like death ward, etc. to keep this from becoming a Russian Roulette on who wins initiative (activate boots of speed, charge or move, full attack, opponent is dead).
Do the combat types need a bit of a boost at high level? Yes, IMO. However, allowing a move and a full attack makes them too powerful (again, IMO). A melee version of Rapid Shot or a Standard Action version of Cleave would give that boost without things getting out of hand.
Agree. Also, I'd let haste give a bonus weapon attack even if you only use a standard action. And you should be able to use cleave when you charge.
I'd say, give fighters and melee classes som more love. But Standard action = full attack. No. IMHO.