| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure that people have house ruled this before but I am wondering how it affects the game.
I am thinking however that this would apply only to melee and sub-melee types but caster types shouldn't get it.
|
I don't really see why you bother taking it away from casters. Unless you're including Clerics and Druids in this statement, I don't really see the point. A Wizard or Sorcerer has to be a level 12 to even have a second attack, and what kind of arcane caster with 6th level spells bothers with attacking anyway? If you are including Druids and Clerics, you've pretty much made them worthless as anything but healbots and buffers, so Wild Shape and a lot of divine powers are now pointless. After all, if all the fighters and monsters are light-years ahead of them with the ability to full attack after a move, why bother playing a combat-focused Cleric, Oracle, or Druid?
Also, I can't say I'm a fan of this idea in general. If you want to full-attack after a move, just take the mobile fighter archetype from the APG or some Barbarian built around pounce. No need to take away their advantages.
I've considered it, but haven't tried it out. I've also considered removing iterative attacks and replacing them with a damage bonus equal to BAB enjoyed with a full attack. My best advice: Try it out and see how it works for you and your group.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I don't really see why you bother taking it away from casters. Unless you're including Clerics and Druids in this statement, I don't really see the point. A Wizard or Sorcerer has to be a level 12 to even have a second attack, and what kind of arcane caster with 6th level spells bothers with attacking anyway? If you are including Druids and Clerics, you've pretty much made them worthless as anything but healbots and buffers, so Wild Shape and a lot of divine powers are now pointless. After all, if all the fighters and monsters are light-years ahead of them with the ability to full attack after a move, why bother playing a combat-focused Cleric, Oracle, or Druid?
Also, I can't say I'm a fan of this idea in general. If you want to full-attack after a move, just take the mobile fighter archetype from the APG or some Barbarian built around pounce. No need to take away their advantages.
Well I guess I can see your point about letting it apply to all because casters at higher levels would mostly be casting anyways.
As for the mobile fighter archetype that is easily taken care of because that archetype can just be ignored.
I am really tired of how 3.X changed the fighter from the AD&D days. Yes they get more attacks at higher levels now but only if they don't move more than 5 feet. This also prevents the fighter from scaling like casters in their abilities and powers.
I've considered it, but haven't tried it out. I've also considered removing iterative attacks and replacing them with a damage bonus equal to BAB enjoyed with a full attack. My best advice: Try it out and see how it works for you and your group.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Ya I will give it a go but I just wanted to hear from others who have already tried it.
Since I have a fly speed of 200' and get like 7 attacks per round, I personally love the idea of move and full attack! Bring it on!
In my home game, we allow iterative attacks to be traded in for movement. Assuming a 30-ft. speed, 1 iterative attack can be foregone in exchange for moving 10 ft. For faster or slower guys, add or subtract 5 ft. to that per 10 feet of difference in movement speed (so a monk with Speed 60 feet could trade an iterative attack for 25 ft. of movement). An attack of opportunity can be traded for a 5-ft. step.
Examples:
TWF guys take their attacks in pairs, and monsters trade in sets of attacks (a bite, or 2 claws, or whatever).
In my home game, we allow iterative attacks to be traded in for movement. Assuming a 30-ft. speed, 1 iterative attack can be foregone in exchange for moving 10 ft. For faster or slower guys, add or subtract 5 ft. to that per 10 feet of difference in movement speed (so a monk with Speed 60 feet could trade an iterative attack for 25 ft. of movement). An attack of opportunity can be traded for a 5-ft. step.
Examples:
An armored dwarf fighter 16 (speed 20 ft.) could attack once at +16, take a 5-ft. step, and then attack twice more at +6/+1.
A 16th level barbarian (speed 40 ft.) could move 15 ft., attack at +11, move 15 more feet, and attack again at +1. TWF guys take their attacks in pairs, and monsters trade in sets of attacks (a bite, or 2 claws, or whatever).
That one's quite good. A straight full-attack after movement means that fighters with Improved Init. will own combat and enemies relying on magic will be at a severe disadvantage.
Cheers
Mark
I confess, I don't see the need for it myself - there are enough options available to enable either a kind of full attack or else compensate the fighting classes for not getting one that it's just not a big issue.
In my home game, we allow iterative attacks to be traded in for movement. Assuming a 30-ft. speed, 1 iterative attack can be foregone in exchange for moving 10 ft. For faster or slower guys, add or subtract 5 ft. to that per 10 feet of difference in movement speed (so a monk with Speed 60 feet could trade an iterative attack for 25 ft. of movement). An attack of opportunity can be traded for a 5-ft. step.
Examples:
An armored dwarf fighter 16 (speed 20 ft.) could attack once at +16, take a 5-ft. step, and then attack twice more at +6/+1.
A 16th level barbarian (speed 40 ft.) could move 15 ft., attack at +11, move 15 more feet, and attack again at +1. TWF guys take their attacks in pairs, and monsters trade in sets of attacks (a bite, or 2 claws, or whatever).
I tried the same thing as well but the problem was we kept forget to use it. It might have been because we didn't have enough iterative attacks with our current characters to begin with. Might try it again later though.
I confess, I don't see the need for it myself - there are enough options available to enable either a kind of full attack or else compensate the fighting classes for not getting one that it's just not a big issue.
Fighters in 1st edition could move and full attack (with no iterative attack penalties; all attacks were at full BAB). Any caster struck during the round automatically lost their spell that round -- no "concentration" check allowed.
3rd edition tilted the scales WAY too far in the other direction. Any small move towards the middle is, to me, not only warranted but absolutely necessary.
I confess, I don't see the need for it myself - there are enough options available to enable either a kind of full attack or else compensate the fighting classes for not getting one that it's just not a big issue.Fighters in 1st edition could move and full attack (with no iterative attack penalties; all attacks were at full BAB). Any caster struck during the round automatically lost their spell that round -- no "concentration" check allowed.
3rd edition tilted the scales WAY too far in the other direction. Any small move towards the middle is, to me, not only warranted but absolutely necessary.
My feelings exactly.
I confess, I don't see the need for it myself - there are enough options available to enable either a kind of full attack or else compensate the fighting classes for not getting one that it's just not a big issue.Fighters in 1st edition could move and full attack (with no iterative attack penalties; all attacks were at full BAB). Any caster struck during the round automatically lost their spell that round -- no "concentration" check allowed.
3rd edition tilted the scales WAY too far in the other direction. Any small move towards the middle is, to me, not only warranted but absolutely necessary.
My advice for the OP:
Just to expand on KG's response here, the caveat as I recall, was that even though they could move their normal speed and make all their attacks, they didn't get them all at once. When their turn was up, they made a single attack. The DM then cycled through the round until everyone had taken a turn. Any characters that had more than one attack then basically played one or more "sub-rounds" taking their extra attacks in initiative order until they were done. It's an important point to think of. Just carte blanche allowing full attacks with regular movement in the 3.5/PF rulesets doesn't translate well like it did in 1E. To illustrate the difference:
Two 6th level fighters are slugging it out:
In 1E:
Ftr 1 makes his attack at +6, then Ftr 2 makes his attack at +6. Then Ftr 1 makes his attack at +1 and Ftr 2 makes his attack at +1.
In 3.5/PF:
Ftr 1 makes both his attacks at +6 and +1. Then Ftr 2 makes both his attacks at +6 and +1.
See the difference? I'd personally be wary of rules that allowed one guy make ALL of his attacks at once during a full move, and perpetuating the "rocket-tag" syndrome.
KG's homebrew solution is a good one because it recognizes this difference. Coming up with a model that resembled how 1E worked would be good too.
My advice for the OP:Just to expand on KG's response here, the caveat as I recall, was that even though they could move their normal speed and make all their attacks, they didn't get them all at once. When their turn was up, they made a single attack. The DM then cycled through the round until everyone had taken a turn. Any characters that had more than one attack then basically played one or more "sub-rounds" taking their extra attacks in initiative order until they were done. It's an important point to think of. Just carte blanche allowing full attacks with regular movement in the 3.5/PF rulesets doesn't translate well like it did in 1E. To illustrate the difference:
Two 6th level fighters are slugging it out:
In 1E:
Ftr 1 makes his attack at +6, then Ftr 2 makes his attack at +6. Then Ftr 1 makes his attack at +1 and Ftr 2 makes his attack at +1.In 3.5/PF:
Ftr 1 makes both his attacks at +6 and +1. Then Ftr 2 makes both his attacks at +6 and +1.See the difference? I'd personally be wary of rules that allowed one guy make ALL of his attacks at once during a full move, and perpetuating the "rocket-tag" syndrome.
KG's homebrew solution is a good one because it recognizes this difference. Coming up with a model that resembled how 1E worked would be good too.
Hmmm never thought of that but let me see if I am understanding correctly. The character with more than one attack due to a high BAB only makes one attack per turn after his initial initiative turn and thus he is making his additional attacks during other character's turns after his. But what if this so called character with multiple attack is the last on the initiative order, does he get all of his attacks since he is the last one? Also does this apply to secondary attacks from dual wielding, ability and feats?
If that is what you mean then I like it because I could see it working for interesting fights.
Two 7th level fighters are slugging it out:
In 1E:
Ftr 1 makes his attack at +7, then Ftr 2 makes his attack at +7. Then Ftr 1 makes his attack at +7 and Ftr 2 makes his attack at +7.In 3.5/PF:
Ftr 1 makes both his attacks at +7 and +2. Then Ftr 2 makes both his attacks at +7 and +2.
Slight correction above -- no iterative attack penalties in 1e -- interative initiative penalties instead.
Hmmm never thought of that but let me see if I am understanding correctly. The character with more than one attack due to a high BAB only makes one attack per turn after his initial initiative turn and thus he is making his additional attacks during other character's turns after his. But what if this so called character with multiple attack is the last on the initiative order, does he get all of his attacks since he is the last one? Also does this apply to secondary attacks from dual wielding, ability and feats?
If that is what you mean then I like it because I could see it working for interesting fights.
Not quite. 1E's combat round is quite a bit different than the 3.5/PF combat round. It's more complicated than what I'll describe here, but to summarize:
One thing to consider was that initiative was rolled each round… once for each side. So GENERALLY, you had all the PCs taking their turn and then all the monsters, or visa versa. Think of it as a two "sequence" turn as opposed to 3.5/PF's "multi-sequence" turn, where the number of sequences equals the number of combatants/combat groups involved.
A fighter with multiple attacks broke this sequence. If he had 2 attacks per round, generally, he automatically attacked first in the round regardless of initiative results. Then when all surviving combatants had taken their turn, he then took his second attack last in the round. In effect, he adds a 3rd "sequence" to the turn.
If he was facing an opponent who also attacked more than once, then initiative tells who strike first.
Again, this won't translate perfectly to the 3.5/PF model, but it is a springboard for inspiration.
EDIT: I will point out though, that even in 1E, you generally couldn't attack and move as freely as is commonly thought. If you were more than 10' away from your opponent and wanted to make melee attacks against him, you had two options: charge (in which you could make an attack; in this case, whoever had the longer reach weapon attacked first regardless of initiative or class) or close to melee range (which was a regular move to engage your opponent and no attacks – by you or the opponent(s) you closed with – were allowed that round).
Slight correction above -- no iterative attack penalties in 1e -- interative initiative penalties instead.Two 7th level fighters are slugging it out:
In 1E:
Ftr 1 makes his attack at +7, then Ftr 2 makes his attack at +7. Then Ftr 1 makes his attack at +7 and Ftr 2 makes his attack at +7.In 3.5/PF:
Ftr 1 makes both his attacks at +7 and +2. Then Ftr 2 makes both his attacks at +7 and +2.
Yup. I was strictly using d20 terminology to explain the gist of it :)
Fighters in 1st edition could move and full attack (with no iterative attack penalties; all attacks were at full BAB). Any caster struck during the round automatically lost their spell that round -- no "concentration" check allowed.
For the most part, fighters really couldn't move and strike in the same round unless they had already closed to striking range, which was 10 feet on indoor scale. Once within that 10 foot range, the fighter could, presumably, drift around in the more abstract melee combat of 1e. But if he had to go from opponent to opponent separated by more than 10 feet, he had to spend a round closing before getting into melee. Ultimately, that 10 foot striking range isn't that different from the 3e fighter's 5 foot step (being different by only 5 feet).
When you translated to outdoor scale, the striking range did become 30 feet (because the 1" scale that was 10 feet indoors was 10 yards outdoors), so the comparison gets weirder.
Not quite. 1E's combat round is quite a bit different than the 3.5/PF combat round. It's more complicated than what I'll describe here, but to summarize:One thing to consider was that initiative was rolled each round… once for each side. So GENERALLY, you had all the PCs taking their turn and then all the monsters, or visa versa. Think of it as a two "sequence" turn as opposed to 3.5/PF's "multi-sequence" turn, where the number of sequences equals the number of combatants/combat groups involved.
A fighter with multiple attacks broke this sequence. If he had 2 attacks per round, generally, he automatically attacked first in the round regardless of initiative results. Then when all surviving combatants had taken their turn, he then took his second attack last in the round. In effect, he adds a 3rd "sequence" to the turn.
If he was facing an opponent who also attacked more than once, then initiative tells who strike first.
Again, this won't translate perfectly to the 3.5/PF model, but it is a springboard for inspiration.
EDIT: I will point out though, that even in 1E, you generally couldn't attack and move as freely as is commonly thought. If you were more than 10' away from your opponent and wanted to make melee attacks against him, you had two options: charge (in which you could make an attack; in this case, whoever had the longer reach weapon...
Actually now that I think back when I played that edition I do remember that rule but I think we largely ignored it. Like you said though it doesn't translate well into 3.X/ Pathfinder because the number of attacks have increased. However I think I like my first interpretation of what you said so that all multiple attacks after the first are spread out through the remaining initiative order but the melee character is allowed full movement and full attack. I think I also want this to include extra attacks gained from shield bashes, dual wielding, Flurry of Blows and secondary attacks. I think this could apply to natural attacks from monsters as well but I think there should be some exceptions for instance raking from tigers usually requires the first two claws attacks to hit for the rake to hit but the bite would be separate. Pouncing would also be an exception because all attacks would hit because of a like a frenzy. After the initiative order is settled then all remaining attacks will follow suit. All in all I think it would take some getting use to but I think it would make combat very interesting because I see it being more believable.
Thanks for the inspiration and I think this is a direction that I would like to explore. I would love more suggestions or insights concerning this new direction.
Actually now that I think back when I played that edition I do remember that rule but I think we largely ignored it. Like you said though it doesn't translate well into 3.X/ Pathfinder because the number of attacks have increased. However I think I like my first interpretation of what you said so that all multiple attacks after the first are spread out through the remaining initiative order but the melee character is allowed full movement and full attack. I think I also want this to include extra attacks gained from shield bashes, dual wielding, Flurry of Blows and secondary attacks. I think this could...
It may be complicated, you could think about spreading iterative attacks/movement by 5 in the initiative count. So a TWF rogue with Improved TWF and BAB +6 would attack as follows:
Rolls initiative. Gets a 17.
He makes his primary and off-hand attacks at +6 on initiative count 17. He makes his remaining attacks at +1 on initiative count 12. On any of these counts he may move some, all, or none of his movement for the round. So say he has 30' movement. He could move all 30' on count 17. Or he could move say 10' on count 17, make his +6 attacks, then move up to 20' on count 12 and make his remaining +1 attacks.
It's going to have wrinkles though. Like how do you resolve delay actions? How do you resolve monsters who get multiple attacks not associated with iterative attacks?
For the most part, fighters really couldn't move and strike in the same round unless they had already closed to striking range, which was 10 feet on indoor scale.Fighters in 1st edition could move and full attack (with no iterative attack penalties; all attacks were at full BAB). Any caster struck during the round automatically lost their spell that round -- no "concentration" check allowed.
Indeed. Sean Reynolds checked the AD&D rulebooks for references to movement & combat and there were basically none, other than "you have to close to melee" and "if you run away, your opponents get a free attack".
Indeed. Sean Reynolds checked the AD&D rulebooks for references to movement & combat and there were basically none, other than "you have to close to melee" and "if you run away, your opponents get a free attack".For the most part, fighters really couldn't move and strike in the same round unless they had already closed to striking range, which was 10 feet on indoor scale.Fighters in 1st edition could move and full attack (with no iterative attack penalties; all attacks were at full BAB). Any caster struck during the round automatically lost their spell that round -- no "concentration" check allowed.
Yeah, looking more at the 1E and OSRIC rules, what really leveled the playing field between casters and non-casters was the initiative setup, the casting times of the spells, and the fact that a caster could not move on any turn he decided to cast a spell. It's not movement and attacks of the non-casters.
... the fact that a caster could not move on any turn he decided to cast a spell. It's not movement and attacks of the non-casters.
Currently, in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, the caster CAN move and cast. Allowing the melee guys to move and full attack as a balance isn't totally outrageous. Barring that, make a standard-action spell actually require a full attack action (which is what I've done), thus preventing more than a 5-ft. step.
I also altered the "cast defensively" check from DC 15 + 2 x spell level (too hard at low levels, too easy at high levels) to DC 10 + 1/2 BAB of threatening enemy + 2x spell level (scales with prowess of guy you're fighting). (Note to Pathfinder purists: Jason Bulmahn hates this idea -- he wants high-level casters to auto-succeed -- so you may not want to do this.)
In 3.5 you had to hit him with a mountain for a chance at failure.
In 3.0/3.5, you had to specifically stand there holding a mountain, waiting for him to cast, and losing your turn if he did anything else... which leads me to my next homebrew change: I let people "hold off" unused iterative attacks and/or movement for use as immediate actions later in the round. If your 11th level fighter attacks once and drops that opponent, you can hold off and see what happens. If one of your buddies is about to get killed later that round, and your other buddy is fine, you can then use the second attack to move over to the ally who needs help, and use your 3rd attack to target the enemy threatening him.
These house rules, by intention, make BAB more important than simple stacking bonuses to attack.
Currently, in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, the caster CAN move and cast. Allowing the melee guys to move and full attack as a balance isn't totally outrageous. Barring that, make a standard-action spell actually require a full attack action (which is what I've done), thus preventing more than a 5-ft. step.
I also altered the "cast defensively" check from DC 15 + 2 x spell level (too hard at low levels, too easy at high levels) to DC 10 + 1/2 BAB of threatening enemy + 2x spell level (scales with prowess of guy you're fighting). (Note to Pathfinder purists: Jason Bulmahn hates this idea -- he wants high-level casters to auto-succeed -- so you may not want to do this.)
One houserule we've made is that there is NO casting defensively. It's just that simple. Get hit while casting, you have to make a caster level check as normal to prevent losing the spell.
We've been toying with the idea of making spell casting standard spells a full-round action as well. Or making an initiative system more akin to 1E's where casting took a number of segments, thus allowing a window of opportunity to interrupt (my preference).
How about that movement does have a cost and that is attacks. For instance for every 10 feet you move it costs you one of your lowest iterative attacks or secondary attacks but you can always attack at least once unless you are doing a full run. The same can be for creatures as well because multiple natural attacks are basically secondaries anyways.
This way if you move 10 feet you only loose 1 your attacks beyond your main primary. If you move 20 feet you loose 2 of your attacks and 30 feet you loose 3. So if you make your full movement you give up most of your attacks unless you have a natural secondary attack, dual wielding, or you have grown and extra pair of arms.
This should effect Monks as well with their flurry of blows in the same manner thus they would get more attacks in like they should.
Things that give you free movement does not incur the attack cost.
Pounce like abilities gives you full attack as long as you charge.
How does that sound?