I was thinking about how this game punishes movement for combat classes and wondering if it was fair or could possibly be improved on.
Im sure most of us know how the combat penalty to movement effects most non-magical combatants but let me drop it in a spoiler box here just in case.
In the current game prior to BAB +6 the standard combatant has minimal effective difference between a full attack action and a standard attack. In fact movement is rewarded as charge gets a net positive bonus and moving into flanking position using more than a 5 foot step does not lower your combat ability.
If you have a multi attack option such as flurry of blows, rapid shot or some kind of two weapon option the difference between a full attack and a standard action is pretty balanced, full attack gets you more attacks a standard action gets you one more focused attack and options for your move option.
At BAB 6 and beyond things balance out for the standard combatant but the multi-attack combatants begin loosing out as he is now giving up 2 attacks whenever he chose to move more than 5 feet. after BAB 11 every one is losing out and any movement in combat is a rather significant penalty.
so here is the thing... Im not really asking HOW this should be some how house ruled. I am just wondering weather or not people view this as balanced and why.
if its balanced what makes the disparity balanced other than that's the way its always been done.
and if its NOT balanced do you think its something that could or should be changed or is it not really enough of a problem to worry about?
I agree that there is a pretty big disparity here, and it really makes no sense when you think about it.
However, you need to remember that there are actions (such as Vital Strike) that add to the single attack. I'm not saying that it's a fair trade off, but it's something.
I have a house rule where a person with a weapon in each hand can make a single attack with each weapon as a standard action. Mostly I did this so monsters could move and then attack with their claw/claw/bite.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another side effect of this is that the game fundamentally changes for melee characters as it goes on. The further the game progresses, the more you're rewarded for setting things up so that at the beginning of your turn you're five feet from the thing you want to smack. At low levels, there's no penalty at all for moving, unless you're a TWF character. At high levels - especially if you're a TWF character - you lose a big chunk of your damage output if you have to move. I think in an ideal world, there would be character options that rewarded putting yourself in situations where you could overwhelm an enemy with a full attack and character options that made skirmishing sufficiently rewarding, at all levels, so what was better for you would depend more on what sort of character you were playing than what level you were.
I think the system is balanced in the sense that it creates reasonably interesting tactical situations and whatever, but the game does more and more reward setting up full attacks as it goes on. (The game also - regardless of level - has the property that TWF characters nearly always have a greater delta between their standard attack and their full attack, which is at odds with the typical conception of the guy with two light weapons as more of a skirmisher and the guy with a big old hammer as the one who will really mess you up when he has the opportunity to really lay into you.)
Imagine, for example, a class built around being able to deliver a potent melee strike or series of strikes (better than the Vital Strike line, perhaps), moving before and after the attack, but was unable to full attack normally. (I understand that this is a pretty weird design, but it's a thought experiment.) That class could function as a skirmisher from the beginning to the end, without even falling into the "gotta set up full attack every turn" thing that melee classes end up falling into as they level. There might be a better way to implement it, but it would tie combat style to character decisions, rather than to level. Similarly, you could imagine an ability or archetype that let a character use a full attack action to deliver a really punishing attack from level 1 with a single weapon, so non-TWF characters wouldn't be effectively skirmishers until they get extra hits if they didn't want to be.
true.. there is something...
but its a pretty crappy trade off and to be honest its one of those things that should be judged by the base rule... not the availability of feats to address it.
I mean... if you could not trip, grapple, or fight defensively without a feat would it be considered balanced because a feat exists for it... or is it something you should be able to do regardless of feat and any available feats only modify the base abilities.
Im more inclined to think of a rule where a player can make 1/2 their full attacks if they move... so if you have 4 attacks you only get two...
or maybe even a system which subtracts one attack per 15 feet moved (or 1/2 of a standard movement. with a minimum of 1 attack. nothing changes at low levels but at higher levels your able to make SOME movement without loosing ALL of your attacks.
but honestly I am just asking how many people think that the current system is the best it can be... or at least good enough.
damn... I just realized I miss labled this post. ..
it should be
SHOULD they change the full atack vs standard attack disparity
If you're gonna houserule, just make full attack a standard action, make 5' step a move action, and bang, job's done.
This is exactly why I loved the scout in 3.5 and to a lesser extent the new scout archetype for rogues.
@Rasmus
That seems way to simple and probably unbalanced as 989 points out. besides... i am honestly looking for opinions on whether or not people feel its balanced, broken, or unballance but good enough.
@989
are you saying its balanced as is because there are feats to fix the disparity? or because fixing it would make fighters too powerful?
I am not saying that fighters should get full attack as a standard action. that would be insane.
I just dont think that moving more than 5 feet should totally cripple their combat. It seems wrong in both mechanics and flavor.
to be honest I think that balancing this would go a long way to quell many of the fighters complaints about their effectiveness at high level.
where the caster only gets increasingly powerful at high level with few drawbacks. the fighter can never truly shake this penalty.
if the fighter at least got half his attacks as a standard action the high level character would not feel so nerfed at high levels for the crime of movement.
If a MOD reads this can you change the thread title to
OPINION: Is full action vs standard action attack, Balanced?
I have no idea if it's balanced or not, but we just allow all iterative attacks with a standard action. Magic users and so forth are still pretty popular.
|
I don't think that increasing the level of damage a meele type can deliver while keeping full mobility is a good idea.
Beside that, how would you manage the magus spellstrike ability?
I have no idea if it's balanced or not, but we just allow all iterative attacks with a standard action. Magic users and so forth are still pretty popular.
I bet they specialize in Save or Sucks and support spells as the hit point of damages dealt by spellcaster become nearly meaningless with this rule.
No, I'm afraid an optimiser (or indeed anyone with even mild system mastery) would cringe at our table. We pretty much just play magic users as damage dealers.
Magus isnt the sort of thing we'd play, but I guess I'd let them cast the spell as part of the first attack and give them any iterative attacks as well.
I concede it's probably not a good idea in most capaigns, but it works fine for us. (And it means our fighters dont have to stand still throughout the battle, which is the main thing we found annoying).
EDIT: I'm not sure why I decided to address your points in reverse order, but there you go. Just in a contrary mood I guess. :/
It is worth considering the effects of any houseruling on not just melee PCs, but on monsters. A monster which can maneuver around the front liners and still get a full attack on the squishy people changes combat dynamics quite a bit (and not necessarily favorably).
Our DM had a houserule where you get to make an extra attack on a standard action at BAB 11 (so a full attack might be +11/+6/+1, and a standard attack +11/+6).
|
|
It is worth considering the effects of any houseruling on not just melee PCs, but on monsters. A monster which can maneuver around the front liners and still get a full attack on the squishy people changes combat dynamics quite a bit (and not necessarily favorably).
Our DM had a houserule where you get to make an extra attack on a standard action at BAB 11 (so a full attack might be +11/+6/+1, and a standard attack +11/+6).
Hmmm. Interesting. A second attack at -5 seem excessive (at that point most monsters should get it to keep a balance between pure damage dealers) but maybe a -10 it would be ok.
The only problem is with people using Two weapon combat (Magus included, Steve, spell combat work as a form of TWF).
PS: some rule reference for the discussion:
Mobile fighter archetype:
Rapid Attack (Ex): At 11th level, a mobile fighter can combine a full attack action with a single move. He must forgo the attack at his highest bonus but may take the remaining attacks at any point during his movement. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. This ability replaces armor training 3.
Whirlwind Blitz (Ex): At 20th level, a mobile fighter can make a full-attack action as a standard action. He may also use the Whirlwind Attack feat as a standard action. This ability replaces weapon mastery.
Two-Weapon Warrior
Doublestrike (Ex): At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally. This ability replaces weapon training 2.
Hmmm. Interesting. A second attack at -5 seem excessive (at that point most monsters should get it to keep a balance between pure damage dealers) but maybe a -10 it would be ok.It is worth considering the effects of any houseruling on not just melee PCs, but on monsters. A monster which can maneuver around the front liners and still get a full attack on the squishy people changes combat dynamics quite a bit (and not necessarily favorably).
Our DM had a houserule where you get to make an extra attack on a standard action at BAB 11 (so a full attack might be +11/+6/+1, and a standard attack +11/+6).
Interesting that you reached the same conclusion as our DM. He eventually modified the rule such that the two attacks on a standard action would be the second and third iteratives, not the first and second. (Or you could take one attack at the highest bonus).
So, standard action, either
One attack at +11
Two attacks at +6/+1.
We haven't played very long with the new version, though, so not much to report as to how it affects the game.
I have no idea if it's balanced or not, but we just allow all iterative attacks with a standard action. Magic users and so forth are still pretty popular.Just remember that what's sauce for the fighter is sauce for the six sword wielding marilith as well.
This is something i would honestly worry about. There are some things that have pretty absurd full attacks in the bestiary. We all know how powerful pounce is, standard full attack gives that power to every one. And mind you, I dont think that is the real issue with higher level fighters. I dont think a fighter looks at the wizard flying around, warping time and space, bending monster wills to his whim, and controling the battle field as if it was a chess board and says to himself "man i wish i could hit something again with my sword, that would fix that smarty pants wizard'.
If you want to address high level 'balance' and reward mobility, give the fighter more meaningful things to do with his standard actions. I always fall back on the powers from the 3.5 tome of battle. It wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the right direction. Some of it was more 'magicy' then others, but there was plenty of stuff there that still resides within the martial realm that was both interesting and valuable, and worth a standard action.
How about this house rule:
Every five feet of movement beyond the first five feet is -2 to your attack. This applies to your BAB to determine what iteratives you can make this turn.
So, a fighter 12 can move 15 feet and can make two attacks at +8/+3 BAB.
How about this house rule:
Every five feet of movement beyond the first five feet is -2 to your attack. This applies to your BAB to determine what iteratives you can make this turn.
So, a fighter 12 can move 15 feet and can make two attacks at +8/+3 BAB.
So a first level fighter who charges the orc down the hallway gets a -12 to hit, say, for charging 60 ft?
Not a bad basic idea to limit iteratives based on how far they move. A penalty probably isn't the most elegant way to go, though.
I think that a good thing could be a reduced amount of attacks instead of only one. For example drop the lowest bab attack when you move more than 5 feets.
So a first level fighter who charges the orc down the hallway gets a -12 to hit, say, for charging 60 ft?
No, because a charge action is not a full attack action.
It would allow, for instance, a two-weapon fighter 4 to move 10 feet and still make two attacks at an additional -2, though.
A friend of mine brought up an interesting point.
After the 2nd or 3rd attack a fighter is just rolling for 20s anyway because there is not much hope of hitting with a -10 to your standard attack bonus.
in other words, those attacks dont really matter so your really only giving up 1 or 2 attacks in total no matter what the level.
it was an interesting observation and says a lot about the class.