Howdy folks,
I was thinking about trying something a little different with my next campaign.
I always have the most fun early on before multiple attacks become available, so I was thinking, well what if we just do away with full attacks all together, before just diving in and seeing how it turns out, does anyone have any thoughts on things that should be considered?
As of now I'm thinking spellcasters could prove even stronger under this method, though my group tends to be rather spellcaster light, I think we've only had 1 full caster (exception of healing clerics) in the last 2 or 3 years. Though I was thinking of perhaps just having full attacks only have each creature only struck ones per round...
Anyway, just something I was thinking on trying and wanted some discussion before I started.
Things that deflect attacks will become stronger (like deflect arrows). A houserule I have seen before is, limit warriors to 1 attack but give them a damage bonus = level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'll make martial characters incredible weak compared to casters ss you've said already, so perhaps get them to tell you what the group composition is going to be before you implement this rule. Also, if you are going to use this, give everyone the vital strike line as they reach the appropriate BAB. it'll give them a boost that's a decent approximation of full attacking but saves time.
Oh I really like that idea, giving them a free step in the vital strike tree each time they would have earned their next attack.
One of the few things I preferred about 4th edition was that combat seemed to be more mobile, as levels get higher my players tend to move towards slugfests, which I tend to find the system encourages. Still, it's my favorite system and it tends to work pretty well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certain class abilities are dependent on full attacks. For instance a magus would not work without modification since spell combat doesnt work. Archery would take a dramatic dip in effectiveness since things like rapid strike wouldnt work. Monks wouldnt be able to flurry. These are all things you would have to house rule in order to keep the peace in a 'no full attack' game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be a really bad idea to be honest as it would require a significant rewrite of most of the bestiary. It also has the complication of making martials even weaker vs casters (who generally only need a standard action to do their stuff).
This is how 4e works but the game math is completely redesigned to accomodate this model.
|
I wouldn't; as noted the game mechanics are designed to account for multiple attacks in a full round and the ripple effect will be impossible to account for.
Rather, if multiple attacks are dragging you down by taking so much time, you can have players roll before their turn for attacks and damage. Honesty and trust with your players is key. As an example, a player rolls 5 20s but on their turn it would make more sense that they bandage a player at death's door. They lose the 20s because this is to speed up the game, not to give a player a tactical advantage. On the flipside, the player confirms 5 critical fumbles and would normally have attacked will take their lumps.
Or, a player with sets of colored dice can coordinate them with highlighters on their attack sheet if you want live rolls to help speed up and organize.
Alternatively, keep Full Attack and get rid of iterative attacks. This way you keep TWF, flurry, spellstrike and the like and reduce your amount of dice rolling significantly.
Also, as with any houserule, make sure you consider the players when you say "I always have the most fun..." Make sure they feel the same way.
'findel
Have you considered playing E5?
|
|
I was going to say what Laurefindel said.
I'll add to that. Give characters Vital Strike for free (as soon as they qualify).
Add the following feat.
Duelist's Flurry
Your speed with a weapon allows you to strike faster than most.
Pre-Requisites Combat Expertise
Benefit: When full-attacking with a single one-handed weapon you may make a second attack. Both attacks are made at a -2 penalty. You may not make any attacks with your off-hand when using a Duelist's Flurry.
(Basically rapid shot so single weapon fighters can keep up damage wise with two-handers and two-weapon fighters).
If speeding up your game is what you're after I'd also recommend revising or removing Quicken Spell. I think it could work and there's some merit to the idea.
The houserule that I use limits the number of additional attacks a character gets from BAB to 1, but at increased accuracy. You can make an extra attack for a -2 penalty to all attacks at BAB +6. At BAB +11 and BAB +16 the extra attack penalty decreases by 1.
This reduces the complexity of the full attack while leaving the damage roughly the same in normal circumstances. Players are allowed to use 'normal' full attacks if they want to as long as they can calculate the numbers quickly.
The houserule that I use limits the number of additional attacks a character gets from BAB to 1, but at increased accuracy. You can make an extra attack for a -2 penalty to all attacks at BAB +6. At BAB +11 and BAB +16 the extra attack penalty decreases by 1.
This reduces the complexity of the full attack while leaving the damage roughly the same in normal circumstances. Players are allowed to use 'normal' full attacks if they want to as long as they can calculate the numbers quickly.
This is pretty much the trailblazer fix to iterative attacks. Do you also use those fixes to the TWF chain?
Duelist's Flurry
Your speed with a weapon allows you to strike faster than most.
Pre-Requisites Combat Expertise
Benefit: When full-attacking with a single one-handed weapon you may make a second attack. Both attacks are made at a -2 penalty. You may not make any attacks with your off-hand when using a Duelist's Flurry.(Basically rapid shot so single weapon fighters can keep up damage wise with two-handers and two-weapon fighters).
...or that!
That was Trailblazer's response to iterative attacks wasn't it?
+6 BAB: option of making 2 attacks at -2 each.
+11 BAB: penalty is reduced to -1 on each attack.
+16 BAB: no penalty when making two attacks.
I always wanted to try this in a full-fledged campaign. I heard it works great as dice-throw reducer and keeps *about* the same DPR, so game isn't broken.
[Edit] bah, ninja'd by Vuron...
|
|
Additionally I'd remove Attacks of Opportunity for movement (WHAT?)
Yep. AoO's only slow down the game and discourage dynamic combats. They are a good check against spell casters who already have a number of advantages, but penalise skirmishers. You want to stop someone getting past you? Ready a trip, or grapple them or cast grease. There are plenty of options and because the Full-Attack loses some potency these choices increase in viability.
hmmm I realize I have no idea how to actually quote things, so I'll just respond to things by name.
@Touc: it's really not the time that matters to me, but as someone mentions down the line, the lack of dynamic combat.
@Laurefindel: Yes that's defiantly more along the lines of what I was looking to try, I really should have been more clear with that in the original post, though I believe my players are mostly in the same mind on trying to find a way to make the combats more mobile and interesting.
@Roberta Yang: You mean Fifth edition dnd? I really haven't seen much information on it as I don't pay much attention to playtest material though I'll probably check it out once it releases.
I have never actually heard of trailblazer before so perhaps I shall look into that, AoO for movment also cause the same problem of locking players in place with very little reason to try and move.
the movement is actually the ONLY thing we like in 4th edition, so perhaps fifth edition will solve this, I still really like pathfinder though lol so we'll see how things turn out, thanks again everyone for your input, it's always interesting to see how the discussion turns out and everyone's ideas' on the matter.
@Roberta Yang: You mean Fifth edition dnd?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant like E6 but with a level cap of 5 instead of 6. Once you hit the cap, you stop gaining levels normally, but can slowly point-buy some higher level abilities. It's basically designed to prolong the "sweet spot" of the game, before all the numbers shoot through the roof, casters ascend to godhood, battles become rocket tag, and the mechanics start falling apart.
E6 is the most common because it gives full-BAB classes their iterative and lets both prepared and spontaneous full-casters get third-level spells, but if you want to avoid iteratives, E5 would be the way to go. (Third-level spells could be something oracles/sorcerers could buy later.)
Roberta has a point, if you and your group like the feel of low level game, sticking to lower levels might be a good option.
E6 is just that, you stop leveling up at level 6th. The campaign setting (whichever is used) also assumes that NPCs and villains (but no necessarily creatures) will also be of 6th level or less. That doesn't mean the game stops there, it just mean that once you reach 6th level, your character is "epic" and can only gain extra feats, extra skill points, extra spells etc. Once you're "epic" you can't get new levels, no more hps, no increase in attack bonus and perhaps most importantly in relation to the OP; no extra attacks.
level 6th grant a 2nd iterative attack for full BAB character, but level 5th doesn't, hence Roberta's suggestion of playing E5 (rather than E6).