Regarding full attacks, what if fighters (anyone, really) get increased attacks per round even if they moves?
If you move 5 ft or less => full attack.
If you move more than 5 ft, up to half speed => you lose attack(s) based off BAB -5.
If you move more than half speed, but less than full speed => you lose attack(s) based off BAB -5 and BAB -10.
If you move full speed => you lose attack(s) based off BAB -5, BAB -10 and BAB -15.
If you move more than your full speed (possible when charging) => you get a single attack.
The pattern is meant to make it easier for high BAB classes to get extra attacks sooner and more easily: at 11th level, a fighter could land 2 of his 3 attacks if he moves half speed.
So a 16th level fighter with a speed of 30 ft would receive...
4 attacks at +16/+11/+6/+1 if he moves 0-5 ft
3 attacks at +16/+6/+1 if he moves/charges 10-15 ft
2 attacks at +16/+1 if he moves/charges 20-25 ft
1 attack at +16 if he moves/charges 30 ft
1 attack at +18 if he charges 35-60 ft
A 16th level fighter under a haste spell who has (normal/improved/greater) two weapon fighting would receive...
8 attacks at +15/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5/+0 if he moves 0-5 ft
6 attacks at +15/+15/+15/+5/+5/+0 if he moves/charges 10-30 ft
4 attacks at +15/+15/+15/+0 if he moves/charges 35-55 ft
3 attacks at +15/+15/+15 if he moves/charges 60 ft
1 attack at +17 if he charges 65-120 ft
What do you think?
I fail to see how this is linked to action economy issues and my idea to give martial characters easier access to multiple attacks at higher levels... I mean, even wizards get to quicken spells and cast twice in a round if they move.
Wizards are surprisingly easy to shut down... All it takes is not giving them the time to rest and limiting access to spells.
But if you are only getting 2/level you end up with 40 Spells plus your first level. Spells can be limited based on the Town or Location.
By rest I was referring to them having time to prepare their spells.
|
I agree that it's the action economy between martials and casters that's a bit jarring. It's not strictly a wizard thing, casters in general.
Most spells take a Standard action to use, and can be done wherever you're standing as long as there isn't a sword sticking out of your throat. But full attacks (the martial equivalent to casting a spell; the highest you can spire to do in a turn) requires being adjacent to an enemy and a full action.
So martials have to engage in a great deal of chicanery to somehow end up adjacent to people and being the first to full attack (trick them into charging you?), while casters just walk around, trying to stay out of the way but without all that FA-vs-moving-targets frustration.
So why aren't there any spells that take just your entire turn to cast? Not the full-round spells that take until you next turn, but just this one? Suddenly you really have to decide between a weaker Standard spell and a stronger Full spell, but if you go Full, you can't take more than a 5ft step away from Enemy Fighter Dude.
I think certain people spend way to much time screaming about what other classes are theoretically capable of doing while simultaneously downplaying their own classes capabilities.
For real bro. 15 levels into a 1-30 campaign and the two fighters are still the dominate pieces on the board in a game with 3 full casters.
|
to the OP's proposal:
Segmented Casting Times
i agree that the readied action disruption within a continuum of acting after known initiatives and five foot full attacks is a consolation that is a by product of accelerating the combat round in the post-2E era. and taken as it is, you make a strong argument, in consideration of the simulation vs complexity dynamic, for providing an alternative. so suffice it to say i am very intrigued.
that magic, though requiring a diamond mind/faith/spirit, is certainly not an exact science, and any fragile mortal tampering with the fabric of the multiverse oughtn't be treading an easy path.
so, your proposal of creating an initiative tick 'disruption window' equal in magnitude to the spell's level might be a brilliant way to introduce a more tactical way for both sides to reckon with ally/enemy spellcasters. this might see some playtest in my next 3E/PF group!
so far i disagree with you about magic items though, in the spirit of the same argument you make for spell-like abilities.
Disrupted Casting
to me this is crossing the line. it is hard enough as it is to 'keep' a spell when you have been struck in combat. the DC is based off of damage sustained, and damage far outpaces the bonus to concentration checks!
i would either choose this house rule or the previous one, but not both together. one of the things i like about 3E is the concentration checks. and the former ruling, while still harsh, still offers a chance of success.
to those who sway more towards simplicity versus simulation, but still like the ideas presented here, this is the fast and furious rule to viable spell disruptivity!
...and if this house rule sees adoption, the complimentary proposal to stack +4 cover bonuses to AC seems fitting, to compensate for an auto-disrupt on a hit. though, i am concerned with it's interactivity with Improved Precise Shot...
Limited Learning
firstly, in the era of wizards and sorcerers, this tampers with the balance between prepared and spontaneous casting.
secondly, between spells recorded and spells chosen that day, you want to add a third list? if the DM wants to exercise control over the number of spells a wizard knows, she can tamper with his book, or regulate distribution in the first place. and the corner case where the wizard has carefully chosen which spells he has recorded in excess of those he has learned in my opinion does not justify the tedious bookkeeping.
thirdly, Use Magic Device is already super cool.
...
in conclusion, this is some very thoughtful stuff. thank you Alzrius!
...
ps. Vanshoon, this is a cool idea, and you have inspired me for my fighter redux.