Full attack as a standard action - how to incorporate it?

[Threeshades]

This is not a new idea by a longshot. As far as I know plenty of people have done this before. Changing full attacks to be made as part of a standard action, instead of a full-round action, in order to give martials the same mobility casters have.

I recently introduced the houserule at my table, but i've run into some rough spots. I proposed the fighter player, who had taken th vital strike feat to offset the drawbacks of having to standard attacks, to replace the vital strike feat because of the new house rule, but he also builds on the feat tree for other reasons so we agreed to make changes to the feat, since it would otherwise be virtually useless.
He also mentioned cleave/great cleave (which he doesn't have but is also a single attack standard action).
The first thing i ruled is, that the two instead of being used with a single standard action attack, are used with the first (highest BAB) attack of a full attack instead and as a drawback for vital strike impose a -2 penalty to attack rolls (with an additional -2 for every following feat on the tree).

I am not sure if these feats aren't overpowered this way, so I am looking for ways to balance vital strike and cleave/great cleave in a rules environment that allows full attacks as standard actions. Any ideas?

(by the way, i also allow full attacks on charges now, but unless you have pounce only the first attack gets the +2 charge bonus, and the AC penalty is eliminated)

[Kazaan]

If you're going to do it, there has to be a way to account for the "time lost" by moving. If you move and then make a full-attack as a standard action, you'd lose some of those attacks. How many could be linked to your Dex bonus; say you can only make your Dex bonus worth of attacks on a standard full-attack if you move a distance in the round. It wouldn't apply if you use a move action that doesn't involve traversing distance. If you move->full-attack, you lose attacks off the front-end. If you full-attack->move, you lose attacks off the back-end. To illustrate:

Say your Dex bonus is 2. You're at Bab+11 so you have 3 iterative attacks. You have enough Dex to make 2 of your 3 iteratives. If you move up to an enemy and full-attack, you'll lose your +11 iterative and only make the +6 and +1 attacks. If you full-attack first, then move somewhere else, you have to move before you take the +1 attack or you lose the opportunity.

Keep in mind that some archetypes, particularly the Mobile Fighter archetype, involve things like this already.

[Threeshades]

Kazaan wrote:

If you're going to do it, there has to be a way to account for the "time lost" by moving. If you move and then make a full-attack as a standard action, you'd lose some of those attacks. How many could be linked to your Dex bonus; say you can only make your Dex bonus worth of attacks on a standard full-attack if you move a distance in the round. It wouldn't apply if you use a move action that doesn't involve traversing distance. If you move->full-attack, you lose attacks off the front-end. If you full-attack->move, you lose attacks off the back-end. To illustrate:

Say your Dex bonus is 2. You're at Bab+11 so you have 3 iterative attacks. You have enough Dex to make 2 of your 3 iteratives. If you move up to an enemy and full-attack, you'll lose your +11 iterative and only make the +6 and +1 attacks. If you full-attack first, then move somewhere else, you have to move before you take the +1 attack or you lose the opportunity.

Keep in mind that some archetypes, particularly the Mobile Fighter archetype, involve things like this already.

no I explicitly want martial characters to be able to use their full potential as a standard action, just as casters can. Including such a mechanic would just make them more MAD.

[Kazaan]

So, basically, you want to do away with the Full-Attack action in its entirety and dump its functionality on Attack, wholesale? That's a terribad idea. First and foremost, martial characters are, pretty much, good-to-go from level 1. Give a Fighter a weapon and he's gold. But a caster actually has to work for his badassery. Second, the issue is one of equity, not equality. What's the martial class's job? To provide a solid line of defense while dishing out either focused single-target damage or supplemental damage to several targets. They do this with a combination of full-attack and AoOs. They get enchanted weapons to help with this function. What's a caster's job? To provide field-support though CC and suppressing damage through multi-target and AoE effects. They don't rely on weapons significantly so enhancement bonuses mean nothing to them. They spread out the damage, tagging several targets and providing a general baseline for the martial classes to work off of. If you're trying to modify both casters and martial classes to function on the same system when, inherently, they don't, you're doomed to failure from the starting line. To accomplish this, it has to be a ground-up process and that involves designing a game with that principal in mind from the get-go; not trying to retro-fit an existing system. If you're going to retrofit the Pathfinder system (that's a significant term, system; you don't just go monkeying around under the hood of a car without knowing what you're doing and expect to make it "better"), you have to do it equitably; that is the casters and martial classes (and skill-monkeys and everything else, for that matter) must be able to perform their respective jobs without just monkeying each other. Martial classes are all about damage and defense while Caster classes are not. So you can't define Caster classes by their ability to do damage and you can't measure a Martial class's ability to do damage against the Caster's ability to do damage. You've got to develop a meterstick solely for the Martial classes and stick to it. If martial classes have trouble delivering damage while simultaneously maintaining a defensive line, you have to look at that problem in its own right; not as compared to a caster's action economy or damage output.

Now, with that in mind, another way to adjust it is to merge the iterative and AoO system. By default, if you have +11 Bab, you get 3 iterative attacks plus one AoO. That's 4 total attacks you can make in a round, but only 3 of them you can use during your full-attack and only 1 of them you can use as a response attack. For example, if you move up and make a standard Attack, you get a single attack, but you don't get the other two attacks possible by your Bab as AoOs for a total of 3 AoOs; you only get a single AoO. This could be changed so that you get 4 total attacks in the example provided to be used for either iterative attacks or AoOs at your discretion. So, at Bab +11, you would have the option to spend 4 attacks in a full-attack at +11/+6/+1/-4. Or, alternatively, if you only took a standard Attack on your turn, you'd have 3 AoOs to leverage. That way, even if you can only take a standard Attack on your turn due to movement, you have additional AoOs available. Another possibility is a "counter-attack" type of feat which allows you to make a reflex save vs an attack and, if you succeed, you can take an AoO against them. Even deeper, have this method work only works on attacks for which you aren't denied your Dex bonus and, for attacks in which you are denied your Dex bonus, you must make a Will save to make it an intuitive counter-attack (cinematic-ally speaking, this would be the over-the-shoulder sucker-punch vs someone sneaking up behind you). There are options within the spirit of the existing system without completely turning it on its head like messing with the relative action economy. You've got to think like an architect to design a system that won't implode on itself.

[ShadowcatX]

Threeshades, I like your idea of making the full attack a standard action.

My advice would be to have the pc drop the now worthless feats and gain new feats, or perhaps use those feats on the first attack made each round. . .

[wraithstrike]

If you don't let the certain monsters do the same thing the game will be too easy.

This assumes they run like games I have played. If you have other houserules in place this might work.

[Kolokotroni]

There are some serious downsides to this. Mostly, at higher levels, or creatures/characters with large numbers of natural weapons become problematic. Dragons for instance become stupid deadly if they can always full attack. You turn the game into rocket tag, who ever gets there first kills the other

[Threeshades]

Kazaan wrote:

[snip]

i'm not comparing their damage output. Only realitve ability to act out their potential. And casters are at a vast advantage here, they ususally have range with their abilities AND can perform most of them as a standard action, unless it is an excessively powerful effect for its spell level. Instead of magic items (which by the way also improve their casting abilities, they just don't have much use for magic weapons) they get continually expanding spell durations and stronger effects.

Martials, barring ranged weapons, on the other hand have to get up close before they can do anything, so they will have to move to get into a position where they can do anything, but their attack rules make it so that they lose a significant part of their output.
I think you're exagerrating on this ruling's effect on the system as a whole.
1. The system is not perfect to begin with. It is very commonly agreed on that martials are sub par to full casters
2. Unlike with your car analogy, I am actually modifying something i understand
3. Wizard: "So you can move over there and swing your sword four times now. Congratulations, why don't you come visit me on my private demiplane and tell me that again, I might actually consider being impressed then."

ShadowcatX wrote:

Threeshades, I like your idea of making the full attack a standard action.

My advice would be to have the pc drop the now worthless feats and gain new feats, or perhaps use those feats on the first attack made each round. . .

As i said, that's what we are running with right now. He didn't want to drop vital strike from his character, he built most of it around that feat, and I didn't want him to completely remodel his character because of one houserule.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you don't let the certain monsters do the same thing the game will be too easy.

This assumes they run like games I have played. If you have other houserules in place this might work.

Full attack as a standard action goes for everyone of course.

Kolokotroni wrote:

There are some serious downsides to this. Mostly, at higher levels, or creatures/characters with large numbers of natural weapons become problematic. Dragons for instance become stupid deadly if they can always full attack. You turn the game into rocket tag, who ever gets there first kills the other

I can see the concern, one of the fights we had in the first session went over rather quickly. I had them fight three rock trolls (they themselves are three level 7 pcs, + 1 animal companion and a summoner cohort with eidolon), the fight was over in a few rounds, but I think really while the lethality of the first attacker has been improved, i think it just turned the situation around. Normally it is the defender who is at an advantage, because they are the one to get the first full attack.

I will continue using this system for more sessions but i will keep the criticisms here in mind. If I find it does break the game balance, i will remove it.

For now i'd rather have suggestions on Vital Strike and Cleave and their respective follow-up feats.

[wraithstrike]

What is the point of charging now, unless someone is out of normal moving range, when I can move and get a full attack in. Will you make charge into pounce?

[Threeshades]

Almost pounce, basically, but you get the +2 bonus to attack only to the first attack, creatures that have actual pounce get the bonus to all attacks.

[Threeshades]

Okay so I've been trying this system for quite a few sessions now, and I have to say I'm rather pleased.

First the details on how i made it work:

1. Full attacks are now standard actions and can also be made on a charge. When charging you gain a +2 bonus to hit only on your highest GAB attack or the first primary natural attack you use (secondary if you don't have primary attacks and aren't usng manufactured weapons).
2. Pounce allows you to gain the +2 bonus on all attacks.
3. Feats and special abilities that normally require a standard attack action are now used as part of the full attack, but only apply to the first attack (like the charge bonus)
4. Feats and special abilities that replace the normal attacks of a full attack action remain unaltered.
5. You can not use feats or special abilities that are normally only usable with standard attacks together with feats or special abilities that can normally only be used in a full round action.
6. Vital strike and every iteration of it impose a cumulative -2 penalty on your first attack roll unless you make only one attack.

So what happened?

At first i was skeptical on the ruling with vital strike, but it quickly turned out, it's actually not that overpowered, considering what archers get to do (extra attack at -2 penalty, basically TWF with one weapon and no off-hand damage penalties and then double damage on the first attack, and piling it all together with clustered shots), i was even considering dropping the to hit penalty for a while, but then i thought it might get cheesy after all, when we hit multiple iterations of the feat.

I was lacking a point of reference most of the time, but when a witch PC joined the group to give me an equal level primary caster for reference, i came to the conclusion that they do all seem to contribute fair amounts to the fight (actually the with was still shining, just basically putting that APL+2 Scrag Fighter out of business with hold person, while everyone else (including a few NPCs) was busy with the four regular scrags (which were APL-3 each).
Also the vampire sorcerer and the aboleth encounter that happened previously still were way over their heads. So magic is still the primary source of danger, as it should be (since magic users are generally the least resilient types) but melee guys can dish out some extra damage while remaining mobile. It especially showed in the Ninja's performance who now is actually almost the DPR machine that rogues and ninjas are supposed to be. (it's nice when adjusting your flanking position every round doesn't mean you lose more than half of your damage output)

I'm quite pleased with how it works, and i can only recommend others to try.

[TheRedArmy]

I'm glad to see it worked out so well.

I think the bonus for charging should scale since +2 is so minor later on.

What level are you guys at?

I may try various level tests with my friends.

[Byrdology]

What happened is your rogue and monk just "filled the cup"

[Threeshades]

Party has recently hit level 9. I've been testing this with them since level 6 or 7.
Our party started off with a wild shape focused druid with a houserule-augmented large bear companion, a TWF Ninja with a summoner cohort and a Greatsword fighter (who went for damage with power attack, vital strike etc). Later the druid died and was replaced by a standard issue maximum damage archery ranger (spirit ranger) and then a new wild shaping druid with a roc companion and a witch. Recently the fighter died and the player missed a session because he was called to work, he will rejoin later with a greatsword-wielding inquisitor of gorum.
So we have a lot of attacks to go around in melee as well as some ranged artillery that benefits from the rules.

[TheRedArmy]

How do you rule for the TWF? Can he attack with his off-hand if he moves, or can he only do main hand attacks if he moves?

[Threeshades]

TWFers can attack with both weapons when moving or charging as well. You get the full benefits of full attacks during a standard action used to attack.