It seems to be one of the rules that new players find the most confusing. Would it be more clear to use a standard action to get all iterative (or dual weapon or hasted) attacks?
I've considered doing something like this at my table. My thing was that you add a -1 penalty to each attack in a fullattack for every 5' you moved, along with being able to "aim" (+2 attack, that crossbow feat that gives +4 for aiming now gives +5 instead) as a move action. Making move->attackmorethanonce and standstill->attackonce possible and maybe viable.
I don't think it matters much for new players. They will usually have only one attack till level 6 anyway, given that dual wield frightens many of them off (Dex requirement, feat requirement, attack penalties) and they likely won't use Haste at level 5 (which needs a wizard in the party anyway).
So the new martial players have 5 levels to learn about the game, then they face full-attacks. And I find it easy to explain that you can't move and do 2 attacks within a short time like 6 seconds.
But this isn't really about new players, is it? Well, I use a modified version of Unchained's revised action economy for my group. It allows to move, attack, attack, move (4 acts instead of the suggested 3). And it resulted in a sudden power bump for the martial at level 6, something like +70% damage output given that he has a good attack bonus.
As a martial player you will probably say 'Yes, that's what I want!'. Problem is: You don't exist in a vacuum. As a GM, I will increase the challenge to make it up, to make sure you don't get bored. And the other players won't get such a crazy power bump, so they will chunter. In the regular system, the first iterative is a significant improvement, even if you can use it only 50% of the time (random number). If you use 3 or 4 acts, it works in 80% of the cases (yet another random number) - the difference is noticeable and too much, in my opinion.
Given that full attacks compete with special attacks like charge, Cleave and Vital Strike, any boost to the first option can turn it in into the only reasonable one. So the martial player will be bored like 'I full-attack... again'. I have someone like this in my group, actually... Hence I also improved said three alternatives (before he complained), resulting in an even crazier power bump at level 6.
In retrospect, I probably should have sticked with the original system.
It seems to be one of the rules that new players find the most confusing. Would it be more clear to use a standard action to get all iterative (or dual weapon or hasted) attacks?
I'm a bit confused as to how the concept of the full-round action is confusing, for one. Especially once your players have been playing long enough to reach 6th or 8th level.
But for two, Pounce-like effects are locked to levels 10+ and Mythic and require jumping through hoops to get for a reason. It's INCREDIBLY desirable for anything that attacks, ever.
While it does allow you to keep on with the feel of mobile combat you get from levels 1-5, it also leads to rocket tag kicking in much earlier (and much MUCH earlier from the enemy's perspective, since they usually get multiple natural attack routines and even iteratives LONG before PCs do).
It might be more clear, but as it currently stands it would not likely make the game BETTER unless you heavily tweaked how full attacks work.
Most concepts of this nature put much needed limitations on this. One of the more common seems to be allowing Standard TWFing/Haste/Etc. attacks early on, and then allowing slightly more attacks as players progress (two attacks on a Standard at 11, three at 16, one extra for Haste/TWFing).
However, since the stated goal is reduced complexity, this is not recommended.
Given that full attacks compete with special attacks like charge, Cleave and Vital Strike, any boost to the first option can turn it in into the only reasonable one. So the martial player will be bored like 'I full-attack... again'. I have someone like this in my group, actually... Hence I also improved said three alternatives (before he complained), resulting in an even crazier power bump at level 6.
Let's be real here, neither of those options compete with full attacks with the normal action economy either. Vital Strike is a trap, and Cleave is highly situational no matter how you slice it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been discussed a lot before with generally the same consensus. A quick "full attack standard" search can show you.
Full-attack as a standard action would mess up a lot of the tactical play that the mobility-versus-damage system was designed to facilitate. and devalue many class features. While flawed, the system does impact how players approach combat and ensures that battles don't have to stretch over a large distance to become interesting.
A better alternative might involve a houserule that characters can move half their speed when full-attacking and don't benefit from fast movement when doing so. This helps fix the main issue with the system. The full-attack system, itself, is not a bad thing. The problem is that the trade-off between mobility and damage is too binary
I've never heard of anyone wanting to make a full attack be doable as a standard action for the purposes of making the rules easier to understand, so I can't speak to that. I have several times encountered the argument that it's desirable to increase the power level of non-magical martial characters.
I personally don't think it's either an overpowered or underpowered rules change, since if applied across the board it would apply evenly to PCs and monsters and NPCs. Basically, making a full attack a standard action will increase the so-called "rocket tag" effect prevalent within late-level play, as it will become much easier to reach foes and consistently subject them to all your iterative attacks, thus increasing your chances of felling one or possibly more enemies each round without fail.
Personally, I used to be more in favor of this rules change back when I perceived martial characters' problem to be a low power level all around. As the years have gone by and I've designed my fair share of classes, though, I've understood that this is hardly the case. Killing monsters quickly and efficiently by doling out huge amounts of HP damage is arguably the one thing martial characters are unequivocally good at, and thus it's the only department where they don't really need a leg up. I agree with Cyrad that it's a shame the movement-to-attack tradeoff system is so binary and un-dynamic, and I think the suggested houserule would be a far better idea than just making full attacks standard action-able. That being said, I am of this opinion because I prefer fights where creatures don't have a tendency to be killed in a single round; others might feel differently on that score.
Cheers,
- Gears
Let's be real here, neither of those options compete with full attacks with the normal action economy either. Vital Strike is a trap, and Cleave is highly situational no matter how you slice it.
Vital Strike has its place when you don't go for damage by all means. A tanky or well-rounded martial sacrifices less with forgoing the second attack, but gains the same bonus damage. There are situations where you can't charge - with Vital Strike you can simply walk to your foe and hammer him for additional +4.5 damage (longsword) / +7 damage (greatsword) / more (bigger weaponary). This is far above the usual benefit of a feat and doesn't hurt against damage reduction either.
Given the power of Cleave (up to double damage) or even Great Cleave, it's totally fine it's situational...
If you prefer reliable feats or play in a more offensive way, I see why you don't like them, though.
it's a shame the movement-to-attack tradeoff system is so binary and un-dynamic
Paizo adressed that with 'Mobile Melee':
Here ('Variant: Mobile Melee' to the right)
If you want to keep iterative attacks, maybe just translate it into a general attack penalty which increases as the player moves more.
@Sheepish Eidolon: That silly attack roll penalty rule is rather horrid, though, I feel. What's required is simply allowing characters to, when they reach a certain BAB (9+ maybe?), spend a swift action as part of full-attacking to get to move up to half their speed as part of the full attack, divided however they wish, but separated into discrete 5-foot increments. That Mobile Melee alternate rule is needlessly clunky and underpowered, in my view. If people really feel a penalty is required, I would only start applying it once you move farther than half your speed, and then probably just make it -2 per additional 5 feet.
Very little would happen if full attack was a standard action.
Classes that mix casting and melee would benefit most, pure casters wouldn't be significantly affected, Fighters and Barbarians would gain a decent benefit...
I doubt adding this to the game would have much impact, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be the death of parties because what has saved us from powerful monsters is the fact they do not get a full attack against us when they move.
It would be the death of parties because what has saved us from powerful monsters is the fact they do not get a full attack against us when they move.
That may be true, actually...
Or it may just result in more readied actions, and setting for charge...
"Hey! Let's give every dragon pounce!"
"Hey! Let's give every dragon pounce!"
I've never felt Dragons to be overly deadly, even when I sit down and design them from the ground up (choosing feats, adding class levels etc)-they ARE very good generalists though. :D
Fly-by attack full-attacking dragons would be overly deadly. I guarantee it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very little would happen if full attack was a standard action.
Except for it having a radical effect on tactical play, positioning, mobility, action economy, character options, and other game mechanics revolving around full-attack actions versus attack actions.
Very little would happen if full attack was a standard action.Except for it having a radical effect on tactical play, positioning, mobility, action economy, character options, and other game mechanics revolving around full-attack actions versus attack actions.
So very little ;-P
I've played games were Monks, and only monks, were given the ability to flurry of blows (full attack-ish) as a standard at the cost of 1 ki point. It changed the game and made the monk, an amazingly fun character. If you gave this to a character class that could do significantly more damage, like a barbarian, I don't know that it would work as well.
*edit for spelling and things
So very little ;-PVery little would happen if full attack was a standard action.Except for it having a radical effect on tactical play, positioning, mobility, action economy, character options, and other game mechanics revolving around full-attack actions versus attack actions.
Yeah, we would have to give casters something significant to make up for it I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't casters already get scaling damage plus a full move for free?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! The dead rising from the grave! Earthquakes, volcanoes... Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
I personally am a fan of the idea that iterative attacks can be used as a standard action but extra ones beyond the first cost movement. But I'm also a fan of attacks not ending your ability to finish your move, like in 5e.
There are three horribly mismatched mechanics at work here.
Natural attacks and iteratives.
Iteratives are necessary to increase the maximum meaningful gap between attack and AC. Since attack scales and AC doesn't this is really bloody important.
Natural attacks are balanced around not having iteratives. This is really, really stupid and WotC should be ashamed of themselves for being totally incompetent at game design. They could recognize that the attack AC gap mattered enough to put in iteratives, but couldn't be arsed to apply them to most monsters for some unfathomable reason. The basic attack/AC math doesn't work for monsters that don't have power attack. In Pathfinder power attack is fixed so it doesn't work for them either.
Standard attacks remove iteratives. This is stupid again. Especially when lance charges let you get the damage back without an accuracy penalty. Same problem that power attack used to be a possible kludge if everyone was good at math but now isn't.
Attacks without iteratives need to go. That means natural attacks need to be a lot weaker, probably losing something like 1/2 strength (so secondaries add none) and one or two die steps. Or d20 needs to be abandoned. Switching to a d30 while keeping the level cap at 20 might work adequately. They're not as readily available in large quantities, though. Weapon attacks are already balanced around having iteratives even though they often don't get them. HP goes up a lot faster than damage without them while individual rounds also tend to take longer at higher levels so that if anything combats should be getting shorter in rounds as you level up to keep them from taking too long in real world time at the table.
While we are at it, lets introduce spells up to level 12, and allow two spells per round instead of one.
Oh, and bump Fighters down to D8s, and Barbarians can't rage anymore.
Winning Initiative would actually be a good thing for martial characters. :P
In all seriousness... I do think there should be some trade off... But I think that as it is, full attacking is the only decent option. Even Vital Strike doesn't do anything significant... Well... Except in Mythic, but that's because Mythic is bonkers and overall horribly designed.
I agree with Lemmy. I think the trade off should exist, but as is, the system is too binary.
I designed an action economy for an RPG that I really liked that balanced the trade-offs better. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to implement it for Pathfinder.
Well... There is that Alternate Action Economy in PF Unchained, but... Let's just say I'm not a fan.