So I am starting a new campaign and I am considering using a new houserule. I am wanting to remove full attacks, that way all characters may take their full attack every turn. This will apply to both PC and NPCs.
We currently use trailblazer's version of iterative attacks. That does the following
Pathfinder 6th level 0/-5 Trailblazer has -2/-2
Pathfinder 11th level 0/-5/-10 Trailblazer has -1/-1
Pathfinder 16th level 0/-5/-10/-15 Trailblazer has 0/0.
Can anyone think of any problems this rule would create. Corner cases or major flaws that I could be overlooking?
I would start with -2, then go to -3 and -4. Basically, you take a penalty equal to the number of attacks you get.
Sorry if I was not clear. I am wanting feedback on possible issues of removing full attack actions. Aka giving players all of their attacks each turn as a standard action.
Given that constitutes a major nerf in the power of martials (in a game system where magic users are already much more powerful than them), you are going to need to give martials something to make them competitive - or take something from the casters (or outright ban them).
Two-Weapon Fighting gives a single extra attack and reduces the penalty. This in unchanged.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting gives a 2nd extra attack following the new rules.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalty for using Two weapons by 1.
Superior Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalties by 1 again.
Meaning with two light weapons a character would be using Two-Weapon Fighting to have -2/-2.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting after 5th level would give -4/-4/-4/-4.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting after 11th level would give -2/-2/-2/-2.
Superior Two Weapon Fighting after 16th level would give 0/0/0/0.
Rapid shot would remain unchanged. You gain an extra attack by imparting a -2 penalty to all your attacks.
Many shot would also remain unchanged.
Also, yes this would be a buff to martials. The math in Trailblazer says their system of iterative attacks vs. full attacks is about a 15% increase in damage (Monsters with incredibly high (need a 18+ to hit) or incredibly low (hit on a 3 or less) AC alter this.)
I will have to look at monsters with natural attacks. That was not something I considered.
Why do monsters need to change? They are using natural weapons, not iteratives.
Unless you are removing full attacks for natural attack routines too... in that they get to do all natural attacks in a standard action.
Pounce already tends to add extra attacks that weren't available before for these creatures (hind leg attacks). Perhaps allowing bonus movement or +attack bonus when pouncing (or both).
A simpler change might be to give characters the appropriate feats in the Vital Strike chain instead of their iterative attacks when their BAB reaches the levels at which they qualify for them. That approach would be simpler and would keep their damage output more in line with what the extra attacks would have given them.
I've switched to the Unchained revised action economy and have seen a number of changes that I wouldn't have predicted. For example, charging is obsolete. Also, with more maneuverability, I saw a big change in tactics. And with that, monsters with feat choices that aren't effective any more. I think your change will have a similar effect.
Actually, you should reread the rules for charges in that section. It still carries the normal restrictions as far as targetting and movement, but there's no AC penalty anymore despite still getting the +2 to your attack roll. So, it's perfectly good to use in cases where there's an enemy you've got a clear line to that's more than one move action away. A number of different actions from the base system have been tweaked that way in the Revised Action Economy.
Reminds of the Revised Action Economy.
I don't mind this, but I feel as though I don't understand the Trailblazer rules as they are presented here.
Do I have to take two attacks at a -2 penalty?
A system like that may encourage the use of standard action attacks, like Vital Strike, which is the main issue people have with rules systems like this.
You gotta look at how the Standard Attack Action interacts with these rules. How do things like Cleave, and Vital Strike work?
Could I still potentially decide to take only one attack, with no penalty?
How does Haste interact?
Reminds of the Revised Action Economy.
I don't mind this, but I feel as though I don't understand the Trailblazer rules as they are presented here.
Do I have to take two attacks at a -2 penalty?
A system like that may encourage the use of standard action attacks, like Vital Strike, which is the main issue people have with rules systems like this.
You gotta look at how the Standard Attack Action interacts with these rules. How do things like Cleave, and Vital Strike work?
Could I still potentially decide to take only one attack, with no penalty?
How does Haste interact?
In trailblazer, you are able to take a normal standard action at your full BAB. Cleave, Vital Strike, and haste are all unchanged.