Full round attacks

[Kerrick]

I just skimmed over this, but here's what I did: You make a partial move and still get more than 1 attack in a round, depending on how far you moved. The table (which looks a little better here shows the ratio:

Attacks	Move*
  1     Full
  2	3/4
  3	1/2
  4	1/3
  5+	Combat stride

*Round down to the nearest 5.

The combat stride is my version of the 5-foot step; it's a single step equal to your reach (so we don't have a 20-foot-tall creature with speed 70 taking inky-dinky steps).

So, for example, a human fighter 20 with two weapons (30 foot move, 5 attacks per round) could:

* Make 1 attack as a standard action and still have a move action (he can move up to 30 feet or do anything else that requires a move action);
* Make 2 attacks as a modified full-round action, but still be able to move up to 20 feet (3/4 of his speed, rounded down);
* Make 3 attacks as a modified full-round action, but still be able to move up to 15 feet (1/2 of his speed);
* Make 4 attacks as a modified full-round action, but still be able to move up to 10 feet (1/3 of his speed);
* Make 5 or more attacks as a full-round action and take only a combat stride as normal. He can make it before, after, or during his attacks.


As for the Multiattack thing... I don't know why I didn't think of that. I changed TWF (Hawken's suggestion) so that each extra attack you get with the offhand comes automatically at higher BABs - second at +6, third at +11, fourth at +16. A feat like Multiattack that reduces offhand penalties to -2 (Hell, I could repurpose ITWF, really) and another to drop it (GTWF) to +0 would be perfect.

 

[Sadrik]

Let me distinguish that in my house rules I keep it very close to the core rules as far as full round actions go. I would like to shake it up with my comments though.

In an improved revisionist way of thinking, it should make every attempt to make the basic core 3e/3.5/d20 rules clearer and more concise. As far as actions go I think vast improvements should be made in this area. Way more than 90% of combat spells are standard actions allowing the caster to move and cast freely. Even high level damage dealing AoE spells are. Why is the fighter-type limited to not moving to do his full damage at his level? Isn't the choice of not drawing an AoO enough? Instead of creating more rules to encourage a little bit of movement, why not make an attack an attack? I think the full attack has been nearly universally put down as a 3e weakness. High level fighter-types cannot move more than 5' and attack and are only effective with a full action.

My fix would be making the full attack just an attack, a standard action. I would make a 5' step a move action. This would give the ability to remove the withdraw action and make it a 5' step move action + a move move action. Heck make run a move action and charge a run + attack. If normally a run is x4 speed, a run action could be a standard action for x2 speed (or x1.5 speed for heavy armor). Long story short, remove full actions completely from the game.

As far as the synthesis of the full round attack, I still really like the idea of the Multi-Attack feat. Each hand would be considered a secondary attack when fighting two handed (-5) just like monsters. With the feat it lowers them to -2. With Improved Multi-Attack it lowers them to -0. The problem is how do you make the two weapon fighter (requires feat) to match up with the great weapon fighter (doesn't require feat).

Again, I like the idea of gaining multiple attacks with a single weapon through feats. So that it is not a class feature and monsters can simply take a feat, if they want and utilize the same rules as PCs.

So going forward with the idea that full attacks are a standard action and that multi-attack feat allows the user to fight with two weapons. How do you get flurry to work out with the math? clearly flurry + multi-attack should be good it is two feats.

Going back to these two fighters:
At 6th, 18 STR, long and short sword, multi-attack, flurry and 5 more feats!
-4 to hit
1d8 + 4
1d8 + 4
1d6 + 2

At 6th, 18 STR, greatsword, weapon focus, flurry and 6 more feats!
-1 to hit
2d6+6
2d6+6

Perhaps those additional feats should be looked at more closely to balance out the two characters.

 

[Sadrik]

I think I have it:
Multiattack [General]
Prerequisite
None
Benefit
The creature’s secondary attacks take only a -2 penalty.
Normal
Without this feat, the creature’s secondary attacks take a -5 penalty.

Improved Multiattack [General]
Prerequisite
+6 BAB, Multiattack
Benefit
The creature’s secondary attacks have no penalty. They still add only one-half the creature’s Strength bonus, if any, to damage dealt.
Normal
Without this feat, the creature’s secondary attacks have a -5 penalty (or a -2 penalty if it has the Multiattack feat).

Greater Multiattack [General]
Prerequisite
+11 BAB, Improved Multiattack
Benefit
The creature’s secondary attacks add the creature’s Strength bonus, if any, to damage dealt.
Normal
Without this feat, the creature’s secondary attacks only add one-half the creature's Strength bonus.

Flurry [General]
Prerequisite
+6 BAB
Benefit
The creature's primary and secondary attacks attack twice. All attacks are at -4 to hit.
Normal
Without this feat, each primary and secondary attack can only make one attack.

Improved Flurry [General]
Prerequisite
+11 BAB, Flurry
Benefit
The creature's primary and secondary attacks attack three times. All attacks are at -4 to hit.
Normal
Without this feat, each primary and secondary attack can only make one attack.

Greater Flurry [General]
Prerequisite
+16 BAB, Improved Flurry
Benefit
When a creature uses Flurry the attacks are at -2 to hit.
Normal
Without this feat, each primary and secondary attack has a -4 to attack when making a Flurry attack.


Okay, so two characters with 18 strength at level 1/6/11
Level 1
Greatsword
+1 feat

+5 2d6+6

Long Sword/Short Sword
Multiattack

+5 1d8+4
+3 1d6+2

Level 6
Greatsword
Flurry
+2 feats

+6 2d6+6
+6 2d6+6

Long sword/Short Sword
Multiattack
Flurry
+1 feat

+6 1d8+4
+6 1d8+4
+4 1d6+2
+4 1d6+2

Level 11
Greatsword
Flurry
Improved Flurry
+4 feats

+11 2d6+6
+11 2d6+6
+11 2d6+6


Long sword/Short Sword
Multiattack
Improved Multiattack
Flurry
Improved Flurry
+2 feats

+11 1d8+4
+11 1d8+4
+11 1d8+4
+11 1d6+2
+11 1d6+2
+11 1d6+2

These are a lot closer now. Basically these are the following changes from my previous proposal:
1. Flurry affects all primary and secondary attacks
2. Your primary hand when two weapon fighting is a primary attack no penalty to hit and full strength. Your secondary attacks are -5 to hit and 1/2 strength. With the feat it of course lowers this to -2 and the improved to -0.

My initial thought, was to have every attack (primary or secondary) be rolled with the same modifier. As I thought about it it is likely that a two weapon fighter is going to have different modifiers anyway on each hand (+3 longsword and a +2 short sword etc.). They would likely be rolling the dice at different times anyway. So now a two weapon fighter rolls his primary hand and secondary hand in different die rolls. Why make fighting with two weapons a special case for the primary and secondary attack monster rules? They fit so well here too. Anyway, I would like to hear thoughts on this.

 

[Kerrick]

You kind of lost me with all that, but I think I see where you're going. You're talking about making ALL the attacks you make in a round into a standard action, called a flurry (I should've mentioned that I had a high-level feat that lets you make all your attacks as a standard action, and the monk gets a class ability to make a flurry as a standard action too).

You can't, however, simply get rid of full-round actions - there are many other things besides full attacks that use them, like spells, loading a heavy crossbow, delivering a coup de grace (I changed that one too, so a full-round CDG is instant death, whereas a standard-action CDG deals max damage and allows a save), etc.

As far as TWF vs. PA: they already deal the same amount of damage:

Ftr 11 (Bob), w/longsword and shortsword, 18 Str:

+13/+8/+3 and +13/+8 (+11 BAB, -2 for all attacks, +4 Str); avg damage (assuming all attacks hit): (3d8+12) + (3d6+12) = 48

Vs.

Ftr 11 (Frank), w/greatsword and Power Attack, 18 Str. For this comparison, we'll assume the target is AC 15, so Frank decides to dump 5 points of BAB into his PA:

+12/+7/+2 (+11 BAB, +4 Str, -5 PA); avg damage (w/+5 PA): 48 (wow, I'm good - I just pulled that out of thin air).

Bob and Frank have roughly the same chance of hitting the target, and deal the same amount of damage. You could say that Bob has to make more attacks to do it, which gives him a greater chance of failing to meet his average, and you'd be right - but don't forget that extra damage applies on every attack - sneak attack, elemental damage, favored enemy, whatever, it makes Multiattack a no-brainer feat for rogues, like Weapon Finesse. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, mind you - I like it - but it's too good.

One final thought: Calling a full attack a "flurry" is going to get every confused with the monk's flurry of blows. Not a good thing. I don't see why you don't keep the original nomenclature (transparency and all that) and just change how it works.

 

[Bladesinger_Boy]

Kerrick, just to clarify, I know TWF and PA were on-par as- if, for each primary attack, an off-hand attack can be gained. Sadrick liked the Star Wars: Saga Edition idea of having extra primary attacks but only ever having 1 offhand attack. I just want to remind him that wasn't fair. For each each possible beefy PA, there needs to be the chance of a pair of primary and off-hand attack for TWFing.

Also an agree on naming and confounding the term "flurry" with Flurry of Blows and additional flurry attacks. We could use the SW:SE terms for them: Double Attack, Triple Attack. Or maybe bi-attack, tri-attack, quad-attack.

Can you get rid of full-round attacks? I think so. If 3 think of actions being composed of three possible parts of 1 Standard, Move, and Swift, a "full round" anything is just 1 standard and 1 move. So coup de grace, full-round reloading, whatever is still possible. The 4th Ed idea of having both action hierarchy (and therefore being able to "reduce" one action to another is golden) and having moves or swifts(/minors) that can do funky effects is really good and something to be more promoted in 3.5 revisionism.

What if it became an issue of penalties to hit or not but not about number of attacks: you can move and get all your attacks at a penalty (maybe -5, or -10, or -2 per attack), or full-round attack at no penalty. That would up the potency of moving, precision dice, & dps stuff a lot. It also reduces the differences between standard and full round attacks, which helps people who would normally full round attack have more viable options.

 

[Sadrik]

You can't, however, simply get rid of full-round actions - there are many other things besides full attacks that use them, like spells, loading a heavy crossbow, delivering a coup de grace (I changed that one too, so a full-round CDG is instant death, whereas a standard-action CDG deals max damage and allows a save), etc.

I think Full actions can go the way of the dodo. They really are not needed. In all of those cases you can simply make it a standard action. In cases where picking a lock for example sure you can move but then you have to start over on picking a lock. On summoning spells (and other full round action spells) you can say it takes two standard actions if you want to be accurate or you can simply say its a standard action. Changing everything to a standard action does not change much.

Cast a spell- 1 round becomes standard action
Cast a spontaneous meta-magic spell- standard action
Charge- run + attack
Coup de Grace- standard action
Escape from a net- standard action (entangled condition restricts move anyway)
Extinguish a flame- standard action
Full attack- standard action
Light a torch- standard action
Load a crossbow- standard action (light and hand move action)
Lock or unlock a weapon gauntlet- standard action
Move 5' through difficult terrain- ignore this rule
Prepare to throw a splash weapon- standard action
Run- move action but x2 speed (run + run = x4 speed)
Use a skill that takes 1 round- most require you to stay and not move to complete the skill anyway
Use a touch spell on up to 6 friends- limit this by speed rather than an arbitrary number
Withdraw- 5' step + run

I would also make a 5' step a move action under this because now you can make a 5' step and still get a full attack.

The 4th Ed idea of having both action hierarchy (and therefore being able to "reduce" one action to another is golden) and having moves or swifts(/minors) that can do funky effects is really good and something to be more promoted in 3.5 revisionism.

Well this is also a 3e idea in that you can use a standard action for a move action.

Also I think the use of swift actions should be minimized greatly. I see them as a bit of rules clutter and increased options that can paralyze some players. Swift actions are greatly used in ToB:Bo9S and it is too much minutia management. They could still exist but for very specific purposes. A broadened definition of a free action could work fine too. Keeping it closer to the core 3e- which does not have swift actions and things like quickened spells are defined by free actions "only once per turn" work just as well.

 

[Bladesinger_Boy]

Okay, I think I have some good stuff done for reducing attack rolls.

You get one attack for a standard. If you are 11th level or higher, you can get one extra attack if you perform a full-round attack (21st allows two extra attacks, 31st allows three extra attacks). If you chose to take an
extra attack, you take a -5 penalty to hit per extra attack. You can take feats that will reduce this -5 penalty per attack by 1 points for each time take called Attack Training 1, Attack Training 2, Attack Training 3 each accessible at 11th, 21st, and 31st level respectively.
Haste can either grants the normal +1 bonus to hit OR reduce the penalties per extra attack by 1 point per extra attack.
TWFing carries the same initial -2 (or -4 if not light) penalty to hit. Each "X Two Weapon Fighting" simply integrates that attack into your primary attack roll. To determine your attack bonus, use the lower attack bonus between your offhand and primary hand.
I'll make a table...

LEVEL__STRD ATK__FULL ATK__ATK TRNING #1___#2_____#3____HASTE
1.............+0........+0.......................-.................-...........-........+1
11...........+0.........-5/-5...................-4/-4...........-............-.......-3/-3
21...........+0.........-10/-10/-10..........-3/-3..-6/-6/-6..........-........-4/-4/-4
31...........+0.........-15/-15/-15/-15....-2/-2..-4/-4/-4..-6/-6/-6/-6..-3/-3/-3/-3

Does this make sense to anyone? Because all the attacks are at the same bonus, I could see lumping them all together like Manyshot into one attack roll. Again, the intent here is speeding up play by reducing dice rolls and scaling back the number of attacks.

 

[Sadrik]

One final thought: Calling a full attack a "flurry" is going to get every confused with the monk's flurry of blows. Not a good thing. I don't see why you don't keep the original nomenclature (transparency and all that) and just change how it works.

Also an agree on naming and confounding the term "flurry" with Flurry of Blows and additional flurry attacks. We could use the SW:SE terms for them: Double Attack, Triple Attack. Or maybe bi-attack, tri-attack, quad-attack.

My concept was to broaden the Monk's Flurry of Blows class feature into a feat chain. So, I was looking to make them the same and synonymous with one another. The monk would simply gain them as bonus feats and other classes and monsters could choose them too. Making them a universal and selectable thing.

 

[Kerrick]

I think Full actions can go the way of the dodo. They really are not needed. In all of those cases you can simply make it a standard action. In cases where picking a lock for example sure you can move but then you have to start over on picking a lock. On summoning spells (and other full round action spells) you can say it takes two standard actions if you want to be accurate or you can simply say its a standard action. Changing everything to a standard action does not change much.

You can't take two standard actions in a round. You can do 1 standard + 1 move or 2 moves; this prevents people from, say, casting two spells in the same round.

Some spells are a full-round action for a reason - balance. If you summon a creature as a standard action, this means you can cast the spell and move in the same round, or cast the spell and do anything else that takes up a move action. Not only that, but the creature will be able to act on that turn, not the next one ("It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn.").

Using a full-round action, OTOH, means that you're stuck in the same place, casting that spell, until your action on the next round, whereupon you and the creature can act normally. This is a balancing factor - you give up a round of actions to get more actions via the summoned creature.

Likewise, a charge action combines a move action (the move) and a standard action (the attack). If you make charge a standard action, everyone would do it, at every opportunity.

I would also make a 5' step a move action under this because now you can make a 5' step and still get a full attack.

You can do that anyway - 5-foot step is a free action.

My concept was to broaden the Monk's Flurry of Blows class feature into a feat chain. So, I was looking to make them the same and synonymous with one another. The monk would simply gain them as bonus feats and other classes and monsters could choose them too. Making them a universal and selectable thing.

Monsters cannot and should not be able to make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Many (most?) creatures have several natural attacks, which takes the place of a PC's iterative attacks - if you allowed iteratives for 2, 3, or more natural attacks, the game would grind to a halt and monsters would kill everything.

 

[Sadrik]

Skills and spells are written in the format of "1 round" it does not say full round action. I suppose you could give special meaning to "1 round" and still delete full round actions completely. "1 round" means cannot take a move action when performing this action. Functionally it is still a standard action but it also ties on the "cannot take a move action when performing this standard action".

Go back and look at my chart of full round actions and see how I tackle each full round action.

Likewise, a charge action combines a move action (the move) and a standard action (the attack). If you make charge a standard action, everyone would do it, at every opportunity.

Spiting the run action into 1.2 making it a move action that gives you x2 speed (and then taking two of them gives you x4 speed) gives you run (move action) plus attack (standard action). Simple really.

You can do that anyway - 5-foot step is a free action.

I know, but if you split it so that you can make a full attack as a standard action then you, don't need to have 5' steps be a free action they can be a full move action that does not draw an attack of opportunity. And a withdraw action can be deleted in favor of two 5' steps or 5' step +run or whatever.

Monsters cannot and should not be able to make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Many (most?) creatures have several natural attacks, which takes the place of a PC's iterative attacks - if you allowed iteratives for 2, 3, or more natural attacks, the game would grind to a halt and monsters would kill everything.

So how many attacks does a 12th level fighter fire giant make?

Point is that taking flurry in my current incarnation of the feat chain gives more attacks at -4 to hit. but doubles your attacks. Good bad I don't know. Some monsters with insanely high attack bonus would love the feat others would not. I really don't like the divide between the monster rules and the PC rules. My multi-attack and flurry rules address that divide.

As to the power level of the feat. It is a feat so I want it to be beneficial on the other hand I don't want it to be so good it is a feat tax. Right now it may be that way. Take a close look and let me know what you think.