New Full-round Attack

[sfedi]

I have this house rule:

"As a full round action, you can forego any extra attacks and you can make a single attack with a +2 bonus."

Note: Cleave would kick in any-way (in 3.5)

Why?
Because at lower levels, there's no difference between a full-round attack and a move + attack.
So this rule allows you to take advantage of this extra move action.

At higher levels, it opens the possibility to deal a more effective attack at the expense of the other attacks. Although the benefits of this are slim.

So far, I've played with this rule and it was good and fine.
Lowly creatures get a little more deadly (lots of goblins, orcs, etc.)
But players, specially fighter types, are gratefull of having a full-round attack count.

Opinions?

 

[ChrisHaines]

I just allowed an opposite mechanic for Fighting Defensively.

Fight Offensively
When engaging an opponent with a melee attack you can opt to suffer a -4 penalty to your AC and recieve a +2 bonus to your melee attacks until your next turn.

 

[the Jester]

sfedi, do you find that the +2 outweighs the benefits of multiple iterative attacks, especially for fighters, at high levels? It seems as though your mechanic favors the lower-level characters significantly, especially fighters around 4th-5th level. Is this intentional?

I just allowed an opposite mechanic for Fighting Defensively.

Fight Offensively
When engaging an opponent with a melee attack you can opt to suffer a -4 penalty to your AC and recieve a +2 bonus to your melee attacks until your next turn.

This is cool. Logical and a simple inversion of fighting defensively.

*ponders*

 

[sfedi]

sfedi, do you find that the +2 outweighs the benefits of multiple iterative attacks, especially for fighters, at high levels?

In my expirience, that's how it turns out.
And doing some math, I think it shows the same.
There are few instances when someone with multiple/iterative attacks would prefer to gain the +2.

It seems as though your mechanic favors the lower-level characters significantly, especially fighters around 4th-5th level. Is this intentional?

You are correct that it favors the lower level characters, but that's not the main intention.

The intention behind this ruling is to allow our common sense to go hand in hand with the rules.

If you spend all the round attacking, you expect that your attack is better than if you move and attack.
In fact, that's the way it is at higher levels, when you gain iterative attacks (or at lower levels with TWF).
But that is simply not true at the lower levels.

In addition, this ruling expose beginning players to the "problem" you have in higher levels, in which if you move and make a single attack against a foe, and then he makes a full attack on you, you are at a big disadvantage.

 

[sfedi]

Fight Offensively
When engaging an opponent with a melee attack you can opt to suffer a -4 penalty to your AC and recieve a +2 bonus to your melee attacks until your next turn.

Note that with this ruling, all conditions that deny you to attack: Dazed, Stunned, etc. are a bit worse, since the attacker has nothing to loose and he can up his to hit.

Of course there are instances when this is not convenient (if the stunned fow has comrades threatening you, etc.)

 

[dvvega]

I would suggest a slight modification ...

You gain a +2 on your single attack roll. For each attack you sacrifice (beyond the first) by using a Full Round Action you gain a +2 bonus to hit on the single attack.

This would allow low level characters to gain +2, and it would also allow a scaling of the feat that makes it a little more useful at higher levels.

So a fighter 6 sacrifices his 2 attacks and gains a +4. Level 11 finds him gaining +6.

Not too high, but not too bad ... keeps pace with ELs.

D

 

[sfedi]

This would allow low level characters to gain +2, and it would also allow a scaling of the feat that makes it a little more useful at higher levels.

Note that this is not a Feat.

It is a ruling/house rule.

 

[dvvega]

Hmm if it isn't a feat it really doesn't matter now does it

The concept of scalability is important/vital for d20.

D

 

[Land Outcast]

and then you see the two-weapon user dropping all attacks except the first (5) and apply them to the first weapon : +10...
(It dosn't seem wrong... (no sarcasm))

 

[dvvega]

Well to be honest ... TWF gives you an extra attack at your best attack IF you make a Full Attack.

I would point out that this is a Full Attack Option that is not the same as TWF thus you cannot burn that extra attack.

D