D&D 3E/3.5 Idea for full-attack action replacement 3e

[Sammael]

They have entirely too many hit points? You have maths to back this up, I presume, since looking at the damage outputs of even poorly optimised characters and monster HP of their CR suggests otherwise. I presume you also have maths to show an increase in monster hitpoints at a given challenge rating over the course of the edition. Anyway, if you lower monster HP, that doesn't encourage 'cool new options', since it makes optimising for damage even more important. Monsters can't fight back if they're dead, and when you kill everything in one hit, you don't need anything but damage and Initiative.

I have 11 years of playtest experience in a number of campaigns as evidence.

By halving caster level you don't actually give these options out. Full casters don't get 6th level spells before Epic, and half-casters don't get 3rd level spells before Epic.

Caster level is unrelated to the spell progression.

Wizards still get 3rd level spells at level 5, but their CL is 2 at that time.

 

[kitcik]

Overall I think it's an interesting HR, although I'm not sure if it might be too good at very high levels. With BAB +16 you'll have quadruple base damage, you won't multiply the damage bonuses, but how often would you hit anyway with the third and fourth attack?

The other cases do look like some kind of nerf, but not too serious IMHO.
SA for instance isn't coming up all the time and by the time a Rogue gets a second attack per round, that's already at -7 to hit, compared to a full-BAB character primary attack.

Hitting on iterative attacks depends if you have a good bard with the party. With a good bard, they hit ALL the time.

More to the point, things like Haste, Dancing/Raging Mongoose, and other effects/feats/etc. (there are many) that grant extra attacks on a full attack action get nerfed. This significantly reduces damage output (including SA). The whole idea of a crit build (for instance) is to get as many swings as possible.

Wouldn't TWF actually benefit? With BAB +6, you'd get 2 attacks at +4/+4 each of which with double base damage, instead of 3 attacks at +4/+4/+2 with normal base damage.

You can't TWF on a standard action attack - you must use a full attack action (barring houserule).

If it's a joke, it's actually a good one

It was, and thanks!

My idea was to allow players to take both move AND multiple attacks in (approximately, haven't worked out the details yet) the following way:

determine your (double)move, then divide by the number of attacks you can make +1 (this includes additional attacks originating from TWF, but NOT from FoB or similar attack forms that are a full round action by default)

So, MV 30 gives double move 60, with 2 attacks is move 20 (60/(2+1))
Now, you can move 20 foot, then attack twice, or move 40 foot and attack once. If you move more than 40 foot, you can't attack. If you move less than 20 foot, you can still only attack twice.

This improves moveability on the battlefield, while allowing melee types to make their attacks.

Note that these are attacks, and not standard actions. If you take a standard action, you have only one move action left, and you need to have a full round action to spend to pull off the -move-and-attack-anyway- option.

This isn't bad. It's a boost to Haste (which increases both speed and number of attacks), which is cool. Also a boost to skirmish, which again is cool. Would be great for monks too, assuming you allow a flurry as part of this. I am making a mental note of this for next time I DM.

 

[Rampant]

Well a lot of the problem there comes from the fact that the fort save is linked to Con, which is linked to HP, which is linked to HD. So at higher levels monsters need higher con scores to have decent saves, but every +1 to fort from constitution translates to +1 HP/Hit Dice.


Anyway I put a list of tweaks to the various feats and things up, including the two-weapon fighting fix.

I'm not saying the idea is perfect or anything, but I'm hoping that's enough to start a play test. Any other major glaring issues?

 

[Buugipopuu]

I have 11 years of playtest experience in a number of campaigns as evidence.

Well then, it should be easy for you to post the average monster hitpoints by challenge rating as a function of publication date. Why not do it? Unless of course you made sweeping changes to the game system without actually working out the mathematical implications thereof, which would be foolish.

Caster level is unrelated to the spell progression.

Wizards still get 3rd level spells at level 5, but their CL is 2 at that time.

Nope. Spells have a minimum caster level. Says so in the SRD. A Wizard gets 3rd level spell slots at level 5, but still can't use them to cast 3rd level spells until level 10, because his CL is too low.

 

[Sammael]

Sorry, I have a strict policy of not arguing with rules lawyers on ENWorld. Except Hypersmurf, but he is always right anyway, so getting into an argument with him is pointless.

Moreover, you do realize (as kitcik noted) that you are using SRD to argue against my house rule?

To be fair, it is difficult for anyone to understand the house rules fully just from a few sparse posts I've made here, since the changes are so extensive that it is, in effect, a new d20 system. However, I stand by my belief that some aspects of it can be adopted as house rules without having to actually switch systems. If you don't think that's possible or have a problem with the math, that's cool, too.

 

[Buugipopuu]

Sorry, I have a strict policy of not arguing with rules lawyers on ENWorld. Except Hypersmurf, but he is always right anyway, so getting into an argument with him is pointless.

I think you mean you have a strict policy of conceding any argument with rules lawyers.

Moreover, you do realize (as kitcik noted) that you are using SRD to argue against my house rule?

To be fair, it is difficult for anyone the house rules fully just from a few sparse posts I've made here, since the changes are so extensive that it is, in effect, a new d20 system. However, I stand by my belief that some aspects of it can be adopted as house rules without having to actually switch systems. If you don't think that's possible or have a problem with the math, that's cool, too.

You said you'd halved caster level without mentioning any other changes to the magic system, the most significant impact this has is halving spell progression without reducing spells per day. You did not say "I've made a number of drastic changes to the magic system, one of which is halving caster level.". This forum (and RPG homebrew in general) is full of people proposing rules without actually thinking about what their rules actually mean. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

[Herzog]

This isn't bad. It's a boost to Haste (which increases both speed and number of attacks), which is cool. Also a boost to skirmish, which again is cool. Would be great for monks too, assuming you allow a flurry as part of this. I am making a mental note of this for next time I DM.

Thanks for pointing out the effect on haste and skirmish. Wouldn't want something like that surprising me AFTER I implement this as a houserule....

Also, I guess there's no need to ban FoB. I was actually confusing it with Whirlwind Attack, to which the abovementioned options would NOT apply (since you have to give up your full attack option to use it)

 

[RogueInRouge]

What specific problem are you trying to address with this proposed change? I like the tactical constraints imposed by "move + primary attack" vs. "5-foot step and full attack," and I'm not sure this improves the overall game play for our group.

 

[RogueInRouge]

My idea was to allow players to take both move AND multiple attacks in (approximately, haven't worked out the details yet) the following way:

determine your (double)move, then divide by the number of attacks you can make +1 (this includes additional attacks originating from TWF, but NOT from FoB or similar attack forms that are a full round action by default)

Nice idea! This preserves interesting tactical choices for the players, and doesn't require a bunch of re-working for crits or weapon effects.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Our group made decision that you can only have 2 attacks in normal situation for full attack action

I.E. with BAB +6 attacks would be +6/+1, at BAB +11 attacks would be +11/+9 and at BAB +16 attacks would be +16/+16.

If you could some how be able to do 4 attacks per round; I.E. haste + rapidshot or flurry of blows you could do 2 as standard action and 4 as full-attack action.

Also TWF offhand attack is in same standard action as primary attack.