Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 4486128" data-attributes="member: 35909">Extra 5 ft steps using iterative attacks?  It's interesting....  As long is it's strictly iteratives (and from your BAB alone), so you can't get an obscene amount with the TWF feat tree or tons of natural weapons (which generally never get iteratives), it might be balanced.My big worry is that it "equates" full attack actions, which can lead to some patently unfair situations.  Say two high level characters are fighting toe-to-toe.  One is a greatsword fighter.  Sure, he likes to full attack, but he can do lots of damage in one attack, and thanks to PA, get diminishing returns on later attacks any ways.  He's fighting a flurrying monk.  Or a TWF ranger.  Or even a Rogue who's used a wand of Persistent Blade or Phantom Threat to count as flanking on every attack he makes (and thus can SA).  Now, the Fighter would like to full attack, but it is so blatantly better to instead use those iterative attacks to move away from the other guy and turn it into a one attack, move, one attack, move slugfest that he mechanically can't lose.Granted, Spring Attack, tumble ranks, and other things already allow this to occur, but now anyone with enough levels can completely neuter enemies that depend on full attacks.That said, I don't think it's a good idea to let a person use extra attacks from a second weapon for more 5 ft steps.  That would eventually mean an extra 3 (or 4, if he goes into a PrC that gives Supreme TWF) steps, or 2/3 if you don't count the first off hand attack as "iterative."  The way I set it up, a flurrying monk COULD get some extra 5 ft steps, but I don't really mind that so much.*Also thinking out loud, no real conclusive points to make*</blockquote>

Verification