• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Sammael

Adventurer
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kitcik

Adventurer
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

First Post
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?
 
Last edited:

Buugipopuu

First Post
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

Adventurer
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.
 
Last edited:

Buugipopuu

First Post
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

Adventurer
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

First Post
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

First Post
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

First Post
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.
 

kitcik

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

Or not...

Using a weapon in each hand.

This option requires you to use two weapons, both of which you can wield in one hand (but read on). It's usually best to use a light weapon in your off hand, but not necessary. You can use an unarmed strike as either your primary or secondary weapon.

When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.

When using a weapon in each hand, you usually can't use a shield, which hurts your Armor Class. In addition, you take an attack penalty on attacks you make with your primary hand and (generally) a bigger attack penalty for your off hand. The exact penalties depend on what feats you have and which two weapons you're using; see page 160 in the Player's Handbook. Parts Two and Three also examine two-weapon fighting in detail.

You get your full Strength bonus on damage rolls for your primary weapon and half your Strength bonus on damage rolls with your off-hand weapon. Other damage bonuses or extra damage, such as from the Weapon Specialization feat or a class feature such as sneak attack, applies in full to both the primary and the off hand.
 


Li Shenron

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

Yes, but since I thought the HR only removes the iterative attacks FRA, I was assuming that TWA still existed on its own (using a FRA), or alternatively that if the HR meant all FRA are eliminated from the game, that TWA would still be available, granting a second attack but using a standard action.
 

Rampant

First Post
@ R.I.R. : Couple of things, 1.) correct the non-threatening nature of attacks of opportunity, 2.) speed up combat a little, 3.) help close the damage gap between casters and warriors without forcing the warriors to all play two-weapon rogues or chargers with pounce without making those builds even more powerful, 4.) increase the value of feats like whirlwind attack which quickly becomes useless at higher levels, 5.) stop obscure damage reduction types from locking out fighter types completely
 

Herzog

Adventurer
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.

In case the question was directed at me (I now realise posting a very different proposal in the same thread can get confusing. I'll stop responding to post not directed specifically at me after this one):

The problem that at higher levels, the tactical constraint significantly reduces the power of melee-combat types.

Where casters get access to higher-level spells and lower level spells do more damage, the amount of damage dealt with a single attack increases only slightly (with added magic bonusses and power attack).

Additional damage from melee combat is increased by increasing the number of attacks. However, to get these attacks, ANY move beyond 5' (and this includes a 5' movement over difficult terrain) reduces their increasing number of attacks to 1.
At the same time, casters can get off multiple spells (if they invest in Quicken) and their higher level spells still take the same amount of time. (mostly, 1 standard action)

While a first level fighter with a greatsword doesn't have ANY tactical advantage from standing next to his target (he gets 1 and only 1 attack), a 20th lvl fighter has to choose between 4 attacks and standing still, or 1 attack and having some movement.

Allowing for some more 'gradual' choice between his movement and attacks, he has MORE tactical options.

As an aside, I just realised I have to add a restriction to avoid ruining the spring attack feat:
'You still have to take all your movement before or after your attacks as normal, unless you have Spring Attack or a similar ability that allows you to attack in between your movement.'
 

RogueInRouge

First Post
Allowing for some more 'gradual' choice between his movement and attacks, he has MORE tactical options.

Yup, I get it -- that's what I like about this approach. Granted, it doesn't speed up the gameplay or make the math any simpler, but movement vs. damage isn't an all-or-nothing tradeoff, and there's still room for weapon effects and crits to play their part (which is a lot harder to do if you're rolling everything into a single damage score.)
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top