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

[kitcik]

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.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Or not...

I was telling about our house rules.

 

[Li Shenron]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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.)