Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thondor" data-source="post: 3561400" data-attributes="member: 31955">1) I agree that giving it to all classes is probably the best and simplest solution. Who else agrees with this?2)Use it or lose it systemHmmm while your use it or lose is certainly a workable system, (and logical) I do forsee some problems. Individuals with 20ft movement, or even worse 15ft.  If through extrapolation I take a 16th level Halfling fighter in Full-plate, (very rare but bare with me) If he doesn't move at all he keeps all four attacks +16/+11/+6/+1, if he takes  a mere 5ft step he loses his lowest attacks if not two of his lowest attacks (1/3 movement is 5 ft, under your proposal if I understand correctly, based on the number of attacks individual has is the percentage of his move he can make while keeping those attacks. So with 4 attacks can take up to 1/4 move before losing an attack, 2/4 before losing next attack etc.) Based on wether or not we round up or down . . . Even a 16th level Human fighter loses an attack if he wears full plate and takes a five-foot step. While keeping track of these movement rates isn't really challenging, it is one more thing. One more complication to explain to the players and one more thing to keep track, especially in large fights were the incresed mobility comes in handy. I as DM don't really want to have to and one more thing to keep track of my monsters.It's much easier to explain to the players - Full attacks yeah now you can do those as long as you move your speed, anywhere along your movement. Other full-round actions still exist (like loading a heavy crossbow). Oh and all standard actions can be taken anywhere along your move action.      It has a certain simplicity to it.The point should be to keep things mobile throughout higher levels not make things gradually  less mobile. Whish is what your Use it or Lose it method achievies. (Although it is certainly better then the current arrangement)</blockquote>

Verification