Why no Full action spells?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Why no Full action spells?

Post by Red_Rob »

In 3rd edition the paradigm for Warriors is that after lvl 5 they have to spend a full round action to get a fully level appropriate attack. They can still get a normal attack for a standard action but to get the full goodness of their multiple attacks they have to stand still (apart from a 5' step).

So why are 3rd level and above Wizard spells not Full actions too? Why was the decision made that they can move and get a level appropriate action but Warriors have to suck it?

Even more than that, why are spells all either standard action or go off next round? I expected to see some full round action spells but they don't exist.

Why?
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Re: Why no Full action spells?

Post by Roy »

Red_Rob wrote:In 3rd edition the paradigm for Warriors is that after lvl 5 they have to spend a full round action to get a fully level appropriate attack. They can still get a normal attack for a standard action but to get the full goodness of their multiple attacks they have to stand still (apart from a 5' step).

So why are 3rd level and above Wizard spells not Full actions too? Why was the decision made that they can move and get a level appropriate action but Warriors have to suck it?

Even more than that, why are spells all either standard action or go off next round? I expected to see some full round action spells but they don't exist.

Why?
Better question: Why can't warriors continue to move and get their damage off without having to resort to extra actions or Pounce as a workaround?

Answer: Because Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.

Solution: Full attack is a Standard action.

Image
Last edited by Roy on Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
User avatar
TOZ
Duke
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Why no Full action spells?

Post by TOZ »

Red_Rob wrote: So why are 3rd level and above Wizard spells not Full actions too?
Why would you nerf the weakest class? Look at that BAB and HD! </Stupid WotC Designers>

That is a major houserule in the PF game I play in Houston. Most spells except for evocation are full-attack actions. Of course, since we haven't gotten past 5th level yet the change is kind of moot for now.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

Now that'd be interesting... You get a single attack as part of a full move action, and your full attack is a standard action. Jesus that would increase a Fighter's damage output like crazy.
User avatar
Archmage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:05 pm

Post by Archmage »

TheFlatline wrote:Now that'd be interesting... You get a single attack as part of a full move action, and your full attack is a standard action. Jesus that would increase a Fighter's damage output like crazy.
You mean it would make a Fighter's damage output possibly matter without them having to resort to stacking damage multipliers on a Charge?
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
User avatar
Lich-Loved
Knight
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:50 pm

Post by Lich-Loved »

TheFlatline wrote:Now that'd be interesting... You get a single attack as part of a full move action, and your full attack is a standard action. Jesus that would increase a Fighter's damage output like crazy.
I have been running with the following house rule for fighters for the last two years in a campaign that has thus far run from 3rd to 17th (Paizo AoW):

Fighters may, as a standard action, make all attacks available to them as if they were making a full-attack action AND each attack is at the fighter's highest bonus. Example: At 6th level, a fighter makes two attacks as a standard action at +6/+6 BAB; at 12th level this becomes +12/+12/+12 BAB.

The result has been fantastic: fighters actually beat the living hell out of things, especially with power attack, which becomes much more reliable now with the flat bonuses. Also, the math is faster (the total to-hit mod need only be calculated once) and all attack and damage dice can be rolled together. Sure, the fighter is still gimped in all the usual ways, but when he gets his turn, he puts the hurt on foes.

IMC, the 17 fighter uses cloak of displacement and has boots of flying, relying on a haste buff to further push his damage up. Add a +2 adamant holy heavy mace used two-handed and he absolutely ruins the undead and dragons. I think he has a strength of 24 so his to-hit against an evil foe is 17+2+2+7 = 28. Typical ACs are under 40 and average about 33, so he often puts 5 points into power attack, dropping his to hit to 23. Hitting the foe does 1d8 + 4 + 2d6 + 9 + 10 = 34 points per attack on average with 4 attacks per round (5 hasted) for somewhere around 125 - 170 points with a 60ft (flying) move. Of course crits confirm more often and some creatures are power attack bait so he is definitely effective.
- LL
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

To the OP:

Probably because it doesn't make a lick of difference?

Sure, it would probably make spellcasters who somehow finagled the tumble skill slightly more vulnerable to creatures with reach weapons, but seriously, who cares?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Fighters may, as a standard action, make all attacks available to them as if they were making a full-attack action AND each attack is at the fighter's highest bonus. Example: At 6th level, a fighter makes two attacks as a standard action at +6/+6 BAB; at 12th level this becomes +12/+12/+12 BAB.
That works at low levels, but not at high levels. Pathfinder fighters are autohitting everything at higher levels. I'd change it to a -2 penalty per iterative attack. So a high level rogue would make his attacks at +11/+11/+11 while a high level fighter would make his attacks at +14/+14/+14/+14.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Question: What is wrong with fighters autohitting at higher levels?
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Archmage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:05 pm

Post by Archmage »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Question: What is wrong with fighters autohitting at higher levels?
From a power level standpoint, probably nothing.

From a gameplay standpoint, it's kind of boring to auto-hit everything, although the penalties on subsequent attacks past the first (which obviously apply in most games, and certainly in default PF) mean that at least there's some uncertainty about the outcome of an attack.
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Perhaps I'm just biased because I cut my teeth on JRPGs, where the combat-focused classes only rarely missed, and it usually was due to a statistical outlier or it meant you were fighting something you weren't supposed to beat/ beat only with great difficulty.

I have no problems with the Fighters, Monks, Thieves, and Red Mages of the world pretty much being able to just roll damage, with white and black mages missing frequently.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14838
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

From a power level perspective, how about the fact that things already die in one hit, so auto hitting on your one hit... means you might as well just stop playing the game.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
For Valor
Knight-Baron
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

Post by For Valor »

So is the solution is spells as full action or full attacks as standard actions?

Or should we change nothing? I thought the [Tome] material had worked around this problem.
Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

I fucking hate that jRPG shit where attacks mostly hit.

That's not exciting or engaging. That's just the game designers realizing how awfully shitty their game is and deciding to take mercy on the player; rather than forcing them to spend 10%-30% extra time grinding, they just cut it out.

I think 4E's hit rate of 50-65% is too low--I'd rather have it about 75-85%. That way attacks are reliable but there's still the threat of Murphy's Law to keep things exciting.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Post by Red_Rob »

To clarify, I wasn't saying that full round spells should be implemented. I was just curious why the Full action seemed to be reserved for high level Warriors.

I was wondering if Monte et. al. had ever expanded on this design decision.
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Question: What is wrong with fighters autohitting at higher levels?
It's boring.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
User avatar
Shazbot79
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:53 am

Post by Shazbot79 »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I fucking hate that jRPG shit where attacks mostly hit.

That's not exciting or engaging. That's just the game designers realizing how awfully shitty their game is and deciding to take mercy on the player; rather than forcing them to spend 10%-30% extra time grinding, they just cut it out.

I think 4E's hit rate of 50-65% is too low--I'd rather have it about 75-85%. That way attacks are reliable but there's still the threat of Murphy's Law to keep things exciting.
I think that scaling for 3.Pathfinder's iterative attacks from Always Hit to Almost Never Hit makes sense.

I also think that it makes sense in 4E, which generally doesn't have iterative attacks, to have a lower hit rate. However, the baseline hit rate in 4E is entirely TOO low.

To my mind it should scale from a baseline of about 50% at 1st level to about 70% at 30th.
User avatar
Murtak
Duke
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Murtak »

3E spans too many levels of power and paradigms to easily fix. It features A) the pregenerated fighter, B) the reasonably optimized single weapon fighter, C) the charger and D) the counterattacker. Quadrupling his damage won't help A, but it would work fine for B. It is pointless for C. D on the other hand does not care about getting an extra attack or three during his turn. And all of them still suck, with or without fixes, because all they do is deal damage from melee range. Whatever fix you apply will invariably help one type of fighter, not matter to another and ultimately not turn them into a decent class.

And on the other end of the power curve you have wizards. Wizards aren't awesome because they deal a gadrillion points of damage, they are awesome because they have a specialized spell just for you that ignores all of your defenses. And that crap needs to be cut way the fuck down, or failing that, fighters need some insanity too. I mean, just look at that fucking spell list. Charm Person, Minor Image, Magic Circle, Polymorph, Magic Jar, Antimagic Field, Forcecage, Discern Location,
Gate. Rules? Fuck the rules. Defenses? What defenses? All that wizard voodoo just works, ignoring a random combination of target defenses, game rules, world cohesion and sanity.

But hey, lets ignore wizards for a second. Look at monsters instead. Ignore monsters that look like wizards, at least for now. Just look at the brutes. Yes, those things that do about the rogue's entire hit point pool per attack and that come with 6 attacks. Now see how many of them can actually take a single round worth of attacks from a fighter without exploding. Given an optimized fighter this number is quite small. So why even care about more damage for fighters? Heck, ignoring monsters altogether, it is not like there is no one else to do damage in the party. If anything fighters need abilities to stand up to monsters (and wizards), not more damage. If everyone deals a crapton of damage we get one-round fights. Last time I checked that kind of sucks.

And yet the solution is "fighters need more damage" or at best "fighters need to do more stuff in fights". And that just is not going to cut it when the wizard can opt to flat out ignore fights or win them automatically. Either the fighter needs more crazy or the wizard needs less. And then the fighter needs something to do outside of combat. And then he needs something interesting to do during combat. And then he needs more defenses, so his most important stat can be something other that his initiative score. And then, maybe, it is time to look at his damage output. But until all the other points are addressed, upping his damage output is nonsensical. Damage output is the only thing fighters can be ok at. Sure, it is way too easy to be bad at dealing damage on top of everything else. But at least killing monsters by hitting them with a pointy stick is something fighters can be good at. It is the rest of the game they suck at.
Murtak
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

If monsters get to use the same full attack on a standard action rules, then doesn't the party fighter just become a glass cannon who gets squished by giants... basically putting things back to square one?
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Yeah, you can't just look at any of these aspects in a vacuum. You end up needing to rewrite the whole thing anyway.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

Lol at people complaining about Fighters auto hitting. Um, they've always done that. Their problem has been hitting hard enough to make things care that they are being hit. As fun as it is to bash the Paizils for everything they do wrong, 'Fighters auto hitting' is simply something they haven't gotten around to breaking yet. It is not a change they implemented.

Though several people here are well on their way to doing it for them.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Lol at people complaining about Fighters auto hitting. Um, they've always done that.
And it's always been a problem.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
User avatar
Murtak
Duke
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Murtak »

Roy wrote:Lol at people complaining about Fighters auto hitting. Um, they've always done that. Their problem has been hitting hard enough to make things care that they are being hit.
Bullshit. As I just explained at length fighters have plenty of issues. Lack of damage however is not one of them. A well-built fighter will destroy anything he can attack. Unfortunately "well-built" pretty much means a charger, power-attack-abuser or archer. Your feats will be more or less fixed, your skills set 5 levels in advance, your class and prestige class progression very rigid and if your DM is at all stingy with magic items you will suffer - but killing monsters is not an issue.
Murtak
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

It all depends if you're cheesing or not. Which, of course, has always been a problem in 3e. Fighters should not be able to do enough damage in one hit to kill an equal-CR opponent. Likewise, wizards should not be able to cast a spell that one-hits an equal-CR opponent.

For the average player, the fighter is going to do acceptable damage. 50 damage a hit is pretty good, especially when you're making five attacks. The problem is the disparity in power between optimization and non-optimization. And crits and non-crits. Being able to one-hit a balor is not something that most DMs are expecting to deal with.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4795
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

Murtak wrote:3E spans too many levels of power and paradigms to easily fix. It features A) the pregenerated fighter, B) the reasonably optimized single weapon fighter, C) the charger and D) the counterattacker. Quadrupling his damage won't help A, but it would work fine for B. It is pointless for C. D on the other hand does not care about getting an extra attack or three during his turn. And all of them still suck, with or without fixes, because all they do is deal damage from melee range. Whatever fix you apply will invariably help one type of fighter, not matter to another and ultimately not turn them into a decent class.

And on the other end of the power curve you have wizards. Wizards aren't awesome because they deal a gadrillion points of damage, they are awesome because they have a specialized spell just for you that ignores all of your defenses. And that crap needs to be cut way the fuck down, or failing that, fighters need some insanity too. I mean, just look at that fucking spell list. Charm Person, Minor Image, Magic Circle, Polymorph, Magic Jar, Antimagic Field, Forcecage, Discern Location,
Gate. Rules? Fuck the rules. Defenses? What defenses? All that wizard voodoo just works, ignoring a random combination of target defenses, game rules, world cohesion and sanity.

But hey, lets ignore wizards for a second. Look at monsters instead. Ignore monsters that look like wizards, at least for now. Just look at the brutes. Yes, those things that do about the rogue's entire hit point pool per attack and that come with 6 attacks. Now see how many of them can actually take a single round worth of attacks from a fighter without exploding. Given an optimized fighter this number is quite small. So why even care about more damage for fighters? Heck, ignoring monsters altogether, it is not like there is no one else to do damage in the party. If anything fighters need abilities to stand up to monsters (and wizards), not more damage. If everyone deals a crapton of damage we get one-round fights. Last time I checked that kind of sucks.

And yet the solution is "fighters need more damage" or at best "fighters need to do more stuff in fights". And that just is not going to cut it when the wizard can opt to flat out ignore fights or win them automatically. Either the fighter needs more crazy or the wizard needs less. And then the fighter needs something to do outside of combat. And then he needs something interesting to do during combat. And then he needs more defenses, so his most important stat can be something other that his initiative score. And then, maybe, it is time to look at his damage output. But until all the other points are addressed, upping his damage output is nonsensical. Damage output is the only thing fighters can be ok at. Sure, it is way too easy to be bad at dealing damage on top of everything else. But at least killing monsters by hitting them with a pointy stick is something fighters can be good at. It is the rest of the game they suck at.
I think, and have stated before, that things should meet in the middle. Fighters,and anything that only has the option of -get in melee --> Full Attack- isn't enough. And the wizard's ability to hit an -I win- button at anytime is too much. A middle ground (for both casting monsters, brutes, magicless fighters and casters) should be found.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
Post Reply