Tome full-attacks: wtf?

[Miryafa]

Just to double-check, I opened the Tomes and found full attacks listed under full-round actions. Why that changed to a standard action? Is this a house rule that not enough people use?

Just to review why this matters:
-At 6th level a sorcerer can cast his newest trick (3rd level spells) as a standard action, but the 6th level fighter takes a full action.
-A Rapid Metamagic Sorcerer says screw you to full action rules and casts metamagic as a standard action, but there's no ACF for any melee class to full attack as a standard action. Even without metamagic, at level 14 every sorcerer can cast Arcane Spellsurge and get those standard action casts, plus a swift normal spell.
-The rules make melee types hurt for 5-foot steps, which are very rare class features or hard-to-pick-up feats, whereas spellcasters are moving their full move speed and still slinging around their close range spells at 40'+ away.
-On that note, though only tangentially related, "reach" for spells means upgrading from 5' touch to 40'+ close range. "Reach" for melee means upgrading from 5' to 10'. Whoa.

TL/DR: Requiring full-attacks to be full-round actions just increases the caster/mundane gap.

[RobbyPants]

I think a lot of it has to do with accounting for monsters suddenly being able to do the same, as well.

While the limitation is annoying, tome martial characters tend to obliterate anything that is dumb enough to end their turn within five feet of their melee reach in a full attack. Anything that lives is also likely to end up severely debuffed/stunned.

[Whipstitch]

Particularly since adopting tome rules already has some global melee buffs as it is thanks to many old feat taxes being converted into standard options available to anyone with the BAB to support it. So before you consider changing the action economy, remember that every asshole troll is already capable of dishing out power attacks in tome. It really is much better at this point to just go ahead and give out standard action special attacks that are worth using or Pounce equivalent class features depending on what fits the archetype.

[Kaelik]

but there's no ACF for any melee class to full attack as a standard action.

Well, yes there is. It is called Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or whatever.

But more importantly, please read the feat Blitz.

Also, take the ACF "holds a bow" if this is really the worst thing you can possibly imagine.

But hey, if you want to full attack only 4 times a day at level 6, I'll happily let you do it as a standard action.

[RobbyPants]

but there's no ACF for any melee class to full attack as a standard action.

Well, yes there is. It is called Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or whatever.

That allows for full attacks on a charge.

[Midnight_v]

but there's no ACF for any melee class to full attack as a standard action.

Well, yes there is. It is called Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or whatever.

That allows for full attacks on a charge.

Yeah but I think he mentioned "manyshot" as well.

[Kaelik]

but there's no ACF for any melee class to full attack as a standard action.

Well, yes there is. It is called Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or whatever.

That allows for full attacks on a charge.

Yes, so you can move and attack. And if someone casts slow on you, you can move and full attack as a standard action.

Is the problem that you want fixed that you have difficulty making full attacks or is the problem that for completely arbitrary reasons you care what action you are using?

[RobbyPants]

Well, yes there is. It is called Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or whatever.

That allows for full attacks on a charge.

Yes, so you can move and attack. And if someone casts slow on you, you can move and full attack as a standard action.

Sort of. You're limited to going in a straight line, whereas on a normal standard action attack, you are not. Also, I don't know how you take this ACF in Tome if you have no Fast Movement ability to give up.

[Kaelik]

Sort of. You're limited to going in a straight line, whereas on a normal standard action attack, you are not. Also, I don't know how you take this ACF in Tome if you have no Fast Movement ability to give up.

Once again, if you want to propose a solution to a problem, the first step is defining the problem.

Which of these is the problem with fighters not getting to full attack as a standard action:

1) You have difficulty getting off enough full attacks.

2) You want to have sex with the concept of standard action full attacks.

Note that in only one of those does it matter that you have to move in a straight line.

[name_here]

There are situations where needing to move in a straight line before full attacking would actually stop you from getting off full attacks. Most obviously, if there's a table in the way that you need to go around. I don't know how often this comes up in your games, but needing to go in a straight line is clearly worse than not needing to go in a straight line yet being able to. Whether letting people make moves and then full-attack in the same round is desirable is a separate question from whether it's more powerful.

[...You Lost Me]

Let's not make non-spellcasters even more OP than they were before.

[Kaelik]

There are situations where needing to move in a straight line before full attacking would actually stop you from getting off full attacks. Most obviously, if there's a table in the way that you need to go around. I don't know how often this comes up in your games, but needing to go in a straight line is clearly worse than not needing to go in a straight line yet being able to. Whether letting people make moves and then full-attack in the same round is desirable is a separate question from whether it's more powerful.

And there are situations in which you are less than 60ft away but more than 30ft away, and so you can't full attack even if full attacks are a standard action.

The point is not that no possible situation could exist that would make pounce not give a full attack. It is precisely these questions:

1) Do you have a problem with not being able to full attack often enough.
2) If so, would using a bow or pouncing be sufficient.

I mean, it is factually true that a pounce fighter does not full attack under all possible circumstances. But then again, quite aside from someone who is 45ft away, a fighter that full attacks as a standard action also can't full attack someone when that person is on another dimension and 6 miles away and there is a wall in the way.

[RobbyPants]

Sort of. You're limited to going in a straight line, whereas on a normal standard action attack, you are not. Also, I don't know how you take this ACF in Tome if you have no Fast Movement ability to give up.

Once again, if you want to propose a solution to a problem, the first step is defining the problem.

Which of these is the problem with fighters not getting to full attack as a standard action:

1) You have difficulty getting off enough full attacks.

2) You want to have sex with the concept of standard action full attacks.

Note that in only one of those does it matter that you have to move in a straight line.

Where the fuck did I exactly say this was a problem?

Miryafa: Why can't fighters full attack on a standard action in Tome?

Me: In Tome, they don't really need to. They tend to kill or debuff anything they reach. Also, allowing it for them allows it for monsters, too.

You: Here are some ways to full attack on a standard action, including one way that isn't a standard action.

Me: That's not a standard action.

You: Why do you want them to be able to full-attack and move, Rob?

WTF??? You see, I didn't answer you the first time because I seriously thought you were asking Miryafa. Because that's what he was suggesting.

[Miryafa]

The point is not that no possible situation could exist that would make pounce not give a full attack. It is precisely these questions:

1) Do you have a problem with not being able to full attack often enough.
2) If so, would using a bow or pouncing be sufficient.

1. Yes.
2. No.

"Use pounce" doesn't solve the problem of inequality between melee and casting, because "use pounce" requires "get pounce", which requires

a. having a spellcaster turn you into a pouncer
b. optimization, in the sense of investment by multiclassing to Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian or items or feats, when a spellcaster needs none of these things

Blitz requires waiting until level 16

And using a bow requires using a bow. Quite a lot better in Tome games, but still doesn't solve the problem of melee not being able to full attack and move.

Edit: it's nice that Tome meleers can slaughter anything that ends their turn within 5 feet of them, but it would be nicer if that was 30+ ft instead.

It seems to me that the only real argument against this is monsters being able to do the same thing. While this would make some monsters a lot tougher, I'm not sure it's that big of a problem.

[Kaelik]

You: Here are some ways to full attack on a standard action, including one way that isn't a standard action.

Hey dumb shit, 1) it is a standard action sometimes. 2) I never fucking said in my response to Miryafa that charging is a standard action (except when you have slow cast on you, in which case it allows you to move 30ft when standard action alone allows you to move zero feat, and pounce is objectively better in all situations except adjacency), or that I was giving people ways to attack as a standard action.

So fine.

I didn't answer you the first time because I seriously thought you were asking Miryafa

No Rob, Miryafa is not a giant space hamster.

2. No.

Okay, again, I am going to have to break this down because you are stupid and don't think.

Why is not using a bow or pounce not good enough:

1) Balance
2) You are a fucking idiot who gets hard at the concept of standard actions and will fuck the piece of paper it is written on in the middle of the gaming group, because that is literally what you want, making the entire game worse so you can have your preferred shittery.

It seems to me that the only real argument against this is monsters being able to do the same thing. While this would make some monsters a lot tougher, I'm not sure it's that big of a problem.

Well 1) You are a fucking idiot, because anyone with a brain can see that that is a big fucking problem.

2) No, part of the reason is because Tome Fighters and Barbarians are already way too fucking strong anyway, so arbitrarily making them stronger so that you can have sex with a piece of paper is not a very good argument for fucking anything.

[TarkisFlux]

For the pro-standard action crowd, which of the following do you want to make your standard action full attacks with:

[*]Natural melee weapons
[*]Manufactured melee weapons
[*]Natural thrown weapons
[*]Manufactured thrown weapons
[*]Natural projectile weapons
[*]Manufactured projectile weapons

I ask because some of these are objectively stupid ideas and some of these are potentially less stupid. Rolling them all together like you're suggesting is net stupid, but splitting it up like this to avoid that is a non-trivial complexity addition that you need to make sure is worthwhile before implementing.

[RobbyPants]

Hey dumb shit, 1) it is a standard action sometimes. 2) I never fucking said in my response to Miryafa that charging is a standard action (except when you have slow cast on you, in which case it allows you to move 30ft when standard action alone allows you to move zero feat, and pounce is objectively better in all situations except adjacency), or that I was giving people ways to attack as a standard action.

So, we're just arguing semantics at this point? I mean, yes, sometimes it's a standard action.

2) No, part of the reason is because Tome Fighters and Barbarians are already way too fucking strong anyway, so arbitrarily making them stronger so that you can have sex with a piece of paper is not a very good argument for fucking anything.

Yeah, this is exactly what I said in my first post, so, I guess we agree?

[ishy]

Edit: it's nice that Tome meleers can slaughter anything that ends their turn within 5 feet of them, but it would be nicer if that was 30+ ft instead.

Not sure I understand what you want.
But maybe an easier solution would be to give meleers an instant death 30 ft range aura?

[CatharzGodfoot]

For the pro-standard action crowd, which of the following do you want to make your standard action full attacks with:

[*]Natural melee weapons
[*]Manufactured melee weapons
[*]Natural thrown weapons
[*]Manufactured thrown weapons
[*]Natural projectile weapons
[*]Manufactured projectile weapons

I ask because some of these are objectively stupid ideas and some of these are potentially less stupid. Rolling them all together like you're suggesting is net stupid, but splitting it up like this to avoid that is a non-trivial complexity addition that you need to make sure is worthwhile before implementing.

I like it. Have the standard "full attack" action work only with weapons that are being used as "manufactured" melee weapons. (This probably still works if characters can choose to use natural weapons as manufactured weapons.)

[Kaelik]

So, we're just arguing semantics at this point? I mean, yes, sometimes it's a standard action.

You have been arguing semantics that weren't even true since the beginning.

To whit: I said that fighters can get full attacks on a charge and if slowed can do it as standard action.

You responded by saying that they couldn't run around a table unlike standard actions. But of course, that is false, if someone casts slow on you, you can't move at all, so you can't round a table with your standard action full attack.

Yeah, this is exactly what I said in my first post, so, I guess we agree?

Um... that was not directed at you, read the quotes. Of course we agree about whether or not it is a good thing, but you and I were never talking to each other about that.

[Kaelik]

Edit: it's nice that Tome meleers can slaughter anything that ends their turn within 5 feet of them, but it would be nicer if that was 30+ ft instead.

Not sure I understand what you want.
But maybe an easier solution would be to give meleers an instant death 30 ft range aura?

Make sure it is no save and is not a death effect so it bypasses all immunities. After all, you wouldn't want your instant murder machine to have to put even a second's worth of effort into winning the encounter.

[ishy]

Make sure it is no save and is not a death effect so it bypasses all immunities. After all, you wouldn't want your instant murder machine to have to put even a second's worth of effort into winning the encounter.

Yeah doing it any other way just increases the caster/mundane gap.

[Judging__Eagle]

Ugh. I'm not surprised about Kaelik misinterpreting other people's arguments, however they are right on this aspect about a Tomes game:

Tomes already supports "move + attack"; and frankly, it's situationaly better than Pounce.

You all need to look up the Whirlwind [combat] feat in Races of War.

At low levels it's "meh", but can be more powerful/effective than Hordebreaker on mobiles you can't one-shot-kill. At higher levels it's pretty much like Diablo 2 Barbarian "Whirlwind", except actually epic. Even though the +16 BaB ability is "Charge Action" in terms of distance, and is powerful because of that I prefer to instead use the lesser powerful "Move Action" combined with increases to base movement speed.

Also, mucking around with what qualifies for "standard action Full-Attack" is probably not a good idea because it can alter how action economies work; and the actual difference between a bare fist/claw versus a gauntleted/metal-clad striking limb results in silly nonsense that has even less to do with reality than D&D already does.

In reality, a fist can be swung faster than a sword. Street-focused martial arts like Krav Maga tend to opine towards 6+ strikes/second; and kenjiutsu sensei's tend to opine that while an arming sword swings at around 2 strikes/second, a curved blade (such as a cutlass, scimitar or katana) can possibly clock in at around 3 strikes/second. Most of these differences have to do with leverage than mass; although mass does affect the effort.

D&D is already a binary-results generating, children's, wargame. We don't have to make it more unrealistic at every possible turn. Just get better at learning how the engine you're working with functions.