Two fighters, A and B.

Situation 1: A and B start 20 feet apart. A charges while B defends himself.
Situation 2: A and B start adjacent. They both attack each other.
Situation 3: A and B start adjacent. A seeks to attack B, whilst B seeks to move to a different location while A follows. Both have equal movement, and end adjacent.
Situation 4: A and B start adjacent. A seeks to attack B, whilst B seeks to escape. B is faster than A (move 30 versus move 20).
Situation 5: A and B start adjacent. A seeks to attack B, whilst B seeks to escape. A is faster than B (move 30 versus move 20)

How this SHOULD play out:
Situation 1: A should get an attack on B, but not his "full attack". B should probably have the same attack opportunities as A.
Situation 2: Both should get their full attacks in, as they have spent the entire round (6 or 10 seconds) attempting to do each other harm.
Situation 3: It sounds like A should get his full attacks in should he succeed in staying adjacent the entire duration of the 6-10 seconds- B should get his entire attack cycle if A stays adjacent.
Situation 4: A should get less than his full attack cycle. He can't keep up with B. B should get a like percentage of his attack cycle as well.
Situation 5: Both A and B should get their full attack cycle, as in situation 3.

How this is modelled in D&D:
Situation 1: A gets one attack versus B (likely correct). B gets 0 attacks unless he delays, in which case he gets his full cycle, or readies an action, in which case he gets one attack BEFORE A gets his.
Situation 2: A and B both get their full attacks (correct)
Situation 3: If B chooses to withdraw, A gets one attack as he closes. If B choses to move, A gets two attacks (one an attack of opportunity), whereas B only gets one.
Situation 4: If B chooses to withdraw, A gets NO attacks. If B chooses to move, A gets one attack (attack of opportunity) and B gets one attack (before he moves).
Situation 5: Same as 3


Hrm.

Perhaps the scaling of power with a fighter should focus more on the ability to hit and do damage with a single attack rather than gaining multiple attacks. More plus to hit, but maybe a 20th level fighter only has a maximum of 3 attacks instead of.. umm... 4. Of course, that does shift the balance of power to fighting with two weapons. I just assume we're talking theoretically.


By the way, I am more and more disturbed by the fact that when a 20th level fighter picks up a non-magical sword, his damage done with a single hit, with the exception of a couple more points of strength and perhaps power attack, is the same as a 1st level fighter.

Well, Conan The 20th Level Barbarian could power attack for 20 and have about the same chances of connecting as the 1st level fighter. He'd just deal like 30 more points of damage. Power Attack is technically the scaling you are thinking of.

...but is it really?


By the way, and I don't want to be a dick here, you really should look at the 9swords book and also 4ed. In both of these cases, they have a lot of support for the standard attack. 9swords scales them comperable to spells- as in, your 7th level attack form, which you get at around 14th level, will be dealing about 14d6 points of bonus damage. Well, ish.

4ed of course scales everyone the same.


I sort of think both are a bit overboard, and they don't really address the issue, which was introduced in 3.0.


By the way, another scenario:

A and B are 30 feet apart. A wants to attack B, and B wants to run away. Now if A wins initiative, he gets to pound B once each round. If B wins initative, A never gets to touch him. Logically if two people start equidistant with equal speed and both are running in the same direction, they won't ever meet (or if they do it would be because the guy in the lead tires or fucks up).

The issue in question is staggered initiative, btw. When you went around the table twice, once to get everyone's actions and once to actually implement, all the problems in this thread didn't exist.

I commented on the exclusion of power attack, but meh. Conan can power attack for up 20, and then he has the same chance to hit as a first level fighter. He does 20 more points of damage. Whoop dee do.

I'm not going to bother reading 9 swords or 4.0. The fact that I own a PHB 2 is remarkable.

BTW, who the hell stole my PHB2? Fuckers.

I was more pointing out that his total capability, versus a 1st level guy, has in fact increased even with a single attack. I don't know why Conan would be using a one handed weapon and only get +20, but maybe in your fantasy the other hand is greased up and wrapped around your member?

It's ok!


In seriousness, the problem you point out is the result of trying to model the *weapon* as the thing that actually deals damage. The "base damage" of a larger weapon is larger than the "base damage" of a smaller one, for instance. This yields odd situations like "the sleeping general didn't wake up, we are past his guards... ok, get out the scythe to finish him with!" (we mostly fix this by setting the x4 as the multiplier for coup de grace, but we still have an issue where it's better to assassinate with a greatsword than a dagger- we just evade a world where assassins use picks). The classical thought on this has been "ok, the longsword 1d8+Str damage, and the fighter can get a little bit from weapon spec so now he's at 1d8+2+Str... how does he do more damage? Well, he has to have multiple attacks!"

That's not even bad logic.


The problem ended up being when you start getting denied almost all of your damage because you lost initiative. At 1st level, the question is "who can the enemy fighter charge in a round, because that will take off half my health". At higher levels it becomes "can I get locked down and be unable to escape an enemy fighter and have to face a full attack, because that will kill me". Additionally, facing a full attack from two consecutive foes can pretty much be, game over. Granted our games value melee and ranged attacks more than the traditional games do, but still.

Additionally, one other benefit of the full attack is that it gives the enemies a reason to actually hit our guys with good ACs. They are the ones standing still, and not running away like a little girl. I think I'd prefer another abstraction over the fact that every evil den of casters should just put conveyor belts on the floor and no one would ever full attack again.

Excellent. A 5 foot step to a new conveyor belt does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and then the person is significantly farther away before the fighter's next move.

I guess we know I'll be using this.

Lol, only if the mystery force behind all these deity-jackings is really fucking Bowser, King of the Koopas!

So, the first question I have to ask is-

What would be the ramifications of being able to do a full attack whenever you can do a standard attack? Not during attacks of opportunity, but like, charge the dude, full attack. Move 15 feet, full attack. What would that do to balance?

Well, it would obviously make the fighter types far more powerful. Wizards could no longer be protected, so standing behind "the line" would be useless. If someone can just tumble right past the line and then get their full attack on the wizard, then being wizard would be the same as being the Unlucky Pierre in a game of Smear the Queer.

Flanking would also be far more common. Right now there is often a decision to make. You either step, say, 15 feet to flank and get a +2 hit and +xd6 on sneak attack damage OR take a 5 foot step for a full attack. That decision obviously goes away.

I'm seeing your point with scaling the number of attacks based on steps taken, but I have some issues with it. Mainly, a 12th level fighter gets 3 attacks. So let's say he steps 15 feet. Does he get 1 or 2 attacks?

Maybe it could just be broken down into something like this... If you step 5 feet, you lose no attacks. If you step 15 feet, you lose 1 attack. If you step 25 feet, you lose 2 attacks. At no point can you drop below 1, of course. The problem with that is that it must then be scaled for various movement rates.

I really think one thing that must be changed is tumble. It doesn't make any sense as it is. It is too simplified. Tumbling past a 1st level fighter holding a speak who is engaging 3 other enemies should not require the same check as tumbling past a Great Worm red dragon who is focusing on you, yet there is the DC 15 Tumble check. I think if you want to make it easier to get more attacks on someone, then you need to change tumble. It at least needs to be scaled against some attribute of the opponent, and could potentially involve some other situations (-2 to Tumble Check DC for every opponent currently threatening the one you're trying to avoid, +2 to DC for every enemy threatening the square you're trying to pass through).

The point is that if there is a line where a high level fighter is placed every 10 feet and the wizard is behind that line, a mid level fighter with a tumble check of 5 shouldn't get a 50/50 chance of getting through unscathed to then get multiple attacks on the wizard.

Pathfinder has it versus their "combat defense". This is too harsh a nerf, because that's the same damned number that resists being grappled. A 10th level fighter will have, say, +6 Strength, with a +10 BAB, so his combat maneuver bonus would be +16. A 10th level rogue with maxed out tumble and a +6 to Dex would have the same +16. In my opinion, that's way too skewed the other way. A Pathfinder Wizard would NEVER tumble, and a rogue would have to max it out just to have a low chance.

Obviously, just having it at 15 to turn off attacks of opportunity seems lame too.


I hadn't considered the strategy involved in flanking.

Modeling and mathing the trading of movement for attacks will be the challenging part. You want something realistic, but also reasonably easy to handle on the fly.