Talk:Better Full Attacks (3.5e Variant Rule)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedNeutral.png Fluffykittens is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
This is well balanced for fighter level and some rogue level content, but when you get into wizard, using this as a blanket rule is a massive and unnecessary buff.
RatedFavor.png Undead Knave favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
DD is right, but this made me chortle, so it gets upgraded a step.
RatedLike.png DanielDraco likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
Since a full-round full attack is such a basic assumption throughout the game, this almost certainly has unaddressed repercussions. That said, on the face of it, this is a nice and simple way to make melee combat a bit more workable.

For Archery

I think the tradeoff was supposed to be having to move and dealing more damage vs. being able to full attack without having to move and dealing less damage. Just IMO though... --Ghostwheel 02:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Any chance of taking 5' steps out of the game as part of this variant? I think it makes positioning more important and tactical, adding to the game rather than taking away from it. --Ghostwheel 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I second their removal, but only if they're replaced with something interesting. There's an option to disengage, but nothing to close if they go away, and you probably still want movement that allows people to avoid AoOs for closing. So something like this maybe:
  • Advance: As a move action, you can move up to one-quarter of your base move, rounded down to the nearest 5' increment. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from any enemy that you attack afterwards in the same round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarkisflux (talkcontribs) at
I don't think there's a problem with that... but how does it interact with creatures who target you with trips as you move in? (With an AoO or a readied action.) There's a timing/paradox issue there that needs to be figured out. Maybe just if you commit to attacking regardless of what happens you don't take AoOs? --Ghostwheel 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The commit thing would work. It doesn't defend against readied actions from intended targets or others, but that wasn't the intent and I don't think you should defend against them.
Though now I want to clarify if you can ready a full-attack action as part of these rules. And also if the intent was to standard action full-attack with natural attacks on creatures, giving them all easier pounce. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Without giving everyone pounce, charges are pretty piss-poor at higher levels using this variant. --Ghostwheel 21:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few feats and creature abilities are basically, in a nutshell, this variant rule. For instance, Dire Charge basically gives you the pounce ability. So I'm a little wary of this variant rule - it could weaken a lot of creatures by obsoleting something that's supposed to make them more dangerous. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Then give them something else. There is a whole lot of homebrew material meant to attack places where WotC thinks something is more or less powerful than it really is. When a certain segment of the WotC canon is problematic, obsoleting that canon does not add problems -- it removes them. Hell, just look at the Tome canon I've seen you working in -- I really can't think of a design philosophy that more aggressively obsoletes and replaces WotC material. (Except perhaps Grimoire, by virtue of also requiring a VH blacklist.) --DanielDraco (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
FavoredUndead Knave +
LikedDanielDraco +
NeutralFluffykittens +