What if we removed Full Attack, and what could replace it? (3.5/4e hybrid)

[RedWarlock]

I'm working on a pretty extensive 3e rework that throws a lot of 4e concepts into the mix (I'm back-converting a lot of utility powers into Skill Tricks, and using a tweaked version of the 4e skill list but using something more like the Pathfinder skill point system..) This is all for a hopefully extensive home campaign which is going to become the major fixture of our gaming circle.

Anyway, I'm planning on tweaking out the ToB's maneuvers into a more overall martial maneuver system that has room for expansion to allow back-conversion of 4e martial/etc class powers. I'm actually favoring the use of the 4e-style action system (standard/move/minor, with downgrades available) but that makes full-round actions more troublesome. (Plus, I want to include more natural weapons and double weapons, and more inherent class damage bonuses, without needing to worry about claw/claw/bite/tail/etc style full-attacks) This also means I'd like to have more powers which build in two-weapon attacks and the like, but also have build options for getting an extra attack as a secondary effect.

I recall SW Saga Edition did away with full attacks in favor of a main level-based damage bonus.

Are there any other ideas people have for built-in or replacement concepts suitable for full attack-level damage for melee? (at the very least, I know a few ToB maneuvers still use full attacks as part of their routine..)

Or is the base existence of so many standard-action maneuvers which perform better going to be enough of a replacement?

I'm mostly just fishing for ideas. If I get enough different ideas, I may build them onto different classes as suit the concepts.

[Yitzi]

To compare with full-attack in terms of damage? I'd say your options are either:
1. Give some other way to get multiple attacks, probably at a cost to attack roll. This would also help in reducing the significance of miss chances.
2. Give some (probably percentage-based) boost to damage per attack, likely in the form of a class feature or feat.

[RedWarlock]

I will say I'm planning on adding some bonus-damage to several of the major hitter classes.

One example of this is my Hunter's Quarry, (modeled after the 4e ranger feature) +1d6 at 4th/8th/12/16/20th level bonus damage on the first successful hit in a round (made by the ranger or his animal companion) on a target marked with a swift action. The mark lasts until the target dies or the ranger marks a new target, which must be the closest target to the ranger or his animal.

Likewise, the Knight/Paladin's Smite will be rewritten into dice-based bonus damage. At first guess, a switch-off between a +2 per N levels parry bonus to AC, which can be burned until the beginning of the knight's next turn, in exchange for a +N d-something bonus damage. (I know d6s are common, but I don't want to make them *too* common.)

The biggest issue is that these would be built-in bonus damage that are as integrated into the class as Sneak Attack to a Rogue, meaning they would stack with the inbuilt maneuvers each class gets. I'm tempted to think that might be enough. I'm fine with the idea of trading mobility for extra damage, but I don't want to use the Full Attack as it currently exists, since it has so many implications of being able to do every bloody attack the creature has, regardless of where on the body that attack form might be.

[Nero24200]

When I first started D'n'D I made a mistake as a DM and thought that BAB applied to damage as well as attack rolls. Probably not enough to replace Full Attacks but could be a start.

But there are some things that will need to be taken into account upon removing Full Attacks. One is reliability - having multiple attacks per round means more chances to hit. With only one attack per round you only have one chance to hit, which means at the minimum a 5% chance to deal no damage per round.

The second is the Attack bonus of melee characters. Looking at 3.5 stats, compare a typical attack bonus to the AC of a monster of the same CR. The attack value will usually mean a very easy hit at low levels, but it only get's easier with each level. At high level most martial characters are hitting with their first attack often, something which isn't much of an issue most of the time normally since it also determines their iterative attacks.

[RedWarlock]

I'm not saying only one attack per round, ever. There will be plenty of maneuvers and other options (like TWF) that allow second or third attacks (or more, as the case many be), but they'll be more specialized options.

Reliability is definitely one valid concern to bring up.

One option I'd considered was adding iterative-style secondary retries. If you miss, subtract (something) and try again. If you hit in the first place, no need for the retry. (a hit that misses due to concealment would still count as a miss)

[RedWarlock]

Just thought of this, for a general 4e-ism applied to 3.5e: on +6 BAB, your base weapon damage and default strength bonus are doubled. A medium dagger now deals 2d4, a longbow does 2d8, longsword 2d8, a greataxe deals 2d12, and a greatsword deals 4d6. This improves every 5 points of BAB, adding one set of the base damage (so a longsword would deal 4d8 at ABA 16+). Non-base damage, such as magic weapons and other extra points of damage, are treated as normal, as are bonus damage dice.

This would function a lot like the 4e at-will damage increase at 21st level, but then 3e damage tends to use a lot more dice on average.