Full Offense

[Mr. Death]

I'm kind of with Taran on this one point.  Full offense implies putting yourself in danger in order to deal more damage.  If you aren't putting yourself in danger then you aren't going full offense, you are just on regular offense.  In that sense, if your opponent can't hit you making that modifier mean something, then the full offense modifier probably shouldn't apply.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Full Offense (though I maintain we're in stunt territory) represents diving in, heedless of your own safety.

If there's no risk, no downside, that's way overpowered for an inherent ability.

[Shaft]

I'm kind of with Taran on this one point.  Full offense implies putting yourself in danger in order to deal more damage.  If you aren't putting yourself in danger then you aren't going full offense, you are just on regular offense.  In that sense, if your opponent can't hit you making that modifier mean something, then the full offense modifier probably shouldn't apply.

Your assuming that the attacker with a range advantage can only be attacked by his target.  If an ally to the target manages to close and get in range, the tables can turn.

[Taran]

Your assuming that the attacker with a range advantage can only be attacked by his target.  If an ally to the target manages to close and get in range, the tables can turn.

If they can manage.

I feel like you have come up with some good ideas to prevent people from abusing the House Rule.  But, I think, what people are trying to point out, is it can be abused - fairly easily.

If you make it a bit more restrictive (the same way Full Defense is restrictive), it is less likely to be abused.

Let's say a character with
Guns 5 (weapon 4 assault rifle); Athletics 5
Supernatural Speed
Dodge stunt
wings

4 refresh and they are dodging at +8 and can fly.  For free they can move 2 zones as a supplemental.  Given enough zones to maneuver, they can rarely be engaged.  They still dodge at +5 or 6 and fire a weapon 6 assault rifle from 3 zones away.

If the enemy chooses to go full defense, the gun-wielder moves 2 zones away and does a navel gazing maneuver.

Not that every scenario would end up like this...but when it does, using regular attacks is sub-optimal.  Just make sure that many scenarios has ranged enemies, or close quarters.

***

Or
Supernatural Toughness
Supernatural recovery
Catch +3
Good Athletics (or Footwork)
Great sword: weapon 3 or higher, if it's an IoP or something.

This guy is more expensive, refresh-wise(-6), but doesn't really care if he gets hit for a couple extra stress.

These are two characters where it makes no sense NOT to use full Offense.  There are probably other situations/builds where this is true.

It's very rare to build a character where it makes no sense not to use Full Defense.  Reflect Attack custom power would be the only thing I can think of.  And that's a very expensive build to make it worth while...like, 10+ refresh.

[Haru]

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Full Offense (though I maintain we're in stunt territory) represents diving in, heedless of your own safety.

If there's no risk, no downside, that's way overpowered for an inherent ability.

In the end, it's an attunement, not necessarily overpowered. If everyone can do it, the sword cuts both ways. Keep in mind that the example stunt still provides a downside as well.

Now the difference between a stunt and an attunement would be that a stunt drives a character towards a particular style of play, an attunement drives all characters towards that kind of play.

So if you implement a rule like this, your game will be (slightly) more offensive. That's not a bad thing, but that's probable consequence, the more powerful you make this rule, the more it will happen.

That will probably also mean that your players will go with characters that run more along those lines. Again, not a bad thing, but something to keep in mind.

As an example, just look at the difference between how DFRPG and Fate Core does movement. In DFRPG, movement is a supplemental action that gives you -1 to your other action. In Core, you can move 1 zone for free with every action. As a result, there is a lot more movement in Core games than there is in DFRPG, for better or worse.

[Theogony_IX]

Your assuming that the attacker with a range advantage can only be attacked by his target.  If an ally to the target manages to close and get in range, the tables can turn.

Naw.  I am making the assumption that the rule is abused whenever someone uses it when they cannot be attacked.  If they can be attacked, by their target or otherwise, then it's fine, but if they cannot, then it is not fine.

Example:

Your target in on the street below the building you are shooting from.  There are no enemies anywhere near you or even in the building.  Your allies are engaged with your enemies on the ground.  Does going full-offense make sense here.  Well mechanically, yes.  I'll take that bonus please.  Narratively, it does not though.

Alternatively, if you really do not want to limit its use, so that it can always be used, then try attaching it to a free compel rather than a mechanical disadvantage.  In the example above, I ask the GM to go full offense.  The GM says okay, but compels Full Offense to say that I am more careless with my shots and the nearest of my allies to my target will have to defend with athletics to dodge the shot too.

[Haru]

Alternatively, if you really do not want to limit its use, so that it can always be used, then try attaching it to a free compel rather than a mechanical disadvantage.

The "Listening" Stunt for investigation does something very similar to that:
Listening: You can tune out your other senses and simply focus on your hearing, making you
able to pick up faint sounds with astonishing clarity. Gain a +4 on your Investigation roll
when Listening; however, your Alertness drops to Terrible while doing so, due to the exclusion
of your other senses. If a conflict begins while you are Listening, it will take a full exchange
for your Alertness to return to normal once you stop.

[Taran]

In the end, it's an attunement, not necessarily overpowered. If everyone can do it, the sword cuts both ways. Keep in mind that the example stunt still provides a downside as well.

Now the difference between a stunt and an attunement would be that a stunt drives a character towards a particular style of play, an attunement drives all characters towards that kind of play.

So if you implement a rule like this, your game will be (slightly) more offensive. That's not a bad thing, but that's probable consequence, the more powerful you make this rule, the more it will happen.

That will probably also mean that your players will go with characters that run more along those lines. Again, not a bad thing, but something to keep in mind.

As an example, just look at the difference between how DFRPG and Fate Core does movement. In DFRPG, movement is a supplemental action that gives you -1 to your other action. In Core, you can move 1 zone for free with every action. As a result, there is a lot more movement in Core games than there is in DFRPG, for better or worse.

Good point

[Shaft]

Lots of good feedback here. 

I was thinking about it, and I think maybe I'll suggest that for my group, semiauto weapons and HtH melee fighting with Fists and Weapons should only do +1 damage (with -2 defense), while full auto weapons would do +2 for the same penalty.  Full auto can be combined with spray.