BeholderBurger
First Post
Apologies if this has been dealt with by another thread. I am always tampering with the rules and am currently experimenting with making the D&D combat rules slightly more realistic by splitting the combat round into 2 turns. What negative affects can anybody see this having?
It would be basically as follows.
1) Everyone rolls initiative.
2) Then we go through initiative numbers and people complete only their first action, whether this be a move/move equiv or a standard action. Anybody who chooses a full round action would start this action but would not complete until end of second turn
3) We then go through the initiative again and they complete the second turn with whatever else they would have been able to do in the round. Any full round actions would complete in this turn.
4) Start new round.
As far as I can see this not drastically change anything except to provide more realism in the game. As far as I am concerned I hate the idea that if somebody wins intiative they can move and attack. With this system it gives people an advantage but not as great as they may be used to. What do you think?
It would be basically as follows.
1) Everyone rolls initiative.
2) Then we go through initiative numbers and people complete only their first action, whether this be a move/move equiv or a standard action. Anybody who chooses a full round action would start this action but would not complete until end of second turn
3) We then go through the initiative again and they complete the second turn with whatever else they would have been able to do in the round. Any full round actions would complete in this turn.
4) Start new round.
As far as I can see this not drastically change anything except to provide more realism in the game. As far as I am concerned I hate the idea that if somebody wins intiative they can move and attack. With this system it gives people an advantage but not as great as they may be used to. What do you think?
Last edited: