Slight change to combat round.

BeholderBurger · Jun 7, 2004

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?

Pax · Jun 7, 2004

Sorcerors who try to cast metamagicked spells would be absolutely screwed by such a system - that's what I'm thinking.

BeholderBurger · Jun 7, 2004

IF you mean quickened spells then they can add this at any time as a free action, otherwise what do you mean?

Pax · Jun 7, 2004

First, RAW sorcerors cannot quicken a spell.

Second, also RAW, a Sorceror casting as Standard Action spell, with ANY metamagic applied, must use a FULL ROUND ACTION to cast it.

If you let the badguys (say) make ranged attacks against any sorceror they see casting as an FRA, no sorceror in your game could afford to ever use metamagics in combat.

Hypersmurf · Jun 7, 2004

House Rules? House Rules.

Hang on, lady, we go for ride!

-Hyp.

FireLance · Jun 7, 2004

Pax said:
First, RAW sorcerors cannot quicken a spell.

Second, also RAW, a Sorceror casting as Standard Action spell, with ANY metamagic applied, must use a FULL ROUND ACTION to cast it.

If you let the badguys (say) make ranged attacks against any sorceror they see casting as an FRA, no sorceror in your game could afford to ever use metamagics in combat.

Frankly, I think BB's system will actually favor and encourage the use of spontaneous metamagic. For the sake of argument, let's assume we have a Sorcerer (S) fighting an Archer (A).

Under the old system, if S wins initiative and starts casting, A gets his full round of ranged attacks to disrupt the spell. Under BB's system, if S wins initiative and starts casting, A gets a single ranged attack before S completes his spell on his turn in the second half of the round. A's remaining iterative attacks take place after S completes his spell.

Under the old system, if S loses initiative or delays until A has attacked, A gets off a full round of attacks before S starts casting, but since S won't finish casting until his turn in the next round, A gets another full round of attacks before S completes his spell. Under BB's system, A gets off a single ranged attack before S starts casting, and only his remaining iterative attacks have the chance to disrupt the spell.

My personal sense is that rogues will be less happy with this system as opponents will be flat-footed for a shorter period of time, although blinking, flanking and greater invisibility will always be options for delivering full-round sneak attacks. Adjudicating actions such as Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack will also be difficult. E.g. PC with Spring Attack and speed of 30 ft moves 25 ft to attack an enemy. Can he still Spring Attack if his enemy takes a 5 ft step back? PC with Whirlwind Attack takes a 5 ft step into the midst of some enemies and makes his first attack. What happens to his Whirlwind Attack if all his enemies take a 5 ft step back?

CalrinAlshaw · Jun 7, 2004

About all I see adding this amount of realism to the game will do, is BOOOOG it down with combat. Combat takes long enough as is. Most 4-5 round combats at least in my games take at the VERY LEAST 30 mins, especially if the DM has a spellcaster or 2.

Anyhow, splitting the combat round into 2 seperate sets of actions would require FIRST that a player decide what he does for the whole round (you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get players to do this...) then you go through the initiative and make sure everyone only does their standard-action worth of actions, and then you spend 3 hours looking up rules on certain full round actions to figure out how each character doing one is gonna get screwed. Then you go around the table and hope all the players remember what their characters were doing for the second part of their action.

Calrin Alshaw

CombatWombat51 · Jun 8, 2004

Simply, I think it's a good idea, for exactly the reasons you thought of the idea

CalrinAlshaw said:
Anyhow, splitting the combat round into 2 seperate sets of actions would require FIRST that a player decide what he does for the whole round (you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get players to do this...)

Doesn't a player normally have to decide what his character does?

CalrinAlshaw said:
...then you go through the initiative and make sure everyone only does their standard-action worth of actions...

As opposed to letting everyone act willy-nilly? Normally, one still hsa to be sure that everyone only does their full action worth of actions. The limit is different, but the idea of performing a limited amount in a certain time period is nothing new.

CalrinAlshaw said:
...and then you spend 3 hours looking up rules on certain full round actions to figure out how each character doing one is gonna get screwed.

Presumably, a resolution could be created to arbitrate how different full-round actions are resolved. Yeah, that's the hairy part of this idea, but you're going on as though BB's already proposed a solution and that it's terrible. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt

CalrinAlshaw said:
Then you go around the table and hope all the players remember what their characters were doing for the second part of their action.

Two things. One, I think players are generally fickle and unprepared or planned and prepared period. I doubt splitting the round into two parts will sunder that.

Two, I could see action declaration to be a bit easier. Instead of combatants having to make WAGs about the actions of opponents, they can get an idea based upon their action in their first turn.

@Calrin Alshaw - I didn't mean to rip into you, and I hope I wasn't seen as snarky

It's mostly that a pet peeve of mine is when people seem to totally reject a new idea just because its new. Yes the people, like you, have some valid concerns, but I wish people would take a sec to think of it from the other side.

That and my fiance and I started arguing the second I got home from work, and I'm feeling fiesty

the Jester · Jun 8, 2004

I honestly don't think any modest gains this change would make would outweigh the slowdown in combat.

Whitemage Bishieboy · Jun 8, 2004

FireLance said:
Frankly, I think BB's system will actually favor and encourage the use of spontaneous metamagic. For the sake of argument, let's assume we have a Sorcerer (S) fighting an Archer (A).

Under the old system, if S wins initiative and starts casting, A gets his full round of ranged attacks to disrupt the spell. Under BB's system, if S wins initiative and starts casting, A gets a single ranged attack before S completes his spell on his turn in the second half of the round. A's remaining iterative attacks take place after S completes his spell.

Under the old system, if S loses initiative or delays until A has attacked, A gets off a full round of attacks before S starts casting, but since S won't finish casting until his turn in the next round, A gets another full round of attacks before S completes his spell. Under BB's system, A gets off a single ranged attack before S starts casting, and only his remaining iterative attacks have the chance to disrupt the

common misconception,a full round action and a 1round casting time are diffrent.under the old system a sorcerer would cast on his orginal action,thus sorcerers do indeed become screwed more.

you are correct in stateing all rogues and fighters are 10x as bad now because they can NEVER EVER get a full attack off without being archers.

the system is intresting,but makes fighters weaker which is always bad.