D&D 3E/3.5 Attempting to Merge AD&D Combat with 3e Combat

[airwalkrr]

To preface, combat in 3e is much too complicated for my tastes. I haven't read my AD&D books much since 3e came out, but recently I have grown more disatisfied with the way 3e handles combat and have gone back to reading my AD&D books to figure out a way to get the best of both worlds. I am not overly fond of 2e so I when I reference AD&D in this thread, I am referring to 1e unless I specify otherwise.

Now I am not claiming that combat in AD&D was simple in general for such a claim would be ludicrous. But some aspects of AD&D combat WERE simpler than they are in 3e. For example, initiative determination was simpler in the sense that you divided initiative into PCs and NPCs. I'm not sure if I want to maintain that element specifically, but it serves as an excellent paradigm of the kind of simplicity I want to accomplish.

Many things in AD&D were needlessly complicated (IMHO). Things such as weapon speed factors, the huge variance in spellcasting times, and the random determination of missile weapon targets in melee are things that have been boiled down to simple elements in 3e. A weapon attack is a standard action. Most spells take a standard action. Firing into melee imposes a -4 penalty to hit. I wish to conserve these things, or at least their simple nature, in my new system. However, I also want to preserve the atmosphere of AD&D combat, where spells could be disrupted (I do not like the readied action mechanic for this purpose) and combatants traded blow for blow rather than full attack for full attack.

Below is the basis for a hybrid combat system of AD&D and 3e. Please give me feedback so that I can improve and develop it further.

Initiative is determined by a simple roll of the d20 with no adjustments for Dexterity each round. One roll is made for the PCs and one for each set of monsters (e.g. a fight against orcs and goblins would have two sets of monster initiative).

All spells that require standard actions now require full-round actions. Spells cast as a swift action may be cast at the beginning of the round or at the end of the round, or during the spellcaster's initiative if the spellcaster is not casting any other spells. Spells cast as immediate actions may be cast at any time as long as it does not take place during the caster's casting of another spell.

The PCs must declare their intentions at the beginning of each round before initiative is determined. Their actions take place on their initiative. Spells are resolved at the end of a round, in initiative order (minus swift and immediate spells which take effect immediately). Melee and ranged attacks are resolved in initiative order alternating between combatants based upon base attack bonus, with additional attacks (such as those granted by the Rapid Shot feat or the haste spell) being resolved at the end of the round. Thus a 6th-level fighter with two attacks per round fighting orcs with one attack per round would make one attack at his highest base attack bonus, then the orcs would each make one attack, then the fighter would take his second attack.

That is the basic idea. I fear it may not be as simple as I wish it to be, but it is a start. If anyone has done any work on amalgamating the two systems before, insight would be welcome as it might keep me from re-inventing the wheel. It is possible I might just go back to AD&D combat, but I want to see if this has the potential of working first.

 

[Andre]

...and combatants traded blow for blow rather than full attack for full attack.

Something we're trying out in my group is eliminating all iterative attacks. Instead, attackers add their BAB to weapon damage. Spells and abilities which grant extra attacks no longer do so. The only way to attack more than once in a round is with Cleave/Great Cleave (which allows an experienced fighter to cut down hordes of mooks).

Interestingly, damage output is still quite good - adding BAB causes creatures to drop sooner, and having to calculate to hit and damage for just one attack significantly speeds up play. Another nice effect is that a high-level fighter does more average damage with a dagger than a wizard with a greatsword, reducing (slightly) the importance of specific weapons. (After all, if you're doing an extra 8 points of damage due to BAB, the difference between a shortsword and a longsword isn't noticeable)

 

[Sadrik]

Cool,

I'll try and go point for point:
1. Simple initiative roll for "sides". Its fine. However if you are going simple initiative like this The DM should simply roll for his side and the players their side. Then initiative modifier would determine what order they acted on their side. So if the goblins had a +1 mod and the skeletons had a +5 the DM would have to move the skeletons first then the goblins. Also the once order was determined the players would not roll initiative every round but rather just go back and forth on taking turns. I dont like the we attack last then we win initiative and then attack first essentially getting two actions in a row before the other side gets 1 action.
2. Firing into melee- I kind of liked the second edition rules for this. If you fired at a melee with two medium sized opponents you had a 50% chance hitting either one. Now it is just an automatic -4 to hit. Not as realistic but simpler.
3. Spell disruption. I dont remember exactly how that worked. Because we used individual initiative rules and we used casting times and if the monster hit the caster while the character was casting it disrupted his spell. Changing all spells to full round actions doesnt seem like the right answer either. If I remember correctly you could always make a 1/2 move after a spell was cast in second edition after a spell was cast. (then again they had 1 minute rounds! Argh, that was horrible.) A 1/2 move is comparable to a move action in 3e.
4. Spells resolve at the end of the round... Attacks should also resolve at the end of the round. So on initiative all players move and declare actions. Then the other side moves and declares actions. After both sides have done that all attacks and spells are resolved using initiative mods. This seems slow.
5. Declaring actions: this one really bothered me in second edition. And it was required because of weapon speeds, casting times, and just remember what combatant had what action.
6. Splitting up attacks blow for blow: This is really slow (game play wise) a character should get an entire attack routine all at once. Less referencing for a big fight.
7. Iterative attacks could go back to the old way of 3/2, 2/1, 5/2, 3/1 etc. 2 weapon fighting would bump this attack progression up by 1. I think getting rid of bonus attacks is good though. What about allowing the numbers above and but the characters have to divide their BAB between their bonus attacks. For instance if they had a 2/1 attack rating and +7 BAB then they could make one attack at +7 or one at +3 and one at +4 or any other way but only split two ways.
8. Andre's Getting 1 attack but adding BAB as a damage bonus. I like it. The one thing I dont like about it though is that it really makes warrior types hinge on one roll per round. Right now I am playing a melee type who is not high enough level to have multiple attacks and I cannot seem to ever hit. So the rest of the party is blowing the monsters away with spells and I am cause very little damage. When I get a second attack I will have another shot at the creatures.

One aspect I would also remove is the AoO- well almost- but not keep it in its current form.
Here is a rule that I cam up with that I have never actually had a chance to use:

The Engagement Rule

Engaging: If you attack a creature you threaten and have not previously engaged it, you are considered engaging it. While engaging, you may provoke an attack of opportunity*. If the type of attack you do causes an attack of opportunity (such as a grapple) you are still the engager. Once completed you are now engaged with that creature.

Maintaining the Engagement: If you move out of your opponents reach you become disengaged.

Disengage: If you disengage you provoke an attack of opportunity. You can take a withdraw action to prevent this attack of opportunity.

*The Engagement Attack of Opportunity

Creature Size: If the creature is larger than you, you provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are both the same size or it is smaller, no attack of opportunity is provoked. If you are mounted you use your mounts size as your base size.

Weapon Size: If you attack with a reach weapon you are considered one size larger than you are for determining this attack of opportunity. If you attack with a weapon that is two sizes smaller than your size you are considered one size smaller than you are for determining this attack of opportunity. If you attack with a natural weapon, a slam attack, have the improved unarmed strike feat or with a touch attack spell you are considered your actual size.