Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 3097278" data-attributes="member: 14506">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 RuleEngaging: 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 OpportunityCreature 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.</blockquote>

Verification