[D&D Revision 3.5] Standard Action?

[theoremtank]

Speaking of Partial actions, they are gone. There will be move, move-equivalent, standard and full actions. If there is a need for an exception (say the Zombie) it will be part of the zombie listing.

I became confused after reading the above quote from the main news page. I thought the standard action was the redundant and troublesome terminology in the current action system. After all, a standard action takes just as much time as a full action. Why did they not just keep full, partial, move-equivalent, and free actions? I'm probably missing something here but it looks like they are doing the opposite of what they did with D20 modern. The D20 modern system fixed the problem very nicely (in my opinion). It happens to be just like my house ruled system except for terminology (see the following). Please clarify this for me if I'm looking at this incorrectly.

“The Major - Minor Action System”

Action Types: Full-Round Action, Major Action, Minor Action, and Free Action.

Key Concepts to the System:
• A round is composed of a Major Action plus a Minor Action.
• A Full-Round Action is equivalent to a Major Action and a Minor Action.
• A Minor Action may always be substituted in place of a Major action, but never the other way around.
• You may perform your Major and Minor Actions for the round in any order.
• If the actions you perform do not involve movement, you may move 5 ft. during the round.

Converting the Current Action System to the Major - Minor Action System:
• All Actions labeled as Partial Actions, Standard Actions, and 1-Action spells become Major Actions.
• All Actions labeled as Move-Equivalent Actions become Minor Actions.
• Full-Round and Free Actions remain as they are described in the Player’s Handbook.

 

[Ranger REG]

Personally, I'd rather Wizards bring D&D in line with two of their core rulebooks that I know of and have (d20 Modern and Star Wars) which uses the following action types:

• Reaction
• Free Action
• Move Action
• Attack Action
• Full-Round Action

We really do not need to add more confusion by coining new terms.

 

[dcollins]

I'm probably missing something here but it looks like they are doing the opposite of what they did with D20 modern. The D20 modern system fixed the problem very nicely (in my opinion).

I'm going to guess (and hope) that the "new" standard action isn't the same as the "old" standard action. Presumably new D&D standard action = d20 Modern attack action. (i.e., standard action will not "include" a move.) I hope.

I agree with Ranger wholeheartedly, the action type names need to be as short as possible and portable between game systems. Please, please just call them "move" instead of "move-equivalent actions"... and rename "attacks of opportunity" while you're at it, WOTC.

www.superdan.net/dndmisc/terminology_changes.html

 

[Ranger REG]

I also do not think you should rename "attack of opportunity" for the same reason I've used above. It is already in both d20 Modern and Star Wars, as well as Wheel of Time (which have a better explanation of AoO right after D&D).

As I said, try to avoid coining new terms and be more in line with the rest of Wizards' RPG products.

 

[wighair]

It sounds to me (going from my dodgy memory) that this sounds more like the rules in spycraft - which for me I must say is a good thing. For some reason I read ths Spycraft rules and thought - easy, I understand that. Somehow DnD wasn't quite so straightforward.

 

[Zappo]

I hope the new standard action works like the attack action of d20 SW. The "it includes movement" thing was never much clear.

 

[MThibault]

My guess is that they retained the terminology of "standard" action for continuity and clarity.

If you changed the name to, well, almost anything else it removes the assumed baseline action types.

d20 Modern and Star Wars could call it an Attack action, because that is the default action in combat. With spellcasting in D&D calling it an Attack action is just as inaccurate as calling it a Casting action.

"Standard" is a good term. It is the standard, typical action type in the games that I run. If you want to do more than is typical, you need a special, Full-Round action to accomplish it.

Just my opinion of course.

Cheers.

 

[Nail]

My guess is that they retained the terminology of "standard" action for continuity and clarity.

That's assuming it was clear to start with.

But still, might as well keep th' old dog........

 

[MThibault]

I suppose the obvious argument is that casting a cure spell with an Attack Action isn't exactly crystal clear. In an abstract combat system, you will always have to define your terms. In my opinion the main goal should be to name the actions such that it is fairly clear what is typical and what is exceptional and that the nomenclature doesn't exclude any of the contents of the category

Hence the distinction between Move and Move-Equivalent actions, and the most generic name for the most generic action type.

Cheers.

 

[theoremtank]

Another question...

How will the elimination of the partial action affect the mechanics of the surprise round?