[D&D Revision 3.5] Standard Action?

[MerricB]

I have a theory that what we know as the "Partial" action will be renamed the "Standard" action.

In a turn you may:
* Take a Move then a Standard action
* Take a Standard action then a Move action.
etc.

Surprise rounds will be:
* Take a Move, Move Equivalent or Standard Action.

Cheers!

 

[Shalewind]

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.

Hmmm... Well. Spycraft was simple. One problem (two types of actions half and full). So... I don't think they are going to do that. Because, under spy craft you can (Move / Move) or (Attack / Attack) Which means if you have a +6/+1 BAB... It would be pointless to full round Full Attack because, well you can just Half-Action attack +6 twice...

Spycraft. Easy to understand. Fun to play. Poorly (and I mean UBER poorly balanced...)

But, I like the nixing of the term partial action. It was too convuluted in any case.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

As the owner of the two aforementioned core rulebooks, I have no problem with the use of "attack action" when making a single attack, using a skill, using a talent, using an ability, activate a Force power (SW), casting a spell (d20M), or manifesting a psionic power (d20M).

Personally, the layout and text are much more cleaner and organized than the first d20 product that Wizards released, Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition.

 

[Ranger REG]

Another question...

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

In a surprise round, you are allowed the following action types:

A move action,

OR

An attack action.

Reactions and Free Actions are normally a given, unless otherwise noted or dictated by the GM.

 

[theoremtank]

I have a theory that what we know as the "Partial" action will be renamed the "Standard" action.

My guess is that this is what will happen also. Although, we can only wait and see.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I'm just glad they got rid of 'partial' as a form of action, or it should have been called 'half' action from the beginning.

 

[Droogie]

I like the idea of naming it "standard" action as opposed to "attack" action. Calling an action an "attack" when it doesn't seem like one- drinking a potion or picking a lock- seems counter-intuitive to me.

What do guys think of move-equivalent? Should it be renamed? At first I didn't like the idea of leaving it on the list. Why not just lump them in all as move actions?
However, I can see why it might make explaining a combat withdrawal easier: you can take two move actions to leave combat without an AoO, but doing a move then a move-equivalent might cause an AoO.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Um, am I the only one who knew that a standard action and an attack action were one and the same, and will probably continue to be so?

 

[Ranger REG]

I like the idea of naming it "standard" action as opposed to "attack" action. Calling an action an "attack" when it doesn't seem like one- drinking a potion or picking a lock- seems counter-intuitive to me.

I disagree. It will add confusion if D&D gamers wants to play Star Wars or d20 Modern and vice versa.

What do guys think of move-equivalent? Should it be renamed? At first I didn't like the idea of leaving it on the list. Why not just lump them in all as move actions?
However, I can see why it might make explaining a combat withdrawal easier: you can take two move actions to leave combat without an AoO, but doing a move then a move-equivalent might cause an AoO.

* sighs *

In the other Wizards' core rulebooks (remember them?), MEAs are called "move actions."

 

[theoremtank]

Um, am I the only one who knew that a standard action and an attack action were one and the same, and will probably continue to be so?

The problem is that the standard action and the attack action are not the same thing. The attack action is actually equivalent to the partial action. Which is why I was originally concerned why they got rid of the partial action instead of the standard action. The standard action is what was most often confusing people in the past since it was sometimes explained to be just an action and other times explained to be an action plus a move. Although I suspect, like another poster on this thread pointed out, that they are actually getting rid of the standard action and renaming the parital action to the standard action.

Here are the definitions from the SRD...

From d20 Modern (SRD)

Attack Action: An attack action allows a character to do something. A character can make an attack, use a skill or a feat (unless the skill or feat requires a full-round action to perform; see below), or perform other similar actions. During a combat round, a character can take an attack action and a move action. A character can take a move action before or after performing an attack action.

From d20 [D&D] (SRD)

Standard Action: A standard action allows a character to do something and move that character's indicated speed during a combat round. A character can move before or after performing the activity of the action.

Partial Action: As a general rule, a character can do as much with a partial action as a character could with a standard action minus a move. Typically, a character may take a 5-foot step as part of a partial action.