[D&D Revision 3.5] Standard Action?

[Destil]

I don't like the attack action term at all. I think standard sums it up better.

I think 'attack action' should refer to a trip, grapple attempt, single attack, bull rush, disarm et cetera. Anything you can replace your attacks with, since that concept is in the rules but the terminoligy for describing it is vague.

Standard actions should not include the move, as this is a huge source of confusion in general and counter intuitive. A standard should allow you to do what you can with a partial now, though it needs to be described in a new manner.

Free actions need to be cleaned up, too. The rules are vague on the ability to take free actions outside of your initiative count, for instance.

 

[Ranger REG]

Unless otherwise noted, a free action is done on your turn.

Outside of your turn, any free action that reacts to certain events is a reaction.

BTW, redefiniting "standard action" means we'll have to re-do the other Wizards' rulebooks. As I said earlier, don't use too many terms for one meaning. Let's keep the game using one rules system by Wizards in line. Otherwise, we'll need to take pre-Law courses to understand D&D.

 

[Mercule]

I don't like the attack action term at all. I think standard sums it up better.

I think 'attack action' should refer to a trip, grapple attempt, single attack, bull rush, disarm et cetera. Anything you can replace your attacks with, since that concept is in the rules but the terminoligy for describing it is vague.

Tend to agree. I've never read/played Star Wars, but looking at the d20 Modern rules, I thought that naming the standard/partial action as an "attack" action was just about the dumbest thing WotC could have done.

<rant>

An attack action is something that includes swinging a sword, punching, tripping, grappling, etc. When your BAB hits 6/11/16, you get an additional attack action if you take a full-round attack.

Calling the segment of a round in which you do something besides attack (cast a spell, drink a potion, etc.) an "attack action" only muddies the water, especially when there is an action you can take that's called an attack.

Honestly, I can't understand how anyone who can follow that you don't have to attack on your attack, but if use your attack to do something other than attack you don't get an attack, could possibly be confused by the standard/move-equiv/partial system.

I'm definitely all for them streamlining things and making it easier to understand. I don't even mind them changing the terminology. The last thing I want to see them do, though, is name the partial/standard action an "attack action". That makes as much sense as calling it a "magic action" (after all, the most common thing half the classes will do is cast a spell/use an item).

</rant>

 

[Ranger REG]

It may sound dumb if you take things too literally.

I don't.

It is used during Star Wars original and revised, and applied to d20 Modern later. I don't know if WoT d20 or CoC d20 follow along that same path, but AFAIC, I'd stick with "attack action."

I'm used to it. Sorry if you're not. The last thing Wizards should do is not to confused people by having two different meanings for "standard action" when Star Wars Original released back in 2000 (it dropped the term "standard action" in favor of "attack action").

IOW, retire "standard action." Use "attack action."