Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6027768" data-attributes="member: 22424">I feel it's about right - the games include an action type, but it's trivial for groups to ignore if they don't want to.As for the specific action type, I'm inclined to think it should be the smallest that the game caters for. So, in 4e it was right that it should be a Minor action, in WFRP it's right that it was a Half action (with the &quot;and you can put something away too&quot; clause).I didn't like the 3e version, though. It's a Move action, but if you have a +1 BAB or higher you can combine it with an actual move as a free action? No, I don't like that - too much extra complexity. 3.5e should have copied the WFRP rule (3.0e couldn't since it predated WFRP 2e), and then when they introduced Swift actions they should have reclassified the action type.IMO, of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6027768, member: 22424"] I feel it's about right - the games include an action type, but it's trivial for groups to ignore if they don't want to. As for the specific action type, I'm inclined to think it should be the smallest that the game caters for. So, in 4e it was right that it should be a Minor action, in WFRP it's right that it was a Half action (with the "and you can put something away too" clause). I [i]didn't[/i] like the 3e version, though. It's a Move action, but if you have a +1 BAB or higher you can combine it with an actual move as a free action? No, I don't like that - too much extra complexity. 3.5e should have copied the WFRP rule (3.0e couldn't since it predated WFRP 2e), and then when they introduced Swift actions they should have reclassified the action type. IMO, of course. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification