Let me get this straight

[knifespeaks]

Ok, so I am leaning more towards using the 3.5 combat system as written...but just let me check a few things:

- drawing a weapon + attacking with that weapon = full round action? (Yes, I know BAB +1 or better = free action)

- moving full movement rate (20'/30'/40' on average) + attack once = full round action?

- casting a standard action spell + movement to full rate = full round action?

It is not that much different to the way I ended up house ruling first all those years ago.....movement is prolly the biggest difference.

I read of a few folks who ditched a fair bit of the AoO rules - what's the outcome in game terms of being less pedantic on AoO's? Is it CRUCIAL to be exacting with AoO's?

 

[Tatsukun]

Ok, so I am leaning more towards using the 3.5 combat system as written...but just let me check a few things:

- drawing a weapon + attacking with that weapon = full round action? (Yes, I know BAB +1 or better = free action)

Well, specifically it's a move equivalent action (MEA) and a standard action (SA). But, this particular MEA can be combined with movement if you have a BAB of at least one. But, no matter what your BAB, you can't draw a weapon as a free action and still have a move action and a standard action left; unless you have the quick draw feat.

- moving full movement rate (20'/30'/40' on average) + attack once = full round action?

Yeah, again it's technically a move action and a standard action.

- casting a standard action spell + movement to full rate = full round action?

Same there.

It is not that much different to the way I ended up house ruling first all those years ago.....movement is prolly the biggest difference.

I read of a few folks who ditched a fair bit of the AoO rules - what's the outcome in game terms of being less pedantic on AoO's? Is it CRUCIAL to be exacting with AoO's?

Yeah? Cool. I left all the AoO rules, as they are a big part of what a fighter-type does. It seems that nerfing the fighter-types is the last thing 3.5 needs.

Have fun!

-Tatsu

 

[nhl_1997]

All of the examples you gave are, in fact, example of what a character can do in one round. However, in my opinion, you might be setting yourself up to be confused later.

In a single round, a character has three basic options:
1) standard action plus a move action --- or ---
2) move action plus a move action --- or ---
3) full-round action

(There are more alternatives, but those are the basic options.)

The examples you gave are all a standard action plus a move action. However, in game terms, none are "full-round actions." Full-round actions include options such as.....

a) full attack
b) charge
c) withdraw
d) cast a spell with a casting time longer than one standard action
e) run

and many, many others

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Bwahahahah!

The dark side calls you!

- drawing a weapon + attacking with that weapon = full round action? (Yes, I know BAB +1 or better = free action)

... Sorta. There are certain moves which are Full-Round actions, and so calling something else a full-round action might just get you more confused in the future. Specifically, in one turn, you can perform one full-round action or one Move-Equivalent action and a Standard action or two Move-Equivalent actions. If you haven't actually, physically moved, you can also take a 5' step at any point in your turn.

It's a Move-Equivalent action to draw a weapon. So, if you're standing next to someone, you can draw a weapon (ME), attack (Stnd), and take a 5' step (Free), and that's the entirety of your turn.

If you have a BAB +1 or better, you can draw one weapon as a free action in combination with a regular move. So, a Fighter can draw a sword while he's moving up to his opponent and still attack.

If you have the Quickdraw feat, you can draw any number of weapons as free actions as many times as you want.

- moving full movement rate (20'/30'/40' on average) + attack once = full round action?

That's a move (ME) and a single attack (Stnd), so that's an entire turn. Note, you can't also take a 5' step in this case because you've already physically moved.

- casting a standard action spell + movement to full rate = full round action?

Same as above, a ME + a Stnd = your full turn.

I read of a few folks who ditched a fair bit of the AoO rules - what's the outcome in game terms of being less pedantic on AoO's? Is it CRUCIAL to be exacting with AoO's?

There are two schools of thought on this.

1. AoOs tend to slow combat down, especially if your players are unfamiliar with the rules, as they try to do something, realize it provokes, take their action back, think about it, etc. Thus, removing many of the AoO provoking actions will speed combat up.

2. AoOs exist to force players to think and act tactically and, for this reason, removing them neuters a rather deep aspect of the tactical game. Specifically, with AoOs present, smart, tactical players can force their opponents into situations where they *must* provoke, and so can more effectively fight their enemies.

I vastly prefer to leave AoOs in and enforce them to the hilt. I am, of course, rather more than familiar with the rules surrounding them, and can plan both my own actions and the actions of any other characters I control (in the event that I'm DMing instead of playing) accordingly.

I find it helps - especially in the case of players who aren't used to such mechanics - to print out a little "AoO Cheat Sheet," which lists the most common ways to provoke - as well as avoid - AoOs.

 

[knifespeaks]

Aha!

Thanks for the response Tatsu, especially the bit relating to AoO's and fighter-types.

 

[knifespeaks]

The dark side does indeed calleth

Hehe, I knew you'd laugh at me

Yeah, the combat system ain't that hard to grasp - even AoO's seem pretty elementary.

Where I wish to go with it though is allowing more flexibility (which is good), without needing house rules (which I might understand, but concede that another person sitting at my table mightn't). It's about drawing a line in the sand, making some concessions on my part for the good of everyone else at the table.

And initiative - rolling just the once seems the best way, yeah? Then simply going in order after that?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Aha!

Thanks for the response Tatsu, especially the bit relating to AoO's and fighter-types.

One of the things you'll want to look at, especially as regards AoOs, is a spear-wielder with the Combat Reflexes feat.

Because of the way a spear works, he'll be able to get in a free shot at anyone (assuming normal, non-reach enemies) running up to him - this is a movement-related AoO.

When he takes the Combat Reflexes feat, he is able to do this multiple times per round - up to 1 + his Dexterity bonus.

Keeping the AoO rules, as they are written, makes the above scenario a viable option. If you throw them out, a longspear loses much of its charm - as well as most of its combat effectiveness!

 

[Aaron2]

1. AoOs tend to slow combat down, especially if your players are unfamiliar with the rules, as they try to do something, realize it provokes, take their action back, think about it, etc. Thus, removing many of the AoO provoking actions will speed combat up.

I do two things to help this. First, if a player is probably going to draw an AoO, I will roll the attack while the player is still thinking about it. That way it takes little game time once the character finally moves. Secondly, I generally give players a limited time to decide their action and if they say it, they do it; no take backs. Since I've already rolled the AoO, I can generally quickly blurt out something like, "the orc tries to block you but you slip past his guard" and let the player continue on. Or, if the AoO resulted in a hit, I'll say, "as you dash past him, the orc nicks you for 4 points." Often, the players are worried about worst case scenarios (trips or crits), once they realize that the attack is just a few points of damage, they lose interest.


Aaron

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Re: Initiative:

Yes. The reasons for this are many, but the most important of them are the various effects which state, "[Blah] lasts for one round" - like the Monk's Stunning Fist ability.

Basically, anything that lasts for one round lasts until just before the initiative count of the person / thing that caused it.

If you roll for intiative every round, several strange occurences can happen. We'll assume the Monk and his three friends are fighting an ogre. The monk wins initiative in round 1:

1. The monk uses his Stunning Fist ability against the ogre, who fails his saving throw. The ogre drops his cudgel, and is stunned for one round. This means he has a -2 penalty to AC *and* loses any Dex bonus to AC, as well as being unable to take any actions.
2. The ogre would have gone now, but he's stunned.
3. The fighter cohorts of the monk charge in, and hack at the ogre.

Now, if you were rerolling initiative every round, would the ogre get to apply his Dex modifier to his initiative score? Or, being stunned, woozy, etc., would he just automatically go last? Regardless, let's assume that he rolls well for initiative, beating the monk, but losing to the cohorts.

1. The cohorts attack the ogre who, because he is stunned until just before the monk's turn, is still at a massive AC penalty.
2. Ogre's turn, normally, but because the monk hasn't come up in the order, yet, he's still stunned. No actions.
3. The monk attacks, and probably kills, the poor ogre, who never even got a sword in edgewise.

The other odd possibility happens when the monk loses initiative in the first round, but wins in the second.

1. Ogre fights, attacks, etc.
2. Cohorts fight.
3. Monk uses his Stunning Fist, and the ogre fails his save. He's stunned until the monk's next turn, with the penalties as outlined above.

Re-roll init, and the monk wins.

1. The ogre becomes unstunned.
2. The monk goes, and tries to restun the ogre, who makes his save this time.
3. Etc.

In this case, the monk used a special ability (his stunning fist) which ended up having no real effect (other than disarming the ogre, which *might* be enough to warrant its use).

The ogre gets all of his attacks, and is effectively unharmed by the monk's supposedly Stunning fist.

 

[Shallown]

Yeah initaitive is a lot easier to do roll once and go in order.

But it sometimes gets to be a pain when you start including ready actions and holding actions etc.

Best thing to do is get someone else to keep track. We have aplayer keep track of initiative it helps the GM out.

As far as OofO go. It is important the players know when they trigger one. This saves you a lot of trouble. When I move my character I tell the GM I'm triggering one so he doesn't have to worry about it. It is everyone's responsibility to know the basic rules.

I think they adda touch of realism (justa touch ) and they also add some drama if you play up the idea of taking the risk of an AofO when it could take a character down. It also makes those who have invested in mobility based archetypes really shine. that rouge or swashbuckler tumbling in among the bad guys makes it sort of cool.

I think for the most part focus on rules till they become second nature which usually doesn't take more than a session or two for the basics then start fleshing out the descriptives. The rules actually support a descriptive style if you keep that in your mind as much as you do the mechanics. I know I have a bad habit of focusing on rules and forggetting the descriptitve. Takes a little will power and focus to bring that back in.

Remeber rules are just a tool to achieve a goal. What goal depends on the group.

Later