Possible House rules

[DungeonMaester]

This rule could be has a few parts to it.

1) Take out 'Move action' Anything that was a move action is now a standard action.

2) Anything that was a move action becomes a standard action.

3) A player starts off with two standard actions where he can attack/attack or move/attack or any combo of standard actions. This includes anything that can be done in the place of a attack such as trip or disarm.

Drawback: Feats that drop move actions to standard actions?
Something else?

---Rusty

 

[Pyrex]

Well, you've suddenly given all casters two spells per round. That's *huge*.

 

[Celebrim]

Everyone's full attack becomes +BAB/+BAB (attack/attack) starting at 1st level. At 6th level a fighter adds the option of on a full attack doing +BAB/+(BAB-5). This is strictly inferior, so what's the point? Then at 11th level, a fighter adds the option of +BAB/+(BAB -5)/+(BAB - 10). Against many opponents, this is also strictly inferior.

But even the fact that you've just about done away with the full attack option pales in comparison to the fact that spell casters can go spell/spell.

 

[szilard]

What is your goal here?

Is it just to eliminate an action type? If so, try:

1. There are no standard actions.
2. Everything that was a standard action now requires two move actions.
3. In each round, you get three move actions.

-Stuart

 

[DungeonMaester]

Thanks Every one for posting so quickly.

Its not as organized has when i had originally thought of it.

Well, you've suddenly given all casters two spells per round. That's *huge*.

Its not as bad as people want to make it out to be. There is still the problem of spells per day. Suddenly, the wizard can cast two fireballs in a turn and does. Now, when he really needs his spells, there all used up. Sure, it gives a caster a new window, but casters still have to know how to converse.

Everyone's full attack becomes +BAB/+BAB (attack/attack) starting at 1st level. At 6th level a fighter adds the option of on a full attack doing +BAB/+(BAB-5). This is strictly inferior, so what's the point? Then at 11th level, a fighter adds the option of +BAB/+(BAB -5)/+(BAB - 10). Against many opponents, this is also strictly inferior.

But even the fact that you've just about done away with the full attack option pales in comparison to the fact that spell casters can go spell/spell.

Sorry that I didn't clarify, but its Bab/+0. So a first level fighter would have +1/+0. At sixths its +6/+1+0.

Using it for extra attacks is basic though. Its advanced tactics I was musing about. Think about a fighter who has spring attack and can take two attacks and two move actions. Now he an make two attacks and move 60 ft.

What is your goal here?

Is it just to eliminate an action type? If so, try:

1. There are no standard actions.
2. Everything that was a standard action now requires two move actions.
3. In each round, you get three move actions.

-Stuart

How is getting three move actions going to help eliminate the move actions?

---Rusty

 

[Celebrim]

Sorry that I didn't clarify, but its Bab/+0. So a first level fighter would have +1/+0. At sixths its +6/+1+0.

Using it for extra attacks is basic though. Its advanced tactics I was musing about. Think about a fighter who has spring attack and can take two attacks and two move actions. Now he an make two attacks and move 60 ft.

Your clarification only confuses me further.

 

[GreatLemur]

How is getting three move actions going to help eliminate the move actions?

His point is that it would eliminate the distinction between standard actions and move actions. Hell, instead of calling 'em "move" actions, just say you get three actions per round. You can spend one action to move your standard distance, and the other to to attack or cast a spell. If you don't need to move, you can spend all three actions on a full-round attack. If you're not trying to attack, you can spend all three actions to spend the round running, and move four times your standard distance.

I'm not sure what sort of simplification or new terminology would be appropriate for free, swift, and immediate actions. I'm tempted to just say that some things just don't require the expenditure of an "action" at all (although obviously there would still be limits on when these things can be done).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I think your best bet is, if you allow spellcasters to cast two spells in a round, to allow fighting types to make two full attacks in a round. That is, do away with the Standard Attack and make the Full Attack be a standard action. That'll keep things more even, though it may make each combat round take a bit longer.

Later
silver

 

[Celebrim]

I think your best bet is, if you allow spellcasters to cast two spells in a round, to allow fighting types to make two full attacks in a round. That is, do away with the Standard Attack and make the Full Attack be a standard action. That'll keep things more even, though it may make each combat round take a bit longer.

Later
silver

Or in other words, everyone takes two turns in a row? Yeah, that'll make the already uninportant initiative roll just that much less important.

 

[DungeonMaester]

His point is that it would eliminate the distinction between standard actions and move actions. Hell, instead of calling 'em "move" actions, just say you get three actions per round. You can spend one action to move your standard distance, and the other to to attack or cast a spell. If you don't need to move, you can spend all three actions on a full-round attack. If you're not trying to attack, you can spend all three actions to spend the round running, and move four times your standard distance.

I'm not sure what sort of simplification or new terminology would be appropriate for free, swift, and immediate actions. I'm tempted to just say that some things just don't require the expenditure of an "action" at all (although obviously there would still be limits on when these things can be done).

I thought about that, but in a test D&D players understood 3 standard actions more then the simplified actions per round.

Also, this new take on the rules allows a bit more flexibilty for tatics. Rather then only have the choice between run/charge or full attack or move/attack. For example and fighter with a BAB of +6/+1+0 could run 60 ft rather then 30 and use the TWF and get two attacks rather then having to use a fullr an action to run.

I think your best bet is, if you allow spellcasters to cast two spells in a round, to allow fighting types to make two full attacks in a round. That is, do away with the Standard Attack and make the Full Attack be a standard action. That'll keep things more even, though it may make each combat round take a bit longer.

Later
silver

I'm not all sure what you are getting at here, but as I explained in the one above this, its to allow a little more tactical strategy.

---Rusty