D&D 3E/3.5 Rules intrinsically related to the 3ed round

[Li Shenron]

This is a question about a possible change in the rule, but I don't really mean to try this out as a house rule, I'd just like to understand the possible implications and incompatibilities with the current rules, therefore I'm posting it here for the moment. I don't want to discuss the possible solutions, just what the idea would cause.

How would the game change if the current combat turn (full-round action, or action+move) was split in half?

What would someone have to address, in case of considering such a change? At least I imagine the following things would be affected:

- Obviously all full-round actions would require 2 rounds to complete, and as such it should be decided what is possible/impossible to do in-between (AoOs for example, but also dismissing the action itself).

- Full-attacks routine would not be useful anymore once split, unless they give more than 2 attacks. As such, multiple attacks from BAB or 2WF won't work as they are now.

- Many conditions under which you are restricted to something less than a full round would need to be changed.

- Effectively it would be possible to cast spells more frequently, but also to attack more frequently at low levels.

Which other immediate and general consequences come to your mind?

You know, I don't really know if attempting such a thing is worth. 3ed is so much based on how the current round works that it may be a devastating change

 

[Thanee]

The consequence would be, that everyone would play spellcasters. Built-in 3.0 Haste Woohoo!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Marimmar]

Splitting the round in a Move and a Action part would prolong combats since every player would have to act twice somehow. This would make for a clumsy system IMHO. Boardgames like Classic BattleTech (3 phases) suffer from this. It is absolutely unneccessary and simply prolongs battles. In 2nd Edition AD&D you had a Declaration and a Action Phase pretty much the same and not very streamlined. The new all in one System is better by far.

~Marimmar

 

[Ranes]

Spells with round-based durations would last half as long.

 

[0-hr]

Your "AoO pool" would refresh twice as often (as would things like Power Attack and Expertise limitations).

- - - - - -

What is yoru motivation for wanting to do this? Is it the simplicity of a player being able to do a single thing for their turn? (ie. "move" or "make one attack" or "cast a spell")

I'd be really surprised if it didn't cause more problems than it solved. Some systems simplify things by giving you two generic actions per round, so you could "move + swing" or "swing twice", etc.. That might be a good compromise.

 

[aurance]

A similar, slightly different view is Spycraft. Each round is divided into two actions. Essentially, you have two standard actions instead of a standard + move. Have a look there for how they address things like multiple attacks and such. Of course, it doesn't deal with spellcasting.

 

[Li Shenron]

What is yoru motivation for wanting to do this? Is it the simplicity of a player being able to do a single thing for their turn?

No motivation. Perhaps sometimes it seems like one's turn lasts to long in terms of actions, and something odd can happen (especially with some movements). The result is that the flow of everyone's action is not fluid.

I was just thinking about how this was done in other games or editions.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Perhaps sometimes it seems like one's turn lasts to long in terms of actions

Better than in 2e, where it took a full minute to draw that sword, and wizards read poetry (1 minute for magic missile)

 

[Li Shenron]

Better than in 2e, where it took a full minute to draw that sword, and wizards read poetry (1 minute for magic missile)

Yes definitely better

How did it use to work in 1e by the way?