I
Immortal Sun
Guest
To cut right to the chase, I'm wondering what the impacts of removing "full actions" on the game actually are? Effectively treating movement like its treated in 5E as just "this thing you can do" that isn't it's own thing it's just part of your turn.
The background: I took over running a campaign from another DM and he had some crazy ideas about attacks.
A "Standard" Action looked much like a Full Action, you got a number of attacks equal to your BAB/5, maximum 5. The terrifying part was that he also applied this to spells. You could cast a number of spells equal to your BAB/5, maximum 5.
A "Full" Action was worse. You got a number of "Standard" attacks, which we generally referred to as an "attack rotation" equal to your BAB/5. So....if you were a fighter 15, taking a full attack, you got 3 attacks at each tier of BAB, 15/10/5. Don't even get me started on how badly clerics broke this system, I played one in it. I regularly took 10-minute turns and it wasn't due to slowness, I could just do that much.
So I've been weaning the other players off of this insanity slowly and despite the grunts and grumbles of not being walking nuclear submarines with first-strike capabilities they have generally accepted the results. Largely because I built bad-guys who played by the same rules. The bad guys went first. Once. Two party members died before his turn was over. The party then generally agreed we needed less MAD and more START treaties.
But I've reached a point where I've effectively gotten them back down to standard 3.5 turn setup and immediately ran into the "movement is it's own move action" issue. And I don't like it. So I'm considering making it like 5E. Movement is just something you have available to you. You can make all the attacks allowed by your class BAB on a Standard. Spells still take the full requisite action they list. Everyone gets 1 minor and 1 free.
Thoughts? Experiences?
The background: I took over running a campaign from another DM and he had some crazy ideas about attacks.
A "Standard" Action looked much like a Full Action, you got a number of attacks equal to your BAB/5, maximum 5. The terrifying part was that he also applied this to spells. You could cast a number of spells equal to your BAB/5, maximum 5.
A "Full" Action was worse. You got a number of "Standard" attacks, which we generally referred to as an "attack rotation" equal to your BAB/5. So....if you were a fighter 15, taking a full attack, you got 3 attacks at each tier of BAB, 15/10/5. Don't even get me started on how badly clerics broke this system, I played one in it. I regularly took 10-minute turns and it wasn't due to slowness, I could just do that much.
So I've been weaning the other players off of this insanity slowly and despite the grunts and grumbles of not being walking nuclear submarines with first-strike capabilities they have generally accepted the results. Largely because I built bad-guys who played by the same rules. The bad guys went first. Once. Two party members died before his turn was over. The party then generally agreed we needed less MAD and more START treaties.
But I've reached a point where I've effectively gotten them back down to standard 3.5 turn setup and immediately ran into the "movement is it's own move action" issue. And I don't like it. So I'm considering making it like 5E. Movement is just something you have available to you. You can make all the attacks allowed by your class BAB on a Standard. Spells still take the full requisite action they list. Everyone gets 1 minor and 1 free.
Thoughts? Experiences?