Standard and Full Actions, really necessary?

[Celebrim]

The default is attack once and move. That's your Standard Action plus Move Action.

Now, there are VARIANTS to the standard combat round.

You want to attack more than once? Fine. Give up the Move and use all of your allotted time attacking. Full Action.

You want to move farther than normal? You want to run? Fine. Give up the Standard Action and use two Move actions.

To me, the rules as written are very straightforward and playable. I don't really see what the issue is with movement that you allude to in the OP.

The issue that concerns the OP is this. What you've described is fairly straightforward and playable in the vast majority of situations. But there is an asymmetry you don't mention, which is namely, higher level spells. The vast majority of spells always require just a standard action to cast. As a spell-caster levels up, he gets more efficient spells that do more with a single standard action. But the non-spellcasters generally do not get more efficient standard actions. Rather, for a non-spell caster it is the full round action that gets more and more efficient over time (more attacks allowed). As a result, over time spellcasters get an advantage in combat mobility relative to non-spellcasters in that they can move without sacrificing efficiency but non-spellcasters are compelled to stand and fight.

And this doesn't even get into the Quickened Spell feat.

I am quite certain that the OP actually knows how the rules work by RAW, so there is no sense in trying to explain the rules to him.

 

[Greenfield]

To be fair, I don't think the subject was what RAW says. It's what we think RAW could/should say.

Continuous time flow in game, rather than segmented time (rounds, standard and move actions, swift and immediate actions etc.) doesn't really exist.

True, continuous time, where actions can occur simultaneously can't actually be done in a tabletop RPG. We can approximate it by going to smaller and smaller time segments (and correspondingly more of them) in play. Hackmaster was cited as an example of such a system.

Even then, PC 1 declares an action that takes 3 seconds/segments/whatever, then effectively skips the next two times around the table while other characters initiate or complete their declared actions. Not unlike a spell or movement that takes several rounds in RAW D&D. (Example, Lesser Restoration might be needed to keep someone from dying in battle, but it takes three rounds in D&D 3.5, so the caster and recipient are out of the action until it's completed.)

But whether your rounds are a full minute (AD&D), six seconds (D&D3.*, 4, 5 and Pathfinder), 12 seconds (Hero system), or whatever else, it still isn't true, continuous motion/action.

In all cases it's just a question of granularity and how far you want to take it. For many, the Standard Action/Move action format works just fine.

Side note: As melee types advance, the damage they dish out with a single blow also tends to increase: Magic weapons improve, Feats or weapon properties increase Crit' range, ability scores increase etc. Simple fact is, when trying to dish out pure damage to a single target a well made Fighter character at level can drop a hundred points of damage in a round, damage the Wiz type can't really match short of epic level stuff.

The part that relegates the melee types to also-rans isn't the raw damage, it's the wider and wider variety of things the casters can do, outside of raw damage.

 

[Celebrim]

The part that relegates the melee types to also-rans isn't the raw damage, it's the wider and wider variety of things the casters can do, outside of raw damage.

While I agree that this is true, it's also true that the reason fighters are tier 4 is that they aren't even very good at dealing out damage in combat, and there are critics of 3.X who have pointed out that the most powerful melee combatants of basically any level are not fighters. Indeed, I've seen arguments that a 3rd level wizard can out perform a fighter even in melee combat.

So while that is true, the bigger problem is that the writer's of 3.X treated almost all spells as reliable means of player agency which could be spent to reliably alter the narrative or the fictional positioning during play, but conservatively treated everything that wasn't a spell as a highly unreliable and very limited means of player agency. Mere skill isn't allowed to compete with magical ability and heroic uses of ability are mere child's play for a spell - compare for example the RAW of 'spider climb' to the climb skill, or the 'jump' spell to the jump skill, or 'hide' to the invisibility spell. These are all low level spells that grant epic levels of ability in a skill.

 

[Immortal Sun]

@the OP

A 3E Combat round is only 6 seconds long. You've only got time to do so much within that period.

The default is attack once and move. That's your Standard Action plus Move Action.

Now, there are VARIANTS to the standard combat round.

You want to attack more than once? Fine. Give up the Move and use all of your allotted time attacking. Full Action.

You want to move farther than normal? You want to run? Fine. Give up the Standard Action and use two Move actions.

To me, the rules as written are very straightforward and playable. I don't really see what the issue is with movement that you allude to in the OP.

To break it all down...

You've got 6 seconds to act.

You can...


Standard Action + Move Action (or the reverse)

Move Action + Move Action (all movement during the round)

Full Action (no movement* during the round as the character does something else)

I am aware of how the rules work. I don't particularly like how they work in regards to melee types. So I question if the rules really need to be that way. I use, for comparative and demonstrative purposes, how 5E has eliminated movement as an action. The fighter's multiple attacks are now just part of their deal, allowing them to leverage the one thing they can do more of than anyone else (except maybe the monk) every turn: repeatedly hit things with a stick.

So I made this thread here to ask if anyone has experimented with implementing a similar effect in 3.5/Pathfinder (my preferred edition if I can't play 4th) and to what effect it had.

Sadly, the responses seem to indicate noone has really tried it (or maybe I missed it).

The rules are straight-forward and playable, but they're also highly restrictive for no apparent reason. Or at least no reason that more modern editions of the game have felt worthwhile to retain. Since I'm still playing the old edition in modern times, I think it reasonable that I make attempts to bring it current.
@ others: the flow of time doesn't bother me much, it's a turn-based game attempting to simulate a non-turn-based reality. It's more I'm looking to improve the mobility of players (within reason) and allow classes who leverage the BAB function of multiple attacks to do so more often.

 

[Water Bob]

Well....never mind, then.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Some ideas come to mind. I'd remove the normal iterative attacks, keeping just the hightest BAB. To start characters of all classes can attack once and move, or give up move to attack twice with all attack receiving a -2 penalty.

At higher levels, the warrior classes would get the ability to improve these options. They could attack twice with a -2 penalty and move, give up their move and attack twice without penalty, or give up their move to attack three times with a -2 penalty.

At even higher levels things could shift again. They could attack twice without penalty and move, attack thrice with a -2 penalty and move, give up their move and attack thrice without penalty, or give up their move to attack four times with a -2 penalty. Around that time the medium BAB classes would get the first set of warrior improvements I mentioned above.

Sounds a bit clunky but could be explained in a way that would improve use and understanding. Thoughts?

 

[Voadam]

I think you will be fine allowing a move with the full attack action. It means it will play more like 5e/AD&D and will allow melee fighters to make full attacks the same way most archers can at higher levels (because of not having to charge to engage and also from 5 foot stepping when engaged to then launch a full attack).

I believe it will only be a small impact and will make the sword swingers a little happier with the game experience.

I also had a player who could never remember you can't move and make a full attack action.

Downside for the players is that melee ambushes are nastier when everybody pounces.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Downside for the players is that melee ambushes are nastier when everybody pounces.

Yeah, I thought about that. But currently the party is 2 10th-level druids, a "battlemage" (fighter 5, sorcerer 5) and a monk. I know they can dish it, so I'm sure they can take it.