Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Standard and Full Actions, really necessary?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Immortal Sun" data-source="post: 7559124"><p>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 <em>thing</em> it's just part of your turn.</p><p></p><p>The background: I took over running a campaign from another DM and he had some crazy ideas about attacks.</p><p>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 <em>spells</em>. You could cast a number of spells equal to your BAB/5, maximum 5.</p><p>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 <em>that much</em>.</p><p></p><p>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. <em>Once</em>. Two party members died before his turn was over. The party then generally agreed we needed less MAD and more START treaties.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Thoughts? Experiences?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Immortal Sun, post: 7559124"] 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 [I]thing[/I] 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 [I]spells[/I]. 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 [I]that much[/I]. 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. [I]Once[/I]. 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Standard and Full Actions, really necessary?
Top