I would like to see Actions in Combat modified. I base this on experience with 3.5, PfRPG and 4e. There have been previous discussions about Swift Actions, Movement/Opening Doors and Partial Actions. My suggestions are:
Swift Action: Expand this to include non-magical actions such as opening items (Doors and Chests), picking up small items (one hand carriable) and drawing an item (sheathed weapons or quick draw items). This will allow more freedom instead of 'little' actions wasting an entire Move Action. Perhaps a non-magical Swift Action can be done during a Move Action with a certain BAB level, Dexterity, or DC 15 Dex check. [This is just an extension of the 3.5 Swift Actions and the 'drawing your weapon while moving' rule.]
Partial Charge and Restricted Withdrawl: Besides a ‘Partial’ Full-Round Action being an oxymoron, it is unnecessary. Both Charge and Withdrawl can currently be done when you are restricted to only a Move or Standard action. Just make them both Standard Actions and eliminate the 'special rules' for Partial Full-Round Actions. This also allows these Actions to be taken as Readied Actions. I recommend Charge allow you to move up to half your movement rate and then attack. (Some people feel you need restrictions on other Movement Actions that turn; like no standing up before you Charge and no other movement in the round after you Charge.) I recommend Withdrawl allow you to move up to half your movement rate with the first 5' not drawing an Attack of Opportunity (AoO). I also like the idea of eliminating Withdrawl entirely and making it a 5’ Step as defined below. [These Partial Actions are non-intuitive, cause FAQs, beg people to question the rules, and give people incentive to make House Rules.]
5’ Step: A new Move Action that allows 5’ of movement without an AoO. A Full-Round Action allows a free 5’ Step as long as no other movement occurs that round. With this addition, you could now use a 5’ Step to withdrawl or do two 5’ Steps to maneuver in melee. [This rule has always been there. This just defines it different to make it useable for other occasions.]
Draw Ammunition: A new Free Action. Or add it to the Free Action 'Prepare Spell Components'. [This is unnecessary since it is elsewhere in the rules but I think this way.]
Restricted Activity: Eliminate this option. I think the changes recommended above would allow removal of Restricted Activities. If I missed something, change something else to get rid of Restricted Activity. Can we get rid of Start/Complete Full-Round Actions also? [I hate special rules.]
Tell me if I missed something or if there are flaws with this thinking. I think this is where 3.5 was heading before 4e. I just find it the next logical steps. Somebody with good search skills might want to link the previous discussions. I don’t claim to be the majority opinion on this topic from previous threads.
EDIT: The way my brain works, Table 9-2 should be in the following order; Full-Round Action, Standard Action, Move Action, Swift Action, Immediate Action, Free Action, & No Action. Large to small ranking.
EDIT2: Why isn't Charge listed under Full-Round Action descriptions starting on page 138?
Charging/Partial Charge:
I agree the wierd rules about this should be clarified.
I think the best strategy would be to define "Charging" as a CONDITION,
which you can CHOOSE any time you're moving the minimum amount.
That makes it easy to do the "Partial Charge" action, and the Full-Round Move Action can include an option to allow a Standard Attack if also "Charging".
re: "Partial Action"
I think that terminology should be used itself, and would be a game term covering Standard Action Casting and Standard Attacks - Which if now potentially Iterative (less than Full Attack), make more sense to be called Partial Attack Actions. Swift/ Partial/ Full seems to make sense.
re: 5' Step
If you want to use a Double Move to move 10' without AoO's, I don't believe there's anything stopping you from using a Withdraw Action to do so (you're not forced to move the entire distance, for instance if there is a cliff). And obviously if you only need to move 5', you always can move 5' without provoking AoO's.
The only change I'd really like to see is just changing the name: "5' Step" as a specific game term is too easily confused with the simple reference to moving between two adjacent squares (part of ANY Movement Action).
"Free Step" could be better...?
as well, I think the term for Immediate Action
would be alot clearer if it was Immediate Swift Action, which then leaves the door open for Immediate Free Step, Immediate Partial (Standard) Action, etc, all using the same base rules & logic (giving up the equivalent action on your next turn)
Charging/Partial Charge:
I agree the wierd rules about this should be clarified.
I think the best strategy would be to define "Charging" as a CONDITION,
which you can CHOOSE any time you're moving the minimum amount.
That makes it easy to do the "Partial Charge" action, and the Full-Round Move Action can include an option to allow a Standard Attack if also "Charging".
Interesting. I could see things like Charging, Running or Total Defense adding Conditions. It could be a way of reminding you that your did something on your turn that makes you vulnerable or less vulnerable for things like Total Defense. Maybe standardize the terms as giving your self the 'Vulnerable' Condition or 'Defensive' Condition? The Vulnerable Condition could then be universally applied to Charging, Running, and Raging...? Same for things like Blinded and Cowering..? Don't they all give you -2 to AC?
[re: "Partial Action"
I think that terminology should be used itself, and would be a game term covering Standard Action Casting and Standard Attacks - Which if now potentially Iterative (less than Full Attack), make more sense to be called Partial Attack Actions. Swift/ Partial/ Full seems to make sense.
I have never liked the term Standard action but I am not sure I like the term Partial Action either. It is Full-Round not a Full Action. I think of it as 'if you take up your Full-Round, you get something extra'.
re: 5' Step
If you want to use a Double Move to move 10' without AoO's, I don't believe there's anything stopping you from using a Withdraw Action to do so (you're not forced to move the entire distance, for instance if there is a cliff). And obviously if you only need to move 5', you always can move 5' without provoking AoO's.
The only change I'd really like to see is just changing the name: "5' Step" as a specific game term is too easily confused with the simple reference to moving between two adjacent squares (part of ANY Movement Action).
"Free Step" could be better...?
I could see a better term but for backward compatibility reasons I think you want to keep the term the same. Withdrawl only makes the first 5' without AoO. So if you want two 5' Steps without AoO you can not use Withdrawl. In combat, the advantage would be taking two 5' Steps to maneuaver all the way around an opponent or maybe move between two opponents but in return you sacrifice all attacks.
as well, I think the term for Immediate Action
would be alot clearer if it was Immediate Swift Action, which then leaves the door open for Immediate Free Step, Immediate Partial (Standard) Action, etc, all using the same base rules & logic (giving up the equivalent action on your next turn)
I agree that 'Immediate Swift Action' is a better term. Likewise, AoO are really just an 'Immediate Melee Attack" (I am not recommending a term change but that is what it is.) And there is a feat that has been added that would allow an 'Immediate 5' Step' to follow an opponent. If we define the Move Action as 5' Step, we can then abbreviate its use. And Ready Action is really Readying an 'Immediate Standard Action'. (Again, I am not recommending a term change but that is what it is.) And AoO should be added under Immediate Actions on Table 9-2. Do you give up an action on your turn when you use an Immediate Action?
My thread ain't getting no love. It was a good topic last time it was brought up during the wrong playtest session. At least somebody tell me why it is a bad idea! I should have given this thread a sexier title.
Also the Move Action - Pass An Item thread is related. It also suggests using a non-magical Immediate Swift Action.
Also the Opening A Door- Move Action? is related. It also suggests using a non-magial Immediate Swift Action.
Don't worry if everyone isn't biting:
if you bring up a good point and Jason reads it, that's all that matters.
(and God does not always make his presense known in the world... ;-) )
anyhow, re: Charging/ Conditions
I think Charging is ripe for simplification in this way, and "hypothetically" EVERYTHING could be re-worked, but realistically "If it ain't broke don't fix it". I.e. Total Defense is a Full-Round Action, and though it basically IS adding a Condition that affects you until your next Turn, I don't think we need to necessarily describe the Action and the Condition separately in two places.
re: 5' Step/ "Free Step"
This isn't a Backwards-compatability issue: "5' Step" isn't in Stat Blocks (at least not Core-rules based ones).
If there is a Feat or ability granting a free "5' Step" (which is a vague term, obviously),
I think anyone who could decipher that vagueness in the first place can make the leap to know that the exact same thing is now called by a less vague name. 3.5 Statblocks usually include a "Grapple" number, while Pathfinder (currently) uses a CMB number, for an example that is LESS backwards compatable than a simple name-change.
re: Immediate Actions
I DON'T think a 5' Step/ "Free Step" is a "Move Action", but Immediate Free Step sounds valid.
AoO's should NOT be described with this nomenclature, since they're NOT supposed to consume your next attacks (which would suck if you have Combat Reflexes), and the point of using a unified game term is that all the Immediate Action Types work the exact same.
re: Attack of Opportunity
This IS a very vaguely defined type of action.
It can be said to be an attack roll or attack, but it isn't really a Standard Attack Action (though functionally similar)
Though it's slightly confusing, I think AoO's could actually be defined to be PART OF THE ACTION THEY ARE TRIGGERED BY, really just like a Free Step is part of another action.
anyhow, re: Charging/ Conditions
I think Charging is ripe for simplification in this way, and "hypothetically" EVERYTHING could be re-worked, but realistically "If it ain't broke don't fix it". I.e. Total Defense is a Full-Round Action, and though it basically IS adding a Condition that affects you until your next Turn, I don't think we need to necessarily describe the Action and the Condition separately in two places.
I like Conditions since you can define them once. Then refer to them latter and put a marker on the game table. Just how my brain works but certainly not that important.
re: 5' Step/ "Free Step"
This isn't a Backwards-compatability issue: "5' Step" isn't in Stat Blocks (at least not Core-rules based ones).
If there is a Feat or ability granting a free "5' Step" (which is a vague term, obviously),
I think anyone who could decipher that vagueness in the first place can make the leap to know that the exact same thing is now called by a less vague name. 3.5 Statblocks usually include a "Grapple" number, while Pathfinder (currently) uses a CMB number, for an example that is LESS backwards compatable than a simple name-change.
I want the 5' Step as a Move Action so it can be used in different situations. Retreat. Moving into combat and then (rather than attacking) moving 5' without an AoO. Moving around the battlefield. Stuff like that. I don't only want it to be in conjunction with a Full-Round Action even though that was when it was created. Simply put, combat ties you to a square unless you suffer a AoO or you use a Full-Round Action so you can take a 5' Step. I don't want to call it "Free" since it is not always free the way I want to use it.
re: Immediate Actions
I DON'T think a 5' Step/ "Free Step" is a "Move Action", but Immediate Free Step sounds valid.
AoO's should NOT be described with this nomenclature, since they're NOT supposed to consume your next attacks (which would suck if you have Combat Reflexes), and the point of using a unified game term is that all the Immediate Action Types work the exact same.
I need to figure out when an Immediate Action affects your next round. Does it always take away your Swift Action in your next round?
I like Conditions since you can define them once. Then refer to them latter and put a marker on the game table. Just how my brain works but certainly not that important.
Sure, I agree, that's an Optimal way to structure the rules GENERALLY, but there's also other considerations in designing a Rule Book, such as how splitting up an Action into an Action and a Condition affects word-count/page space and readability (since Conditions are in their own Glossary Section).
I want the 5' Step as a Move Action so it can be used in different situations. Retreat...
I forgot to respond to your concern about Withdraw, but I believe in it's current usage you avoid ALL Movement-provoked AoO's from THE FIRST OPPONENT (since it's all one Action). I'm not 100% certain on this, and don't want to look it up now, but if NOT, it SHOULD work like that :-)
I just don't think if the idea is to better define Action Types to say that something is one type of Action when you do this, and another type when you do something else. "Free Step" when you don't take any other Movement (not only w/ Full-Round Actions) seems to work well.re: Immediate Actions
That's exactly how they work: Immediate Action "consumes" your next Swift Action.
(If you want to use an Immediate Action ON your turn, it can use THAT turn's Swift Action OR next turns')
I want the 5' Step as a Move Action so it can be used in different situations. Retreat...
I forgot to respond to your concern about Withdraw, but I believe in it's current usage you avoid ALL Movement-provoked AoO's from THE FIRST OPPONENT (since it's all one Action). I'm not 100% certain on this, and don't want to look it up now, but if NOT, it SHOULD work like that :-)
Quote from PfRPG Withdrawl. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. [Emphasis Mine]
This makes sense. Else, with your understanding, you could use Withdrawl to dance around your opponents.