The Original Rule, for reference.
In a single round of combat, you can perform:
A) 1 Standard Action and 1 Move Action,
B) 2 Move Actions, or
C) 1 Full-round Action.
Homebrew Rule
At levels 1-5, in a standard round, you can perform actions in the same fashion as the original rules.
At levels 6-10, in a single round, you can perform:
A) 1 Standard Action and 2 Move Action,
B) 3 Move Actions, or
C) 1 Full-round Action and 1 Move Action.
At levels 11-15, in a single round, you can perform:
A) 2 Standard Action and 2 Move Action,
B) 4 Move Actions, or
C) 2 Full-round Action and 1 Move Action.
At levels 16-20, in a single round, you can perform:
A) 2 Standard Action and 3 Move Action,
B) 5 Move Actions, or
C) 2 Full-round Action and 2 Move Action.
Monsters' actions per round would be based off CR and follow the tier structure.
Thoughts?
The number of Swift/ Immediate Actions you can perform per round also increases with your level, although at a slower rate:
Level 1-10: 1 Swift (or Immediate) Action per round.
Level 11-20: 2 Swift (or Immediate) Actions per round.
Combat will get a whole lot deadlier. It already is a game of rocket tag at mid to high levels, its going to be more so. Imagine a dragon ALWAYS getting to full attack. Goodnight moon...at highlevel 2 full attacks in one turn? I cant even conceieve of either a character or a level appropriate monster that would be likely to survive something like that if they were low on the initiative track.
Combat will get a whole lot deadlier.
The concept was designed to make combat a whole lot FASTER at higher level. If, as a consequence, that gives a measurable advantage to those with high initiatives, then it only justifies the value of a well maintained initiative score.
The CR 12 dragon from your scenario would have the same chance to hit as before (as is hit modifiers haven't changed), he would just have twice as many attempt as before. Then again, so would the level 12 fighter who is trying to slay him.
It is not designed to increase anyone's ability to hit or do damage, only to increase the number of time someone can try.
Unless I'm totally wrong, Ha,
|
what about using hero points for extra actions?
you could distribute one per character per game per 'tier' (no banking - use 'em!).
(maybe you have to roll initiative for the extra action separately?)
otherwise, by 'faster' do you mean faster for the players or for the player characters?
because, if everyone basically gets 1.5 or 2 rounds worth of stuff on their turn, initiative becomes too decisive (as Kolokotroni pointed out). then, if you try to correct this by rolling initiative twice each, the 6-second round essentially becomes a 3-second round, and spell/ability durations are effectively doubled. this might actually make combat take longer for the players while the player characters move a double speed in-game.
if it is worth the sacrifice to introduce more 'chaos' into a fight, then i say full steam ahead. that, or re-introduce the 2E "declarative-initiative" paradigm of combat-time.
...
ps. assuming you stick to your guns, consider instead (for simplicity):
1-5 : normal
6-10: extra move or swift
11-15: extra move and swift
16+: extra standard (too)
I see it as this, as you advance in levels your character become quicker and more strategic in combat, meaning that where a 5th level character could only accomplish one standard action in six seconds, a 16th level character could accomplish two standard actions in six seconds. Its about expertise.
Thus, there would be no need for a second initiative to correct it, because the initiative imbalance is a consequence of superior abilities and training. That's life.
I'm not so sure about other trades but as a programmer those who I'd consider on the far upper tier of things do things not necessarily faster but more efficiently and more correctly. I'm not saying your idea is wrong in any way but if you're comparing it to life that's my take on it.
do things not necessarily faster but more efficiently and more correctly.
I would agree with that statement, and according to Webster's, efficient is defined as "performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable"
Thus, efficient can be a synonym for fast, but fast cannot always be a synonym for efficient. I apologize for the semantically mix up.
Regardless of that, I am curious if my house rule rewards characters' dedication and efficiency, or does it break the game beyond repair?
To be honest, it pretty well breaks the game. The game assumes you only get a full attack if you don't move or take other actions. Usually, depending on the enemy, this can be very difficult at higher levels unless a class ability or a feat lets you move and full attack. Automatically granting it is huge and will tripple the DPR of almost everything out there. Think about how it'd work with things like cleave and spring attack.
Automatically granting it is huge and will tripple the DPR of almost everything out there.
This is the part I'm struggling to understand.
Yes, it would increase the chance of DPR (double it at 11+, actually). But as you stated yourself, it would affect almost everything. More exactly, it would literally affect everything. I could see it giving a slight advantage to high initiative characters or non-casters classes or monster roles, but couldn't it be argued (and I know it has) that there was an imbalance between casters and non-casters to begin with. Not that I set out to balance that debate.
I guess what I'm trying to argue is, if everyone (PCs and NPCs alike, casters and non-casters) is effected (given a high chance of DPR), then doesn't it balance itself out. Its an even field.
Certainly it would make everyone more deadly, but I do not see it giving a distinct advantage to any one group.
Unless, again, I am totally off point... haha
But that's unfair
People who roll high on weight at character creation would be automatically better
Automatically granting it is huge and will tripple the DPR of almost everything out there.This is the part I'm struggling to understand.
Yes, it would increase the chance of DPR (double it at 11+, actually). But as you stated yourself, it would affect almost everything. More exactly, it would literally affect everything. I could see it giving a slight advantage to high initiative characters or non-casters classes or monster roles, but couldn't it be argued (and I know it has) that there was an imbalance between casters and non-casters to begin with. Not that I set out to balance that debate.
I guess what I'm trying to argue is, if everyone (PCs and NPCs alike, casters and non-casters) is effected (given a high chance of DPR), then doesn't it balance itself out. Its an even field.
Certainly it would make everyone more deadly, but I do not see it giving a distinct advantage to any one group.
Unless, again, I am totally off point... haha
It has to do with the nature of the game, and full attacks. A dragon will normally have to move to you, attack once. Then your character has an opportunity to do something (like flee or buff or fight back). Only then on the next turn does the dragon get to full attack.
In your system, a high cr dragon could swoop down, and full attack twice before anyone in the party has gotten to do a thing. I doesnt matter if the fighter would have also been able to full attack twice, he's already dead and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
And the reverse is true. The big bad guy and his 2 minions lose initiative, party goes first. Sorceror double fireballs the room, minions gone, the cleric casts 2 buffs, fighter and the rogue both move to and double full attack the big bad guy. Fight over, or nealy over.
Initiative is important, especially at high levels, this makes it beyond important, but almost the complete determining factor of an encounter. Lose initiative, lose a character or two in the opening moments of a fight.
Automatically granting it is huge and will tripple the DPR of almost everything out there.This is the part I'm struggling to understand.
Yes, it would increase the chance of DPR (double it at 11+, actually). But as you stated yourself, it would affect almost everything. More exactly, it would literally affect everything. I could see it giving a slight advantage to high initiative characters or non-casters classes or monster roles, but couldn't it be argued (and I know it has) that there was an imbalance between casters and non-casters to begin with. Not that I set out to balance that debate.
I guess what I'm trying to argue is, if everyone (PCs and NPCs alike, casters and non-casters) is effected (given a high chance of DPR), then doesn't it balance itself out. Its an even field.
Certainly it would make everyone more deadly, but I do not see it giving a distinct advantage to any one group.
Unless, again, I am totally off point... haha
It has to do with the nature of the game, and full attacks. A dragon will normally have to move to you, attack once. Then your character has an opportunity to do something (like flee or buff or fight back). Only then on the next turn does the dragon get to full attack.
In your system, a high cr dragon could swoop down, and full attack twice before anyone in the party has gotten to do a thing. It doesn't matter if the fighter would have also been able to full attack twice, he's already dead and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
And the reverse is true. The big bad guy and his 2 minions lose initiative, party goes first. Sorcerer double fireballs the room, minions gone, the cleric casts 2 buffs, fighter and the rogue both move to and double full attack the big bad guy. Fight over, or nearly over.
Initiative is important, especially at high levels, this makes it beyond important, but almost the complete determining factor of an encounter. Lose initiative, lose a character or two in the...
all this plus that sorcerers fireballs are both maximized now that he has less to fear from metamagic, or one of their spellcasters could do a debuff then a save or die. Of course i know where you are coming from. I tried something similar once with granting an extra move action at level 10 for one campaign, it significantly affected the balance of the game. PCs were getting raped by low level enemies and doing far too well against enemies they were supposed to be challenged by. sadly it ended being alot of the former and just enough of the later to be annoying.
The other downside is that people's turns are going to take longer as they have more actions to resolve, so players will have to wait longer for their turn.
Your stated goal is to make combat faster, but it won't in a real time sense as you are just compacting actions that would happen in later rounds into earlier rounds. So while combats would only last 1 or 2 rounds instead of 3 or 4 each of those rounds will take twice as long to resolve.
People's turns may take even longer than just the time needed to resolve all the actions, as the potential combinations of actions and the possibilities involved could very well lead to decision paralysis.
In addition, as mentioned above, you will greatly increase the nature of high level rocket tag play and put primacy on initiative and being the aggressor in all encounters. Spells that allow you to get the jump on your opponents will double in effectiveness and they are already the most effective things in the game. Certain combinations will become possible that the game is not meant to support.
This is a bad rule from a game design and balance stand point. However if you and your players think it will be fun have at it! Once you have played with these rules come back and let us know how it went for you.
It appears the major concern is allowing two full-round actions. Honestly, that wasn't in the original design of the house rule, so I was never all that attached to it. How about this alternative?
At levels 6-10, in a single round, you can perform:
A) 1 Standard Action and 2 Move Action,
B) 3 Move Actions, or
C) 1 Full-round Action and 1 Move Action.
At levels 11-15, in a single round, you can perform:
A) 2 Standard Action and 2 Move Action,
B) 4 Move Actions, or
C) 1 Full-round Action and 1 Move Action.
At levels 16-20, in a single round, you can perform:
A) 2 Standard Action and 3 Move Action,
B) 5 Move Actions, or
C) 1 Full-round Action and 2 Move Action.
So, at 6th and 16th level, you get an addition move action per round. At 11th level, you get an addition standard action per round.
Better?
Perhaps a rule stating the two standards actions cannot be consecutive? As well as apply a penalty to any second "standard round casting time" spells used during a round?
Would that help?
I don't think this concept is viable from a rules or balance perspective. The game is based around action economy and things that increase that skew the game. I used hero points in one game and that was an extra move or standard (as well as other things) on occasion and that noticeably affected the game. I would not use these rules myself and wouldn't recommend them to others because of the balance concerns in this general of an application.
On a limited basis to make single monster encounters more exciting something like this could possibly work, but even in a limited application there are tons of possible ways it could fall apart.
If it is something that you and your players think would be fun, go for it. However, I don't see any way that this won't cause balance and unintended rules issues, but if this creates interesting encounters for you and your players then it may be worth exploring.