Our group has recently discussed dividing the combat round in half, due to the fact that a character can due two actions before another can due even one. We are back and forth on trying this due to the cost (in real time) that will be incurred, but seems like it could add some fairness within the combat round itself. I am wondering if anyone out there has tried this, and if they have what were their findings.
How will you handle full-round actions?
It was a full round action that brought this about during our last session.
The party was in combat with two Manticore’s that were flying, and one charged the Wizard ( I as the GM rolled to see which party member would be attacked). Well as it turned out the Manticore and the PC had the same initiative and same dexterity so we had a role off and I (the GM) won. The Manticore was within its double move and so charged and hit the Wizard thus disrupting her spell.
At the end of the session we all sat and talked about a fairer way of handling the combat round. We spoke of the combat with the charging Manticore and the Wizard, and the player stated that because the Manticore did a double move before the Wizard was able to do anything it seemed kind of unfair. So I said what if the Manticore could only move up to half his movement then the Wizard could either cast her spell or due a movement action (if movement allowed take cover). We agreed that that sounded fairer on paper but what would the overall implications be.
Another way we talked about dividing the round in half on a full round action was if a Fighter had three attacks he could take one on his first action and two on the second action.
We as a group our just wondering if this is a viable way to play the game. or if at the end of the day would it break the game itself.
Another way we talked about handling this situation was only do this for the member's that held the same initiative.
I can think of plenty of abuse cases with this.
*Like how will you handle hold actions
*Full-Round Attacking in general become impossible
*Most AoO rulings in general?
*Charging?
*Spellcasters being destroyed due to AoO through Metamagics?
*Aiming Spells.
*Sneaking?(Rouges will walk up with sneak as a move action, person moves away not knowing they are there, Rouge AoO + Sneak dmg, Character still moves away and now has to spend a move action to go try and attack the rouge again)
*The Spring Attack Feat
* Moving in to use AoO skills(with you as the center) and having people walk away
Those are just off the top of my head and im sure there are more. Pathfinder was balanced around the turn based system they made. If the system takes a drastic change like that classes will be massively nerfed and buffed respectively and the balance of the game collapses unless you house rule almost a quarter of the game.
It was a full round action that brought this about during our last session.
The party was in combat with two Manticore’s that were flying, and one charged the Wizard ( I as the GM rolled to see which party member would be attacked). Well as it turned out the Manticore and the PC had the same initiative and same dexterity so we had a role off and I (the GM) won. The Manticore was within its double move and so charged and hit the Wizard thus disrupting her spell.
At the end of the session we all sat and talked about a fairer way of handling the combat round. We spoke of the combat with the charging Manticore and the Wizard, and the player stated that because the Manticore did a double move before the Wizard was able to do anything it seemed kind of unfair. So I said what if the Manticore could only move up to half his movement then the Wizard could either cast her spell or due a movement action (if movement allowed take cover). We agreed that that sounded fairer on paper but what would the overall implications be.
Another way we talked about dividing the round in half on a full round action was if a Fighter had three attacks he could take one on his first action and two on the second action.
We as a group our just wondering if this is a viable way to play the game. or if at the end of the day would it break the game itself.
How did the manticorn disrupt the spell? If it was a Greater then full round action spell then it was the wizards fault for casting it in a place where the manticorn wouldnt be riddled with AoO as it ran up.
If it was before init was throw and you said to throw init as he was casting then it was your fault as the GM. Its up to you to call when init should be rolled and your supposed to roll it before the players have a chance to do stuff like that if it isnt going to be a surprise round.
Initiative had already been thrown, and both side were privy to each others location.
Initiative had already been thrown, and both side were privy to each others location.
Then it was an obvious tactical error. Spellcasters should expect to be singled out, and they should also expect to be well defended by their front linemen. If they stand between the manticorn and the spellcaster then the spellcaster cant be charged(because charge can only be done in a straight line).
Sounds like instead of changing the rules, your players should start trying to work together more or get on the same page.