View Full Version : [Houserule] Would this break the system?

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-08, 08:47 AM
There is a houserule that I have been tossing around for awhile wondering if I should implement it. The problem is that it does have the potential to really break the game. This idea originally came about when I was thinking about designing a different D20 combat system that allowed more tactical movement but retained the same combat effectiveness (i.e. full attacks). Basically I created 4 layers of action rather than the 3 in normal D20 (full round, standard/move, and free). The four layers were simply full-round, half, quarter and free. A standard or move action is a quarter action and a most D20 full round actions became half actions. Basically, a standard attack takes a quarter action, a D20 full round attack or maneuver (grappling and such) takes a half action. Spells however are mostly half actions and full round actions stay full round actions. There are also some limits, such as you cannot take more than 2 attack actions or cast more than 1 spell per turn (quickened spell allows for a second spell).

So, would this break the game? With the limit in place of no more than two attacks per round it might not be too powerful, alternately the rule could be no more than a half-action equivalent attack or maneuver thus you get one D20 full-round action or 2 standard action attacks plus 2 move actions of movement or other maneuvers. I also would add in universal stances that take up a quarter action, mostly to do with shields, kind of like using a tower shield as cover, but not that powerful. Basically stances would be defensive parry (you must have a one-handed or two-handed weapon and you gain +2 AC), block (50% shield AC as DR X/-), feint, aggressive shield play (lose shield bonus to AC, but gain it to attack), etc.

So, what do you guys think, does it sound interesting and plausible or would it break the game and/or make combat too complex?

2008-09-08, 09:17 AM
Off-hand, I'd say... probably. Unless you're playing with people who don't tend to optimize, your first combat featuring a full caster is going to show you how broken that is. Especially at high-level.

However, low level play with no batmen or CoDzillas or ToB types.... it'll work for a bit.

Once you hit CR 8 or so, this will favor the bad guys heavily. They just do too much damage for average characters to hold out that long.

Meh.. I wouldn't use it, but your situation might be different.


2008-09-08, 09:21 AM
Spells however are mostly half actions

2 spells per turn (quickened spell supersedes this rule).

So, would this break the game?

Yes. Sorry. But yes. After about level 9/10 or so, when Spells Per Day limitations become increasingly irrelevant.

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-08, 09:51 AM
Oops, I did not mean to say 2 spells per turn, it would be 1 spell per turn unless you used Quicken which I might change to more of an "extra spell per turn" ability while not actually shortening the casting time.

2008-09-08, 10:01 AM
I've been in favor or making nearly every spell in 3.5 a full round action to cast (unless it's a longer casting time, in which case I'll keep that), so naturally, I think this is a bad idea.

2008-09-08, 10:03 AM
Ok. So you've just doubled actions/round, thereby making D&D even more rocket launcher tag. :smallconfused:

On a serious note:

Why the limit on attacks/rnd?
How does haste work under this system?
How do swift and immediate actions work under this system?

If you have the time and inclination, please walk us through a single round of combat under this system with a) a melee fighter, b) a batman wizard, and c) a grappler monk, just to demonstrate the differences to the Core mechanics. Preferred character level is 5 or 10, rather than a lvl 20 b******t build.

2008-09-08, 10:38 AM
Well, that sounds better... but you could just give every melee character pounce after a certain level and you'd accomplish virtually the same thing with less overhaul.

Or let people use a Swift Action with a Charge to pounce. Etc. Something like that.