On the flip side, not being able to move, strike, and retreat is a bit of a disadvantage to the aforementioned rogue, who, in order to maximize movement points, has very little armor to speak of. You gain much less of an advantage from quick movement if after moving and striking you are a sitting duck for the brawny knight you’ve just poked with your dagger.

That said, perhaps the simplicity does make for a more level playing field as I haven’t played it yet and so do not know what the relative class strengths are. Perhaps I’ll try running it both ways a couple of times and see what comes out in the wash as I’m on the fence about which direction I like better, and thanks for the quick response!

Anyway, I’m thinking along the lines of “Keep It Simple, Sacajawea,” and having the 3 actions (Attack, Move, Heal) be independent of one another. No trading down (swap Move for another Heal) and no breaking up (take half a Move, then an Attack, then your other half Move).

Of course, there’s always room for improvement. Maybe I could incorporate the Move Action into the entire round. A combatant with a 6 Move could:

1. Move 2.
2. Heal an ally.
3. Move 2.
4. Attack an enemy.
5. Move 2.

That could work.

Thanks for posting this, I’m looking forward to playing it.

If you do happen to throw down a battle or two, I’d love to hear some feedback. I’ve run it through some paces, but as WotC has proved with all the errata, there’s no such thing as “too much playtesting.”

I can totally see using this at some point in our “youth” game (age 16 and under only for that one). They’re always strutting around comparing hit dice and damage, it’d be a nice way to let their egos fight it out in game-time.