I finally have my PU copy, and I've been looking over this new action economy- I love it. Yeah, it seems to favor martials, and, a lot classes have their asses' chapped to some degree, but it really, makes things run smoother, and more cinematic.
Plus, it is GREAT for starting a campaign with newer players.
I'm not a fan or trimming the fat, for the sake of it if you lose too much depth, but, in this case, the pros outweigh the cons. Excellent job Paizo!
I know you posted a Huge spoiler part of you revision but is there a link or Google Doc that I missed the link for?
Unfortunately not yet. I have it formatted for the messageboards right now. Once I have it all done, though, I'll post a Dropbox link along with the spoiler on a separate thread.
Thanks for the write-up Puna. It'll certainly be useful.
Ok sounds good, I just thought I was missing something and I wanted to be included. I also heard you were making cookies?
Is that true? ;)
You're always included! And yes, cookies are coming, but I have to go to work first.
And no problem Threeshades. If anything seems weird let me know. I have added Porridge's suggestions for natural attacks to my main document.
Sorry if this has already been answered- long thread...
The sidebar that addresses Flurry of Blows, I'm assuming has the standard monk in mind- as far as the Unchained Monk goes, at first level, can they make 2 attacks at their FULL BAB, with it only counting as 1 act?
That would be a mighty boost under the new AE, considering, that they could attack 2 more times with the usual penalties, or combine it all with moving.
Sorry if this has already been answered- long thread...
The sidebar that addresses Flurry of Blows, I'm assuming has the standard monk in mind- as far as the Unchained Monk goes, at first level, can they make 2 attacks at their FULL BAB, with it only counting as 1 act?
That would be a mighty boost under the new AE, considering, that they could attack 2 more times with the usual penalties, or combine it all with moving.
I went over that in the first half of my big RAE Houserules write-up. For the Unchained monk I gave one extra action at full BAB each turn that has to be an attack action consisting of: unarmed attack; monk weapon attack; combat maneuver. It may seem like that's a ton, but a very strong monk will still only be hitting for probably somewhere in the ballpark of 1d6 + 4 (6 with Power Attack), while an equally strong barbarian with rage and a greatsword can do 2d6 + 11, at least. Similarly, a human rogue can easily suit up with two shortswords, improved feint, and two-weapon fighting and still pull out 2d6 + str (sneak attack) on each hit.
So it's really not that nutty, especially considering that the monk as it stands even with Unchained is still relatively weak compared to other full martial classes. This goes a long way towards helping boost up the class and make lots of attacks each round its thing.
I just tried the PRAE system out for the first time in an actual game, and it went very well. There was a tangible relief among the players at not having to try to awkwardly set things up in order to get full attacks all the time.
Some suggested above that this system would boost monsters with single big attacks, and I found that to be true. But nothing game breaking; just something I (and the players) need to learn to adjust for when creating (and engaging in) encounters.
The only real hiccup came when the party cast Slow on a group of opponents which included enemy spellcasters. Taking the staggered condition to only allow one simple act per turn meant that they could no longer cast any spells(!). (Including spells that would remove the staggered condition!) So we agreed to change the staggered condition so that it allowed 2-simple-acts-worth of actions a turn.
You keep saying that, Mr. Pitt, but a lot of people are actually playing it and enjoying it.
The new action economy system cannot work within the RAW. Too much of the game, classes, and rules are based on the swift/standard action economy. There needs to be a ton of house ruling to import this into PF as it stands unless you want to decimate a ton of class options.
Of course, then everyone can just argue about the appropriate house rules to determine if the true purpose of a new action economy system is a smoother more interesting tactical game or just to nerf casting classes.
The point is importing this system into PF RAW is impossible due to the number of ambiguities and questions which arise and the harm it does to a number of classes which depend on swift actions to make the class run adequately.
The big issue there is that the new action system was written as an optional experimental system, not a full system rewrite that was expected to work with all the pre-existing material. I'm sure if we see it printed officially again (which we very well might given the apparent positive reception it's been getting in this thread) that most of those issues would be ironed out. After all, it's mostly just a matter of taking the time to make the adjustments; for an experimental system, it wasn't really worth the time to go through every class and make necessary adjustments, but if we do see it again, it will have proven itself to be worth that effort.
There would still be classes that would lose and classes that would win, but most of the ambiguities present in this iteration would likely have been dealt with. The real question is whether people would like the official adjustments, and as the discussion that revolved around the magus shows, they will never likely get an unanamious agreement no matter what they do in that regard.
im not sure how having more flexible options in combat (barring magus SC+SS all day and the poor, poor mounted cavalier) detracts from player choice and freedom.
I mean oh nooooo, mages cant move before/after/between their quickened+normal spells (which affect the field as a whole far greater than the swing (or two) of a sword) anymore, or kite martials to oblivion and back with class abilities+spells+5footsteps, what a staggering design oversight.
truly, their vast magical might is rendered completely meaningless by having to pick what they're doing that turn, instead of simply doing everything at once and laughing at those who try to stop them. and that fighter is FAR too happy with being able to be mobile AND contribute to combat--cant have the peasants getting uppity after all, so somebody should put a stop to that.
(not aimed solely at mr. pitt btw, more anyone who cries 'but what about the casters?' in a system where they stand head and shoulders above everyone, and fight tooth and nail saying that the few martials that can maybe-possibly-perhaps stand up to them are somehow overpowered)
Thanks Puna and Epic, for the feedback.
So, RAW in the sidebar is meant to completely replace the version of Flurry of Blows as written, in either version?
That must be what the developers intended, because the levels in the sidebar, for gaining additional attacks, do not line up with the levels for gaining additional flurry attacks on either version, under the old AE.
The sidebar version, grants more additional flurry attacks(1st,8th, and 15 level) than the old Action Economy Unchained monk(which is only at 1st and 11th level), but the sidebar attacks are at a -2. The question being, does the sidebar balance out, the lost full BAB?
The RAW in the sidebar, however does not address, the spending of a Ki point, to make a further flurry attack. The Unchained Monk lists this attack a full BAB, but I'm pretty sure, it's implied it would also be at the same -2, for a flurry attack as written in the sidebar. You'd also be spending an act, to dip into the Ki pool (formerly a swift action).
I can see why players like Puna, would house rule this. I think I'm going to try out RAW, before thinking about going home brew.
So I've been thinking about how to incorporate Path of War with the new action economy. A lot of things seem pretty straightforward to me. Swift- and move action maneuvers will be one act, full-round maneuvers will be 3 acts. But the standard action ones, I'm not sure about.
On the one hand the PoW system exists so martials can do cool things while still being mobile, so you would think it should be 1 act, on the other hand the maneuvers are designed to replace full-attacks so 2 acts would seem appropriate in that light.
|
I'm still fighting with the spring attack style feats (fly by, ride by, etc). I think I'll trial it as 2 actions. I think while it still costs the same effective number of actions as a move/attack combo, the benefit being able to attack at any point is a worthwhile bonus. Rather then move > attack or attack > move it presents the same option as before, you can move 15', attack and keep moving another 15' (assuming a speed of 30) and still leaves you an action afterwards. I toyed with the idea of the movement not provoking any AoO from anyone, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. It creates cinematic scenes with fighters bouncing through the horde to their target but is it too powerful? Enviably with say ride-by or fly-by which would effectively allow a mount or, say, dragon to duck weave through the hordes, dodging their attacks and striking at its chosen foe. Actually maybe it would be fine? Thoughts?
I decided to simply make Spring Attack a 2-act action, I think that's enough.
For ride-by i decided to basically leave it unchanged, except for the bit where it says "Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed." I would change it to "Your total movement for the charge action can't exceed double your mounted speed."
As for flyby attack, I would change the text to "When flying, the creature can take a move action and another action costing no more than 2 acts at any point during the move." and remove the last sentence.
You keep saying that, Mr. Pitt, but a lot of people are actually playing it and enjoying it.Yes, but those people are also ignoring the downsides inevitable in this sort of system and that downside is player choice and freedom. I believe more people are driven to praise a new system that they love and I guess I just want Paizo and the community to be aware that simplifying action economy may not be great over all and may only sound good in the anecdotal circumstances being provided.
I definitely don't see how this system can be imported without massive house-ruling. No one has explained how that is possible. And once it becomes a matter of that the system gets messy and I am sure we'll all have very different opinions on the application of such house rules.
The whole book is about house rules and the side bars are all about.
I just tried the PRAE system out for the first time in an actual game, and it went very well. There was a tangible relief among the players at not having to try to awkwardly set things up in order to get full attacks all the time.
Some suggested above that this system would boost monsters with single big attacks, and I found that to be true. But nothing game breaking; just something I (and the players) need to learn to adjust for when creating (and engaging in) encounters.
The only real hiccup came when the party cast Slow on a group of opponents which included enemy spellcasters. Taking the staggered condition to only allow one simple act per turn meant that they could no longer cast any spells(!). (Including spells that would remove the staggered condition!) So we agreed to change the staggered condition so that it allowed 2-simple-acts-worth of actions a turn.
I have noticed that too, with the monsters. I think that's adequately cinematic for those sorts of encounters though, and it becomes about sicking the biggest dude against the biggest monster while everyone else runs away or tries their hardest to dodge. I usually try to limit those to one or maybe two as an encounter.
Slow, in my opinion, should be changed, rather than the staggered condition. Haste only gives one extra attack action now, so slow should just reduce creatures to 2 actions per turn rather than give them a condition. It's a nerf within the PRAE, but works like it does outside of the new AE. It's a slight buff in that it can't be removed with things that remove staggered, but that's alright. If you'd like, you could have effects that remove staggered dispel slow as well.
As for Spring-Attack, I'm making it 1 action to move and make an attack at any point during the move, once per turn. I figure the investment of three feats is adequate for that kind of ability. It typically comes online around level 5, which is when wizards can fly and turn invisible and cast haste and slow and other great things that make the game a totally different world. But I suppose it depends on how you want Spring-Attack to work in your games more than anything.
This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.
Then again, is that really a bad thing?
As an ardent fan of Vital Strike, yes it is a bad thing. Not because of power/balance but in design: vital strike is a one-hit per round concept, and this interpretation would dismantle this.
It needs some house ruling either way.
Example:
Vital Strike
When you attempt only a single attack per turn you may add your main damage modifier attribute on the attack once again (2-2.1/2 instead of 1-1.1/2). Any ability allowing to substitute strength for damage benefits from this feat (such as slashing grace).
Could make it cost 2 actions.
Slow, in my opinion, should be changed, rather than the staggered condition. Haste only gives one extra attack action now, so slow should just reduce creatures to 2 actions per turn rather than give them a condition. It's a nerf within the PRAE, but works like it does outside of the new AE. It's a slight buff in that it can't be removed with things that remove staggered, but that's alright. If you'd like, you could have effects that remove staggered dispel slow as well.
I went a slightly different route on conditions, I apply them a action subtractions that don't stack with themselves. So for example staggered is -1 action, stunned/daze is -3 actions, nauseated is -2 actions with a limit to only moves for remaining actions, paralyzed is unable to commit acts to physical actions, and etc.
This was a future proofing move to give more leeway and design space. So they can combo together on more powerful monsters, or alleviate conditions on themselves if they have bonus actions.
This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.
Then again, is that really a bad thing?
Vital Strike is in a weird space, it's either awesome or terrible. At 1 act it's very good but at 2 acts it's trash again. I've left it at 1 act for now to see if it causes any problems. Thing is two-weapon fighting is it's competition and TWF is still much better than it in most cases.
This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.
Then again, is that really a bad thing?
at 1 action it ends up being the melee equivalent of TWF, with no accuracy penalty, that benefits from 2H damage/powerattack, that only gets scarier the bigger your weapon is (ranging from equivalent to weapon spec+greater to FAR better).
seems at 1 action vital strike would become a must-have that any martial would be silly not to take. now there's some words i never expected to say.
edit: but then again, it and twf ARE really nice options with this system--there's no arguing that. so having an equivalent there to allow folks to stick to a single weapon seems neat.
Vital Strike is in a weird space, it's either awesome or terrible. At 1 act it's very good but at 2 acts it's trash again. I've left it at 1 act for now to see if it causes any problems. Thing is two-weapon fighting is it's competition and TWF is still much better than it in most cases.This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.
Then again, is that really a bad thing?
I've left it at one action but working only on the first attack each round. Then Improved lets you double the second attack, and Greater the third. But yeah, it's in a weird place precisely because it's designed as a patch on the old system.
So, RAW in the sidebar is meant to completely replace the version of Flurry of Blows as written, in either version?
FWIW, I read the sidebar discussion of flurry (RAW) as only applying to the original Monk. (Indeed, it's likely that this section was written before they'd decided how to treat the unchained Monk's flurry.) The discussion presupposes a number of things that are false w.r.t. the unchained monk.
So, RAW, I take the unchained Monk's flurry to have the same status as Multishot---namely, not determined by (or even easily inferrable from) what's said in the text.
Re: the ki point and simple act in order to make another simple attack: RAW, that is how it goes. (It is at full BAB instead of -5, so you do get *something*.) But no, it doesn't really seem to be what was intended. So a reasonable thing to house rule.
Vital Strike is in a weird space, it's either awesome or terrible. At 1 act it's very good but at 2 acts it's trash again. I've left it at 1 act for now to see if it causes any problems. Thing is two-weapon fighting is it's competition and TWF is still much better than it in most cases.This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.
Then again, is that really a bad thing?
Yes it is vexing. Take my design example above, but add the double weapon damage vital strike has.
Fighter two handed Greatsword, level 6. Feats: 2 (thf)
Fighter twf Scimitars, level 6. Feats: 4 (2wf)
Fighter one handed Longsword, level 6. Feats: 2 (1hf)
Vital Strike thf, level 6. Feats: 3 (vsthf)
Vital Strike 1hf, level 6. Feats: 3 (vs1hf)
Same stats on 18 strength. Same to hit (-2 for twf guy). Double slice, furious focus, when applicable. Weapon training, weapon specialisation, power attack (+6 thf, +4 2wf, +4 1hf).
Thf: 2 attacks, -0, -7 each 2d6+15 (str6+pwa6+ws2+wt1), all hit 4d6+30
Twf: 3 attacks -2,-4,-9 each 1d6+11 (4+4+2+1), two hit 2d6+22, all hit 3d6+33
1hf: 2 attacks, -0,-7 each 1d8+11 (4+4+2+1), all hit 2d8+22
VSthf: 1 attack, -0 each 4d6+19 (6+6+2+1 +4vs main modifier) all hit 4d6+19
VS1hf: 1 sttack, -0 each 2d8+15 (4+4+2+1 +4vs mainmodifier) all hit 2d8+15
So while still behind in damage, it is not as terrible as it currently stands. Note VS builds have a spare move action per turn, 1hf probably have shields and twf has large to hit penalties (unsure if furious focus negates the off hand pwa penalty too, i assumed not).
Under my suggestion above for Vital Strike itd add your main stat damage modifider...so if you use dex itd be x2 dex, or Int (prehensile hair) x2, etc. It's...less crappy. I would consider it combinable with Spring Attack since this feat is lackluster in this system too.
Suggested Vital Strike design for this example:
Vital Strike
Prerequisites: bab +6
When you attempt only a single attack per turn you may add your main damage modifier attribute on the attack once again (2-2.1/2 instead of 1-1.1/2) and roll your base weapon damage twice. Any ability allowing to substitute strength for damage benefits from this feat (such as slashing grace).
Slow, in my opinion, should be changed, rather than the staggered condition. Haste only gives one extra attack action now, so slow should just reduce creatures to 2 actions per turn rather than give them a condition. It's a nerf within the PRAE, but works like it does outside of the new AE. It's a slight buff in that it can't be removed with things that remove staggered, but that's alright. If you'd like, you could have effects that remove staggered dispel slow as well.The only real hiccup came when the party cast Slow on a group of opponents which included enemy spellcasters. Taking the staggered condition to only allow one simple act per turn meant that they could no longer cast any spells(!). (Including spells that would remove the staggered condition!)
Yeah, that sounds good too. As long as it's not the case that a 3rd level spell can effectively remove spell-casting capabilities from a host of enemy spell-casters, we're good!
Yeah, that sounds good too. As long as it's not the case that a 3rd level spell can effectively remove spell-casting capabilities from a host of enemy spell-casters, we're good!Slow, in my opinion, should be changed, rather than the staggered condition. Haste only gives one extra attack action now, so slow should just reduce creatures to 2 actions per turn rather than give them a condition. It's a nerf within the PRAE, but works like it does outside of the new AE. It's a slight buff in that it can't be removed with things that remove staggered, but that's alright. If you'd like, you could have effects that remove staggered dispel slow as well.The only real hiccup came when the party cast Slow on a group of opponents which included enemy spellcasters. Taking the staggered condition to only allow one simple act per turn meant that they could no longer cast any spells(!). (Including spells that would remove the staggered condition!)
...actually, I'm still a bit worried about this. In particular, I'm worried about feats (e.g., Staggering Fist, Shaitan Style Elemental Fist, Monk's Stunning Fist as 12th, Staggering Critical, etc), class abilities (e.g., Swashbuckler's Targeted Strike (torso)), and other spells (e.g., Staggering Fall, Explosion of Rot, Dictum, etc) that can bring about the staggered effect. If all of these can now remove spell-casting (and spell-like abilities), then they become much more powerful. (For example, an enemy spell-caster 1 level higher than a party can open a combat with Dictum, and be guaranteed to remove spell-casting capabilities from the party for 1d4 rounds, even if they all make the save. I could easily see that turning into a quick and virtually inescapable TPK...)
Likewise, a number of enemies who can impose staggering effects (e.g., the Ataxian's ray attack, the Sayona's Staggering Gaze, etc) all become much deadlier, having a good chance of taking out spellcasting (and scroll and wand using, and spell-like abilities...) for several rounds. Even drinking a potion takes 2 simple acts, so drinking potions that might remove the effect becomes impossible too... (In fact, drinking potions of *any* kind becomes impossible...)
That seems like a bit too much to me. Thoughts?
I would leave staggered as analogous to what it does now. Prevents combinations of actions.
What does it allow: any standard any move plus swift/free. Hence I would put it down to this:
On your turn you may only take one type of activity (composed of a maximum of 2 actions), and only once.
This lets you casts spells, attack etc, but only once. Wording could use some cleaning up.
Staggered may just need to restrict to 2 actions, which would weaken the condition significantly. Alternatively, it allows for only one action to be taken, but that action can take up to 2 action units, if that makes sense.
Edit: Ninja'd. I'll make adjustments to the document after work.
I would leave staggered as analogous to what it does now. Prevents combinations of actions.
What does it allow: any standard any move plus swift/free. Hence I would put it down to this:
On your turn you may only take one type of activity (composed of a maximum of 2 actions), and only once.
This lets you casts spells, attack etc, but only once. Wording could use some cleaning up.
Staggered may just need to restrict to 2 actions, which would weaken the condition significantly. Alternatively, it allows for only one action to be taken, but that action can take up to 2 action units, if that makes sense.
Yeah, good. Making staggered consist of 2 actions seems a bit more elegant (no finicky-ness about kinds of actions and so on), while making the staggered condition restrict one to one action worth up to 2 action units better fits the current rules. Either would be fine!
I went a slightly different route on conditions, I apply them a action subtractions that don't stack with themselves. So for example staggered is -1 action, stunned/daze is -3 actions, nauseated is -2 actions with a limit to only moves for remaining actions, paralyzed is unable to commit acts to physical actions, and etc.
Something like that might actually be a nice way to get around some of the irritatingly weird ways in which the current rules treat nauseated. In particular, as it stands, a player who is nauseated, and who has a potion of Remove Sickness in their hand, is forbidden from drinking that potion, no matter how many turns they have to play with. This seems bizarre, since it doesn't seem like nausea should be the kind of thing which forbids one from drinking a potion!
But if one adopted something like the above treatment of "nauseated", and tweaked the add-on clause (perhaps just disallowing attack actions instead of only allowing move actions; or perhaps not adding any restrictions at all), then one has a nice way to get around this unhappy consequence: namely, one *can* drink a potion while nauseated, it just takes two rounds to do so (drinking the potion becoming a continuing act spread over 2 rounds).
Nice! I'm tempted to adopt something like this in my own games.
Can anyone think of any problems/worries with treating nauseated this way?
I went a slightly different route on conditions, I apply them a action subtractions that don't stack with themselves. So for example staggered is -1 action, stunned/daze is -3 actions, nauseated is -2 actions with a limit to only moves for remaining actions, paralyzed is unable to commit acts to physical actions, and etc.Something like that might actually be a nice way to get around some of the irritatingly weird ways in which the current rules treat nauseated. In particular, as it stands, a player who is nauseated, and who has a potion of Remove Sickness in their hand, is forbidden from drinking that potion, no matter how many turns they have to play with. This seems bizarre, since it doesn't seem like nausea should be the kind of thing which forbids one from drinking a potion!
But if one adopted something like the above treatment of "nauseated", and tweaked the add-on clause (perhaps just disallowing attack actions instead of only allowing move actions; or perhaps not adding any restrictions at all), then one has a nice way to get around this unhappy consequence: namely, one *can* drink a potion while nauseated, it just takes two rounds to do so (drinking the potion becoming a continuing act spread over 2 rounds).
Nice! I'm tempted to adopt something like this in my own games.
Can anyone think of any problems/worries with treating nauseated this way?
I think in general a player should be able to complete an action by having it carry over round to round. So if you want to cast two spells in a turn, you kind of could by casting one and starting to cast another one, complete it with one action in the next turn, then still have two actions left. For me, that's perfectly acceptable, even if it could allow for some shenanigans. Or perhaps have that be the effect of a prerequisite feat for Quicken Spell that allows for casting more than one spell in a turn, provided you have the actions for it, which actually could give a sense of progression and let casters actually do stuff besides item crafting/improved initiative with their early level feats.
But drinking a potion, yeah. If you want to attack twice and start drinking a potion in a round then complete it in the next round, that seems alright to me. Since rounds are a unit of time and actions in rounds are subunits of those units of time, why not? The system is meant to be more fluid and efficient, and it could actually give a chance to occasionally interrupt things.
....
Something like that might actually be a nice way to get around some of the irritatingly weird ways in which the current rules treat nauseated. In particular, as it stands, a player who is nauseated, and who has a potion of Remove Sickness in their hand, is forbidden from drinking that potion, no matter how many turns they have to play with. This seems bizarre, since it doesn't seem like nausea should be the kind of thing which forbids one from drinking a potion!......
Have you ever tried to have a drink while you're about to throw up? Nauseated mimics you not coping with your body being uncontrolable from nausea. It is a very strong condition on purpose.
i've let vital strike remain 1 act, it's not that great and requires a ton of feat investment to get the most out of it. TWF is still better, but costs more, so it's fine.
So, RAW in the sidebar is meant to completely replace the version of Flurry of Blows as written, in either version?FWIW, I read the sidebar discussion of flurry (RAW) as only applying to the original Monk. (Indeed, it's likely that this section was written before they'd decided how to treat the unchained Monk's flurry.) The discussion presupposes a number of things that are false w.r.t. the unchained monk.
So, RAW, I take the unchained Monk's flurry to have the same status as Multishot---namely, not determined by (or even easily inferrable from) what's said in the text.
Re: the ki point and simple act in order to make another simple attack: RAW, that is how it goes. (It is at full BAB instead of -5, so you do get *something*.) But no, it doesn't really seem to be what was intended. So a reasonable thing to house rule.
So how does this sound? The Unchained monk, would get 2 attacks using Flurry of Blows at full BAB using 1 act, then at 11th, they could do 3, using full BAB.
Using a Ki point as an act, would ad 1 addiction attack, at full BAB in the Flurry.
That is a hell of a lot of attacks using a single act, (2 if using Ki), considering that in the old AE, a Flurry is a full round thing.
The alternative, which I'm strongly considering for the UC monk, is considering Flurry, as an "Advanced Action", that would require 2 acts, (3 acts, if you spend the act to add Ki, for an additional attack). The tradeoff, of Flurry being 2 act, is that it's full BAB for all attacks.
EDIT: The more I think of it, that second alternative, seems like it would be defeating the purpose of what Flurry is supposed to be...
Two acts for the standard action ones. They can move + maneuver, so they're exactly where they were before. Or maneuver + move/swift maneuver.So I've been thinking about how to incorporate Path of War with the new action economy. A lot of things seem pretty straightforward to me. Swift- and move action maneuvers will be one act, full-round maneuvers will be 3 acts. But the standard action ones, I'm not sure about.
On the one hand the PoW system exists so martials can do cool things while still being mobile, so you would think it should be 1 act, on the other hand the maneuvers are designed to replace full-attacks so 2 acts would seem appropriate in that light.
In relation to themselves, yes, about, but in relation to other martials they actually fall behind in mobility, which was kind of supposed to be the thing about standard action strikes, that they allow you to use your full potential while staying mobile.
I'm thinking maybe using a standard action strike is 1 act, but you aren't allowed to make any additional attack actions in the same turn. That way they remain just as mobile compared to non adept martials, and can still swift boost, move and strike in the same turn.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how does this sound? The Unchained monk, would get 2 attacks using Flurry of Blows at full BAB using 1 act, then at 11th, they could do 3, using full BAB.
Using a Ki point as an act, would ad 1 addiction attack, at full BAB in the Flurry.
That is a hell of a lot of attacks using a single act, (2 if using Ki), considering that in the old AE, a Flurry is a full round thing.
The alternative, which I'm strongly considering for the UC monk, is considering Flurry, as an "Advanced Action", that would require 2 acts, (3 acts, if you spend the act to add Ki, for an additional attack). The tradeoff, of Flurry being 2 act, is that it's full BAB for all attacks.
EDIT: The more I think of it, that second alternative, seems like it would be defeating the purpose of what Flurry is supposed to be...
I agree that the two options you describe are both natural thoughts, and that the first sounds better than the second (since the latter just returns one to the undesirable full attack paradigm, and so ends up encouraging the monk to be *less* mobile than other martials!). I also agree that one simple act yielding 3 attacks (and possibly four with a ki point, if we take that to be free action that adds an extra full BAB attack to one of your simple attack actions) seems like a lot! It would allow the monk to effectively move in, lay down 3/4 attacks, and then move away again, which might strike one as a bit too much.
One thought I played with to mitigate this was having the first bonus flurry attack come during your first simple attack, and the second bonus flurry attack come in during your second simple attack (if you make one), and requiring the extra attack from ki point expenditures (if any) to take place in yet a different simple attack. I.e., don't allow more than 2 attacks during a simple attack action no matter what.
The main con of this approach is that it has the awkward consequence of pairing attacks attacks at different BAB tiers. E.g., in the above example, you'd get the following attacks: Act 1: +0/+0, Act 2: -5/+0, Act 3: -10/+0. Hrmm. Not bad, but a little ugly.
In light of this, I thought Puna's suggestion to just take them to be additional simple attacks was a cool idea. It still spreads out attacks, and so allows nice movement infused turns like: +0 (flurry 1), +0 (flurry 2), move (act 1), +0 (act 2), move (act 3), +0 (ki)). This feels very nice thematically, making the monk the king/queen of mobile combat, even in a system in which all of the martials get more mobile. And it gives the monk a cool special ability that nobody else gets: extra attack actions.
But, of course, RAW doesn't fix what to do here, and there seem to be several viable ways to go. So take your pick! (And if you try one or another of these approaches, please do report on how they went! Very curious to see how these different ideas pan out in practice.)
I think in general a player should be able to complete an action by having it carry over round to round. So if you want to cast two spells in a turn, you kind of could by casting one and starting to cast another one, complete it with one action in the next turn, then still have two actions left. For me, that's perfectly acceptable, even if it could allow for some shenanigans. Or perhaps have that be the effect of a prerequisite feat for Quicken Spell that allows for casting more than one spell in a turn, provided you have the actions for it, which actually could give a sense of...
Nice! Yeah, I like the idea of relaxing the "must fit in one round" mindset, and slimming down the number of finicky rules which constrain the types of actions one can take when.. (Not eliminate such rules entirely, but just cutting down on the amount of action-type tracking and special details regarding conditions one has to keep track of.)
Have you ever tried to have a drink while you're about to throw up? Nauseated mimics you not coping with your body being uncontrolable from nausea. It is a very strong condition on purpose.
Yeah, so one intuitive idea is that what nauseated keeps you from doing are things that require concentration. So you can't, say, attack or cast spells. But you can move (run to the bathroom!) or do simple things (take an anti-nausea pill!) which don't require concentration. (Though even in the latter cases you can't do them as well; you won't be running a 5 min mile while nauseated; thus the reduction in the number of actions you get per turn.)
So that's the picture I had in mind. Now, I grant you that in cases of extreme nausea (like I experienced when I passed a kidney stone) even simple things like that aren't do-able. But the few times I've been too nauseous to be able to take a sip of water have also been times when I've been too nauseous to move at all. So it didn't seem to me that this sort of extreme case was what the nauseated condition was supposed to be tracking. (This sort of extreme case would be more like the helpless condition.)
But hey, different strokes for different folks! From my perspective, this is an awkward corner of the rules that the RAE offers a cool and natural way to avoid. But if you prefer having the nauseated rules work that way, then the RAE rules certainly allow you to do that too!
I've left it at one action but working only on the first attack each round. Then Improved lets you double the second attack, and Greater the third. But yeah, it's in a weird place precisely because it's designed as a patch on the old system.Vital Strike is in a weird space, it's either awesome or terrible. At 1 act it's very good but at 2 acts it's trash again. I've left it at 1 act for now to see if it causes any problems. Thing is two-weapon fighting is it's competition and TWF is still much better than it in most cases.This system seems to make Vital Strike OP. Vital Strike triggers on an attack action, which in this system is specifically a 1 act.
Then again, is that really a bad thing?
this actually seems pretty nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Natural Attacks
A creature that fights with manufactured and natural weapons, may make an additional attack per turn that incurs an additional -5 penalty to hit (-2 if the creature has the multiattack feat) with each natural weapon as part of a simple attack action it uses to attack with the manufactured weapon. It may not make more than one natural attack with each attack action. If the creature is wielding two weapons, it can make its natural attack in addition to both attacks. (for example a creature with a bite and tail slap wielding a greatsword may attack with its greatsword and bite in the first attack action, and with its greatsword and tail slap in the second attack action, and only with its greatsword in the third attack action.)
Feats and Monster special abilities:
Rapid Shot allows the character to make two attacks with a ranged weapon in one simple attack action once per turn. All attacks the character makes this turn incur the -2 penalty to hit.
Vital Strike can only be used if the character does not make more than one other attack action this turn. Improved Vital Strike and Greater Vital Strike can only be used if the character makes no other attack actions this turn.
Using Spring Attack is an advanced action that costs two acts.
Change the second sentence of Ride-by Attack to “Your total movement for the charge action can’t exceed double your mounted speed.”
Change the first sentence of Flyby Attack to “When flying, the creature can take an action with the move subtype and another action that costs two or fewer acts at any point during the move.” and delete the second sentence.
Pounce enables the creature to make a simple attack action as a bonus action directly after a charge. Alternatively the creature may use 3 acts to perform a charge and attack as if using the “Make all natural attacks”-action.
Monk (unchained)
The flurry of blows ability grants the monk additional acts that can only be used for attack actions, and only if the monk attacks exclusively with monk weapons or unarmed strikes this turn. These bonus attacks do not count towards the number of attacks made when calculating the penalty for iterative attacks.
When spending a Ki point to make an additional attack, this attack functions the same way as additional attacks from flurry of blows.
Path of War Martial Maneuvers
Strikes are actions with the attack subtype. The initiator may not make any other attack actions on the same turn they initiate a strike, except for attacks granted as bonus actions, such as from haste.
Initiating a standard action strike is a simple action.
Initiating a full-round action strike that involves a full attack action is an advanced action that costs 3 acts. Instead of a normal full attack the initiator makes three attacks as part of this strike, at the same cumulative penalty as if making three separate simple attack actions and any further attack actions the initator might make this turn also count these attacks when calculating their attack penalty for iterative attacks. Additional attacks granted by the strike itself only incur penalties described in the strike’s rules.
Initiating a full-round action strike that involves a charge is an advanced action with the move subtype that costs 2 acts and uses all rules of the charge action.
Initiating a boost or stance is a simple action.
Counters are initiated as reactions.
It has yet to be tested.
Well, the sources of nausea in Pathfinder tend to be acid, poison, and pain effects. I would imagine that sickened covers feeling crappy and/or not being able to operate at peak effectiveness. Nauseated is an advanced condition, so I think just having it completely shut you down through illness, pain, or something else is appropriate. Additionally, I've been scared before in my life (shaken) but never so scared of something that I've actually felt the need to involuntarily run from it (panic). So it could be the case that nauseated is a condition that most people have never truly felt in their life, and something like it suddenly overtaking you in the middle of combat might have the sorts of effects that it does in Pathfinder under the RAE. But I digress.
I firmly believe that FoB should give an extra attack action. TWF is for combining two attacks into one action, but the kind of flexibility that having an extra attack action (like what haste gives) is something I think the monk class not only needs, but even somewhat deserves. Also, we're not talking about a smiting paladin, or ranger with Favored Enemy, or even a raging barbarian; we're talking monk, and this is their "striker" class ability that inherently, statically increases their output. It's their thing.
I had a player try out a monk for me, and while they were very excited by how much they could do, they didn't do more damage than the barbarian in a round. What they were doing was trying more combat maneuvers and even going after multiple creatures in a round, since they were able to move/attack/move/attack and even follow up on a trip or disarm, since the full-BAB attack made combat maneuvers more reliable. Perhaps it was their build (they were fairly balanced, so as to take advantage of decent Dex and Wisdom), but barbarian was definitely the go-to guy for dropping things, and even the rogue was about on par damage-wise with TWF and Improved Feint.
There are some freaking brilliant folks posting on this thread- Thanks for all the ideas, opinions, and feedback!
Wow. I am impressed by Stephen on this part of Unchained for sure. He managed to cram quite a lot of stuff into one part of a chapter, that basically revolutionizes the game as a whole.
My first glance is love at first sight practically. I feel like this will be the new standard in my games from here on out. It appears to flow much more smoothly, which is sometimes a problem at my table; players asking "what all can i do again?" comes up more often than i'd like to admit.
Definitely a buff to martials, which I can appreciate. Attack, Demoralize, and Aid Another in one round is a possibility, which looks like a lot. But then I'm reminded that enemies can do the same as well. So I'm okay with it.
My first bout with this new gig will involve a delve into the Emerald Spire. Wish my PCs luck!