While it seems like making Vital Strike take 2 acts is reasonable, consider this - you can move and make 2 attacks, or you can move and Vital Strike. In the old AE, Vital Strike was said to be a replacement for a boring old standard action for turns when a full attack wasn't possible - however, moving in this system doesn't deprive you of iterative attacks, so the main benefit of the feat is gone. Now only those outlier builds (Cavern Slime Wildshapers, looking at you) can use it effectively for 2 acts. Making VS 2 acts would make it even less powerful / useful than normal.
I understand the hesitation behind 1-act VS though, so consider this alteratiom - VS raises your first attack by 1 damage dice, IVS raises your first and second attacks by 1 damage dice, and GVS improves your first 3 attacks by 1 damage dice. A character with all three feats has the equivalent of GVS, IVS, and VS on their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attacks respectively. While this is still strong it is much more reasonable while making VS usable again and making 2HW builds more competitive again.
Now to figure out a way to make Focused Shot work...
*Shrug*
Some classes win with the new economy, some classes lose. They're exactly as mobile as any other class, since most of the maneuvers should be worth more than a +0/-5 attack sequence.
But really... to be totally frank? If casters don't get to b!*!! about being less mobile, why does Path of War's stuff? Given that the design premise is more or less "martial casters", anything that hurts casters hurts them. That's natural.
The "Swift boost" issue is something about half of the martial classes suffer. Slayer is the easy target in this regard, but it's far from the only one. There has been a lot of discussion on these. Puna'chong's houserules seem to be the popular approach, and his response is making many of them free...
I'm not terribly familiar with PoW (I skipped that part of 3.5, to be honest, as I was mostly doing MtG tours), but from what I hear they have a lot of swift action stuff like stances or modes or whatever, right? I'd say a good litmus is whether they're better than a Slayer's Studied Target (which, spoiler: free action). If they are, they might need to be an action. If not, and if they aren't something that stack or would get big too quickly with a free action, then free is ok, in my opinion.
If an attack is a standard action in the old AE, ask whether it's better than two attacks at +0/-5. If it is, it should stay two actions. If not, and it isn't something that's stupid multiple times in a round, 1 action is cool. It's easy to limit them to first attack/round too, like TWF and my version of Vital Strike and Spring Attack. But, for instance, an Alchemist bomb is a 2 action ability that can upgrade with a talent. You have to ask yourself if an ability or class has something that will always outdo a normal attack by a barbarian or a ranger or a paladin with little to no investment of time or resources. If it can, then why play the other classes? All martials do is hit; let them be the best at that, or they're pointless.
Edit: Oh, and this isn't just aimed at you kestral. It's for all the peoples! I understand Paths of War is a big thing in some gaming groups. Mine largely ignored it, so I can't really be specific.
Yeah, I don't know what to do about some of the special attack actions. Some other folks came up with decent ideas a few pages back.
Maybe Vital Strike could be a once-per-turn attack (similar to how Spell Combat is called out), so your first hit can be a whopper. Since it's one swing, it's still mildly on-par with Weapon Specialization or things like it. (Vital strike is an extra die/dice, but Weapon Spec works on multiple attacks and is multiplied on a critical hit)
|
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 think alternative one better suits the intent and gives a great boost to unchained monk as as Martials. At level 1 flurry means you make 2 attacks at full BAB for first attack action, at level 11 make 3attacks at ful BAB for first attack action. One attack for all others. Means monk has slightly more mobility options at higher levels, can get 2 moves and three attacks if he wants to be particularly mobile. Or he can squeeze out 5 attacks, 6 if hasted, if he stands toe to toe. Or even 4 attacks, 5 if hasted, if he moves in first.
I understand the hesitation behind 1-act VS though, so consider this alteratiom - VS raises your first attack by 1 damage dice, IVS raises your first and second attacks by 1 damage dice, and GVS improves your first 3 attacks by 1 damage dice. A character with all three feats has the equivalent of GVS, IVS, and VS on their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attacks respectively. While this is still strong it is much more reasonable while making VS usable again and making 2HW builds more competitive again.
LuniasM I really like you take on the VS chain. The feats are pretty cheap, BAB requirement only and this boosts damage without costing anything. Also brings it in line with two weapon potential. So a great sword loon with VS gets to roll 4d6 on first attack, 2d6 on rest, IVS is 4d6 on first 2 then 2d6 and GVS is 4d6 all three for a net gain after three feats of 6d6 damage. Question is does this then make the VS chain a basic set of feats everyone will strive to get in order to get what is effectively no more than an upgrade to damage? How does it stack with two weapon or flurry? Are they mutually exclusively? i feel it needs a rule that prevents stacking with flurry and TWF, of course this need be little more than "vital strike can not be used in conjunction with flurry of blows and two weapon fighting".
Also on the POUNCE front. I think pounce could be covered by simply allowing a free action (movement only) before one attack action in any round. This lets the old pouncer:
Pounce up to its foe (free) and unload all natural attacks
Attack a foes, then move (free) to a second and attack twice
Attack a foe, move (free) attack a foe and move.
This fits with my image of a pouncing foe that' moves rapidly between goes leaping from one to another, or suddenly leaping forward to mail a target, or drops one target, turns and with toothy grin leaps at a second.
*Shrug*
Some classes win with the new economy, some classes lose. They're exactly as mobile as any other class, since most of the maneuvers should be worth more than a +0/-5 attack sequence.
But really... to be totally frank? If casters don't get to b!*!! about being less mobile, why does Path of War's stuff? Given that the design premise is more or less "martial casters", anything that hurts casters hurts them. That's natural.
The "Swift boost" issue is something about half of the martial classes suffer. Slayer is the easy target in this regard, but it's far from the only one. There has been a lot of discussion on these. Puna'chong's houserules seem to be the popular approach, and his response is making many of them free...
I'm not terribly familiar with PoW (I skipped that part of 3.5, to be honest, as I was mostly doing MtG tours), but from what I hear they have a lot of swift action stuff like stances or modes or whatever, right? I'd say a good litmus is whether they're better than a Slayer's Studied Target (which, spoiler: free action). If they are, they might need to be an action. If not, and if they aren't something that stack or would get big too quickly with a free action, then free is ok, in my opinion.
If an attack is a standard action in the old AE, ask whether it's better than two attacks at +0/-5. If it is, it should stay two actions. If not, and it isn't something that's stupid multiple times in a round, 1 action is cool. It's easy to limit them to first attack/round too, like TWF and my version of Vital Strike and Spring Attack. But, for instance, an Alchemist bomb is a 2 action ability that can upgrade with a talent. You have to ask yourself if an ability or class has something that will always outdo a normal attack by a barbarian or a ranger or a paladin with little to no investment of time or resources. If it can, then why play the other classes? All martials do is hit; let them be the best at that, or they're pointless.
Edit: Oh,...
faik, the current path of war and upcoming PoW expanded are made for pathfinder.
i've got a pdf for it, and reading it i can only say good things about it.
Ah. I use 0% third party stuff, so I'm very much out of the loop on those. I must be thinking of Tome of Battle? Or something? From 3.5. Anywho.
I did suggest a couple pages back that Vital Strike be only on the first action, Improved on the second, Greater on the third. I do think that in some cases this falls into required territory, but on the other hand some builds can't fit it in or don't want it because damage dice don't matter as much as damage bonus does. 2d6 is cool, but 2d6 +24 is drastically better. Even if you do 4d6, that 4d6 will never be better than just swinging again and having the flat +24 do its work. I imagine classes with big weapons would like this, so it's essentially a TWF that comes online later and mostly just helps pierce through DR or allow the character to do more with the rest of its actions. TWF also has the added benefit of being able to stack lots of weapon bonuses on top of one another, along with static damage boosts, and they appear balanced in the accuracy department over long periods of time. TWF also will get more chances at critical hits, which is nothing to sneeze at.
On top of that, damage only gets you as far as the next Will save; too often martial characters pump all of their feats into damage that largely becomes redundant at a certain point. If you kill something with 60 health by doing 90 damage to it, you might have been ok taking something else. Even as a 6th level barbarian, I'm not sure I'd want Vital Strike over another rage power. So it would have its place, certainly, but I don't think it would be an auto-include in every build. Monks wouldn't want it, only certain slayers might. Barbarians and bloodragers probably have better things to do with their feats, since they do so much damage already, and rangers may or may not want it depending on their style. Fighters are probably going to grab it, but that's just because they can afford to, even at 1 action. Certain builds, too, like those that love big heavy weapons might want it, but it depends. Druids could have fun with it and their Huge natural attacks around 9th level, and maybe warpriests could enjoy buffing and then throwing out a solid hit, but those are the two I can think of that would like Vital Strike the most.
I'm trudging through the Hybrid classes right now. Oracle took me a hot minute to go down every Revelation, and the magus has a lot of Arcane Pool stuff. I'll have something comprehensive soon-ish. [Age of Ultron was awesome, too, by the way. Love me some Iron Man DAYUM!]
*Shrug*
Some classes win with the new economy, some classes lose. They're exactly as mobile as any other class, since most of the maneuvers should be worth more than a +0/-5 attack sequence.
But really... to be totally frank? If casters don't get to b!*!! about being less mobile, why does Path of War's stuff? Given that the design premise is more or less "martial casters", anything that hurts casters hurts them. That's natural.
The "Swift boost" issue is something about half of the martial classes suffer. Slayer is the easy target in this regard, but it's far from the only one. There has been a lot of discussion on these. Puna'chong's houserules seem to be the popular approach, and his response is making many of them free...
I'm not terribly familiar with PoW (I skipped that part of 3.5, to be honest, as I was mostly doing MtG tours), but from what I hear they have a lot of swift action stuff like stances or modes or whatever, right? I'd say a good litmus is whether they're better than a Slayer's Studied Target (which, spoiler: free action). If they are, they might need to be an action. If not, and if they aren't something that stack or would get big too quickly with a free action, then free is ok, in my opinion.
If an attack is a standard action in the old AE, ask whether it's better than two attacks at +0/-5. If it is, it should stay two actions. If not, and it isn't something that's stupid multiple times in a round, 1 action is cool. It's easy to limit them to first attack/round too, like TWF and my version of Vital Strike and Spring Attack. But, for instance, an Alchemist bomb is a 2 action ability that can upgrade with a talent. You have to ask yourself if an ability or class has something that will always outdo a normal attack by a barbarian or a ranger or a paladin with little to no investment of time or resources. If it can, then why play the other classes? All martials do is hit; let them be the best at that, or they're pointless.
Edit: Oh,...
I definitely don't want a character to be able to do more than one strike per round, as a matter of fact i don't want them to be able to strike and then make a normal attack in the same round, but I also want them to have their mobility which is kind of their point, that's why i decided to limit a character perfomring a strike to only be allowed one attack action on a turn they perform a strike, but make standard action strikes 1 act actions.
I think it handily limits their power level and flexibility while not making them less mobile than regular martials.
I've been going through strike descriptions for a bit and thought maybe a few of them do deserve to be 2 acts. So I think I will add this:
"A standard action strike that can hit multiple foes with one attack or involves multiple attacks with the same weapon or any of the following combat maneuvers is an advanced action costing 2 acts: grapple, dirty trick, drag, reposition, steal."
The problem with Path of War/Tome of Battle is basically this:
Somebody back in the day realized that hey, Fighters aren't very mobile. But you know who is mobile? Casters. They can get off their spell shenanigans then just... move out of the way.
So, they create some classes that are martials, but specialize in 'maneuvers'. These are, more or less, spells. Oh, there's some differences-- instead of Fireball it's "stab someone twice with X bonus". And instead of being able to Quicken spells, some maneuvers take less time than others-- a great many swift action ones are self-buffs.
Stances are also a thing but since they don't really have a relevant duration, they're more or less in line with Alchemist mutagens: drop 'em at the start of combat and you're good. Personally I rarely saw much reason to bounce between stances.
All of that is well and good. Insofar as doing what it was designed to do, Tome of Battle was fairly successful. You get Monks/Fighters/Paladins who move and then use their not-a-spells to stab you, instead of Monks/Fighters/Paladins who stand in one spot and just stab you repeatedly.
The problem is that they're based on casters, in a paradigm meant to make them mobile. And this system... restricts the mobility of casters. So, their design paradigm falls apart.
But then, so does the reason they were designed. We no longer need maneuvers to be mobile. So, much like a great many other classes, they're left to find a new niche.
The simplest fix is to simply make one swift action per round a free action. But frankly... I'm not sure I would even do that. The one Tome of Battle build I seriously put together for Pathfinder pretty much ignored swift boosts outright and seemed fine from it-- instead, that build was using some of their awesome defensive maneuvers, which tend to be immediate actions. The guy I set up was nigh-immune to spells unless casters ganged up on him.
So, to me at least, this isn't the case of the Slayer or Bard, where the Swift Action's use is integral to the class. This is a case of the caster, where you can do without the Quickened Spell but hey, wouldn't it be great if you could use it too?
And well, to me... yeah, it would be great. And it would undermine the point of this system. I can't understand giving one set of casters a pass on the restrictions this system imposes but not the other, so to me making standard action maneuvers one act makes as much sense as making divine spells one act but arcane spells two acts.
You make a couple of fair points here, kestral. I think i can see where you're coming from now. The one thing I still find problematic is that some strikes are simply not worth 2 acts. One that I've been having stuck in my mind ever since I tried to fit path of war with an alternative TWF system i came up with is Twin Fang Strike of the Thrashing dragon discipline. The strike allows you to make an attack with each of your two weapons at normal penalties.
With the new AE you can already do that. But then it seems this maneuver was always rather underpowered. (yay, i can finally make an attack that is almost as good as a two-handed attack as a standard action?) so maybe I will just upgrade the ones that are not worth spending 2 acts.
Ah, yeah it is sounding like these classes want to be in the old AE, which is ok. They seem designed to work around the flaws of the system. If there isn't anything that they fix, then it looks like you're pushing for more dynamic action in a martial character, because mobility and attacking is there by default. I'll leave this one to you. Though, in some cases it seems like a solution looking for a problem, but fun classes are fun classes.
How would the unchained Flurry of Blows work in this new AE? I read where it calls it out, and TWF, but it refers to the old one from the CRB (which is essentially TWF).
The unchained Flurry gives bonus attacks, but they are all at the Monk's highest attack rather than being iteratives.
Also, should Extra Ki Power become a feat?
I still haven't heard an argument against allowing swift actions to activate using a reaction. They normally eat immediate actions so the only victim is your AoO which you can get more of. I think its a solid fix that doesn't require trudging through every archetype and class that relies heavily on swifts as a non action.
I'm also not terribly concerned about Path of War. They are sopposed to be in the same boat as casters so it makes sense that they have the same Nerf. Especially since their design paradigm is as opposed to make them outshine classes like Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I've gotten to Swashbuckler and I have a pretty easy fix so that it fits well into the system.
- Opportune Parry and Riposte: Uses an attack of opportunity to deflect the attack. If the attack is deflected, as part of the attack of opportunity (as long as you have 1 panache) you can also make a free attack against the creature.
- Menacing Swordplay: Becomes a rider on the first attack each turn
- Precise Strike: Free action, once per turn
- Superior Feint: 2 actions [Why this was ever a STANDARD action, though, is beyond me.]
- Targeted Strike: 2 actions
- Dizzying Defense: Free action
- Perfect Thrust: 2 actions
- Charmed Life: Reaction
Swashbucklers are a bit unnecessarily taxed in the old system. They're a good example of why Swift and Immediate are too rigid to make a fluid or reactionary fighter. I actually had a player use a swashbuckler on my last Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, and I went ahead and hand-waived the whole "immediate takes up your swift next turn" thing. It worked fine, but it didn't make him particularly ridiculous at all, so I went that direction for this houserule. The only thing limiting a swashbuckler in riposting is whether he/she has an attack of opportunity and a panache point. Those are simple resources to track and gain more of.
The swift/reaction thing is just odd to me (not that swift/immediate wasn't before). It puts Swashbucklers back on the gimp list, which may be an issue. I don't know how many other classes they are that use both swift and immediate actions frequently, but they'd hate the system for the same reasons as the Swash.
By normally your swift actions deny your immediate action so if you have swift optionally eat your reaction you still have the option of using one of your actions as a swift and saving your reaction, so swashbuckler is less limited than in the normal system.
But I can understand if Swashbuckler is too limited in either system but I think that's a Swashbuckler problem, not a system problem and should have house rules that reduce some of it's powers' cost rather than throw out either action economy to allow it to function better.
I still haven't heard an argument against allowing swift actions to activate using a reaction. They normally eat immediate actions so the only victim is your AoO which you can get more of. I think its a solid fix that doesn't require trudging through every archetype and class that relies heavily on swifts as a non action.
Yeah, good question. And a really interesting one.
So there seem to be basically two ways to port any given swift action into the RAE.
First, you can make it a 1-unit action. The perk of going this way is that it allows more flexibility: you can use multiple swift actions of this kind in one turn, and even use the same swift action multiple times, if you're willing to pay the action cost.
Second, you can make it a free action, with some constraints in place to restrict usage. (EX: make it eat your reaction action, or only allow one such "free action" per round, or don't allow such a "free action" to be performed more than once per round.) The perk of going this way (with respect to a given swift action) is that it keeps it "free" action-wise, but doesn't give you any additional flexibility.
Since there are real pros and real cons of going either way, w.r.t. any given swift action, there's no magic bullet here---there are going to be downsides (and upsides!) to whatever we choose to do.
In light of this, how should we go about converting swift actions in general? As far as I can tell, there are four options:
First, we can go the first way w.r.t. all swift actions:
Option 1: All swift actions take 1 action-unit.
- Pros: Principled and easy to implement. Adds more flexibility to swift action-usage, partially boosts swift-action using classes (by allowing them more flexibility with their swift action usage, including multiple swift actions per round).
- Cons: Makes swift actions more "expensive", partially weakening swift-action using classes. Makes some swift action-using abilities ineffective or pointless. (EX: The ability to use a swift action to gain another move action, or another simple attack.)
Second, we can go the second way w.r.t. all swift actions:
Option 2: All swift actions become actions which take up your reaction action. (Or: become free actions, with the caveat that they're mutually exclusive, so you can only perform one of these "free actions" per round. Or: become free actions, with the caveat that you can't perform the same one more than once per round.)
- Pros: Principled and easy to implement. Largely keeps the status-quo, swift-action-wise, with minor variations. (The "burns a reaction" route is a slight nerf to swift action usage, relative to the current AE. The "free actions you can't perform more than once" is a slight boost to swift action usage, relative to the current AE. And the "free actions that are mutually exclusive" keeps things exactly the same.)
- Cons: Don't gain any further flexibility with respect to swift action use.
Third, we can mix-and-match the two approaches, in some principled way:
Option 3: Most swift actions take 1 action-unit. But swift actions that fall into one of the following categories become free actions that you can't perform more than once per round (or that take a reaction, or...): ... [Fill in you choice of categories here.]
(EX: Category #1: Swift actions that are supposed to be faster versions of an action, and whose previous speed was a move action or a 1 action-unit standard action. (E.g., the Bard's ability to inspire courage at level 13.)
Category #2: Swift actions that are part of a 1-round effect (e.g., spending a ki point to make one extra attack this round, spending a ki point to add a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round, using Arcane Strike to increase your weapon damage for one round, etc).)
- Pros: Principled and moderately easy to implement. Adds flexibility with respect to many swift actions, partially boosting swift-action-using classes. Given a smart choice of categories, avoids making many swift action-using abilities ineffective or pointless.
- Cons: More complicated than options 1 and 2. Makes many swift actions more expensive, partially weakening swift-action-boosting classes. Will probably still be some swift action abilities which become largely ineffective or much less powerful.
Finally, we can try to mix-and-match the two approaches, and tinker with our assignments by hand:
Option 4: Go through and make case-by-case judgments (perhaps guided, in part, by one of the options above).
- Pros: Adds flexibility with respect to some swift actions, partially boosting swift-action-using classes. Can completely avoid making any swift-action using abilities ineffective or pointless.
- Cons: Time consuming. (Though less of a problem is someone's doing the work for you! :) ) Not as principled as the above options. Makes some swift actions more expensive, partially weakening swift-action-boosting classes.
So, to return to your question above: it does seem that you can more or less keep the status quo with respect to swift actions by adopting some version of option 2, like the one you're suggesting. This keeps things the same w.r.t. swift actions, and seems like a perfectly fine way to go!
Is there any reason to want to go a different way? Well, yeah---to make the use of swift actions more flexible. Allowing your Paladin to save the day when the party is surprised by some cult leaders, by using Divine Interference to save the party wizard from getting squished, using Lay-On-Hands to remove the blindness an evil spell-caster just hit you with, and then kicking in a Smite Evil to boost your AC and prepare you to smack things down, all in one round.
So there's a balancing of pros and cons to weigh here. Or so it seems to me!
I still haven't heard an argument against allowing swift actions to activate using a reaction. They normally eat immediate actions so the only victim is your AoO which you can get more of. I think its a solid fix that doesn't require trudging through every archetype and class that relies heavily on swifts as a non action.Yeah, good question. And a really interesting one. ...
p.s.: In light of the above, one might reasonably ask: "Hey, why don't we just do the following? For each swift action ability, ask two questions:
(Q1) Is this an ability anyone would ever want to use twice in one turn?
(Q2) Is this an ability one should be allowed to use twice in one turn?
If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then make it 1-unit action. Otherwise, make it free action you can only do once per round (or make it eat a reaction, or...)."
I think that sounds like a great idea! But, of course, this requires a judgment-call regarding what people might reasonably want (to answer Q1), and what people should reasonably be allowed to do (to answer Q2). And so implementing this idea requires going through every swift-action ability, and assessing these two questions with respect to each.
Time intensive, to be sure. But, happily, I take it that this is more or less what Puna's doing for us!
One of my biggest goals when implementing an alternate system or house rule like this is for simplicity for the player to be able to use the system without having to re-reference how it works. I think giving the option to 'free swift action at the expense of your reaction' is fair because it still boosts the classes that want to use multiple swift actions a turn, the spells per turn limit is still a thing so that won't get out of hand, and it falls closely to how it would function in the normal system. Plus its easy to apply in the case of class saturated environments which is the biggest draw for me because I use a lot of third party classes. I seriously cannot go through 100+ base classes that I don't even use all at the same time just for this alternate system so I really have to set a solid standard so that I don't have to make judgement calls. I haven't had a chance to play with the new action economy yet but my first run will have these standards for conversions.
Anything that can replace an attack during a full attack, is a move action or is a swift action, becomes 1 act.
Anything that is a standard action or attack action is 2 acts.
Anything that is a full-round action is 3 acts barring things that are already described in the PF Unchained like TWF.
Anything that is a swift action can be performed as a free action at the price of your reaction.
Spellstrike is changed to simply allow touch attacks to be delivered with attacks.
Whirlwind Attack is rewritten to be at the end of the cleave line of feats.
After that if anything sucks then don't do it. Most of the things that do suck after this either sucked to begin with or I don't care. I cant think of anything that is vital to entire playstyles or class features that just gets shut down from the system with those rules in place.
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 think alternative one better suits the intent and gives a great boost to unchained monk as as Martials. At level 1 flurry means you make 2 attacks at full BAB for first attack action, at level 11 make 3attacks at ful BAB for first attack action. One attack for all others. Means monk has slightly more mobility options at higher levels, can get 2 moves and three attacks if he wants to be particularly mobile. Or he can squeeze out 5 attacks, 6 if hasted, if he stands toe to toe. Or even 4 attacks, 5 if hasted, if he moves in first.
I understand the hesitation behind 1-act VS though, so consider this alteratiom - VS raises your first attack by 1 damage dice, IVS raises your first and second attacks by 1 damage dice, and GVS improves your first 3 attacks by 1 damage dice. A character with all three feats has the equivalent of GVS, IVS, and VS on their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attacks respectively. While this is still strong it is much more reasonable while making VS usable again and making 2HW builds more competitive again.LuniasM I really like you take on the VS chain. The feats are pretty cheap, BAB requirement only and this boosts damage without...
Originally the plan was to end up with 4x on the 1st attack, 3x on the second, and 2x on the third. As a specific attack action you can't TWF or Flurry with it either way, so it's strictly a non-TWF feat chain. I can see how it might be a bit strong though (a large Impact Great sword character getting 16d6, 12d6, and 8d6 on 3 attacks for instance). Making each feat double an iterative works well enough if you're assuming multiple attacks, but then it's less useful on those rounds when you get fewer attacks (the purpose of the original feat) and doesn't match the power of TWF even when you do (though maybe it should be weaker, given that it has less requirements and is more cost-effective).
New idea - Vital Strike, IVS, and GVS are 1 act actions (not a simple attack action). VS doubles your first attack's damage die. IVS doubles your second, and if you make a single attack this turn it triples instead. GVS doubles your third attack - if you make 2 attacks it triples both, and if you make 1 attack it is quadrupled.
For example, Bob the Fighter was just enlarged by the party wizard, growing to large size and dealing 4d6 damage with his impact great sword. Bob has Greater VS. Bob can make 1 attack at 16d6 base damage, 2 attacks at 12d6 damage, or 3 attacks at 8d6 damage each turn. On Bob's first turn he charges and attacks for 16d6 base damage. Next turn he goes all-out, making 3 attacks at 8d6 apiece and killing his opponent. In his last turn he moves up to another enemy, then attacks twice for 12d6 base damage each.
24d6 sounds like a lot, but remember it amounts to 84 damage on average. GVS adds roughly 42 damage to his attack pattern with 3 attacks, 56 with 2 attacks, and 43 with 1 attack. Remember that the more attacks you make the more static damage you deal, so making 2 attacks is actually worse than making 3 unless you aren't likely to hit with the third or you deal less than 12 damage per hit. Thoughts?
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.
Yeah, so the the thought was: if you're nauseated to the extent that you can't drink a potion (e.g., actively retching), then it seems you should also be unable to move (like people doubled over while actively retching). But you can move when you have the nauseated condition. So it doesn't seem being nauseated should forbid you from (say) drinking a potion.
But I grant that this kind of qualitative evaluation of conditions is a relatively flimsy rationale, and one which I should have stayed away from. Mea culpa!
Here are two better reasons for thinking that this is a bug (rather than a feature) of the current rules.
First, the rules *do* allow you to drink potions while nauseated if you have the Accelerated Drinker Trait. But it doesn't seem that being able to drink potions *faster* should be the kind of thing that determines whether you can drink a potion while nauseated or not. (That only makes sense if we're stuck in the "actions must be confined to what you can do in 1 round" paradigm.)
Second, the rules do allow you to drink things like Stillgut while nauseated (because the item description explicitly includes the rider: "If you are already nauseated, you can drink Stillgut as a move action.") But then it's hard to see why being nauseated prevents you from drinking some things but not others. The fact that they needed to include this kind of exception-clause in their description of Stillgut suggests that this is an awkward work-around forced on them by what the current description of the nauseated condition, rather than something the design team is happily committed to.
(And you can see how, with the standard AE, this came to be: you don't want people drinking more than one potion a round (so it's a standard action), and you don't want the nauseated condition to allow one to do much per round (so it restricts one to a move action), and thus the condition ends up ruling out drinking things.)
Happily, the RAE offers one a natural way to get around this. If we change the description of the nauseated condition from this:
Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.
to this:
Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. Such a character can only perform 1 action-unit per turn.
Then we get around this problem. We get the nauseated condition preventing one from doing things that "require attention", as the description suggests, without forbidding subjects from doing things like drinking potions (though it'll take them 2 rounds to do so).
It appears to me that the best way to solve this sort of thing is, indeed, to allow for certain actions to carry over into the next turn. They can be interrupted, sure, but it allows for odd corner cases to be easily adjudicated. So long as it isn't a Move or Attack action, it should work out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On second thought: since in the RAE rules, a move action = 1 action-unit, the original description of the nauseated condition works fine verbatim. And the fact that the RAE rules allow one to string actions over several rounds, and the fact that drinking a potion doesn't require concentration, means that one can do exactly what I was describing in the RAE without having to do a thing.
Wow. Yet another stealth rules correction snuck into the RAE. Jason, I take my hat off to you sir!
So I was thinking to myself "How exactly does the old action system work in terms of acts?" I decided to find that answer.
Basically, you get 2 acts and a third that can only be used as a Swift Action. Move actions and standard actions both cost 1 act, but you may only take 1 standard action per turn. Full-Round Actions cost 2 acts, and the Full Attack action allows the use of iteratives / TWF / Flurrying. Basically, you get 2.5 acts a round. Seems needlessly complex when you think about it.
Compared this way, the new system actually buffs swift actions by making them a 3rd act. The issue is that the system removes the full attack in favor of allowing more mobile combat, which is why the buff looks and functions more like a Nerf - the Full Attack action was so much better than a standard action that classes had to be built around ways to do things while keeping their full attack, which resulted in classes being Dependant on that Swift action.
In conclusion, to make this system work as intended (remove iteratives and make combat more mobile/tactical) you need to either add the swift action back (3.5 acts) or kill it for good (3 acts and swifts are either 1 or 0 acts on a case-by-case basis).
How would the unchained Flurry of Blows work in this new AE? I read where it calls it out, and TWF, but it refers to the old one from the CRB (which is essentially TWF).
The unchained Flurry gives bonus attacks, but they are all at the Monk's highest attack rather than being iteratives.
Also, should Extra Ki Power become a feat?
Not without houseruling. I made the flurry attacks bonus action attacks that don't count to the number of attacks made when calculating iterative penalty. That is a clear buff to the monk as a class, but as far a I can see the unchained monk is still considered to be somewhat weak, so I don't mind.
Alternatively you could just allow a monk to put in the flurry attacks as part of their first attack action, still a buff but not quite as flexible as the above, because you have to make your first two (or later three) attacks in the same spot.
I heard the new action system combines attacks of opportunity and immediate actions into the same pool. Does that mean that stuff like Combat Reflexes can give you more Immediate actions?
I heard the new action system combines attacks of opportunity and immediate actions into the same pool. Does that mean that stuff like Combat Reflexes can give you more Immediate actions?
No. As written it just gives you extra AoOs.
I heard the new action system combines attacks of opportunity and immediate actions into the same pool. Does that mean that stuff like Combat Reflexes can give you more Immediate actions?No. As written it just gives you extra AoOs.
Which I think is something they totally missed out on. Could've made Combat Reflexes a very valuable skill, and put high-Dex characters in a different niche than other stat arrays or feat builds.
Maybe as a feat that has Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite.
I heard the new action system combines attacks of opportunity and immediate actions into the same pool. Does that mean that stuff like Combat Reflexes can give you more Immediate actions?No. As written it just gives you extra AoOs.Which I think is something they totally missed out on. Could've made Combat Reflexes a very valuable skill, and put high-Dex characters in a different niche than other stat arrays or feat builds.
Maybe as a feat that has Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite.
Dunno, it seems pretty desired already. I think it would require testing because immediate actions may be powerful. I know I won't play with the idea because I use third party material that uses immediate actions that would be way too powerful if it could happen more than once a turn.
You can have mobility without messing up the action balance. 3 actions just isn't enough to do so. 20 is nice because moving 1/10 of your move distance can be 1 action. Non-attack standards become something between 11 and 14. Swifts become something between 1 and 3. Non-movement moves become 20-(standard+swift). Free actions that cause problems might become 1. Full round actions become 20-swift. Individual actions can be tweaked.
Attacks should cost X for off-hand and secondary natural attacks, 2X for primary natural attacks and main hand attacks, and 3X for two handed attacks and primary natural attacks that get 1.5x strength. X may vary with BAB.
Charging lets you subtract the cost of movement from the next attack (or get a free attack if the movement costs more than the attack).
Run probably needs special rules, but I've never seen it used because it makes people flat footed so maybe it doesn't matter.
Staggered and nauseated reduce actions and nauseated prevents casting non-swift spells and making attacks.
Sorting out the details requires some actual playtesting and maybe a hundred more words of exceptions.
This is too arbitrarily complex for complexities sake. This seems very close to the phase/time wheel of other games. The NAE wasn't meant to be overly complex it was meant to be simple and straight forward in intention and design. It's also why most "problem" actions are easily converted.
I heard the new action system combines attacks of opportunity and immediate actions into the same pool. Does that mean that stuff like Combat Reflexes can give you more Immediate actions?No. As written it just gives you extra AoOs.Which I think is something they totally missed out on. Could've made Combat Reflexes a very valuable skill, and put high-Dex characters in a different niche than other stat arrays or feat builds.
Maybe as a feat that has Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite.
This. I felt that it could have changes how some of the classes worked out with just having more reactions. While the do seem strong I haven't seem any game breaking ones, and in most cases classes that get then get lots of competing ones that mostly never get uses.
Alternative; what if you could ready an action as a bonus reaction? Like, use an action to give yourself a reaction. Otherwise a feat with combat reflexes as a prerequisite because it is effectively generating bonus actions which is pretty valuable. I do think it should be contemplated because I've always bee in favor of Dex granting more actions as opposed to Dex to damage which feels boring and turf pushing to me
Yeah, see I come to this with pretty much zero third party stuff. That's all basically homebrew in a nicer, edited format, so I figure if it doesn't work for that it's like not working for someone's post over at Homebrew. Core Pathfinder I don't think would have many issues turning AoO and Reaction into the same thing. An AoO is a type of Reaction, and you have a certain number of reactions you can make each turn. That's so nice and simple, and if even for that alone I might just do that in my games. I also never see my players taking Combat Reflexes, so my opinion of it is that it's sort of a niche thing for reach builds or characters that take Stand Still or something.
Also, there's no reason to make this system complicated. I think we can all agree that the whole point of this was to simplify things and make combat easier and more fluid. If we start throwing in more on top of it we aren't really just revising action rules, we're rewriting combat. I've long been a believer that making something simple is the surest way to make mastering it more interesting. The only thing that has to happen is a conversion from words (standard, swift, etc.) to numbers (1, 2, 0 actions).
Yeah, see I come to this with pretty much zero third party stuff. That's all basically homebrew in a nicer, edited format, so I figure if it doesn't work for that it's like not working for someone's post over at Homebrew. Core Pathfinder I don't think would have many issues turning AoO and Reaction into the same thing. An AoO is a type of Reaction, and you have a certain number of reactions you can make each turn. That's so nice and simple, and if even for that alone I might just do that in my games. I also never see my players taking Combat Reflexes, so my opinion of it is that it's sort of a niche thing for reach builds or characters that take Stand Still or something.
Also, there's no reason to make this system complicated. I think we can all agree that the whole point of this was to simplify things and make combat easier and more fluid. If we start throwing in more on top of it we aren't really just revising action rules, we're rewriting combat. I've long been a believer that making something simple is the surest way to make mastering it more interesting. The only thing that has to happen is a conversion from words (standard, swift, etc.) to numbers (1, 2, 0 actions).
Not differentiating AoOs and other reactions would be simpler, which is the kind of argument that wins me over. I guess one dead product isn't terribly bad especially for a system that may be more beneficial for the game as a whole, although I think I'm going to personally dig deeper to make sure immediate actions cant get out of hand. It does somewhat disrupt my swift action fix though which, if I move on with that train, may lead me to just leave swifts as simple actions as my mock battles shows that not to be as bad as described on this thread with the exception of things like Arcane Strike.
|
I was thinking about the point you made about casting 2 spells and having the second one carry over into the 2 round.
Why have when a caster does this his concentration check goes to 1.5x what it normally was, he is more distracted after just having cast another spell and any sort of interruption. you could even double it to make it feel a bit more dynamic.
Equalizing AoOs and immediate actions opens up the system to some risky stuff. First thing off the top of my head is Snake Style - use your Sense Motive in place of your AC for an attack as an immediate action. This is balanced around being a once-per-round action because it's very easy to boost your Sense Motive much higher than your AC.
Not differentiating AoOs and other reactions would be simpler, which is the kind of argument that wins me over. I guess one dead product isn't terribly bad especially for a system that may be more beneficial for the game as a whole, although I think I'm going to personally dig deeper to make sure immediate actions cant get out of hand. It does somewhat disrupt my swift action fix though which, if I move on with that train, may lead me to just leave swifts as simple actions as my mock battles shows that not to be as bad as described on this thread with the exception of things like Arcane Strike.
I think Arcane Strike can easily be a free action like Power Attack. It has different requirements, sure, but it's also weaker and doesn't scale as well as PA. The only class I can think of that could actually do anything close to abuse it as a free action is Bloodrager, and they crap out damage anyways so it's not like adding +1 to their total would do much. I'm approaching everything with the mindset that the character should feel like their choices and style is inherently efficient and works with itself; why would someone train themselves to power up their attacks with magic if it made them demonstrably slower in combat? They really wouldn't, so why not just make it something they've incorporated into their routine?
I was thinking about the point you made about casting 2 spells and having the second one carry over into the 2 round.Why have when a caster does this his concentration check goes to 1.5x what it normally was, he is more distracted after just having cast another spell and any sort of interruption. you could even double it to make it feel a bit more dynamic.
It could also be that the caster just has to make a concentration check to continue casting a spell across rounds, and that's an inherent part of spellcasting. A feat that is a prerequisite for Quicken Spell (or not, I just like the sense of progression) could remove this concentration check to spread the action cost of a spell across two rounds. Easy-peezy. You would have to have a clause in the action, though, that if a target is no longer applicable/legal then the spell isn't lost, or the caster can choose to cancel the casting at the beginning of their turn to prevent things like "Oh no! He got bull rushed, my cure light wounds fizzles and I lose the spell! Damn you Revised Action Economy!"
Equalizing AoOs and immediate actions opens up the system to some risky stuff. First thing off the top of my head is Snake Style - use your Sense Motive in place of your AC for an attack as an immediate action. This is balanced around being a once-per-round action because it's very easy to boost your Sense Motive much higher than your AC.
Even then, though, it does require some feat investment and a solid Dexterity to consistently pull that off. If it's a concern, too, it's easy enough to say "You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. This ability can only be used once per round." I will admit that Snake Style can be nasty this way, but then again that's sort of what the character is being built for.
Equalizing AoOs and immediate actions opens up the system to some risky stuff. First thing off the top of my head is Snake Style - use your Sense Motive in place of your AC for an attack as an immediate action. This is balanced around being a once-per-round action because it's very easy to boost your Sense Motive much higher than your AC.
That's the kind of thing that concerned me. Things that pop up that I didn't think of. But yeah, getting more swift actions by making it a simple action is risky enough, getting more of it's equivalent; Immediate Actions is just as risky if not more considering that if getting more is based on Combat reflexes a dex-based character could abuse it to death if they tried.
Sorry to ask this this late in the thread, especially since it's been called out but; what classes are actually hurt by this system?
Warpriest is at the top of the list since he has a lot of things riding on swift actions but casters aren't so much nerfed as they behave roughly the same (with the exception of swifts). Instead of getting more mobile and more lethal at early levels. Also I saw Investigator and Slayer thrown around and reading up on their abilities and move actions are much more of a factor than swifts so say a Slayer can Studied Target and make a up to three extra attacks (TWF), sure this looks nerfed at lvl 7 when swift Studied Target happens but at that point the one to three extra attacks have caught up with that disregarding that a straight three attack round gives you a bunch of chances to fish a crit so I cant say that Slayer is exactly gimped.
While it's true that slayers benefit from the new TWF system, they benefit less than other classes who also use TWF specifically because they will frequently have to dedicate an action to Studied Target. In that sense the slayer loses ground to the ranger, who in comparison has a very modest amount of swift actions. However I found that the slayer wasn't that bad off since he can also apply Studied Target via flanking attacks, and the new movement system makes moving to achieve a flanking position much more viable.
Investigators are painfully bad compared to other medium BAB classes in the new system. Studied Target is their go-to class feature for combat, and it always eats an action. Not a fan of that one at all.
Brawlers aren't too thrilled about always needing to use an action on Martial Flexibility, but since they have to dedicate an action to picking up a feat they may as well go for broke and get as many as possible. In my brief playtest I found that brawlers use this feature less frequently than before, but when they do they pick up more feats at once.
Those were the three classes I was most concerned about, and three of the four I actually playtested. I'm guessing there are a fair few other classes and a lot of archetypes (like Steel Breaker and Martial Artist) that are significantly less attractive than before.
Warpriest is pretty interesting: On the one hand he relies heavily on swift actions and losing attacks to activate them sucks, but on the other hand he also struggled with a swift action addiction - he has tons of class features that rely on swift actions and in the old system he could only use one at a time. In the new system the WP can fervor cast three buff spells or fervor/sacred weapon/quicken blessing all in the same round. The warpriest plays more like a battle cleric or an inquisitor in the new system, he's just as heavily invested in "the buff round" now.
Warpriest isn't actually hurt by the new system, if you just take RAW that swift actions are now simple actions. They're actually buffed, and like Kudaku brought up, they can now do a lot more on a turn as they level rather than slowly build into a snowball over the course of three rounds or so. Now Warpriest can spend a turn going Voltron and then spend the rest of combat all buffed up, which is much better than before, if a resource-intensive on a character that just blows all of its "cooldowns" on a fight.
Investigators by default are in a weird spot, and Brawlers have funky things going on, but both of them also benefit from more options in combat. For Studied Target, the action cost makes up for the pretty decent boost to damage and hit, and it can be talented away (to Free, as I've ruled it) if the character has a hard time. Investigators are a pretty strong class overall, so this doesn't feel too bad to me. I might just make it upgrade to Free at level 9 or something.
For the Brawler I've made it one action to get the current "tier" of Martial Flexibility, while the previous tier is a Free action 1/turn. So a level 6 Brawler could grab two feats as 1 action, or 1 feat as a Free action once on that round.
With Slayers I care less because of I'm not sure why it bothered to studied target as a swift action in the first place when it already had a chance to cheat it in by flanking or otherwise sneak attacking. Seems like a win-more ability to me so I'm not sad at the loss of it.
Isn't Studied Combat already a move action or am I missing something? I see that the talent Quick Study exists but that can easily made a reaction or free action instead of a move action since it needs to be errata'd anyways, as would any mover->swift progression.
Considering the duration of Martial Flexibility and how many feats it can gain at once later I'm not terribly concerned about Brawler. Unless the fight is going to end on the after the first round or something.
Warpriest has somewhat of a nerf but that's the main reason I wasn't exactly concerned with it. Seems like it spends the first round going supersaiyan. I'm more concerned about the classes that activate an ability with a swift action that has a duration of one round or something like that, otherwise it seems whenever an ability takes up a tiny bit more time of one round longer it becomes unplayable for some reason.
Flurry of Blows, is one of the grey areas, for the new Action Economy, and we've had numerous suggestions that make it work- but I hope we get an official clarification, as to whether, the side bar was intended to apply to both the Unchained Monk, as well as the original.
Flurry of Blows, is one of the grey areas, for the new Action Economy, and we've had numerous suggestions that make it work- but I hope we get an official clarification, as to whether, the side bar was intended to apply to both the Unchained Monk, as well as the original.
You can make a thread for an FAQ if you'd like. I think this one might be getting a little bloated for the developers...
Flurry of Blows, is one of the grey areas, for the new Action Economy, and we've had numerous suggestions that make it work- but I hope we get an official clarification, as to whether, the side bar was intended to apply to both the Unchained Monk, as well as the original.You can make a thread for an FAQ if you'd like. I think this one might be getting a little bloated for the developers...
I am both green, and wet behind the ears, as far as being a member of the forums. Is a FAQ thread, the same as creating any other, or is there more to it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am both green, and wet behind the ears, as far as being a member of the forums. Is a FAQ thread, the same as creating any other, or is there more to it?Flurry of Blows, is one of the grey areas, for the new Action Economy, and we've had numerous suggestions that make it work- but I hope we get an official clarification, as to whether, the side bar was intended to apply to both the Unchained Monk, as well as the original.You can make a thread for an FAQ if you'd like. I think this one might be getting a little bloated for the developers...
Yeah, you'll want to go to the Rules Questions subforum and make a new thread there. Probably title it something like "Unchained Monk and Revised Action Economy [FAQ]" and then go from there. If people hit the little FAQ button up at the top enough times (or sometimes you'll get an answer without a lot of FAQ requests) then a dev might step up and comment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm rather curious - what if you were to make the following changes to the system:
- You get 3.5 actions per round.
- Most of the abilities that cost swift actions costs 0.5 actions, but can only be used once per round.
- Quickened Spells still cost one action. Swift action spells (most of the paladin list, for instance) will still cost the swift action as described above. Cold Ice Strike is modified to 1 action.
- Addendum: You cannot cast more than two quickened spells per round.
This change would still keep the (very excellent, in my opinion) attempt to nerf casters and increase fighter mobility, while still making most swift-action abilities relevant and not making sweeping changes to half of the published abilities out there. Classes like Bard are balanced around, for example, their performances not taking the place of a whole attack to perform after a certain level - and would continue under that assumed balance in the new system.
Also, this system is difficult to balance with Path of War, and that makes me a sad panda.