Sure, that's why I put it in italics. People were using the term to mean all actions devoted to an attack action(1 at full Bab, next at -5, last at -10; an additional at -15 if you have haste or similar), and I can see it living on in that capacity if this system ever gets adopted widely.
yeah it is a fun system you should give it a try, While I saw other posted that haste giving at -15 attack, I don't see it doing that. the wording of haste spell stays the same much like you pointed out in vital strike. The haste spell calls out for that extra attack to be at highest bonus. the only difference and i think the notes clarify it the note by saying is they remove full attack from txt from the spell and basically replace it with haste granting you an extra action that must be used as an attack action. which makes sense haste spell already grants a bonus to movement and bonus to ac. there no need to mention it again in the note as grant extra move action as an option. it already included in the spell. the note is there to prevent another spell from being cast that is it. but you know that is another beauty of the system, it expected to have gm variance and let people figure how they want to rules to work. if you gm wants the haste attack and use the note as the completely how haste work. that is an option and I am fine with that.
I hope pathfinder explores the system some more in other books and maybe make a few more clarifications but not to many. Leaves it open of more DM/GM rulings and less rules lawyering. keep this system out of organized play completely. they can iron out the system more as it goes and make it default system for pathfinder 2.0 if that ever comes, around. Then it can be used for organized play.
OK, I hadn't realised that. I was going mainly on a previous post that suggested that a haste attack was like an extra iterative attack (i.e. at an additional -5). If it is full BAB, that suggests it is eligible for the vital strike bonus.
I still think that vital strike would not be OP except perhaps in some niche builds, but only time will tell.
The main 4 classes I want to see under this new system would be Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, and Investigator. All of them have a good amount of swift actions to use, and they would help me ultimately decide if its alright to allow more than 1 swift action per turn. I know how the new system works in my head, but I want to see it laid out in practice.I've got an Inquisitor in my group that uses RAE. Being able to take more than one swift action per turn works just fine (seems balanced). Giving up additional attacks really hurts and often the Inquisitor (ranged) opts to keep 2 of the 3 actions for attacking. But sometimes not, and piles on the self-buffs.
Something worth noting is that I have adopted the houserule that some swift actions are now a free action once per round; specifically swift actions with a one round duration (ki for additional attack, etc.) and swift actions that are a "speed up" (action was a move then becomes swift). Without that houserule, many classes that rely heavily on swift actions take a serious beating with the nerf bat. So my "seems balanced" eval is with that houserule in place.
That's similar to what I expected. I figured that with all swift actions having a cost (i.e. you lose an attack) the only ones usually worth using would be those that provided a long term buff; others have noted the problem with spending a swift action to gain an attack via ki; it does seem nonsensical that you would have to lose an attack (to gain a swift action) to gain an attack.
That's similar to what I expected. I figured that with all swift actions having a cost (i.e. you lose an attack) the only ones usually worth using would be those that provided a long term buff; others have noted the problem with spending a swift action to gain an attack via ki; it does seem nonsensical that you would have to lose an attack (to gain a swift action) to gain an attack.
Yes. A couple of these that come to mind are "Litany" spells, things like Arcane Accuracy magus arcana, and Arcane Strike feat.
|
Playing as an Investigator in a Dragon's Demand campaign using UAE, I have to say it has worked out mostly fine for my character personally, but has some pretty glaring problems for corner cases.
E.g. There is literally no reason to take Quick Study considering it is the same action cost as normal Studied Combat. Also, one encounter involved wraiths that were able to take 3 attacks per round and give negative levels on hits, which was unnecessarily deadly (luckily we had a skeleton to tank the hits).
Ultimately, for my character, the only real change was that I got iteratives earlier and I felt like in-combat extracts were a tad more painful to use, as they had to be weighted against making 2 attacks.
Playing as an Investigator in a Dragon's Demand campaign using UAE, I have to say it has worked out mostly fine for my character personally, but has some pretty glaring problems for corner cases.
E.g. There is literally no reason to take Quick Study considering it is the same action cost as normal Studied Combat. Also, one encounter involved wraiths that were able to take 3 attacks per round and give negative levels on hits, which was unnecessarily deadly (luckily we had a skeleton to tank the hits).
Ultimately, for my character, the only real change was that I got iteratives earlier and I felt like in-combat extracts were a tad more painful to use, as they had to be weighted against making 2 attacks.
A quick patch for ability timing is to just assume that abilities progress from Full(three acts)to Standard (two acts) to Move(one act) to Swift(free act that eats your reaction) to Free (zero acts but on your turn) to React (act at any time but eats up your reaction). At least that's what I've been doing. Most things start off as whatever act equivalent they translate to and move by steps according to that scale.
Playing as an Investigator in a Dragon's Demand campaign using UAE, I have to say it has worked out mostly fine for my character personally, but has some pretty glaring problems for corner cases.
E.g. There is literally no reason to take Quick Study considering it is the same action cost as normal Studied Combat. Also, one encounter involved wraiths that were able to take 3 attacks per round and give negative levels on hits, which was unnecessarily deadly (luckily we had a skeleton to tank the hits).
Ultimately, for my character, the only real change was that I got iteratives earlier and I felt like in-combat extracts were a tad more painful to use, as they had to be weighted against making 2 attacks.
Hrmm. That's a tough case right there. An argument could be made to make Quick Study a free action, since essentially Studied Strike lasts less than 1 round. However, Studied Combat lasts X rounds = to your Int mod. That's where it breaks my hard and fast rule.
I honestly don't see much of an issue with Quick Study being a free action. It costs you a talent, you can only study an opponent once (unless you spend Inspiration), and the Studied Strike is only for one attack.
As for the in-combat extracts, I'd say you're still better off than in the previous Action System. Where you would be juggling using extracts or making any attacks at all.
|
|
As for the in-combat extracts, I'd say you're still better off than in the previous Action System. Where you would be juggling using extracts or making any attacks at all.
This is true, it is just that the choice is slightly harder at early levels. (I.e. is using an extract then moving into melee going to be more efficient than moving and making two attacks)
As for the Quick Study thing, I'd say that is a fair shake, however the GM is using UAE exactly as written since it is our group's first experience with it.
Honestly, I think it's a pretty decent system but is in dire need of case-by-case exceptions and clarifications, like some swifts need to be free actions and several abilities/feats (Vital Strike, Weapon of the Chosen, Pinpoint Targeting) need to be retooled for the system.
As for the in-combat extracts, I'd say you're still better off than in the previous Action System. Where you would be juggling using extracts or making any attacks at all.This is true, it is just that the choice is slightly harder at early levels. (I.e. is using an extract then moving into melee going to be more efficient than moving and making two attacks)
As for the Quick Study thing, I'd say that is a fair shake, however the GM is using UAE exactly as written since it is our group's first experience with it.
Honestly, I think it's a pretty decent system but is in dire need of case-by-case exceptions and clarifications, like some swifts need to be free actions and several abilities/feats (Vital Strike, Weapon of the Chosen, Pinpoint Targeting) need to be retooled for the system.
Vital Strike would still be 2 acts, although it does feel a little strange getting another swing in at -5 afterwards. However, that's still far from obscenely powerful.
Weapon of the Chosen would definitely be one of those that would be a Free Action. Even with the Greater WoC feat, it's not too terribly powerful.
Pinpoint Targeting... might actually be fine as is. The incredibly high pre-requisites make it hard to reach already, it would cost 2 acts to do, and still has the "don't move" requirement.
When you fight with a second weapon in your off hand or with a double weapon, you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn: one with your primary hand and another with your off hand. You take penalties on these attack rolls as listed on Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties. Any other attack simple actions you take during your turn allow only one attack roll, using either the weapon in your primary hand or the one in your off hand.
I've got yet -another- dumb question. Since the Full Attack sequence is gone, and you make your attacks based on your acts, do you suffer the -2 penalty for TWF on your 2nd and 3rd acts if you're not swinging with both weapons?
I.e. I'm a level 5 Fighter with just TWF. Assuming where I am adjacent to plenty of foes, I go ahead and use all 3 acts to attack. My first act consists of 2 swings, at -2/-2 with both weapons. Since I don't have ITWF or GTWF, my 2nd and 3rd act get one swing each. Are they at -5/-10? or -7/-12?
Relevant part of the FAQ
No. The penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack with both weapons. Any attacks of opportunity you make are at your normal attack bonus.
It also references the full-attack action. But in the new system, it's no longer a thing.
... you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn... You take penalties on these attack rolls as listed on Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties.
I feel like the Unchained rules are trying to be specific, listing "these" rolls as the first attack action you make.
Also, somewhat similar FAQ regarding the topic and partially where I may be coming from:
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round. Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
Also I am vexed now about readied actions. Namely, at what attack bonus is a readied action? Say for instance this scenario comes along:
Barbarian vs. Arcanist
Barbarian's Turn
1st act - Move to threaten the Arcanist
2nd act - Attack at highest attack bonus (maybe hit or miss)
3rd act - Ready an action (if the opponent decides to cast a spell, attack to interrupt him)
Arcanist's Turn
1st & 2nd act - Begins to cast Color Spray.
-Readied action triggers, Barbarian makes attack (maybe hit or miss)
3rd act - Step.
At what attack bonus is the readied action from the Barbarian? His highest? or at -5?
I can see justification for both sides. Namely, since the Readed Action eats up a Reaction, it may behave like Reaction attacks (much like attacks of opportunity). Therefore, it would use the highest attack bonus. However on the flip side, we've never been able to Attack and then Ready an Attack action in the same turn either under the old system's rules. The new system keeps track of the accruing -5 penalty with subsequent attacks.
If it is at your highest, things are awfully lethal at low levels for unarmored Spellcasters.
I'm still not sure I understand readying an action correctly. It would seem that it actually costs an act to "prepare" to be ready, so you could use a simple or 2-act advanced action later on your turn. "Ready" is listed in the list of simple actions, after all, and nothing there says it wouldn't cost an act.
This would mean that you can move, ready and then attack when the ready triggers. You cannot, however, move ready and then cast a spell. I wonder if that is what is intended.
Right?
I'm still not sure I understand readying an action correctly. It would seem that it actually costs an act to "prepare" to be ready, so you could use a simple or 2-act advanced action later on your turn. "Ready" is listed in the list of simple actions, after all, and nothing there says it wouldn't cost an act.
This would mean that you can move, ready and then attack when the ready triggers. You cannot, however, move ready and then cast a spell. I wonder if that is what is intended.
Right?
I think that's it.
That's what I like about the RAE. Now materials get more action value.
That's what I like about the RAE. Now materials get more action value.
That definitely seems to be the case. I like the mobility all of this provides.
That's what I like about the RAE. Now materials get more action value.That definitely seems to be the case. I like the mobility all of this provides.
I had started writing an article about the revised action economy and made a list of pros and cons. The mobility it provides opens more doors to all kinds of other things. I think overall there isn't enough credit given to it because swift action related options are worse but in play it works pretty well with a few tweaks and I cannot express how the added mobility to martials is more fun than it appears.
One of my players is incredibly unenthusiastic about this system for a few reasons. He can't get past the "missing attack," since everyone caps out at 3 attacks. Or how Haste has "fallen from grace."
I tried to point out the default system's flaws, such as:
-Losing all attacks if you decide to Bull Rush/Overrun, and other Combat Maneuvers.
-Charging while Two-Weapon Fighting, and only getting 1 swing in.
-Moving 10ft. while Hasted, and getting 1 swing in. (despite being extra "fast").
-Only being able to Demoralize within Melee.
-Casting a Paladin/Ranger/Bloodrager spell, and losing all attacks (despite being "fighty")
-Setting yourself up for a Full-Attack only to kill the opponent on your first attack, and having the rest essentially wasted due to no one being in your reach.
-Being able to take advantage of a high Movement Speed in general.
-Many other things I cannot think of at the moment.
And to counter with some things the new system offers:
-Helping with all of the above mentioned problems.
-Allow some classes more flexibility with Abilities that require move actions (Tactician, etc.)
-Allowing more than 1 Swift Action per turn, without a non-canon house rule. (Magus and Warpriest rejoice)
-No more 1-round Casting time spells. They were rather tedious to use and easy to interrupt.
-Lots of other things I probably haven't discovered yet.
I think once we give it a shot, he may turn around and see that it's far better off for melee-types, and martials in general.
Curious why do you think haste has falling from grace? it does the same thing it did before. it just the now in the act system so you can't cast two spells with it. Extra act that must be used for and attack, the attack is still at highest bab because the spell says so, and bonus to movement + to ac ref saves. if anything haste has been empowered at freed. thus unchained. They whole section talking about haste is how to deal with extra acts effects. Not remove all the effects of the spell. the only part of the spell that is changed is the removal off the full attack action part since it does not exist and adding in of the limit that it grants an extra act that must use for an attack.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation
Since the Full Attack action is gone, the iterative attacks must follow the rules presented in the new system. Which is, iterative attacks are made at -5 accruing penalty. Essentially if you used all of your acts to attack while Hasted, it would look like this: +0,-5,-10,-15.
However, extra attacks is really the weakest part of Haste in this system. Being able to move 60+ feet and get 2 or 3 swings in (more if you're TWF) is unheard of.
I would suspect a common house rule might be to let the extra swing be at your highest (+0,+0,-5,-10). That may push it over the top of what to expect from a 3rd level spell however.
But if you use the extra attack at the end of your progression, the attack still functions at your full attack bonus so it wouldn't matter because it would be +0/-5/-10/+0. So to cut corners it would be perfectly logical to have +0/+0/-5/-10 without houseruling being in effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may gave actually been intended to include another swing at your highest attack, but was forgotten. The designer, Stephen Radley Macfarland, had only a few pages worth of word count to work with. I'm surprised he got as much information inside one chapter as he did.
For some GM judgment, this new AE really helps me consider the "spirit of the game" from certain angles. The way Haste is originally written, and the rough translation toward this new system, gives me a feeling that the extra swing at highest is probably what it's intended to be. My GM gut instincts isn't always certain however. But I can see many tables ruling it this way.
Haste has always been a power-house of a spell/effect throughout every edition, and it's not much different in that regard in this system. Besides, it would work for enemies the same way, right?
Some of my PCs may learn Slow just to counter/dispel it on the occasion. More often than they already do anyway.
But if you use the extra attack at the end of your progression, the attack still functions at your full attack bonus so it wouldn't matter because it would be +0/-5/-10/+0. So to cut corners it would be perfectly logical to have +0/+0/-5/-10 without houseruling being in effect.Zenogu saying, that due to full attack being gone and iterative attacks being gone, all attacks are at full BAB, and the unchain penalty of -5 per attack sub-type being used is applied after that. thus haste is already attacking at the highest base attack bonus, as the spell haste says.
So if you took 4 act attacking 0/-5/-10/-15 any one of those could have been the extra haste action, does not matter which one. 4th attack is still at -15. thus him stating 0/0/-5/-10 would be a house rule. placement of the 2nd 0 in could come at any point. placement at the front or end of the chain is moot.
But the spell specifically calls out that the attack is at your full attack bonus and the sidebar does not contradict it.
you can move and ready a spell, just not a full round spell, but you can also ready a full round spell but not move.
No, you can't, because it seems the readying itself costs one act. Remember that "Ready a Simple Action or an Advanced Action" is listed in the list of simple actions, and there is nothing to imply that would not cost 1 act, as do all other simple actions in that list.
So: move (1 act), ready (1 act) - so you only have 1 act remaining and so can only ready a simple action.
that what he is saying it is at already full bab but with a -15 penalty. per the attack subtype rule set. there is no +11/+6/+1 BAB any more only the +11 so it is already at it's highest BAB. then you apply penalty. based on what number attack it is.But the spell specifically calls out that the attack is at your full attack bonus and the sidebar does not contradict it.But if you use the extra attack at the end of your progression, the attack still functions at your full attack bonus so it wouldn't matter because it would be +0/-5/-10/+0. So to cut corners it would be perfectly logical to have +0/+0/-5/-10 without houseruling being in effect.Zenogu saying, that due to full attack being gone and iterative attacks being gone, all attacks are at full BAB, and the unchain penalty of -5 per attack sub-type being used is applied after that. thus haste is already attacking at the highest base attack bonus, as the spell haste says.
So if you took 4 act attacking 0/-5/-10/-15 any one of those could have been the extra haste action, does not matter which one. 4th attack is still at -15. thus him stating 0/0/-5/-10 would be a house rule. placement of the 2nd 0 in could come at any point. placement at the front or end of the chain is moot.
I think that's a misinterpretation that complicates the base game as well. By that logic Power Attack will do less damage with iterative attacks because the BAB would be less when you make more attacks, disregarding that the normal rules have similar penalty wording rather than impose that your BAB changes. So far I've never seen that assumption in IRL play whether I'm GMing, playing or spectating, and instead I see everyone reading it as +0/+0/-5/-10 from the get-go. Although I have seen the interpretation that full attacks still exist as three act actions, just that most of them are useless(spring attack).
Actual read simple actions
Simple Actions
The following are some of the more common actions. To take
any of them, you need to commit only 1 act (though some
can be taken as free actions under special circumstances).The Bold section tell you that of the things in this column are not 1 acts
I don't think this is referring to "Ready". I think this refers to actions where it actually says in text that it can be a free action. Compare these:
Handle an Animal: You command an animal to perform a trick it knows by attempting a Handle Animal check. Some class abilities let characters attempt this as a free action.
Load a Hand Crossbow or Light Crossbow (Complex): You load a hand crossbow or a light crossbow with a bolt. If you have the Rapid Reload feat with the weapon you are reloading, this is a free action.
Mount or Dismount a Steed (Move): You mount or dismount a steed. You can do this as a free action by attempting a DC 20 Ride check; failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity.
Ready or Drop a Shield: You either strap a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to AC or unstrap and drop the shield. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can do either of these as a free action when you take the move simple action.
The text for Ready says no such thing.
Furthermore, what you are saying is that "Ready" is always free, which does not really sound like "under special circumstances."
For another "in the spirit of the game" moment I think the actual Ready an Action option doesn't actually consume an act by itself. The reason I say so is that some things can be translated rather easy and shouldn't be too dramatically different from the original system. In this case, move and ready an attack/spell should be capable in both systems.
Mechanically speaking, it would eat up practically all of your actions to ready an action if it did cost 1 act itself. Namely, 2 acts for a complex act (a spell, Vital Strike), 1 act to ready it, -and- your reaction.
Retroactively translated, that's a full-round action that also eats up your immediate action. And that doesn't sound right at all.
I agree, actually. I'm just trying to find out what is intended by this system. And the text on the page seems to indicate otherwise.
I want to say they listed under 1 act because you would need at least 1 act in order to ready anything at all. Again, that's my GM gut instinct talking. I can't find anything to support this in the book, however.
However, if you make readying free, the new system once again supports shutting down any spellcaster with a readied silence spell, which I can't really advocate.
However, if you make readying free, the new system once again supports shutting down any spellcaster with a readied silence spell, which I can't really advocate.
Ah yes, Silence would be able to be readied under this new AE since 1 round spells are just 3 acts now.
Although that's not too terribly OP I would say. If you target the spellcaster, he gets a save (usually Will is his best). However if you target a point in space or an object, then there is no save.
It's a rather "guaranteed" form of a counterspell if you use it in that regard. It's not too much terribly different from readying any other spell or attack to disrupt them however. Also, the Silencer must be wary to not enter his own area of Silence. Sort of a two way street.
:Off-topic:
You know what's baffled me for years? How we have so many new spellcasters with their own lists, and Silence didn't make it to hardly any of them. Outside of Core spell lists (which is Bard and Cleric), it made to Inquisitor's and... Antipaladin's. That's it. The only real reason it strikes me odd is how common "Silence" effects are in other games, but not this one.
Also, readying a 1-Round spell in this AE system literally eats up every action you have. And that's assuming that your readied action even triggers. That's a hefty gambit to take.
Have we had any clue from the Devs if the unchained action economy will be receiving further support (clarifications, fixes for feats like Vital Strike, etc)?
Not that I know of. Some things will be rather easy to translate however, like Vital Strike. What sort of answers were you looking for specifically?
So, I've been doing my reading on this. This system seems to be really friendly to natural attacks—suddenly, this is the only way to get more than three attacks in a round. I can't really see how it doesn't tear the balance of high-level martials apart, sadly. If encounters are built with the expectation that fighters will get 5 attacks, and now they're only getting 3, what consequences does that have?
So, I've been doing my reading on this. This system seems to be really friendly to natural attacks—suddenly, this is the only way to get more than three attacks in a round. I can't really see how it doesn't tear the balance of high-level martials apart, sadly. If encounters are built with the expectation that fighters will get 5 attacks, and now they're only getting 3, what consequences does that have?
FWIW, I haven't found this to be an issue in my games. Because only the lowest iterative attack is dropped (an attack which usually doesn't hit anyway), and even then you'd only get one less attack at levels 16+, there doesn't end up being an appreciable drop in martial effectiveness for high level martials.
That said, there *is* a noticeable increase in mobility for martials -- pounce abilities become much less important, since you can move and still make your two best attacks anyway. Likewise, the disparity between melee and ranged martials is decreased noticeably (though it's still there) because one of the biggest perks of going ranged is being able to make full attacks against opponents who aren't right next to you. But again, if you can just give up your weakest attack to move up next to them, this isn't as big a deal.
(P.s.: Why were you thinking martisls went from 5 to 3 attacks? Did you mean 4 to 3?...)
Okay, thanks for giving that perspective. And yes, I meant 4 to 3—misremembered.
|
The Action Economy rules, however they are tinkered with, plus
Spheres of Power I feel could work well together. Where they'd both go even farther to lessen the gap between martials and casters.
So, I've been doing my reading on this. This system seems to be really friendly to natural attacks—suddenly, this is the only way to get more than three attacks in a round. I can't really see how it doesn't tear the balance of high-level martials apart, sadly. If encounters are built with the expectation that fighters will get 5 attacks, and now they're only getting 3, what consequences does that have?
I've been testing around with this system since it came out, and I've found it really lends itself to a better version of the game.
Of course, I've implemented my own house rules onto it, which bring some things back from the old and rehash it while mixing in other subsystems.
I like to call it "everything that's good about 5e, and nothing that's bad about it" while also implementing other house rules that really are just different ways to implement the already existing rules. Three traits and a drawback being mandatory on all characters is a big one.
With my current release of the house rules, there are but a few minor hiccups in transposing the old into the new (namely, the exact text from TWF not meshing well), but my players have all gotten used to it and it functions incredibly well.
I do want to soon implement a more dynamic act counting system to add ease to the time counting of dungeon crawls and exploration, but that's for another time.
Overall, with the full-attack action being nonexistent, and my house rules on Counterspelling taking the reaction rather than a readied action, spellcasters become far less dominant and martial characters have many more options.
Shadows are real monsters under this new economy.
We had to just stop letting some monsters from being able to attack more than once.
Shadows are real monsters under this new economy.
We had to just stop letting some monsters from being able to attack more than once.
I can definitely see a lot of monsters who normally just get one big attack going up in CR under this system. Maybe for balance purposes, these creatures are still limited to their 1 attack, but can get a bonus to hit if they use 2 Acts on their attack?
I can definitely see a lot of monsters who normally just get one big attack going up in CR under this system. Maybe for balance purposes, these creatures are still limited to their 1 attack, but can get a bonus to hit if they use 2 Acts on their attack?Shadows are real monsters under this new economy.
We had to just stop letting some monsters from being able to attack more than once.
We've ran this system for about a year and that is is how we run it - monsters with "big effects" on their attacks like ability- or level drain can still only use the effect once per round (if that's what they could previously), but can choose to "aim it in" by using two actions for a +2 to hit. It has worked so far, and overall my players like the RAE system very much. Even makes playing a Fighter fun, as one player put it ;-)
BTW we use the -15 for the last hasted attack, so the players usually use one or two actions for something creative instead when hasted.
Update on some of our gaming sessions using this system:
We noticed that Feint has the Attack Subtype, even though it isn't actually an attack nor a combat maneuver. We simply removed that subtype, as it didn't quite make sense. A character would normally feint in order to get his opponent's guard down, but tacking on a -5 penalty made it much less appealing.
From the d20 pfsrd: "Note: Though the feint action is located here, near the rules for combat maneuvers, and while it seems like it might BE a combat maneuver, feinting is NOT a combat maneuver. The Paizo PRD is organized with the feint rules located in the same placement."
I'm aware that this essentially gives -everyone- Improved Feint for free, but it's only an appealing combat option for someone who strives for it (and thus, would probably be good at it anyway). No one has complained about lessening a feat tax.
Besides, with Aid Another as 1 act, everyone essentially has Swift Aid for free. Again, no complaints there. It has actually encouraged people to work together.