| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I was reading up on some old threads regarding the Unchained Action Economy which I have been using ever since, but there have been some kinks in the system that I either have to rule on the fly or establish new rules within the context of the game and ultimately, I have ended up using my own rules that are just based on the Unchained Action Economy, rather than using them RAW.
- , I have removed the Action Types and Subtypes.
- , all rounds are composed of three acts and one passive act, with a reaction existing after the round. A character who is flat-footed cannot take a reaction.
- , most abilities directly translate into the new actions pretty seamlessly, without worrying about types and subtypes. They can even keep their old type qualifications, provided you understand that anything requiring an attack action is something that can be done with a single act. Anything requiring a standard action can be done with two acts, requiring a full round in three acts, and anything that requiring a swift action is now a single act. Free actions remain free acts.
That's the basics of the system as it was, with the addition of my passive act. The passive act is an act that any character can take to use an ability that in the regular system requires a swift action to use, but is not limited in resources. Examples of this include the feats Arcane Strike, Arcane Armor Training, Studied Target, and any other ability whose action expenditure is really just a tax to ensure that the ability isn't something that is always on. I have re-implemented the 5-foot step, as it previously existed, it now takes up the passive act, but disallows movement. Exceptions to this are actions that normally take a move action, and 'upgrade' to taking swift actions later on (but still require expenditure of resources) in level progression. Best example of this is the Brawler's Martial Flexibility, which can now be used in all of it's implementations. The Investigator Talent 'Quick Study' for another example, allows the user to take a passive act to use the ability, rather than a single act.
For the most part, I completely nix every fully re-written ability in the revised system, and default to their basic descriptions in the already existing materials using their old action designations to transpose into the new system, applying the rules I have above. This so far has worked pretty much flawlessly. There are certain full round abilities that require me to keep them as revised in order for the game to function properly, but those are mostly for monsters and not for players (full round natural attack, pounce, etc.) to implement, and if they do, it's pretty self explanatory anyway. Some specific abilities require on-the-fly ruling (Parry and Riposte, Dimensional Dervish, etc.) but are usually really easy to decide. (My general rule of thumb is to consider whether or not you would have had additional actions in the regular system, and give you the appropriate number of actions based on the new system. Dimensional Dervish for example, would be 3 acts total to both cast Dimension Door and make as many attacks as you normally could make in a full round attack, either 3 or 4. Spell Combat functions the same way. In both cases, for balance reasons, you are not able to also cast a quickened spell in the same round, but you still have your passive act to use abilities which do not consume daily resources. An exception to this rule, is that you can use both Spell Combat and Dimensional Dervish in the same round, as a 3 act action.) Vital Strike no longer exists, and any abilities that listed Vital Strike as a prerequisite no longer do. Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot both split your initial attack act into two attacks, with the appropriate penalties.
- , iterative attacks work differently. Everything now works similarly to Natural Attacks, either primary or secondary. All primary attacks are made at full BAB, and all secondary attacks are made at full BAB-5.
- , counterspelling works differently as well. All counterspells work as a reaction, without requiring a readied action. Abilities like the Counterspell Arcanist's Exploit and the Counterspell Mastery ability from the Abjuration (Counterspell) Subschool now function as a single use of "Combat Reflexes for spells" per turn, spending their costs as normal.
- , abilities which normally tweak the action system are affected mostly on a case by case basis. Haste for instance, allows a fourth act. It no longer doubles the target's speed. Those affected can use this act however they choose, to move, cast a quickened spell, or make another Primary attack. One could even take two 2-act actions in the same round. Divine Power works basically the same way, only differently in that the target doesn't have the option of using the additional act to move. The Quickrunner's Shirt requires expenditure of the passive act, and grants an additional act to move only. In all these cases, the rule that states you can only cast one 2 or 3 act spell and one single act spell in one turn still applies.
Like I said, for my purposes, running with these rules has made the game considerably more fun for my players and myself. It genuinely feels like I have all the perks of 5th Edition's action system, without the various drawbacks that I have found in 5th edition. Since I bothered to post it, feel free to leave suggestions, opinions, or ask any questions.
I've adopted a version of the revised action economy, and it's worked so much better than the 3.5 action economy that I've never looked back. There are a few twiddly things around the edges, though, so I'm interested in seeing how other people have implemented this system.
One question: I'm a little fuzzy in how your system treats attacks. How many acts does a monster need to use to make all of its natural attacks? And does your system keep the full attack option for players?
How long have you playtested these rules?
I've adopted a version of the revised action economy, and it's worked so much better than the 3.5 action economy that I've never looked back. There are a few twiddly things around the edges, though, so I'm interested in seeing how other people have implemented this system.
One question: I'm a little fuzzy in how your system treats attacks. How many acts does a monster need to use to make all of its natural attacks? And does your system keep the full attack option for players?
Making a full attack is itself not an action that can be taken, unless they have a special ability like Spell Combat or Flurry of Blows.
Creatures with Natural Attacks may use the Full Natural Attack option, treating it as a Special Attack that would normally be a full-round action.
In my rules, all these transpose into 3 act Special Attacks because all of them are full-round actions.
How long have you playtested these rules?
These ones specifically I have tested for around 6 months.
I went through several iterations, but ultimately I couldn't get over the 5 foot step using an act. Plus, the iterative attack thing got to me, since at the time I was playing a lot of 5th Edition and their iterative attacks don't take negatives at all.
Of note:
- Combining Spell Combat and Dimensional Dervish consumes all 3 acts plus the passive act
- Not just Spell Combat and/or Flurry of Blows as class abilities, but anything that would be considered a full attack action, such as the Total Defense, is considered a full attack and would become 3 act Special Attacks.
- Usually unless I say so, no 3 act action consumes your passive act.
I've adopted a version of the revised action economy, and it's worked so much better than the 3.5 action economy that I've never looked back. There are a few twiddly things around the edges, though, so I'm interested in seeing how other people have implemented this system.
One question: I'm a little fuzzy in how your system treats attacks. How many acts does a monster need to use to make all of its natural attacks? And does your system keep the full attack option for players?
Making a full attack is itself not an action that can be taken, unless they have a special ability like Spell Combat or Flurry of Blows.
Creatures with Natural Attacks may use the Full Natural Attack option, treating it as a Special Attack that would normally be a full-round action.
In my rules, all these transpose into 3 act Special Attacks because all of them are full-round actions.
At first glance, the lack of to hit penalties for iterative attacks would make combat awfully deadly at low levels, where the game isn't balanced around allowing PCs and NPCs to make 3 attacks a turn. (Even with the penalties, I've noticed an uptick in deadliness in my games at low levels.) Have you noticed anything like this in your games?
(A related worry involves monsters with one big mega attack, who get exceedingly deadly given 3 attacks a turn. This is already a problem for the original RAE. Without penalties for iteratives, I would worry about this getting even more pronounced.)
I've adopted a version of the revised action economy, and it's worked so much better than the 3.5 action economy that I've never looked back. There are a few twiddly things around the edges, though, so I'm interested in seeing how other people have implemented this system.
One question: I'm a little fuzzy in how your system treats attacks. How many acts does a monster need to use to make all of its natural attacks? And does your system keep the full attack option for players?
Making a full attack is itself not an action that can be taken, unless they have a special ability like Spell Combat or Flurry of Blows.
Creatures with Natural Attacks may use the Full Natural Attack option, treating it as a Special Attack that would normally be a full-round action.
In my rules, all these transpose into 3 act Special Attacks because all of them are full-round actions.
At first glance, the lack of to hit penalties for iterative attacks would make combat awfully deadly at low levels, where the game isn't balanced around allowing PCs and NPCs to make 3 attacks a turn. (Even with the penalties, I've noticed an uptick in deadliness in my games at low levels.) Have you noticed anything like this in your games?
(A related worry involves monsters with one big mega attack, who get exceedingly deadly given 3 attacks a turn. This is already a problem for the original RAE. Without penalties for iteratives, I would worry about this getting even more pronounced.)
All attacks after the first take -5 to hit, similarly to secondary natural attacks.
At lower levels this actually hasn't affected much, since usually landing a blow depends on a decent die roll anyway from levels 1-3 ish. We played the first encounter of ROtRL and were very surprised at how good the rules were considering what would be happening without those second chances to hit.
All attacks after the first take -5 to hit, similarly to secondary natural attacks.
At lower levels this actually hasn't affected much, since usually landing a blow depends on a decent die roll anyway from levels 1-3 ish. We played the first encounter of ROtRL and were very surprised at how good the rules were considering what would be happening without those second chances to hit.
I see...
A follow-up question: In the original rules, if you wanted to (say) trip and then attack someone in one round, the attack would take a -5 penalty because it was the second attack performed in that round. (And likewise, if you wanted to attack and disarm then someone in a single round, the disarm attempt would take a -5 penalty.) But this employs to the attack action type to determine what kinds of actions incur a penalty if performed more than once, and which do not.
Given that you've gotten ride of the attack action type, how do you deal with cases in which, say, a player wants to mix attacks and combat maneuvers in a single round?
All attacks after the first take -5 to hit, similarly to secondary natural attacks.
At lower levels this actually hasn't affected much, since usually landing a blow depends on a decent die roll anyway from levels 1-3 ish. We played the first encounter of ROtRL and were very surprised at how good the rules were considering what would be happening without those second chances to hit.I see...
A follow-up question: In the original rules, if you wanted to (say) trip and then attack someone in one round, the attack would take a -5 penalty because it was the second attack performed in that round. (And likewise, if you wanted to attack and disarm then someone in a single round, the disarm attempt would take a -5 penalty.) But this employs to the attack action type to determine what kinds of actions incur a penalty if performed more than once, and which do not.
Given that you've gotten ride of the attack action type, how do you deal with cases in which, say, a player wants to mix attacks and combat maneuvers in a single round?
It should be self evident that anything that can be done in place of an attack, counts as that attack. Perhaps I am spoiled with my players (I am currently), but I haven't had the need for more clarification on this issue.
It should be self evident that anything that can be done in place of an attack, counts as that attack. Perhaps I am spoiled with my players (I am currently), but I haven't had the need for more clarification on this issue.
I see. So you effectively are keeping an attack action type (to keep track when acts start tacking on a -5), and letting iteratives bottom out at -5. (I got confused here by the initial claim about doing away w action types.)
It should be self evident that anything that can be done in place of an attack, counts as that attack. Perhaps I am spoiled with my players (I am currently), but I haven't had the need for more clarification on this issue.I see. So you effectively are keeping an attack action type (to keep track when acts start tacking on a -5), and letting iteratives bottom out at -5. (I got confused here by the initial claim about doing away w action types.)
I meant specifically the action types and subtypes established in the RAW of the Unchained Action Economy.
It is loose, but on purpose as it gives me the flexibility to rule on the fly when stupid timings inevitably happen.