What do you tink of Unchained Action System

[Zautos']

So what do you think of the Unchained Action System action system now and if you use it what have you change in it?

We have change some swift actions to none actions that you can only use 1/turn. So swashbucklers and such can do there fun.

[SheepishEidolon]

I use a modified version for some sessions now, with 4 acts instead of 3. The original Unchained version offered too much mobility for my taste - the option to move twice your speed and attack somewhat undermines the point of positioning and boosting movement speed. So at my version you can move half your speed / do a 5-foot step with 1 act or move your speed with 2.

Beside that, Unchained's version is a martial friendly system. Casters don't get their action costs modified, but have to deal with more mobile martial opponents. At level 6, martials get a huge bump because of the nearly guaranteed two attacks, especially with Cleave and Vital Strike being converted to simple actions. It skews balance at a time when martials don't need any upgrade.

So while I was enthusiastic at the beginning, I plan to go back to the original system at the next campaign. Unchained's version would have been superior to the Core version if everything was built around it, but since action economy is rooted so deep in the rules, collateral damage of changing it is enormous.

[Mort the Cleverly Named]

I want to play an Action Point based Pathfinder, but it would be incredibly hard to convert. The Unchained system is not only unpolished but unfinished, has insufficient granularity, and makes some really terrible choices. Essentially, you cannot declare attack=move=swift=5' step=1/2 spell and that immediate=AoO without exploding everything, especially not when you are only going to throw out a smattering of abilities.

The most basic issue is that monsters are out of whack. Some get lots of small attacks, others get one big attack. The system doesn't attempt to address this, so T-Rex or wolf damage output just tripled (with three attack actions, natural attacks are not said to be different) while a Giant Octopus is as before, except someone stepping 5' out of range drops them from 8 tentacle attacks to 2. They don't even directly address pounce or fighting with a greatsword and a bite, things that are extremely common in the bestiary and pretty darn important. This isn't even getting to years of player abilities, we are on the level of "preview bestiary" and it doesn't work right.

You have similar issues across the board. Did your table rule Vital Strike as 1 action or 2? Then it is either a straight power up and size increasing builds are king or it is even more terrible than before. Abilities that move you from a standard to move to swift may or may not do anything, but if you can get something to immediate (normally not very useful) it becomes super awesome because now you are using your AoO pool and you are a Combat Reflexes away from having a huge one. The previous system just didn't value things this way, and fundamentally can't be used as the conversion.

Then there is the lack of granularity. One of the most popular house rules I've seen is some number of extra swift actions, because the smallest unit is "1 attack" and most are intentionally not worth that. The same with a 5' step, Rogues have enough trouble getting into Sneak Attack position without making the Fighter give up a tertiary attack for it. That, even by adjusting the values, there just isn't enough space to make something 1/2 or 1.5 attacks means you need to alter the very core to create something useable.

Finally, there is the fundamental issue that casters improve with more powerful spells, while martials improve by getting more attacks. Now, they are bogging down combat with 3 swings every round because "why not?" This empowers the self-buffing casters dramatically, as their previous limitation was often an excess of attack bonus but not enough BaB for more swings. So ironically, a system that people think will help martials only does so at the lowest levels before CoDzillas start ruling the roost.

Whew. So... not a fan. As I said, I'd kill for Action Point Pathfinder. However it needs much more work (like, all the pages from the Stamina section dedicated to it) and much more thought put in. As written, as much as I've played with it and wanted to love it, it just isn't worth the effort to fix.

[Porridge]

Zautos' wrote:

So what do you think of the Unchained Action System action system now

I'm a huge fan of the unchained system. And now that we've made the switch, I can't imagine ever going back. (I also think there are a lot of stealth improvements snuck into the small batch of rules they did provide; I keep coming across "easter egg" improvements from time to time.)

Zautos' wrote:

and if you use it what have you change in it?

We have change some swift actions to none actions that you can only use 1/turn. So swashbucklers and such can do there fun.

Yeah, as the previous posters said, so much of the standard system is based around the standard action economy that it requires a few tweaks to get things to run smoothly. (I think both SheepishEidolon and Mort do a very nice job of spelling out some of the prima facie warts with this system.)

Here are the tweaks we've made to smooth out some of the wrinkles, in order of importance:

1. As noted above, one of the problems with the system as written is that it dramatically amplifies the power of 1-attack monsters, and makes many-attack monsters much less mobile. So in our games we use the following monster attack rules:

• For monsters with 2+ natural attacks, making one attack takes 1 action (as before).
• For monsters with only 1 natural attack, making one attack takes 2 actions.
• Making all your primary natural attacks takes 2 actions.
• Making all of your natural attacks (primary and secondary) takes 3 actions (as before).

2. Like pretty everyone, our group ended up tweaking the system to allow a little more leeway with respect to swift actions. There are lots of decent ways to go here, but our particular houserule is:

• You get 1 free swift action a turn. After that, swift actions cost 1 action.

3. There's a grab-bag of feats and/or class abilities which no longer quite work as intended once you move to the new action economy, and each of these require a verdict as to how to play them. We haven't found this to be that big an issue, but I can definitely see this bothering some people more than it bothers us. In any case, there are lots of decent ways to go here, but here are some of our rules:

• The unchained monk's extra attacks turn into extra actions that can only be used to make simple attacks. (So an 11th level monk gets 5 actions a round, 2 of which can only be used to make a simple attack.)
• Rapid Shot can be used once per round to allow you to make two ranged attacks with a simple attack, at the cost of imposing a -2 penalty on all attacks made that round. (Since ranged players usually are making full attacks anyway, this doesn't change much.)
• Multishot can be used once per round, and allows you to shoot 2 arrows with one of your attacks. (Since ranged players usually are making full attacks anyway, this doesn't change much.)
• Vital strike attacks take 2 actions. (This makes vital strike about as useful as before.)
• Feats which allow you to do things you can now do for free (e.g., Shot on the Run, Flyby Attack, etc) are now free, for the purpose of satisfying prerequisites for other feats. (EX: So the Parting Shot feat usually requires Shot on the Run as a prerequisite. No longer.)
• Conditions like the staggered condition, which only allow you to take one standard action per round (according to the usual rules) now only allow you to take 2 actions a round instead of 3.
• Conditions like the nauseated condition, which only allow you to take one move action per round (according to the usual rules) now only allow you to take 1 action a round instead of 3.

4. Finally, one houserule which we use, which I think most people would hate, has to do with spells like Haste (and Divine Fervor, and the like):

• Haste gives you one extra action which can only be used for a simple attack. This attack is not at full BAB; instead, it takes the same iterative penalties as other simple attacks.

We like this rule because it makes spells like Haste less of a mandatory option (though it's still very good), and it gives other arcane spells a chance to get cast more often. We also like it because it does a bit to slow down the rocket-tag issues that come up in higher levels of play. But, like I said, I think most people would hate this rule, and would prefer a ruling which kept Haste the same as before:

• Haste gives you one extra action which can only be used for a simple attack. This attack is made at full BAB.