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.
Yeah, there seem to be two general kinds of approaches people seem to favor. One is the nuanced kind of account being developed by Puna. The other is to make things super simple, and deal with swift actions in something like the way you suggest. Both are, to my mind, great improvements on the current system.
Two thoughts about your particular proposal. First, if you're going the super-simple route, an even simpler option you might consider is to make swift actions free actions that you can't perform more than once a turn. I suspect this would play about the same, and you wouldn't have to worry about tracking fractional actions. (You also may want the "once per turn" clause for some abilities in any case. Otherwise a Monk would be allowed to, say, spend 3 ki points to get three extra attacks in a single turn.)
Second, as I think Mark Seifter noted somewhere (in this thread?), the CRB clauses already entail that you can't cast more than 1 quickened spell a round. So you don't *need* to add a further clause about that. (Though if you want to tweak things to allow for multiple quickened spells a round, then knock yourself out!)
Yeah, there seem to be two general kinds of approaches people seem to favor. One is the nuanced kind of account being developed by Puna. The other is to make things super simple, and deal with swift actions in something like the way you suggest. Both are, to my mind, great improvements on the current system.
Two thoughts about your particular proposal. First, if you're going the super-simple route, an even simpler option you might consider is to make swift actions free actions that you can't perform more than once a turn. I suspect this would play about the same, and you wouldn't have to worry about tracking fractional actions. (You also may want the "once per turn" clause for some abilities in any case. Otherwise a Monk would be allowed to, say, spend 3 ki points to get three extra attacks in a single turn.)
It was definitely my intention to make swift only once per round to prevent swift action stacking. I apologize if I didn't convey it well.
And it was definitely not my intention to buff quickened spells - it was meant to be a limit, and I didn't realize that Mark already errata'd it.
I'm pretty sure that the swift action was a mistake. In 3.5 there was no swift action and all PF swift actions would be better as free actions that can only be used once per turn. There's no class balanced around the swift action limit that isn't crippled by it (ie. Swashbuckler).
I'm sorry...what?
Swift Actions, right from the 3.5 SRD
3.5 had plenty of things that used swift actions, too, even without counting quickened and entire lists of swift-action spells. Divine Vigor/Might, Quicken SLA, ToB stuff, Travel Devotion, Quicksilver Boots, etc.
Even in core PF, you have classes that heavily depend on swift actions. Paladin is a big one, as swift action to LoH yourself is one of their major survivability features. Other than that, you have monks using swift to spend ki, Cleric swift action domain powers, Bardic Performance upgrade at level 7, etc.
Swift actions are not a bandaid. They are a core feature that 3.5 and PF are designed around, and serve a very unique purpose.
Mmmmm, no. Swift actions were not a core part of 3.5, though they did exist. They were introduced after the DM's Guide, PHB, and Monster Manual. I believe they came from Complete Adventurer or another of the "Complete" line, though I guess one could argue that those are sort of "core." Just not fundamental. They most certainly were a bandaid, or at least a new feature that the developers felt prudent to add in. Considering the constraints of the full-attack action, it was a decent fix within the system and opened up a lot of new stuff. The SRD has everything as it's been updated and FAQ'd and given errata, but I'm currently looking at my copies of all three books, and none of them have Swift mentioned as an action type.
But anyways. I've been working to just convert every swift action into a single action, a Free action, or a free action once per turn. It's a lot of work, and I've been distracted by other things recently, but once I have it done I think it'll be more valuable than fiddling so much with Swift and Immediate and Free. Like I said upstream, it's easier to have everything in the system be numbers instead of words to describe actions at their fundamental level. 0, 1, 2, and 3. Each and every Swift action can be seen as either 1) Swift because it shouldn't take up any amount of the player's turn, or 2) Swift because it should be used once per turn and/or not take up any of the player's turn. The design is pretty simple, and a lot of things just need to be looked at for a few seconds to figure out. I promise it's not time-consuming unless you're going through each and every class ability and archetype.
Not sure if it's been brought up (trawling 14 pages does send a brain to sleep) but an interesting thing I noticed was that the new system moves from Immediate≡Swift in the action economy, to Immediate≡AoO.
If I've missed discussion on that specifically, feel free to direct me, but I'm very curious about the effects of that specific change which seems like a change that could be folded into either system.
RAW, Immediate > Reaction means that using a Reaction takes up an AoO, but having more AoOs doesn't give you more Reactions. I think we discussed it a little on the last page.
Mmmmm, no. Swift actions were not a core part of 3.5, though they did exist. They were introduced after the DM's Guide, PHB, and Monster Manual. I believe they came from Complete Adventurer or another of the "Complete" line, though I guess one could argue that those are sort of "core." Just not fundamental. They most certainly were a bandaid, or at least a new feature that the developers felt prudent to add in. Considering the constraints of the full-attack action, it was a decent fix within the system and opened up a lot of new stuff. The SRD has everything as it's been updated and FAQ'd and given errata, but I'm currently looking at my copies of all three books, and none of them have Swift mentioned as an action type.
I think Swift action first showed up in the Miniture Handbook, which I think was a 3.0 thing. It was part of the tactical combat system they were trying to do for the D&D minis, when they jumped to 3.5 it got folded in but I don't think they started putting that sidebar on "what is a swift action" till they started doing the 3.5 "Complete x" books
Mmmmm, no. Swift actions were not a core part of 3.5, though they did exist. They were introduced after the DM's Guide, PHB, and Monster Manual. I believe they came from Complete Adventurer or another of the "Complete" line, though I guess one could argue that those are sort of "core." Just not fundamental. They most certainly were a bandaid, or at least a new feature that the developers felt prudent to add in. Considering the constraints of the full-attack action, it was a decent fix within the system and opened up a lot of new stuff. The SRD has everything as it's been updated and FAQ'd and given errata, but I'm currently looking at my copies of all three books, and none of them have Swift mentioned as an action type.
Hmm, I went back and checked the 3.5 PHB and you're right on that. Quickened spells were mentioned as a free action, and it wasn't until the first supplements came out that swift was mentioned. Nevertheless, the completes were some of the earlier splatbooks in 3.5e, so it ended up being a pretty significant portion of D&D 3.5e that assumed that these actions exist and built upon it.
Pathfinder, on the other hand, was built with the assumption that swift actions existed right off the get-go. So many things from as early as Core and APG depended on them that I think it's hard to argue that they are not an integral part of the system.
The biggest issue that I have with turning swift into a 1/turn free action is stacking. While 1/turn prevents you from using the same swift action multiple times, you can combine multiple 1/turn abilities from different classes. This is the main reason that swift (as an action) was there - to limit how many of these "not really worth a standard" things from different sources that you can do in one round.
I'm not sure what the implications of this are yet, but I do feel that's something you need to take into account with converting former swift actions into free actions. While most pathfinder players don't do it currently, multiclassing does still exist in pathfinder, so abilities also have to be balanced on how they can potentially stack with each other when multiclassing happens and you can use Warpriest Swift Buffs, Bane, and Gift of Claw and Horn in one round.
I like the new Action Economy but I am also feeling a little iffy about how it handles Swift actions. The multiclassing issue will definitely come up for me if I use it in my campaign because I will be running it Gestalt. I like Felyndiira's proposal because it's pretty simple.
The biggest issue that I have with turning swift into a 1/turn free action is stacking. While 1/turn prevents you from using the same swift action multiple times, you can combine multiple 1/turn abilities from different classes. This is the main reason that swift (as an action) was there - to limit how many of these "not really worth a standard" things from different sources that you can do in one round.
I'm not sure what the implications of this are yet, but I do feel that's something you need to take into account with converting former swift actions into free actions.
Yeah, if one chooses to go the super-simple route, there seem to be two natural ways to proceed: (1) treating swift actions as free actions you can only do once per turn, or (2) treating them as free actions, but only one of which can be performed per turn (your suggestion).
I believe the second option is equivalent to just keeping the swift action. Which is fine! Several people were in favor of this earlier in the thread, so you're not alone in finding this to be an attractive way to go. And this is the safest way to deal with swift actions; one which you can be confident won't introduce any new wrinkles.
(The perk of the first option is that it frees things up a bit. I.e., if you're inclined to think that the inability to move into a Style and use a ki point to move 20' faster in the same round is an irritating constraint, and one not really needed to keep things balanced, then the first option can seem like a breath of fresh air.
You're right, though, that the first option is only viable if it won't lead to balance issues. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that would really worry me... If you come up with something problematic, I'd be very interested in hearing it!)
P.s. It may not initially even be clear why someone might *want* something more complicated, like what Puna's constructing. Here are two reasons why the Puna-style approach is also an attractive option.
First, you might think that some kinds of swift actions really don't need to be balanced against each other, but others do. Then you'll want to go through and make a case-by-case ruling about this, to get the best mix of freedom and balance.
Second, in some cases it seems like the 1/round constraint is itsel unnecessarily cramping (perhaps with Lay On Hands, for instance), though, of course, it *would* be too powerful to alliw players to perform any number of LOHs for free. If you make these swift actions 1 act actions, then you can get rid of another constraint without making things unbalanced, and free things up more. But, again, this requires making a case-by-case assessment.
P.s. It may not initially even be clear why someone might *want* something more complicated, like what Puna's constructing. Here are two reasons why the Puna-style approach is also an attractive option.
First, you might think that some kinds of swift actions really don't need to be balanced against each other, but others do. Then you'll want to go through and make a case-by-case ruling about this, to get the best mix of freedom and balance.
Second, in some cases it seems like the 1/round constraint is itsel unnecessarily cramping (perhaps with Lay On Hands, for instance), though, of course, it *would* be too powerful to alliw players to perform any number of LOHs for free. If you make these swift actions 1 act actions, then you can get rid of another constraint without making things unbalanced, and free things up more. But, again, this requires making a case-by-case assessment.
Puna's approach, while time consuming, is I feel the better way because it seems to be the spirit behind the NAE. All the others are just trying to shoehorn swifts or some function back in and that defeats the purpose of the system. Swift actions were a band-aid IMO to give relief to action taxed classes, like ranger/other 1/2 casters, but still perform their normal actions which in nearly every case is the full attack. I believe the goal of the NAE was to brake these old shackles and most importantly open up the design space. If you look at the classes progressively as designed you'll see that each iteration pushes the full action + swift to it's breaking point, there's very little you can do to the old system to solve this and imposes huge restrictions on class designs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I can understand the desire to reintroduce Swift, but it really is the case that once you look at an ability sideways you can see whether or not it should be 0, 0*, 1, 2, or 3 actions. A couple pages back I posted my first round of the big house rule list I'm doing to incorporate every ability of every class and every Paizo archetype so that they fit smoothly within the RAE structure. I can post it again if people would like. I'm in the midst of post-graduation revelry, friends' weddings, and a lot of extra shifts at work so I won't be a poor law student this Fall. It'll come soon enough though!
I adopted the RAE pretty much the day I picked up the book, and it worked phenomenally. I was DMing a party that had very little to do with Swift actions, and so there was no need for any adjudication on miscellany. I noticed that there were a lot of concerns here about Swift actions and how they fit in, so I decided to take a look at everything. I noticed a lot of patterns and what were essentially the developers' design goals, and in most cases I saw that Swift actions were easily shoehorned into 1) Free, once per round, 2) 1 action, or 3) Free action. It was just a matter of going through all of the abilities that mentioned Swift and designating them as such, based on the design goal with the particular ability. Pretty much every single time Swift is mentioned it falls into one of those categories without any issues.
I also took the opportunity to make things that called out a "Standard" action more balanced. In the old AE, Standard and Swift are basically codewords. Standard means it's 1/round and takes up time, while Swift is 1/round and takes up no time. Standard was easy: if it's as powerful as a spell, it stays 2 actions. If it isn't, it's 1 action. Some caveats here and there, but that was golden. Swift is an odd case, where sometimes things would be fine happening more than once per round, but the intent is that they take up no time. This gets into problems, though, once a class has multiple Swift actions that they can do in a turn. Swift actions aren't balanced against each other, they're balanced against the ability itself, and so you end up with this weird soup of actions that are smooth if you have one of them, but horribly limited when you have multiples.
Another thing I noticed going through everything and trying to carry it over was that classes are mechanically designed a certain way in terms of their intended action economy. I gave them nicknames in my head ("Striker," "Buffer," "Caster") and decided to include those, so people could see my thought process. Basically, in my opinion these classes have distinct niches within combat pertaining to how efficient and flexible they are in combat. A "Striker" will, and should, always be the most efficient in combat. That's their thing. So with the exception of Slayer, which is an odd case, these classes do the most attacks with the least interruption, and thus have their abilities like Rage, Smite, etc. turned into Free actions if they weren't already. "Buffer" classes should need to spend an action to compete with a Striker, because they can either cast spells or have a lot of utility outside of combat that makes up for being slightly less efficient. But once they spend that first action--like an Inquisitor's Judgment, or a Magi's Arcane Pool--they're basically on par with a Barbarian in terms of efficiency. A "Caster" is the least efficient class, but they make up for it by getting spells that break turns in half. They're fine. Really.
So even though I personally am going through every ability, most DMs aren't going to need to do that. You'll have a party of a Rogue, Magus, Oracle, and Ranger, and all you have to do is look at their abilities once and you're good for months, maybe even years. But it really is a natural system and doesn't need Swift as an action type, or 3.5 actions, or 20 actions subdivided into chunks of 2-5 actions at a time. It works, but it does take a second to shake the pan around so that all you're left with is the gold.
Also, I have to say again, if there are concerns about 3PP stuff or other houserule stuff (like Gestalt) not working, this is basically a houserule action economy. 3PP is Hombrew in a nicer format, with better editing than what you'll find on a messageboard, but that's really what it is. A lot of those classes and abilities are designed to break or work around the old action economy, and so they don't really translate well. It's like complaining that your new horse is made obsolete by a car. Well, yeah. That's the point. A good way to look at these things, though, it to see what the intent behind the abilities is. Barbarian is a great litmus test, because it's a solid martial class that doesn't really need any help, especially not in the new AE. And being concerned that something is a great dip is silly, in my opinion; why make abilities so that Monk/Oracle/Ranger/Druid is balanced at the expense of Monks, Oracles, Rangers, and Druids? Multiclassing is ok, but personally it's never something my players do because we can usually come across the character type they want within one class. Multiclassing in Pathfinder (and 3.5) isn't usually about character concept so much as it's about breaking mechanics wide open; if you're already there, that's your goal anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, Puna, I just want to say that I really respect you for the phenomenal attempt to both balance the RAE and re-balance all of the classes and feats at the same time. Even if you describe it as a simple revision, I think it's a monumental project that I, myself, certainly would not have been able to complete.
Even if we disagree on the issue of swift actions and a few PF/3.5 design philosophies, I have tremendous respect for your work on this and wish you the best of luck in its completion, as well as in your achievements in real life.
That being said, though, I feel like I need to explain my own points in why I wanted to preserve swift actions as-is.
Swift, in my opinion, serves as a perfect middle point between a move/standard action and a free action (which does exist in pathfinder). The intention of limiting Swift actions are not meant to be balanced just by not stacking on themselves; it makes sure that a character cannot acquire too many of these "extra actions" and does too much in one turn. More importantly, it's something that Pathfinder was designed around - entire feats were created with swift actions as the chassis. Entire class abilities utilized this, starting from as early as the Core Rulebook (or 3.5, if you go that far).
Swift was also a very easy thing to explain and work into the game. You get one swift action per round - that's it. Nothing to keep track of, and no way to gain additional swift actions from anything (at least not in first-party Pathfinder) so you don't have to do additional paperwork. It seems like a perfectly elegant system, and
I also do not see how recovering "swift" actions somehow defeats the point of the RAE system, unless if the point of the system is to somehow imbalance a huge swath of the Pathfinder material to the point that they would require a rewrite. RAE, to me, helps with two major problems with pathfinder - melee mobility and caster dominance. It certainly does not solve them, but these are the major benefits that people are seeing with the system.
Adding swift actions back into RAE doesn't change this at all. Instead, it allows you to keep the spirit of the RAE system while ensuring that it causes the least disruption to the
Puma, one of the things I disagree with you the most is that there's a universal "vision" of balance that everyone could agree with. From my time on the GitP forums, one of the first things I've noticed is that people with very high levels of system mastery often disagree on what seem to be trivial balance issues. You and I disagreeing on this point is further proof, in fact.
Your vision for PF design is broken down into a simple system of "Striker", "Buffer", and "Caster". I feel that this classification is heavily limiting and shoehorns each class into a set role, limiting their customization in favor of a more simplified design philosophy. Oracles, for instance, can be built in multiple different ways, including with a focus on non-combat (Lore); attempting to agglomerate them into any role (buffer or caster) overlooks at least a large number of builds with other focuses.
For that matter, even a cleric (major caster) falls into this, since the Cleric is expected to perform competently as a melee character. Stuffing them in a "caster" role will greatly depreciate their melee, while stuffing a tier 1 caster in the "buffer" role makes that role a bit useless. Trying to tie entire classes down into a narrow set of rules is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to the vast customization that is possible with pathfinder.
You also mentioned that "once you look at an ability sideways you can see whether or not it should be 0, 0*, 1, 2, or 3 actions". My experiences say that this tends to be extremely subjective, even within an audience of all experienced players/DMs. One of my current DMs, for instance, thinks spellcasters are perfectly balanced at lower than level ~13 and would probably up all divine caster swift abilities to free 1/round to reflect this. People think differently of summoners, of gunslingers, and even of monks and rogues; if you asked a group of 200 random GMs their opinons on any swift ability, you'll probably get a wide range of opinions for almost anything.
Most DMs do actually go through a lot more than just "four classes that their players will play." Players do change their decisions before committing on an idea or ask about rulings on multiple abilities before making a selection; imagine if you, as a DM, presented a player with this:
With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case you should ask the DM how he wants to do this.
Your player will see that, and will probably come back and ask you for a ruling as soon as he sees this. Opening up swift actions to GM interpretation is basically also opening yourself to all of these questions, since oftentimes a player will need to know the specifics of a class before he makes a choice on it. For example, will you rule that an Inquisitor's Bane is a free action 1/round, 1 action, or two actions? What about judgement/multiple judgements? Brawler's flexibility? It's difficult to choose as a player without knowing all of these details off-hand (and especially knowing that your DM doesn't think, say, inquisitors are OP and chooses the worst of his options), and you'll get questions about a lot more questions that just the final classes the players decided to stick with.
Finally, this:
Also, I have to say again, if there are concerns about 3PP stuff or other houserule stuff (like Gestalt) not working, this is basically a houserule action economy. 3PP is Hombrew in a nicer format, with better editing than what you'll find on a messageboard, but that's really what it is. A lot of those classes and abilities are designed to break or work around the old action economy, and so they don't really translate well. It's like complaining that your new horse is made obsolete by a car.
I feel that this basically boils down to "who cares about 3PP? They're just homebrew anyway." That is a bit insulting to the publishers, to be honest. One of the design choices that Paizo made when they made their entire game OGL was to encourage third-party publishers to create their own expansions to the pathfinder rules. Implying that it's okay to toss them aside is going against this very design philosophy, especially since there's many 3PP with very excellent works, like Kobold Press or Dreamscarred.
A system change that requires huge rewrites to function is a system with major inherit weaknesses. If the entire PF board agrees that swift actions as standard are a universally good thing, nothing would require a rewrite and it would be good design (like the lengthened casting). However, as your efforts showed, major rewrites are needed for the system to work with classes that use swift actions. This means that every third-party you want to use with the system will need the same type of rewrites, which majorly compounds the work. Some of these very 3PP stuff are very well-received by the community, and just dismissing them with the system is a huge mistake, in my opinion.
The major reason that I proposed keeping swift actions is that existing materials can be used with minimal changes. I do recognize that PF itself is not balanced (though I'm also a supporter of the Snowbluff principle), though I don't think it's wise to attempt to correct this and balance a new system at the same time. Except for complete revisions, a system should strive to serve its purpose while impacting the current state of the game as little as possible otherwise. Most of the other Unchained systems do exactly this - altering a small portion of the rules while making sure that it doesn't propagate to other areas. RAE is the only one that affects the entire system this broadly.
Many well-said things
Well, differences of opinion will happen. And since this is a system that's really just what you make of it, I don't see any problems with just throwing Swift actions back in, I guess it's just my personal bias that I think that it's more limiting than is necessary for the system. But that's really up to the individual; I've just found it pretty easy to do things case-by-base.
On the topic of class "types," a Cleric, Druid, Oracle are by default a "Caster." They can change how they operate with spells, but their mechanics inherently don't have anything like Arcane Pool, Judgment, Sacred Weapon, etc. unless they take a specific Mystery/Revelation or Domain. "Caster" is more of a catch-all for classes that have spells as their class abilities almost 100%; that doesn't mean they can't fill other roles, that's just what their mechanics are saying. It's not meant to pigeonhole things, but mostly just to provide myself a frame of reference. If, for instance, a Cleric gets an archetype ability that's meant to simulate Sacred Weapon, is it better or as good as what the Warpriest gets? Why? Why not? Do they give up something comparable, or is it a straight power increase? That's really what the classifications are doing in my mind.
Finally, I'm not discrediting or bashing 3PP stuff. I've looked over a bit of it, and what I've seen is on the whole pretty great, often even better than what Paizo themselves put out. I probably should have phrased it better, but what I consider "canon" 3PP stuff someone else might ignore entirely, and vice versa. So it's really hard to try to house rule things that I haven't seen or incorporate them into a Paizo system/framework/whateveryouwanttocallit smoothly. So I have to ignore it, and work with just what I'm given by Paizo.
I'm not saying it's obsolete, either, something else I could've phrased differently. Almost all of the 3PP stuff I've looked at was aimed at breaking the old action economy, since I looked really hard at certain bits of martial stuff. Those still work, but they may lose their appeal because the paradigm they were operating in, if you use this optional system, isn't necessarily there anymore. That happened with a vast majority of Fighter archetypes that I went through; most of them were aimed at breaking the old action economy, and so I had to be fairly creative with giving the archetypes a reason to exist. For instance, a lot of things let the Fighter (or Bard, sometimes) move and still get off what amounts to a full attack. The Two-Weapon archetype is a good example; the level 11 (I believe) ability let the fighter do what the feat Two Weapon Fighting now gives by default. That's really all I meant by making something "obsolete."
And really, Pathfinder/D&D is what you make it. I'm just sharing what I'm making this system, and offering up my opinions and findings. It's not to say I'm right, or wrong, just differing in opinion.
I've just been thinking about monsters with only a single natural attack, like T-Rexes, rhinos and wolves. In the new AE they would be able to make iterative attacks with their natural attacks, as opposed to the always-only-one that they normally do. I'm thinking upping the CR of those around CR 6 or more would make sense. (the lower CR ones don't get more of a boost than PCs and weapon-using monsters get at that level after all)
|
Felyndiira,
In your "3.5 Acts" proposal, what role do Reactions play? How about Immediate actions? For example, can I take my 3 Acts, take a 0.5 (swift) action, make an attack of opportunity, and then use an Immediate action (knocking my next round down to 3.0 actions)?
Because that is 6 actions!
Curious to see your proposal more spelled out.
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.
What about: Swift actions: You get a free swift action at the expense of your reaction' 1/rd, rest cost 1 act.
So you deal out options. Players can use up a reaction or an act.
The problem is that if you compare halfway optimised partial casters to a naked fighter, the fighter is always going to look worse. Comparing the partial casters to an archery ranger or pounce barbarian might actually yield a more accurate result.
Either way, that doesn't change what I originally said in the post before that one. If you take the buff + 2 strong attacks as the new standard, then classes who cannot follow that paradigm are either relegated to inherent mediocrity or inherent superiority. If they are inherently mediocre because they cannot self-buff, the system hasn't really balanced anything, and if they're inherently superior, then what everyone is saying about swift-reliant classes is true and the system needs some fixing.
The classes that "need" buffs in combat have spells to shine out of combat. While the classes who have inherently strong attacks mostly do not have lots of stuff to do out of combat so it is totally fair that they shine brighter IN combat.
Complaining that classes that have lots of out of combat stuff to do should be equally capable in combat is silly.
All in all I like the changes so far. Didn't have the opportunity to playtest them but I'll do that some time. That "swift" actions now cost a move action is something I like. And devaluating pounce by making everyone able to charge + additional attack is good, too.
The only thing I'm not sure about yet is whether I like how natural attacks now work.
Edit: Just now realized that you still get penalties for iteratives. Will have to reread the rules on paper.
I've been playing it in the Runelords Campaign I'm GMing. So far I think the players like it. I know I like it. These are the tweaks I made:
3.5 acts/round
Swift actions are 0.5 acts
5' steps are 0.5 acts for the first one, 1 act for the second, and 1.5 acts for the third
Other than that I'm playing it straight. The action flexibility is nice and makes more sense to me. Characters with reloading weapons (Heavy Crossbows, guns, etc.) aren't as heavily penalized as in regular action economy since they can get off about 3 attacks every 2 rounds.
I'm using it as is, with swift actions being 1 action, for the inmense majority of swifts. Only change for a few things, that would make the swift totally useless (as dome swift actions that give you +10' mover, which is pointless if you can use that action to mover).
For those, I use them as a reaction. You lose your ability to react (such as doing an AOO) because you spend a bit of focus elsewhere.
Other than that, and a small change to the staggered condition, every thing el se works like a charm. Some clases, monsters or feats are stronger, dome other are weaker, but a shift of balance isn't the same than an unbalance. After all, there's no reason to have a tiger being better than a Trex, it was just a consequence of the gold system
I'm using it as is, with swift actions being 1 action, for the inmense majority of swifts. Only change for a few things, that would make the swift totally useless (as dome swift actions that give you +10' mover, which is pointless if you can use that action to mover).
For those, I use them as a reaction. You lose your ability to react (such as doing an AOO) because you spend a bit of focus elsewhere.
Other than that, and a small change to the staggered condition, every thing el se works like a charm. Some clases, monsters or feats are stronger, dome other are weaker, but a shift of balance isn't the same than an unbalance. After all, there's no reason to have a tiger being better than a Trex, it was just a consequence of the old system
Has anyone been working on their own version of the unchained AE?
If so has the person perhaps posted online their own version :)?
Edit: I mean house rule version of this what they've been running with and if it has worked?
I still like some swift actions, like quicken spell, to use 1 action. Still able to cast 2 spells or attack and cast and move or aa bunch of other things. Wouldn't mind seeing a solo 400 page Players Manual with revised classes (with skill unlocks), this system tweeked a little, along with skills having adventure and out of adventure points, maybe a couple other things. Then expand Game Master Guide, add more magic items, gear it toward new manual. Doesn't outdate other books and washes away any desire for Pathfinder 2.0 any time soon. Great thing is that the CRB could still be used if u didn't want to convert.
^I like this guy, can we keep him?
I still like some swift actions, like quicken spell, to use 1 action. Still able to cast 2 spells or attack and cast and move or aa bunch of other things. Wouldn't mind seeing a solo 400 page Players Manual with revised classes (with skill unlocks), this system tweeked a little, along with skills having adventure and out of adventure points, maybe a couple other things. Then expand Game Master Guide, add more magic items, gear it toward new manual. Doesn't outdate other books and washes away any desire for Pathfinder 2.0 any time soon. Great thing is that the CRB could still be used if u didn't want to convert.
I like this idea. We could call the revisited core rulebook "pathfinder 2.0 Core Rulebook" and the expanded game master book "Pathfinder 2.0 Game Master book".
I've just been thinking about monsters with only a single natural attack, like T-Rexes, rhinos and wolves. In the new AE they would be able to make iterative attacks with their natural attacks, as opposed to the always-only-one that they normally do.
you know, this just crossed my mind too. Let me think of an example... just any monster with a Bite, Claw, Claw set of attacks. Say it's Bite is it's primary attack. Wouldn't it be better to just make three bites instead of the bite/claw/claw routine?
:edit: oh wait, nevermind. The "make all natural attacks" option spells it out nicely. 3 acts. Derp.
New question: If hasted, can a character make 2 vital strikes in 1 round?
New question: If hasted, can a character make 2 vital strikes in 1 round?that is up to GM, since the new action economy is built around mobility and less attacks per round and only standard action exist now. It could very well be that every attack can be a vital strike or the feat no longer function and must be removed from play. The feat chain was kind of weak before, consider the game was based around full attacking and not moving doing the most damage. I honestly don't think doubling the dice damage at level 6+ or 3 times at level 11+ ect is game breaking especially since it does not get multiplied on a crit and it feeds well into allowing it on every attack in the new system. It actual make it feel like the feat as a good investment and like the character is better at attacking/fighting. it can be used with charge now also where as before it could not. it really give to the flow of the system, as being smoother and more cinematic feel. Allowing a fighter to move from mob killing it then moving to into position for the next or if hasted taking two of them out. while your plowing your way to the BBEG.
I been play testing it last 3 game session and all my players like it. it is not broken or unbalances because the same tactic get to be use against PCS. Most of my players where only attacking once or twice in a round any way, choose to make more tactical choices. I also see other option that where almost never used actually being used, now like full defensive. My player would use that to run into reach of creature so he could attack next round or get into flank and help out a rouge, or they would intimate and demoralize some one after attacking one twice and killing it. kind like their characters are talking smack, like dead pool or spider man.
It's a safe assumption that Vital Strike takes 2 acts, instead of 1, like most other standard actions. Per the d20pfsrd, Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Really, limiting it to 2 acts is for the PCs safety, as some monsters could take a big advantage of dishing out 3 Vital Strikes per round (*cough, Thanatotic Titan, *cough*).
Since Haste essentially adds a new act that can only be used to attack/move, it may be possible to dish it out twice a round, with the 2nd at -5.
Sounds like your last 3 sessions have been fun! I'm glad characters are doing things that they would never do before. The Full-Attack action was far too prioritized over fun and interesting tactical moves, just because it was the "optimal" decision.
We used it for three levels in my current game and then the group voted to go back to the old system. It's not that they didn't like the new one but they felt it made a lot of the low level monsters more dangerous than they should have been. As an example a Fast Zombie crushed one of the fighters in a single round. We will give it another go sometime in the future but for now they want to go back to a familiar system.
One thing I did notice during our games when we were using it. Aid another got used a lot more. People would very often use their 3rd action to Aid another to attack, and often their 2nd action as well. There were cases where one fighter was getting a half dozen Aid anothers in a single round.
We used it for three levels in my current game and then the group voted to go back to the old system. It's not that they didn't like the new one but they felt it made a lot of the low level monsters more dangerous than they should have been. As an example a Fast Zombie crushed one of the fighters in a single round. We will give it another go sometime in the future but for now they want to go back to a familiar system.
One thing I did notice during our games when we were using it. Aid another got used a lot more. People would very often use their 3rd action to Aid another to attack, and often their 2nd action as well. There were cases where one fighter was getting a half dozen Aid anothers in a single round.
Yeah, some monsters' Challenge Rating will drastically change using the new AE (Namely, Tyrannosaurus Rex and similar creatures). Fast Zombie is definitely no longer a CR 1/2 for sure. A gelatinous cube is well above CR 3 now. It will no doubt require some GM flexibility as to gauging new encounters.
I noticed the hard and fast rule for "converting other actions" is simply that: hard and fast. However I think it is rather unfair to some swift action options as well (likewise mentioned above and on pages 11-14). The only quick remedy I would offer is that most swift actions that last only 1 round should become free actions instead. Once per turn of course.
Some that are off the top of my head: Arcane Strike (feat), Arcane Accuracy (Magus Arcana), Litany Spells, Swift Poisoning (Alchemist). I am sure there's plenty more.
i house ruled this economy system as a bonus action.
remember that combat and mechanics are not related to the adventure, so, if you can make more fluid and dynamic the combat, it should be better. once i have said that:i give every single creature (pc or npc) this acts per day equals to their dex mod. but the combat remains as it is in the raw rules. so, they can use this extraordinary actions in significant and special ways.
One issue I see with this is there are more npcs than pcs; ergo, npcs and monsters will get more acts to do extraordinary things, and willing to spend them frivolously (since a good bit of monsters will last one encounter). Also this prioritizes Dexterity more than the game already does. If combat and mechanics are not tied to the adventure, why relate this to an ability score at all?
Sorry if that's harsh criticism. If you run this system this way, and it works out for the table, you are a much more skilled GM than myself.
i house ruled this economy system as a bonus action.
remember that combat and mechanics are not related to the adventure, so, if you can make more fluid and dynamic the combat, it should be better. once i have said that:i give every single creature (pc or npc) this acts per day equals to their dex mod. but the combat remains as it is in the raw rules. so, they can use this extraordinary actions in significant and special ways.
One issue I see with this is there are more npcs than pcs; ergo, npcs and monsters will get more acts to do extraordinary things, and willing to spend them frivolously (since a good bit of monsters will last one encounter). Also this prioritizes Dexterity more than the game already does. If combat and mechanics are not tied to the adventure, why relate this to an ability score at all?
Sorry if that's harsh criticism. If you run this system this way, and it works out for the table, you are a much more skilled GM than myself.
Well if you're lazy it works out a bit better. Whenever I give something that's generally beneficial to PCs I typically don't give them to NPCs and monsters. For the most part this is because I don't want to adjust monster stat blocks or deal with monster stat blocks that are too complicated. That laziness pays off in that monsters are generally way weaker than PCs so players can handle way more enemies assuming they don't just nova every encounter and pace themselves. Also I have enough things that are monster exclusive to keep the monsters interesting and powerful without actually being powerful that I can just tack on them so I feel like it works out for the best.
Right. Offering it to "boss monsters only" would make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Puna'chong, did you end up posting your Revised Action Economy Houserules anywhere? I'd love to see what you came up with before I try them out in my soon to start game.
Cheers.
It's... somewhere back there. I was actually looking for that myself.
I've got another dumb question though. Fighting Defensively is a free action at the start of your turn. Under these new guidelines, does that mean you no longer actually have to attack to gain the benefits of Fighting Defensively?
That's what I was thinking. Just a free action before any attack is declared during one of your acts.
No. The quote says :suddenly you can full attack with vital strikes...Does it say that in the book? I'm pretty sure it's a two act action.The feat in the core reads
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damageand the Attack action in this system is 1 Act. So as written yeah full attack Vital Strike is allowed.
Individual DMs might decide otherwise but honestly .... I have no issues with a 6th level fighter carrying a long sword dishing out 6d8 to one target in a round when a 6th level wizard can dish out 6d6 to a half dozen or more at the same time.
And of course what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Any Monster with Vital strike gets to do the same
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage
I have put the relevant part in italics. if you "full attack" under the new system, only one of your attacks is at your highest base attack bonus, the others being at -5 and -10 respectively. To get more use out of vital strike, you must be able to have more attacks at your highest base attack bonus. The only way I can think of to do that is to use Natural attacks, but if you use the 3 action use all attacks option, you are not using the attack action, I believe.
Similarly those who wish to take a single-attack animal companion and give them 3 attacks, well I'd say sure; but the second attack is at -5 and the third at -10. If you are willing to take that then why not? of course that means these extra attacks are not eligible for vital strike.
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.
The feedback I see from those who have tried it is generally positive; those who are uncertain seem to be those who haven't (forgive me if this is wrong, I'm working on impressions more than hard facts) - that's a good indicator that's it's a good system. I'm a little leery of fiddling with something new before it's been used widely, which seems to be the consensus of this thread. Often "problems" with a new system are simply a result of misunderstanding the new system, vital strike being a case in point. If my interpretation is correct, I see no need to adjust it at all; it works fine as written (though possibly it could be made more clear).
Personally, I'd like to try out the new system; I love warpriests and am positively salivating at the increased options they get under this system; but even if I can't play a warpriest I'd like to try out the system to see how much of a difference it makes.
Personally, I'd like to try out the new system; I love warpriests and am positively salivating at the increased options they get under this system; but even if I can't play a warpriest I'd like to try out the system to see how much of a difference it makes.
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.
Funny enough, they're all middle base attack with 6th level "spells."