But while a steel-breaker brawler might lose out a bit, like you said, it's gained actions that are comparably better than what was essentially a patch there before. Then there are classes that win from this, like the Warpriest, which hardly worked before because it requires so many swift actions. Likewise with the swashbuckler, because of how immediate actions take away swift on the next turn: now they can parry and use a swift on their next turn, whereas before they were locked out.
But while a steel-breaker brawler might lose out a bit, like you said, it's gained actions that are comparably better than what was essentially a patch there before. Then there are classes that win from this, like the Warpriest, which hardly worked before because it requires so many swift actions. Likewise with the swashbuckler, because of how immediate actions take away swift on the next turn: now they can parry and use a swift on their next turn, whereas before they were locked out.
The steel-breaker has gained actions that are better than before, but so has everyone else - everyone gained an equal boost, while the brawler received the boost and a painful penalty. So did about half the martial classes, if you consider the list I posted earlier. Conversely, as you note, Warpriests can (potentially, depending on how the GM rules on the spells/round limit) throw out three fervor spells and paladins can use Lay on Hands three times in one round if they so choose. If that change is for the better or worse really depends on the individual.
The very best solution would probably be to go through ALL the swift actions and tag many of them as free actions, but frankly that's a lot of work and it would take up A LOT of pages. Barring that, I think my houserule is a decent fix - the classes that rely on multiple swift actions in each round (such as the Warpriest and the Swashbuckler) are better off than before, and the feats and class features that are balanced around not eat up other actions (such as Studied Combat, Studied Target, Quick Runner's Shirt, Arcane Strike, Arcane Accuracy, Inspire Courage etc.) can work the way they were intended.
Generally speaking, a standard action takes two actions and a move action takes one. So something that goes from standard -> Move usually goes from 2 actions to 1 action. Swift actions are still one action, so Move --> Swift makes no difference now.So how do Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler fuction with this new system?
How do lots of things in general work that change something from Standard -> Move or Move- > Swift. Do they just do nothing now?
getting swift -> free ones is still great though (rapid reload on gunlsingers is a waste unless they're using alchemical cartridges--hooray build and ammo diversity!)
Hmm, so the economy system has 3 actions a round and 1 reaction a round. Immediate actions got shifted to reactions along with attacks o opportunity. So immediate actions still got to compete with another action type in a round.
Also I've yet to find out how rapid shot works with the economy system
Also I've yet to find out how rapid shot works with the economy system
I don't think there's a ruling on it, Rapid Shot is very close to Two-Weapon Fighting. Using the TWF rules for Rapid Shot is probably not too far off the mark.
As for Manyshot, I have no idea.
Also I've yet to find out how rapid shot works with the economy systemI don't think there's a ruling on it, Rapid Shot is very close to Two-Weapon Fighting. Using the TWF rules for Rapid Shot is probably not too far off the mark.
As for Manyshot, I have no idea.
What is the actual rule on TWF? You can add an off hand attack with your main hand attack once for each feat? So the regular TWF feat grants your first attack both main and off-hand, then your second attack uses both weapons with the Improved feat, and then all three with the Greater feat?
I'd probably do something like that for Rapid Shot + Manyshot, honestly, each one can net you one additional attack per round (Rapid Shot giving you penalties because it's so much easier to obtain make sense anyway).
My answer is bad, and I fervently hope Paizo thinks before adopting it as the standard in a new edition hopefully years down the line.
If there was a new edition that used this system wouldn't the rest of the game be more based on the assumption of a three act structure and thus not have as many problems?
I myself am kind of half and half on the new system. There are a lot of things based on the assumption of the usual action economy and things that fall out of place need to be handled which is a pain for me to try to balance out, especially since each GM will doubtlessly balance each inconsistency differently. But on the other hand the things that I would rather see nerfed got nerfed and the things I would rather see buffed got buffed so I can't really complain on that front. Plus in play its actually pretty smooth and easy. Really smooth and easy. It almost makes me want a new edition because I don't want to add confusion by unleashing this on new players but its so much easier for new players.
I am "in this thread" not to spoil your celebration, but to point out that it's insane to change a fundamental aspect of the rules system when an entire set of books is based on an assumption of different rules. There's no telling the amount of confusion importing this into the current chassis will do. I get I don't have to use it; I won't. But in reality I was trying to draw a distinction between good optional improvements, a better rogue and deeper skills system, and bad optional improvements, including a wholesale change to the way combat and actions operate when an an entire opus of books and rules depending on a completely different understanding of how actions work. I believe this is a perfectly fair point and not just griping for the sake of not liking one particular impact. The bigger issue is more important and just complaining that I'm the ghost at your feast is not really a significant or interesting response.
I love the things I love, dislike the things I dislike, expressing my opinion of the new action economy system seems very relevant in a thread entitled, "How is the new action economy system?"
My answer is bad, and I fervently hope Paizo thinks before adopting it as the standard in a new edition hopefully years down the line.
I've adopted it for use in my games. We've used it. One group is newer, one is very experienced and halfway through an AP. Both groups loved it, though in some cases I had to make some calls on the spot. The confusion was minimal, because every other aspect of the system is much more streamlined and straightforward than the other system, and because I'm a DM with a fairly solid understanding of the rules. I incorporated new issues, looked at precedence, and made a ruling that my players and I were happy with. My new players spent less time trying to figure out how move and standard and swift and immediate actions worked, and more time having fun just using actions. Melee characters got to move and attack, which is a huge deal for me as a DM, and my experienced players did things that they couldn't have done before.
Just because it takes some shifting around doesn't mean it's "insane" or "dumb" or any of the fabulous thesaurus terms you've deployed. If I were the person who worked long and hard to make the alternative action economy work, wrote it out, and published it, I would be very insulted by your rhetoric, especially considering that you haven't played it. And it does work. It's remarkably smooth and serves as a very nice framework. If I have to do a little work to fit in corner cases, so be it. If it makes some builds better but some builds worse, so be it. If a build relies on abusing the old action economy, but doesn't work here, that's fine; there are builds now, I'm sure, that can rely on abusing the new action economy that wouldn't work in the old system.
We understand this deeply upsets you, but hostile language isn't going to get very far.
|
I largely like the new system, with one caveat: I don't like the names of the action types and subtypes. Specifically, I don't like that "Simple" is the name of actions that require 1 (or no) actions to complete, but "complex" is a subtype that can be applied to any type of action, even a simple one. I don't relish explaining to new players that a desired action is a "simple complex action."
I largely like the new system, with one caveat: I don't like the names of the action types and subtypes. Specifically, I don't like that "Simple" is the name of actions that require 1 (or no) actions to complete, but "complex" is a subtype that can be applied to any type of action, even a simple one. I don't relish explaining to new players that a desired action is a "simple complex action."
This I definitely have to agree with. It threw me off when I first read it. It's easy enough to just call actions "Actions" and make a "Complex Action" one that provokes. Assuming something doesn't provoke by default removes the need to tag something as simple.
Making new modular rules and completely replaceable classes is a good idea. Changing the systems fundamental architecture is not a good idea even in an optional system because the system was designed with the swift/standard dichotomy in mind.
Nothing I have said is either hostile or irrelevant. It simply answers the question posed by the thread.
You are right in your perspective that this action economy is a terrible optional rule for adapting wholesale into any campaign globally. Unchained is divided in optional rules that can be looked as things that are ways to improve current rules, while some sections are prototypes of new possible editions.
New action economy probably does not fit that well into the game in so raw state, but by itself it is a good system if it was polished to become maybe the next core combat framework. Maybe if whole Pathfinder was remade with this rule as core, the game would be better.
The logic my brain worked out was that Actions that can replace an attack or move action or be a swift action its 1 act.
If it is performed as a standard action or attack action then it's 2 acts.
If it's a full round action then it is 3 acts with the exception of full round actions that contain full attacks. The terms 'complex' and 'simple' don't add to the equation because these actions already call out whether or not they provoke AoOs.
I still dislike how immediate actions eat up an attack of opportunity
I still dislike how immediate actions eat up an attack of opportunity
Makes Combat Reflexes worth more. That's not a bad thing, just different. Bad example maybe, but if you played with a DM that never ruled the -4 penalty on firing into melee, you would never need Precise Shot. Then when you play with one that doesn't house rule that way, suddenly Precise Shot is a much more valuable feat.
Absolutely, this system is not one you should throw into an already existing game where characters are built with a particular concept of their mechanics in mind.
Magi come to mind specifically.
The system is purposely left wide open for DM's to house rule as needed.
I still dislike how immediate actions eat up an attack of opportunityMakes Combat Reflexes worth more. That's not a bad thing, just different. Bad example maybe, but if you played with a DM that never ruled the -4 penalty on firing into melee, you would never need Precise Shot. Then when you play with one that doesn't house rule that way, suddenly Precise Shot is a much more valuable feat.
I literally cannot think of a time where I've done an AoO and needed my immediate action in the same round. Also, honestly its an example of how complicated the normal system is in a bad way. Seriously how many actions did we actually have?
I'm also slightly concerned that aside from Mr. Pitt, most of the criticism is that you can't do the exact same things you can normally do, like we're just addicted to the same paradigm that we can't let it go unless the exact same things are viable.
I still dislike how immediate actions eat up an attack of opportunityMakes Combat Reflexes worth more. That's not a bad thing, just different. Bad example maybe, but if you played with a DM that never ruled the -4 penalty on firing into melee, you would never need Precise Shot. Then when you play with one that doesn't house rule that way, suddenly Precise Shot is a much more valuable feat.I literally cannot think of a time where I've done an AoO and needed my immediate action in the same round. Also, honestly its an example of how complicated the normal system is in a bad way. Seriously how many actions did we actually have?
I'm also slightly concerned that aside from Mr. Pitt, most of the criticism is that you can't do the exact same things you can normally do, like we're just addicted to the same paradigm that we can't let it go unless the exact same things are viable.
Best Polearm/Reach strategy; Ready action (Vital Strike/Brace) to whack whatever comes in range. Then take an AoO as they cross your line.
They attack you once (Charge), youve attacked them twice, once with Brace, and now it is your turn to Full Round attack. Vastly superior to a Charge.You cant do this now without Combat Reflexes, though I dont mind since this I like the system myself.
I still dislike how immediate actions eat up an attack of opportunityMakes Combat Reflexes worth more. That's not a bad thing, just different. Bad example maybe, but if you played with a DM that never ruled the -4 penalty on firing into melee, you would never need Precise Shot. Then when you play with one that doesn't house rule that way, suddenly Precise Shot is a much more valuable feat.I literally cannot think of a time where I've done an AoO and needed my immediate action in the same round. Also, honestly its an example of how complicated the normal system is in a bad way. Seriously how many actions did we actually have?
I'm also slightly concerned that aside from Mr. Pitt, most of the criticism is that you can't do the exact same things you can normally do, like we're just addicted to the same paradigm that we can't let it go unless the exact same things are viable.
Obviously you never have been bull rushed off the side of a cliff before. Aoo and featherfall.
If you land at the bottom in just one round, you're not taking much damage.
I still dislike how immediate actions eat up an attack of opportunityMakes Combat Reflexes worth more. That's not a bad thing, just different. Bad example maybe, but if you played with a DM that never ruled the -4 penalty on firing into melee, you would never need Precise Shot. Then when you play with one that doesn't house rule that way, suddenly Precise Shot is a much more valuable feat.I literally cannot think of a time where I've done an AoO and needed my immediate action in the same round. Also, honestly its an example of how complicated the normal system is in a bad way. Seriously how many actions did we actually have?
I'm also slightly concerned that aside from Mr. Pitt, most of the criticism is that you can't do the exact same things you can normally do, like we're just addicted to the same paradigm that we can't let it go unless the exact same things are viable.
This so much, I'm honestly tired of the full attack/2 spells mantra. Swift actions were a late game 3.5 introduction solely to bandaid the already taxed action system of full attack or bust. I've also seen so many awful examples of why the system isn't good yet so what if you can't arcane strike it was crap damage anyway, you hands down have just better options in the revised action system. It just seems like people don't want to have to think, "But I just want to stand in one spot while I trade full attacks".
The system is just so subtly elegant from all points; player, DM, and designer.
Essentially, what the revised action economy introduces to the game is a separate, optional meta. It's the difference between Legacy and Modern in MtG; both games can be fun, but card evaluations are very different in both formats. That doesn't mean a card that isn't good in Legacy but good in Modern is bad. That means that the card is good in Modern, and you'll look for something else in Legacy. There are entirely different archetypes, because the formats allow different things. Combo decks in Modern get to have fun because Force of Will doesn't exist. Likewise, Dredge doesn't work in Modern, because Golgari Grave Troll is banned, and you wouldn't be able to play Canadian Thresh/Temur Delver because Daze/Stifle is not a card in Modern's portfolio.
So you won't play a teleportation subschool wizard the same way in the revised action economy. You would either not choose the subschool here for the same reason you wouldn't choose other action-inefficient schools in the regular system. Why can the older rules have archetypes, schools, and builds that don't work, while this one can't? Does everything have to work here and then some? Do some builds only work because they are the byproduct of a less efficient, less elegant action system? That's where I see the hits against this, outside of maybe having to adjudicate corner cases or come up with a way to handle certain swift actions.
As far as that's concerned, I think it's perfectly legitimate (and what I'll be doing) to make actions like Inspire Courage, Studied Combat, etc. that get an action-economy reduction later on just go to free actions. At lower levels they actually get a buff, and at higher levels they operate much the same. Vital Strike is going to take two actions, Manyshot will act like Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and combat will flow much more fluidly. I've already played a total of 10 hours with the new economy, and I can say that it's fantastic.
If you land at the bottom in just one round, you're not taking much damage.You fall about 500' in 6 seconds.
Maybe you are then, but if you have featherfall prepared, just cast it as a "normal" action, otherwise you're still dead.
I've adopted it for use in my games. We've used it. One group is newer, one is very experienced and halfway through an AP. Both groups loved it, though in some cases I had to make some calls on the spot. The confusion was minimal, because every other aspect of the system is much more streamlined and straightforward than the other system, and because I'm a DM with a fairly solid understanding of the rules. I incorporated new issues, looked at precedence, and made a ruling that my players and I were happy with. My new players spent less time trying to figure out how move and standard and swift and immediate actions worked, and more time having fun just using actions. Melee characters got to move and attack, which is a huge...I am "in this thread" not to spoil your celebration, but to point out that it's insane to change a fundamental aspect of the rules system when an entire set of books is based on an assumption of different rules. There's no telling the amount of confusion importing this into the current chassis will do. I get I don't have to use it; I won't. But in reality I was trying to draw a distinction between good optional improvements, a better rogue and deeper skills system, and bad optional improvements, including a wholesale change to the way combat and actions operate when an an entire opus of books and rules depending on a completely different understanding of how actions work. I believe this is a perfectly fair point and not just griping for the sake of not liking one particular impact. The bigger issue is more important and just complaining that I'm the ghost at your feast is not really a significant or interesting response.
I love the things I love, dislike the things I dislike, expressing my opinion of the new action economy system seems very relevant in a thread entitled, "How is the new action economy system?"
My answer is bad, and I fervently hope Paizo thinks before adopting it as the standard in a new edition hopefully years down the line.
Most likely my gaming group won't be adopting this optional rule into our games. Not yet anyway. Sounds interesting though
I have a question did the new action economy slow your games down or speed them up? Because having fast combat rounds is one of the goals my gaming group is trying to maintain.
It sped them up tremendously. Outside of explaining how the system worked and going over corner cases, everything was just an action. At lower levels, for my newer group, it was much quicker, because I didn't have to stop and explain a move action that didn't involve moving, or tell them that they couldn't do a swift since they had taken an immediate. Stuff like that. The martial characters were able to more fluidly do their thing and attack a couple more times, while the wizard didn't see any real loss in power.
For the higher level, more experienced group, they took it in stride, and complex combinations of actions, spells, abilities, etc. were easier to keep track of. The paladin liked being able to move and attack twice, since that had been a pretty frequent frustration for the player, and he was able to buff up his weapon and attack on the same turn, which made the ability more useful. The Abyssal bloodrager lost an attack, but again, being able to move and attack was beneficial, and he also noted something that I liked: before, he couldn't cast a buff spell and attack, so he just never cast any bloodrager spells. This time he cast a spell and swung a couple times, when it was beneficial.
The skald and investigator I had to fiddle with, but I made the raging song and studied combat free actions since they were high enough level to get the action economy upgrade inherent in the abilities. Easy enough, and since the skald relies on immediate spell actions to help the party out of jams he finally got to use actions that otherwise were frequently locked out because of Saving Finale and its ilk.
The shaman is a battle shaman that uses reach weapons to be sort of the party's support center, and he was able to enlarge himself and make an attack in the same turn a couple times. The player really liked the changes, since it also made it easier for him to take advantage of his reach and still move into a good spot. The druid didn't see much change, outside of wild shape being a touch more useful. I made it cost 2 actions, but that also meant that he could turn into an animal and still attack on the same turn, which was cool, and he liked that. Otherwise he hasn't changed much.
Overall it's been fairly easy to port everything over, and nobody's had anything break on them. The newer players felt it was more intuitive and their lower level characters getting multiple attacks was fun for them, and deadly from their enemies. It had a pronounced effect on TWF. Existing builds for the more experienced players saw some change, and what they did see was on the whole positive.
Would making swift action feats and class abilities last an encounter or until the end of the next round fix the arcane strike and smite abilities.....?
It does seem like that might invert for a more experienced group at higher levels, where options paralysis and cost analysis could set in.
It is telling that you more or less went with Kudaku's suggestion for the Skald and Investigator. Kind of interesting that you didn't do that for the Paladin, and bypassed my desire to use your group as a test case for the aforementioned cost analysis issue. You're too efficient at solving problems.
Or, well, maybe not. What caused you to make those abilities free actions? Players asking, you just felt like it was a good idea, what? I'm curious.
Agreed, the cost analysis is a bit of a concern.
Will you be constantly referencing a table to see what actions cost?
Move, standard, and full-round is pretty straightforward.
And experienced players like myself are really accustomed to the 3.5 system, it comes very naturally to me.
@Puna'chong thanks for the feedback. Happy it's working out for you.
Anyone else with some criticism of the system?
They're free actions because they start as an action and that action gets reduced a step. In the other system that means you get an efficiency increase, but in this system you don't because the ability is already efficient by default due to how actions work. The intent, though, is that they become quicker to incorporate, to the extent that they become essentially "free" through the use of Swift. However, because you can only take one swift action on a given turn, it's not necessarily free if you want to take other swift actions. My understanding of swift is that they're actions that want to be taken in addition to other actions in a turn, but are powerful enough that they should only be used once per turn; this gets into dilemma territory when your class can make more than one swift, even though the intent is there that you should be able to do any swift action you can do, just once per turn.
So I went ahead and made the song a free action as it upgraded in speed. This really has no significant abusable effect as a free action, and since it goes to swift anyways free's easy enough. Studied Combat, too, has always felt like some form of odd action tax on the investigator. This also gets a speed increase, so I put it at free as well. You can only have one studied target at a time, so there's no way to abuse it as a free action.
However, a paladin's LoH never gets a speed increase, and now that the economy is generally improved overall, making it an action felt correct. It did have the side effect of taking one attack away from the paladin on a turn that he used it, but it also meant he can use it more than once in a turn. The paladin has also taken an oath of vengeance, so most of his LoH uses go towards more smites anyways. Healing as a free action is also very different than choosing one target (and only one target) to get a bonus against; rage starts out free, so I see no reason why studied combat has to be so tough to get off. Also, I've never thought Smite needed to be a swift action, so it's just part of the attack action now. [Edit: much like how Spellstrike works. Smites don't stack armor or bonuses for having more than one active, so it doesn't really get too nutty if you smite three creatures in a round. It can be a lot of damage, sure, but that's also kind of a fun buff to the paladin that I don't feel is all that overpowered. And having smite be part of the attack action feels like a much more fluid solution]
For the most part, I'm making judgments on an ability-by-ability basis. Some are intended to eventually have little impact on the character's action economy, but start with a minor setup. So my new group's slayer still has to use an action to study, but when that gets faster it'll be free. I also tend to think that some abilities are needlessly action-taxed, so the ones that feel that way I've modified. Some simply don't work or are obviously too powerful as free actions, so those ones remain actions. This has been fine, though, because while those get a little more restricted, more things are "unchained" than are slowed down.
They're free actions because they start as an action and that action gets reduced a step. In the other system that means you get an efficiency increase, but in this system you don't because the ability is already efficient by default due to how actions work. The intent, though, is that they become quicker to incorporate, to the extent that they become essentially "free" through the use of Swift. However, because you can only take one swift action on a given turn, it's not necessarily free if you want to take other swift actions. My understanding of swift is that they're actions that want to be taken in addition to other actions in a turn, but are powerful enough that they should only be used once per turn; this gets into dilemma territory when your class can make more than one swift, even though the intent is there that you should be able to do any swift action you can do, just once per turn.
So I went ahead and made the song a free action as it upgraded in speed. This really has no significant abusable effect as a free action, and since it goes to swift anyways free's easy enough. Studied Combat, too, has always felt like some form of odd action tax on the investigator. This also gets a speed increase, so I put it at free as well. You can only have one studied target at a time, so there's no way to abuse it as a free action.
However, a paladin's LoH never gets a speed increase, and now that the economy is generally improved overall, making it an action felt correct. It did have the side effect of taking one attack away from the paladin on a turn that he used it, but it also meant he can use it more than once in a turn. The paladin has also taken an oath of vengeance, so most of his LoH uses go towards more smites anyways. Healing as a free action is also very different than choosing one target (and only one target) to get a bonus against; rage starts out free, so I see no reason why studied combat has to be so tough to get off. Also, I've never thought Smite needed to be a swift action, so it's...
I have been considering this approach as well.
It can be done on a case by case basis, and pretty effectively.
More issues that exist come from abilities like Haste and Divine Power, which I have been ruling grant an extra attack at full BAB. Perhaps not how it functions, or perhaps it is, I'm not sure because the wording of the spell and the intent of it was always to grant an extra attack at full. Past level 5 this means that the most common turns are going to be single act buff (for classes that use them, paladins, magi, rangers, etc) two attacks at full BAB, and either a movement before or after all this happens, if else a third attack at a -5 penalty.
To me, this is balanced gameplay. Classes that are weaker, namely fighters and most likely barbarians also, will have a fourth attack which balances their power in a way that they didn't have before. Pure martials make more attacks, this is good design.
Slayers are iffy, though they only need to spend one action per fight designating their targets usually.
Slayers eventually get to split up their single action into multiple targets, too, so that's inherently an increasingly efficient ability.
I've been ruling that haste just gives an extra action that must be used to make an attack. It's a bit of a nerf, but like you said, it also opens up things like buff>move>attack that you couldn't do before. Haste is better situated in some ways and worse off in others, but I think overall it's a spell that offers more flexibility in combat than raw power. I played it this way and the investigator used it to be much more mobile and also using up two actions to drink more buff potions, charge, etc. and still always have one attack, no matter what.
At the same time, an attack at -15 isn't impossible, especially not at higher levels when the buffs thrown around can get pretty absurd. It also makes sense to me, because moving around so ridiculously, magically fast doesn't make you more accurate, necessarily, just faster at hammering in an extra attack.
But ruling as giving one extra action that must be used to make an attack--taken at full BAB--doesn't seem absurd or anything. I'd actually say haste gives more benefits now than it did before, in most cases.
Thank you for your write up of actual testing, it is enlightening.
The only concern I have if that people are zipping through the battlefield at tremendous speeds. Not because it is fast, but because the battle maps are only so large.
It just seems like people don't want to have to think, "But I just want to stand in one spot while I trade full attacks".
Since you specifically mentioned my example in your post, I assume this is aimed at me. If so, this has already been asked and answered. I genuinely love 95% of what this system brings to the table. A revised action system that relied less on full attacks was probably my number one hope for Unchained. I even asked Stephen Radney-McFarland if Unchained could make melee combat more mobile when he showed up on Know Direction. Trust me when I say that I'm thrilled to see a system that's less movement hostile. In short, the only way you could be more mistaken about my motivation was if you also accused me of being a manatee.
With all that said, I don't think you needed to disincentivize the swift actions that classes relied on in the old system to make the revised system work. I'm guessing "swift actions = 1 simple action" was designed at least in part because Stephen had so few pages to work with that there was no space to give swift actions a more comprehensive workover. Honestly I'm amazed he managed to fit a complete and functional rewrite of Pathfinder's combat system in only eight pages. If the layout of this book was up to me I'd have given Stephen however many pages he wanted to write this up, up to and including replacing chapter 5 with a robust write-up of the new combat system.
I want this system to catch on, succeed, and be used as a guideline and sounding board when Pathfinder eventually decides to redesign their action system more thoroughly. In order to reach that goal it's important that this system proves that Pathfinder works better with a system that's less mired in the full attack mentality and prioritizes flexibility, mobility, and options. If the revised system makes using class features less attractive, that's a strike against it - and in my opinion it's a big one.
For the most part, I'm making judgments on an ability-by-ability basis. Some are intended to eventually have little impact on the character's action economy, but start with a minor setup. So my new group's slayer still has to use an action to study, but when that gets faster it'll be free. I also tend to think that some abilities are needlessly action-taxed, so the ones that feel that way I've modified. Some simply don't work or are obviously too powerful as free actions, so those ones remain actions. This has been fine, though, because while those get a little more restricted, more things are "unchained" than are slowed down.
I think this is the best way to handle the swift action problem, going through each swift action as it comes up and ruling if it's a simple action or a free action. The downside is that that quickly adds up to a lot of house rules, and many GMs may balk at the size of the task. My house rule of a free swift action each round is more of a quick'n'dirty fix to try and catch them all in one go, but if you have the time and your players don't mind having abilities and feats ruled on mid-game, then I honestly think you've got the better solution.
Would making swift action feats and class abilities last an encounter or until the end of the next round fix the arcane strike and smite abilities.....?
First off just leave Arcane strike alone, the feat was awful before and even more awful in the new system. It's nothing but a meager damage bump, which the new system already has a much larger damage bump. If you want to use the system you need to start looking at from the perspective of the new system not trying to shoe horn the old taxed system into the new. The system isn't about ringing every bit of extra because you want to stand in one spot and full attack, once you move away from that mind set you'll see there's better options besides the old "well just take this because you don't have actions to do anything else".
As for smite, "The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability". It already does, no need to change anything about smite it was already strong.
For the most part I do like the new system, but I find the lack of the swift actions hurts those classes that were already fairly well balanced, and cannot for the life of me understand the design decision behind spell combat and spellstrike. Spellstrike should have remained a non-action rider to touch spells, and spell combat should have been a complex action, continued to be combinable with spellstrike, and kept the extra attack penalty for concentration bonus optional.
Since you specifically mentioned my example in your post, I assume this is aimed at me. If so, this has already been asked and answered. I genuinely love 95% of what this system brings to the table. A revised action system that relied less on full attacks was probably my number one hope for Unchained. I even asked Stephen Radney-McFarland if Unchained could make melee combat more mobile when he showed up on Know Direction. Trust me when I say that I'm thrilled to see a system that's less movement hostile. In short, the only way you could be more mistaken about my motivation was if you also accused me of being a manatee.
With all that said, I don't think you needed to disincentivize the swift actions that classes relied on in the old system to make the revised system work. I'm guessing "swift actions = 1 simple action" was designed at least in part because Stephen had so few pages to work with that there was no space to give swift actions a more comprehensive workover. Honestly I'm amazed he managed to fit a complete and functional rewrite of Pathfinder's combat system in only eight pages. If the layout of this book was up to me I'd have given Stephen however many pages he wanted to write this up, up to and including replacing chapter 5 with a robust write-up of the new combat system.
I want this system to catch on, succeed, and be used as a guideline and sounding board when Pathfinder eventually decides to redesign their action system more thoroughly. In order to reach that goal it's important that this system proves that Pathfinder works better with a system that's less mired in the full attack mentality and prioritizes flexibility, mobility, and options. If the revised system makes using class features less attractive, that's a strike against it - and in my opinion it's a big one....
I was speaking generally not just directly about you.
My bigger point is that if a piddly class ability/feat is used to put a big strike on the system then they aren't trying to understand the reason why those (late designed classes) things aren't needed in this system. People are so focused on old things being, which in most cases where nothing but bandaids, less effective that they aren't seeing the new options.
I don't think we should be adding back in swifts or changing feats like arcane strike that defeats the purpose of the system. While I do agree that a few class abilities such as some that Puna'chong said he followed the next logical step of reducing the act cost to 0, not all things need that done to them.
For the most part I do like the new system, but I find the lack of the swift actions hurts those classes that were already fairly well balanced, and cannot for the life of me understand the design decision behind spell combat and spellstrike. Spellstrike should have remained a non-action rider to touch spells, and spell combat should have been a complex action, continued to be combinable with spellstrike, and kept the extra attack penalty for concentration bonus optional.
But why do you think that? Because that's just the way it was before? Do you have have hard numbers saying that the new magus is always behind the old one? Honestly all I've been hearing is speculation yet from people who've actually played they've found the new system very smooth and fluid. Puna'chong is one who's given actual play perspectives which in most instances were positive. As soon as I start my Rappan Athuk game I'll give in game accounts about it as well.
Puna'chong's strategy by and large avoids this, because of a few (very good) houserules that hold the system together and allow classes to still use their primary class abilities without scratching their heads and wondering if they really should.
Why shouldn't they? If something is always the right choice then there isn't a choice, why even have it as an activate at that point. The choice makes the decision matter.
For the most part I do like the new system, but I find the lack of the swift actions hurts those classes that were already fairly well balanced, and cannot for the life of me understand the design decision behind spell combat and spellstrike. Spellstrike should have remained a non-action rider to touch spells, and spell combat should have been a complex action, continued to be combinable with spellstrike, and kept the extra attack penalty for concentration bonus optional.But why do you think that? Because that's just the way it was before? Do you have have hard numbers saying that the new magus is always behind the old one? Honestly all I've been hearing is speculation yet from people who've actually played they've found the new system very smooth and fluid. Puna'chong is one who's given actual play perspectives which in most instances were positive. As soon as I start my Rappan Athuk game I'll give in game accounts about it as well.
Because spell combat has non-optional penalties to attack if you cast defensively in addition to the -2 you get for using it, on a medium BAB class that is supposed to be a main combatant. One that is reliant on using a swift action to raise it's accuracy every round to an acceptable level to hit, and uses spellstrike to make up for the fact that by design is meant to use the weakest fighting style in the game: einhander.
That, and spellstrike as an action makes no sense, other than to disallow it from being combined with spell combat, which would be unnecessary if that was simply a complex action. Especially as that gives the option for pesudo twf, with extra damage, for an extra action point or attack and buff.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't automatically good either.
You call the Brawler a Band-Aid. I call the Brawler a class that a player at my table enjoyed, and would enjoy less under this system.Personally, I think that any system that kills classes outright is poorly designed and better have massive benefits elsewhere. I'm seeing benefits to this system. I'm also seeing a great need to houserule it to functionality (not surprising, given the constraints it was working under) and seeing that I can probably solve most of the 'issues' that this system fixes with a smaller number of houserules.
And of course, color me amused at the Paladin and the Bard being called late designed classes.
Actually in fact yes all the hybrids are bandaids to multiclassing not being worth a dang in the game baring special cases. This is why there aren't VMCs for them because they aren't considered a stand alone class.
More bad examples, both work just fine with zero adjustments sure you don't get more efficient later but your abilities still work all combat after you spend one act. It does do one thing make those actions matter even more in whether it's the better decision or not instead of just turn on every time.
The active ones are active because it makes no sense for them to be passive. Studied Combat and Smite, for example, are active because they have to designate a target. If they were passive, they would be different abilities.Inspire Courage is active because it has a daily usage limitation, and if it was passive you would exhaust that while brushing your teeth each morning.
Counterquestion: why not have Rage always active for a Barbarian? Why not have a Barbarian wake up raging, rage while he showers, rage while he talks to the king about matters of state, rage while he fights, rage while he loots the bodies, rage while he mourns his dead comrades, rage when he goes home and makes love to his wife, and rage while he goes to sleep?
Hm okay it seems you missed my point and focused on a nonsensical last part of my statement instead of the issue of "wanting to not have to spend an action to do x" My statement had zero basis in exhausting resources and was about automatic choice.
Having the choice between doing more to the enemy now versus activating my ability which makes me better later, that makes the ability mean more and not always the automatic choice.
Having choices that don't impact you in anyway means they aren't an actually choice.
It just seems like people don't want to have to think, "But I just want to stand in one spot while I trade full attacks".Since you specifically mentioned my example in your post, I assume this is aimed at me. If so, this has already been asked and answered. I genuinely love 95% of what this system brings to the table. A revised action system that relied less on full attacks was probably my number one hope for Unchained. I even asked Stephen Radney-McFarland if Unchained could make melee combat more mobile when he showed up on Know Direction. Trust me when I say that I'm thrilled to see a system that's less movement hostile. In short, the only way you could be more mistaken about my motivation was if you also accused me of being a manatee.
With all that said, I don't think you needed to disincentivize the swift actions that classes relied on in the old system to make the revised system work. I'm guessing "swift actions = 1 simple action" was designed at least in part because Stephen had so few pages to work with that there was no space to give swift actions a more comprehensive workover. Honestly I'm amazed he managed to fit a complete and functional rewrite of Pathfinder's combat system in only eight pages. If the layout of this book was up to me I'd have given Stephen however many pages he wanted to write this up, up to and including replacing chapter 5 with a robust write-up of the new combat system.
I want this system to catch on, succeed, and be used as a guideline and sounding board when Pathfinder eventually decides to redesign their action system more thoroughly. In order to reach that goal it's important that this system proves that Pathfinder works better with a system that's less mired in the full attack mentality and prioritizes flexibility, mobility, and options. If the revised system makes using class features less attractive, that's a strike against it - and in my opinion it's a big one....
Technically, we don't actually know that you aren't a manatee...