| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We started a new campaign and decided to give the Revised Action Economy a test.
Before we started, my players advocated to limit the number of attack actions for low-level characters by BAB (i.e. 2nd attack action only at BAB +6, 3rd attack +11). The reason was that it bogs down the combat when everybody takes all their attacks, hoping for a natural 20 on the 3rd act. I agreed, but after reading a few forum threads, I felt encouraged to try the system "as is", and we did so in our first few encounters so far. Being able to make multiple attacks seems to lead to static combat again, however, and I'm not really sure about this.
Some other thing we noticed:
- Readying is much more different than anticipated: ready itself is listed as a simple action, so you need to commit one of your three acts to ready, and you still need to have the acts your readied action takes free to be able to take it as a reaction. So compared to the standard systeem, not only does readying eat your immediate action and your attack of opportunity, it also costs a move action more. You can no longer move, then ready and use the ready for an advanced action, such as casting a spell. I wonder if this is really by design.
- Delay isn't listed at all in the new system, but I guess it is still viable?
- Monsters with just one natural attack benefit. If multiple attacks are allowed, a creature that would normally have just one attack can now make three. I had some fire beetles in one encounter that became a bit more dangerouns. A t_rex might become something fearsome. On the other hand, the characters were also able to make more attacks.
- Monsters with three or more natural attacks are shafted. They can take the "make all natural attacks" advanced action, but then they cannot move at all. If they want to move they can make two attacks at most, and get a –5 to the second one. I'm not sure this is good. Maybe natural attacks that list multiples of one attack form (such as "2 claws") should work similar to two-weapon fighting, and only use one attack action for both attacks; maybe with –2, or no penalty if the creature has Multiattack. On the other hand, the "Attack" simple attack actions says "make one or more attacks" - hm.
- It is possible, with a BAB of +1 or more, to ready or drop a shield for free when taking a move action, or to draw a weapon for free when charging. It is, however, not possible to draw a weapon for free on a normal move Action. I'm quite sure this is an oversight and not intended like that.
What do you think about these issuss? What are your experiences (and I don't mean theorycrafting)?
That last one is something I never realised I'd houseruled in just maintaining consistency.
Generally: I found it made a notable lump of difference in fixing martials/casters at higher levels (where it's a problem) as mobility was less of an issue for the former, and reduced mobility placed some strategic burdens on the latter. It doesn't solve the gap completely by any means but the difference was felt.
TWF builds have cropped up more, having the potential to actually use off-hand attacks more often.
With enemies utilizing their new mobility as well, I found static combat wasn't as much an issue after the very early levels. However, the 1-2 region is something I normally gloss over, and still did using the action economy.
Single attack monsters are more fearsome. And that's great. For using all natural attacks, I just moved that it took two actions. This helped players using them but more usually, meant I could keep a fight with, an octopus for example, more fluid.
The equivalence between move and swift; and AoO and Immediate, changed some build approaches.
Well, I'll add this from my point of view. The martial-caster disparity often mentioned on this forum is not something I have ever actually encountered in my games, and I've been running three weekly campaigns on Pathfinder since it's out. In fact my experience is that it's mainly the martial characters that are more ferasome.
Readying is much more different than anticipated: ready itself is listed as a simple action, so you need to commit one of your three acts to ready, and you still need to have the acts your readied action takes free to be able to take it as a reaction. So compared to the standard systeem, not only does readying eat your immediate action and your attack of opportunity, it also costs a move action more. You can no longer move, then ready and use the ready for an advanced action, such as casting a spell. I wonder if this is really by design.
Where are you getting that "Ready a Simple Action or an Advanced Action" costs an extra move action? It costs the normal number of acts (2 in the case of a "Cast a Standard Action Spell"), and later uses your reaction.
Delay isn't listed at all in the new system, but I guess it is still viable?
Delay is "no action" under the old system.
By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act.
Should be the same under the revised system.
Well, I'll add this from my point of view. The martial-caster disparity often mentioned on this forum is not something I have ever actually encountered in my games, and I've been running three weekly campaigns on Pathfinder since it's out. In fact my experience is that it's mainly the martial characters that are more fearsome.
Not as long an experience. But I personally often found elsewise. Casters' ability to define fights not landing the killing blow but making the strategic situation a given. But I'm risking de-railing.
To be more on topic: I have had one player use a Magus with a 2-handed weapon. It's fun, and just never comes up under the standard system due to being a lot less viable.
Readying is much more different than anticipated: ready itself is listed as a simple action, so you need to commit one of your three acts to ready, and you still need to have the acts your readied action takes free to be able to take it as a reaction. So compared to the standard systeem, not only does readying eat your immediate action and your attack of opportunity, it also costs a move action more. You can no longer move, then ready and use the ready for an advanced action, such as casting a spell. I wonder if this is really by design.Where are you getting that "Ready a Simple Action or an Advanced Action" costs an extra move action? It costs the normal number of acts (2 in the case of a "Cast a Standard Action Spell"), and later uses your reaction.
Because "Readying a Simple or Advanced Action" is an entry in the "Simple Actions" list. Why would this be the only entry in the long list that doesn't cost an act?
So I havent read up on it yet, but how does this system handle multiple AoO?.. like from feats ands uch?
So I havent read up on it yet, but how does this system handle multiple AoO?.. like from feats ands uch?
As an example of how to handle this, Combat Reflexes gives you extra reactions between your turns (equal to your Dex modifier) which you can only use for AoO. You still also gain the other benefits of Combat Reflexes (i.e. you can make AoO while flat-footed).
Because "Readying a Simple or Advanced Action" is an entry in the "Simple Actions" list. Why would this be the only entry in the long list that doesn't cost an act?Readying is much more different than anticipated: ready itself is listed as a simple action, so you need to commit one of your three acts to ready, and you still need to have the acts your readied action takes free to be able to take it as a reaction. So compared to the standard systeem, not only does readying eat your immediate action and your attack of opportunity, it also costs a move action more. You can no longer move, then ready and use the ready for an advanced action, such as casting a spell. I wonder if this is really by design.Where are you getting that "Ready a Simple Action or an Advanced Action" costs an extra move action? It costs the normal number of acts (2 in the case of a "Cast a Standard Action Spell"), and later uses your reaction.
Ah, I see how you're adjudicating it. Well, it doesn't bother me if it slows down casters a bit in combat.
So I havent read up on it yet, but how does this system handle multiple AoO?.. like from feats ands uch?As an example of how to handle this, Combat Reflexes gives you extra reactions between your turns (equal to your Dex modifier) which you can only use for AoO. You still also gain the other benefits of Combat Reflexes (i.e. you can make AoO while flat-footed).
Ah ok.
I think im kind of liking the spund of this system. As a guy who loves very mobile combatants (monk of the seven winds is just awsome) this seems like fun.
Then realise that Unchained was/is an awesome book. :DSo I havent read up on it yet, but how does this system handle multiple AoO?.. like from feats ands uch?As an example of how to handle this, Combat Reflexes gives you extra reactions between your turns (equal to your Dex modifier) which you can only use for AoO. You still also gain the other benefits of Combat Reflexes (i.e. you can make AoO while flat-footed).Ah ok.
I think im kind of liking the spund of this system. As a guy who loves very mobile combatants (monk of the seven winds is just awsome) this seems like fun.
Has anyone else dealt with the Iterative Attacks vs. 3 simple attack action starting at level 1 issue? I am in the planning stages for my game and I was thinking of using RAE.
For those who have used it, how do you handle Vital Strike, which now becomes super powerful, particularly if you allow the 3 simple attack actions rule?
Vital Strike taking 2 acts was my reply to that. Though dissatisfactorily, it made the feat even more unused than normally (this may be due to a lack of seeing a giant damage dice build so far which is when I only saw it before).
As to iterative attacks, as the OP put - BAB limit it. It does mean martial characters won't enjoy the system so much at levels 1-5. But meh - until level 5 itself, it's hardly like casters are running around causing the problems they do.