Homebrew Rule "Action Points" (think Xcom)

[Umbrias]

Plain and simple, thought of it pretty recently and just want to flesh it out a bit with third party advice. The main idea:

Instead of 2 actions a turn, entities with actions get (say the average human) 6 action points. These action points are equivalent to 1 second or 1 second of effort. Faster entities get more AP, say, 6.5 or 7. Slower entities can get less. This equates to:
1 AP = 1/3 movement speed
3 AP = movement speed
3 AP = standard action
3 AP = standard attack
2 AP = quick attack?
4 AP = power attack?
1.5 AP = 1st level monk flurry of blows?

Actually in the case of "quick attacks" and "power attacks" I was thinking of getting more technical with things like jabs, lunges, all that, but that's just the general idea.

Even further with the idea is that some weapons take longer or more effort to use then others, a dagger might only cost 2 ap to use, whereas a two-handed sword could take 4.

Another idea is spillover, if an action, say an attack, costs more AP then you have, it costs AP from the next turn, and may not complete until next turn depending on the action.
An attack made when you only have 2 AP left means the next turn you also lose 1 AP, however because the majority of the attack was THIS turn the attack is completed. If you only had 1 AP left and made the attack, it would cost 2 next turn and not be completed until then.

All some brainstorming I had, might be playtesting it with a few friends soon to see where this needs rules specifically.

Comments and ideas? Things to take into consideration? (As long as they aren't along the lines of "this isn't pathfinder" or "go play a different ruleset" etc.)

[Athaleon]

I would check out the new Action Economy rules in Pathfinder Unchained first. You might like them enough to use them as-is, or incorporate some ideas from it into your homebrew system.

How does the system work with spellcasting? 6 AP per turn and 3 AP per Standard Action means they can cast two spells per turn without Quicken.

Don't let people "borrow" actions from their next turn. That was known in 3.5 as the Celerity spell, and it was one of the most famously broken things in it. If you win initiative, you might as well borrow the maximum amount from your next turn because the enemy will be that much weaker on theirs. On top of that, it introduces needless complication to a system that can already get bogged down in the numbers.

Likewise, different speeds for different weapons/attacks is a bad idea. Every attack has to be a quick attack; a slow attack is a miss. If you want to accurately model realistic melee fighting, my advice really is to look at another ruleset.

And as far as realism goes, as Matt Easton (Schola Gladiatoria) pointed out, daggers (for example) are not faster than swords in most situations. Yes, the hand will move faster if it's holding a lighter weapon. However, the shorter reach of the dagger means you have to move your hand (potentially, your whole body) further to get to within striking distance. Also, the length and leverage of a long sword means that a small movement of the hands can translate to a very fast movement of the sword tip.

[Umbrias]

Athaleon wrote:

As per the spellcasting, it depends on the spell but the basic idea is that standard actions are 3 AP until they are shorter actions. Most spells are still gonna be 3 or 6 AP.

I also disagree with your idea that every attack is identical, they simply arent in a realistic standpoint. Doing an overhead attack is slightly slower then doing a thrust, and even if it is slower it doesnt mean it isnt going to hit. What if it is an ooze? If it is an ooze then theres no reason the attack should miss if it is just a little bit too slow. And while being faster then the attack itself could dodge, it isnt true that it will ALWAYS dodge the attack. Combat isnt as predictable as it is made out to be, even a basic attack could take more or less time, and that wouldnt cause a miss.

I will have to look at weapons more closely, to see if weapons should take more or less AP to use. A big part of the idea is that that way there is more variation in weapons other then dice, weight, and crit range without needing enchantments.

On "Borrowing" actions from other turns, I think you misunderstood. If the majority of the action is in the next turn, it doesnt complete until then. (2 this turn and 2 next turn rounds to the majority next turn.) It just is a way to use up leftover AP and have combat feel a little more fluid. In general yeah, players will have to keep more track of their numbers but me and those about to playtest this system already feel like there isnt enough complexity to combat. (or at least, the complexity that is there feels forced and too arcadey)

While it would be a good idea to switch to another system, having had consulted my players it simply wont work as they dont want to learn a new system. They prefer the idea at the moment (before playtesting, after we'll see) of modifying the system in this way. I might later on see if we can change the system, but for now this is just one idea we want to try out to spice up combat a bit.