Marshmallow's Revised Revised Action Economy


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

link
I have been using these rules almost verbatim for over a year, and my players really like it (so do I). The campaign I'm currently running is about to end and before I started my next one I decided I wanted to get my action system in writing so I had something to refer to, since it was a popular topic when it came out I figured I would share it for feedback and proofreading.

Feel free to comment and ask any questions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Apologies in advance if I'm necroing. Not sure how long constitutes a dead post on this forum yet.

I'm definitely intrigued by this system as while I'm a big fan of UAE, several of my players are not. This seems to fix the biggest issues they had with swift actions and a few specific abilities (spellstrike+ spell combat being the most egregious), while keeping the flexibility of the act economy that I liked from UAE. I have a tendency to fudge rules a lot in my games to suit the circumstances better so leaving things as open ended as they are here suits my DMing style quite nicely.

One question regarding your design logic though: why the "Abilities that require a swift action, but are limited in their uses per day by class features, still require commitment of a single-act action." stipulation? My players seem to have a vague objection to it still hampering their swifts. I don't have enough experience with swift-dependent characters to argue one way or the other, so I'm curious why you would specify this restriction. Is there a particular abuse you're trying to curb?


It came down to understanding the value of certain actions and what can be done with them.

The ability to 5 foot step could be comparable to something like Arcane Armor Training, but smite evil is much more powerful in practice.

Abilities that have value tend to be worth the action anyway, and if said action is upgraded via feat or class progression, then in this system that is still honored, which lends to giving those feats and abilities more value, not less. I compared several of these options and we tested them for a while before deciding on the options having limited values almost always being equitable to a quickened spell, where the options that didn't were worth the same as the 5 foot step. It allows for those feats that you otherwise want 'always on' to not have the same value as abilities that can change the tide in any given combat. I also wanted to define the 5 foot step in it's own way and the passive act evolved from that, and the easiest way for us to tell was based on resource investment vs overall power of the options.

It is not a coincidence that those things tend to be toys for martial characters.

Simply giving back the swift action can work, but it gives casters more power that was intended to be subverted by this system.


Minor editing and clarifications on how certain things interact. Trying to make it more user friendly.


Hey there,

I like the changes you've done here but had a question about the passive action. The way you write it, it sounds like there's only one a round, meaning if you 5 ft-step you can't use an "always on" swift action thing like Arcane Strike or Studied Target. Is this intentional?

Also to clarify for when something gets upgraded from a move action to a swift does it essentially upgrade from 1 action to a passive action? Or to a free action?

Thanks


Helel13 wrote:

Hey there,

I like the changes you've done here but had a question about the passive action. The way you write it, it sounds like there's only one a round, meaning if you 5 ft-step you can't use an "always on" swift action thing like Arcane Strike or Studied Target. Is this intentional?

Also to clarify for when something gets upgraded from a move action to a swift does it essentially upgrade from 1 action to a passive action? Or to a free action?

Thanks

Yes and Yes.

The passive act is a resource that can be used to either 5 foot step or to activate a non resource intensive swift action.

Actions that upgrade from a move to a swift go from being a single act to usable with the passive act.


Thanks for the quick response. To elaborate more on the passive act and 5-foot stepping, does this remove the "step" as noted in the 1-act section of the original UAE?


Good to have some free revised squared action economy stuff out there. ;)


Helel13 wrote:
Thanks for the quick response. To elaborate more on the passive act and 5-foot stepping, does this remove the "step" as noted in the 1-act section of the original UAE?

The system as a whole that I have linked is stand alone, and is assumed to replace and streamline the entire subsystem simultaneously.

If there's anything you think I missed or anything that you think works better in that system I am totally open to feedback and suggestions, but as I've said we have play tested this literally since it came out in order to come up with our own system, and it feels like a different edition of the game without having to relearn the classes.


Your version suffers from the same glaring problem as the original, in that high level martials get screwed out of their 4th attack each round.

That's fine, I guess, if you follow Paizo's thinking that all campaigns stop at 12th level or below. However for those of us that routinely play at 15+, this system blows.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

Your version suffers from the same glaring problem as the original, in that high level martials get screwed out of their 4th attack each round.

That's fine, I guess, if you follow Paizo's thinking that all campaigns stop at 12th level or below. However for those of us that routinely play at 15+, this system blows.

That's pretty harsh criticism. First off, none of the existing classes lose anything until Level 16 and beyond, so it doesn't impact the vast majority of games played. However, even at and above Level 16 it still vastly improves the quality of life for all but the most optimized builds.

At Level 16, this fourth attack comes in at BAB -15, plus an additional -5 penalty for your damage boosting feats like Power Attack (which, as a full-BAB class, you should be using). In total you're taking a -20 penalty on your attack roll. According to Paizo's CR table the average AC of a typical creature at CR 17 is 30, meaning your attack bonus needs to be at least +40 to hit with your last attack half the time. This is doable if you optimize and your party is good about buffing, but if the enemy's AC is any higher than that or you get hit with debuffs you're going to start missing more frequently. The reality is that you aren't actually losing much damage here.

Furthermore, you neglected to mention the myriad of benefits this alternate system provides martial characters. Being able to move and make multiple attacks, regardless of your build, is a big deal. Haste becomes even more powerful as you can move and make three 1-Act attacks. Builds that used to be criticized for being too immobile such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurrying suddenly become much more viable as they can move and make a ton of attacks (plus TWF was reduced to a single feat here, which is crazy good). Even archery becomes more mobile as they can Rapid+Manyshot to get three attacks off a single act. What some select few martial characters will lose in late-game damage potential they will more than make up for with the ability to actually move in combat without becoming useless.

If anything, the late-game of martial characters was improved here - enemies can no longer reduce you to a single attack just by moving a little bit, and positioning becomes more fluid and more important. And if that doesn't convince you, then how about providing suggestions for how you would fix this "glaring problem" instead of just saying it blows?


The ability to move at full speed and still acquire 2-3 attacks (haste!) outweighs the loss of the fourth (or fifth) attack in my opinion.

This looks like an improvement over PF's revised action economy. I like how a 5 foot step can be taken without losing attacks now which was one of my biggest issues with the other system.

Still not sure how I feel about swift actions costing action economy but I can understand the reasoning.

I do have a question although it also relates to the PF version as well. Are you limited to a number of attack actions equal to those that would be provided by your BAB or can a level 1 character attack 3 times? As far as I can tell it's Permitted which seems grossly excessive/lethal at low levels.


Firewarrior44 wrote:

The ability to move at full speed and still acquire 2-3 attacks (haste!) outweighs the loss of the fourth (or fifth) attack in my opinion.

This looks like an improvement over PF's revised action economy. I like how a 5 foot step can be taken without losing attacks now which was one of my biggest issues with the other system.

Still not sure how I feel about swift actions costing action economy but I can understand the reasoning.

I do have a question although it also relates to the PF version as well. Are you limited to a number of attack actions equal to those that would be provided by your BAB or can a level 1 character attack 3 times? As far as I can tell it's Permitted which seems grossly excessive/lethal at low levels.

It is excessively lethal at low levels save for the -5 penalty on all secondary attacks which tend to make them fishing sessions.

BAB has no bearing on the number of attacks you get in a round in this system.


So, let's say I have a Rogue who wants to use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat under this system.

I can move my full speed (first act), attack with both weapons at -2/-2 (second act), and either move my full speed again or make another double attack at -7/-7 (third act)?

Or, if I "stand still", I can use all three acts to attack a total of six times at -2/-2 (first), then -7/-7 (second), then -7/-7 (third)?

Or, if I have the Improved Feint feat, I can move my full speed (first), attempt to feint my opponent (second), then attack at -2/-2 (third)?

For all of these options, may I also take a 5-foot step (a passive act) before/after any of my other three acts? Or do 5-foot steps still follow the "only if you haven't otherwise moved" limitation?

Last question: how does the Spring Attack feat work? Is it a double-act or triple-act?


rainzax wrote:

So, let's say I have a Rogue who wants to use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat under this system.

I can move my full speed (first act), attack with both weapons at -2/-2 (second act), and either move my full speed again or make another double attack at -7/-7 (third act)?

Or, if I "stand still", I can use all three acts to attack a total of six times at -2/-2 (first), then -7/-7 (second), then -7/-7 (third)?

Or, if I have the Improved Feint feat, I can move my full speed (first), attempt to feint my opponent (second), then attack at -2/-2 (third)?

For all of these options, may I also take a 5-foot step (a passive act) before/after any of my other three acts? Or do 5-foot steps still follow the "only if you haven't otherwise moved" limitation?

Last question: how does the Spring Attack feat work? Is it a double-act or triple-act?

I fear I need to add more language to the document to further break down two-weapon fighting because it's meant to get rid of the need for greater, but not improved.

You can split ALL your primary attacks into -2/-2. (This includes Haste/Divine Power)

With Improved you can split your secondary attacks into -7/-7.

Since iterative attacks don't exist, you don't need Greater.

Spring attack was a goofy feat to deal with, in our group we've landed on it granting an extra act in a round for movement (similar to how Haste gives an extra act for attacking), so long as you move before and after your attack(s) and the combined total of movement in the round doesn't exceed your total speed. Makes it a very strong option, but if it wasn't it would be useless as it is something you can already just do in this system.

Otherwise you seem to have the system down. You can commit your acts in any order you like, so long as there is no specific rule stating otherwise, this includes movement and the passive act as well.

Rogues benefit in this system a lot since it makes Improved Feint actually function, that's one of the main reasons I liked it because it was an inherent fix to the class without needing to change the class, and overall it's a better system because while martial characters have more options with versatility, the lack of actions prevents spellcasters from dominating the action economy.


Perhaps just limit it to 1 offhand a round prior to the improved two-weapon fighting feat and then any number of offhand attacks after that, still limiting it to primary attacks only. Personally giving offhand attacks on haste attacks as well as on secondary attack actions seems like it would be overkill (though I haven't calculated anything yet) but I get the feeling that might be intentional.

That said I assume two-weapon fighting and natural attacks shouldn't stack in any way? As that would mean level 1 you could have 4-6 attacks at full bonus-2 which seems beyond grotesque

Possible Wording wrote:
If you possess the two-weapon fighting feat or flurry of blows/brawlers flurry class feature(s) anytime you would make a Primary attack you may make an additional offhand attack taking the normal penalties. In the case of two weapon fighting you are limited to a single offhand attack per round unless you posses the "improved two-weapon fighting" feat a which point you can make an offhand attack whenever you take the attack action (taking a -2 penalty on all rolls). Note two-weapon fighting can not be used with primary natural attacks


Firewarrior44 wrote:

Perhaps just limit it to 1 offhand a round prior to the improved two-weapon fighting feat and then any number of offhand attacks after that, still limiting it to primary attacks only. Personally giving offhand attacks on haste attacks as well as on secondary attack actions seems like it would be overkill (though I haven't calculated anything yet) but I get the feeling that might be intentional.

That said I assume two-weapon fighting and natural attacks shouldn't stack in any way? As that would mean level 1 you could have 4-6 attacks at full bonus-2 which seems beyond grotesque

Possible Wording wrote:
If you possess the two-weapon fighting feat or flurry of blows/brawlers flurry class feature(s) anytime you would make a Primary attack you may make an additional offhand attack taking the normal penalties. In the case of two weapon fighting you are limited to a single offhand attack per round unless you posses the "improved two-weapon fighting" feat a which point you can make an offhand attack whenever you take the attack action (taking a -2 penalty on all rolls). Note two-weapon fighting can not be used with primary natural attacks

Natural attacks by default are not subject to TWF as far as I can tell. Each one takes an attack on it's own, and falls into either the primary or secondary category on its own (it's what I based the system on).

Treating all primary attacks the same is intentional as a buff to martial characters, since it allows more robust options, even for characters other than those with TWF, like Rapid Shot and Furious Focus.

It also makes the game less confusing to treat them all the same way, I tried using a similar method to what you described, but it complicates the table and eats up game time that otherwise would have been better spent just dealing with letting the player roll the dice one more time.


Fair point on the complexity problem if you delineate between attack types.

Well couldn't I just use the attack action with my primary claw attack 3 times with two weapon fighting to gain 6 attacks? Claw as my main and and either another claw or if that doesn't count as a weapon keep a dagger in my offhand.

Since I can make the attack action 3 times with my claw (as far as I can tell there's no restriction) and every attack made with a claw is by default primary I should get 3 offhand attacks as well.

Even without two weapon fighting that's a possible 3 attacks at full bonus' at level 1.


Firewarrior44 wrote:

Fair point on the complexity problem if you delineate between attack types.

Well couldn't I just use the attack action with my primary claw attack 3 times with two weapon fighting to gain 6 attacks? Claw as my main and and either another claw or if that doesn't count as a weapon keep a dagger in my offhand.

Since I can make the attack action 3 times with my claw (as far as I can tell there's no restriction) and every attack made with a claw is by default primary I should get 3 offhand attacks as well.

Even without two weapon fighting that's a possible 3 attacks at full bonus' at level 1.

Natural attacks have always been something that threatens the sanctity of my brain. I may never sleep again thanks dude.

I jest.

Research into Natural attacks seems to suggest that you will only be able to make a number of attacks based on what you have listed. Natural attacks already do not qualify for two-weapon fighting in the default system nor should they here. For instance, a creature with only 2 claw attacks can make 2 primary attacks (using 2 acts to do so) with their claws, but cannot commit a third act to making attacks with the claws since they have no more attacks left with them. That's the way I'm leaning based on the language already in the game, and simply transposing it into the new system.

The issues you bring up is not one unique to my system, since natural attacks on their own already do not interact with TWF at all. They have to be performed separately and individually. Even the original RAE in Unchained doesn't define this as I believe it's covered in the base rules of the game.


Alright re-reading natural attack's they do not count as weapons so outside of being a monk with feral combat training you couldn't get the bonus attacks and even then you wouldn't get the benefit as they're effectively normal attacks at that point. It also means if you used a weapon in your off hand the natural attacks would become secondary making it straight up worse that using 2 weapons.

A thought though you could allow the multi-attack to allow a character to make 2 claw attacks as a standard action treating them as secondary natural attacks for the purposes of damage/attack penalties (reduced by the multi attack feat)

I still don't see why you couldn't attack 3 times with a single claw. Natural attacks normally don't get additional attacks from high base attack bonus but additional attacks from a high base attack bonus simply do not exist in this system anymore it's just another expenditure of actions.

The Line: "any attack that would normally be allowed at full Base Attack Bonus is considered a primary attack." this line specifically is what enables it. So realy it just needs to be spelled out that natural attacks taken in excess of ones you would normally be afforded are demoted to secondary.

Looking at the original Revised action economy it doesn't seem to deal with natural attacks at all outside of the 3 point make all of them action. Indeed in the original RAE you can attack with a claw 3 times in a round but you'd take an increasing -5 penalty for each successive attack like with any other weapon (even if you did claw, claw using 2 separate natural attacks) unless you use the 3 point all attacks action.


Firewarrior44 wrote:

Alright re-reading natural attack's they do not count as weapons so outside of being a monk with feral combat training you couldn't get the bonus attacks and even then you wouldn't get the benefit as they're effectively normal attacks at that point. It also means if you used a weapon in your off hand the natural attacks would become secondary making it straight up worse that using 2 weapons.

A thought though you could allow the multi-attack to allow a character to make 2 claw attacks as a standard action treating them as secondary natural attacks for the purposes of damage/attack penalties (reduced by the multi attack feat)

I still don't see why you couldn't attack 3 times with a single claw. Natural attacks normally don't get additional attacks from high base attack bonus but additional attacks from a high base attack bonus simply do not exist in this system anymore it's just another expenditure of actions.

The Line: "any attack that would normally be allowed at full Base Attack Bonus is considered a primary attack." this line specifically is what enables it. So realy it just needs to be spelled out that natural attacks taken in excess of ones you would normally be afforded are demoted to secondary.

Looking at the original Revised action economy it doesn't seem to deal with natural attacks at all outside of the 3 point make all of them action. Indeed in the original RAE you can attack with a claw 3 times in a round but you'd take an increasing -5 penalty for each successive attack like with any other weapon (even if you did claw, claw using 2 separate natural attacks) unless you use the 3 point all attacks action.

There is some disparity here, and I do need to come up with some sort of clarification.

I am leaning towards making natural attacks worse rather than better however, since otherwise it makes monsters much scarier.

That, or treat natural attacks the same way as regular weapon attacks in that any attacks made after you use all your primary attacks are treated as secondary (even if they are using the same natural attack).

This simplifies the system overall and treats all attacks the same, math-wise.


I think in that case treating just all natural attack's as normal weapons would be the most elegant/simple solution.

I think allowing the multi attack feat to grant 2 claw attacks (or other paired attacks) on a primary attack action (still taking the -2 and half STR bonus penalties) wouldn't be out of line as they would still be inferior to 2 two weapon fighting (half Str on both strikes instead of just offhand).

Also with the lack of an improved version they'd still be capped at 3 (or 5 with haste effect) attacks.


Firewarrior44 wrote:

I think in that case treating just all natural attack's as normal weapons would be the most elegant/simple solution.

I think allowing the multi attack feat to grant 2 claw attacks (or other paired attacks) on a primary attack action (still taking the -2 and half STR bonus penalties) wouldn't be out of line as they would still be inferior to 2 two weapon fighting (half Str on both strikes instead of just offhand).

Also with the lack of an improved version they'd still be capped at 3 (or 5 with haste effect) attacks.

I may need to separate the section on attacks from the definition of the single act actions in that case, to make it easier to read.


Ok lemme know if I am getting this.

A character with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat may:
(Act 1) attack twice at -2/-2
(Act 2) attack again, once, at -7
(Act 3) attack again, once, at -12

And

A character with the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat may:
(Act 1) attack twice at -2/-2
(Act 2) attack twice again at -7/-7
(Act 3) attack again, once, at -12

And

A character with the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat may:
(Act 1) attack twice at -2/-2
(Act 2) attack twice again at -7/-7
(Act 3) attack twice again at -12/-12

Is that right?


Close. But improved allows for every attack to include an offhand blow. Greater two-weapon fighting does not exist.

From my understanding two weapon fighting and improved two weapon fighting roughly read like this now:

Spoiler:

Two weapon fighting: Whenever you make a primary attack with a weapon you can also make an additional offhand attack

Improved two weapon fighting: Whenever you make a primary or secondary attack with a weapon you can also make an additional offhand attack.

Also as far as i can tell the greatest penalty you take is only -5, never -10.

So 3 Attack Actions is:

(Act 1) attack once, at -0

(Act 2) attack again, once at -5

(Act 3) attack again, once at -5

And

Two weapon fighting:

(Act 1) attack once, twice, at -2/-2

(Act 2) attack again, once at -7

(Act 3) attack again, once at -7

And

Two weapon fighting:

(Act 1) attack once, twice, at -2/-2

(Act 2) attack again, twice at -7/-7

(Act 3) attack again, twice at -7/-7


Firewarrior44 wrote:

Close. But improved allows for every attack to include an offhand blow. Greater two-weapon fighting does not exist.

From my understanding two weapon fighting and improved two weapon fighting roughly read like this now:

** spoiler omitted **

Also as far as i can tell the greatest penalty you take is only -5, never -10.

So 3 Attack Actions is:

(Act 1) attack once, at -0

(Act 2) attack again, once at -5

(Act 3) attack again, once at -5

And

Two weapon fighting:

(Act 1) attack once, twice, at -2/-2

(Act 2) attack again, once at -7

(Act 3) attack again, once at -7

And

Improved Two weapon fighting:

(Act 1) attack once, twice, at -2/-2

(Act 2) attack again, twice at -7/-7

(Act 3) attack again, twice at -7/-7

This is correct


Some more general play questions - on the Revised Action Economy itself as well as your innovations upon it (primarily the "passive act" I believe).

Was it a problem that low level PCs could attack three or four times per round?

What about the NPCs?

How do you handle creatures with natural attacks? Does it matter how many they have? For example creatures with 2, 3, 5, or 8 natural attacks?

What is the impact of getting rid of "tertiary" attacks? By this I mean the second iterative in the old system (at -10) as one might expect it to translate into the new system (at -10).

What are the exact rules for the 5-foot step? For example, if I have used 1 act to move this round, can I save my passive act for a 5-foot step? (This is prohibited in the regular rules).

Cheers.


rainzax wrote:

Some more general play questions - on the Revised Action Economy itself as well as your innovations upon it (primarily the "passive act" I believe).

Was it a problem that low level PCs could attack three or four times per round?

What about the NPCs?

How do you handle creatures with natural attacks? Does it matter how many they have? For example creatures with 2, 3, 5, or 8 natural attacks?

What is the impact of getting rid of "tertiary" attacks? By this I mean the second iterative in the old system (at -10) as one might expect it to translate into the new system (at -10).

What are the exact rules for the 5-foot step? For example, if I have used 1 act to move this round, can I save my passive act for a 5-foot step? (This is prohibited in the regular rules).

Cheers.

I have not had too many problems with extremely low level characters becoming too strong, as the -5 penalty on secondary attacks often sets them up to fail barring an extremely favorable die roll.

No one misses tertiary attacks, and being able to (under haste) move, make two primary attacks, and still have an act left over to perform some class feature is a very common turn which leaves every player feeling like they have complete control over their character rather than being limited by the system. The other common turn is movement, casting a spell, and taking an attack with the haste act. My players love the versatility and freedom of this system after we fixed it.

Natural Attacks either can be made as many times as listed (e.g. 2 claws means you can spend up to 2 acts attacking with claws) or the creature can commit a three-act action to a full natural attack in a scenario where there's more than 3 natural attacks listed in the stat block.

The 5-foot step prohibits further movement, like in the default system. In this system however the passive act can be used on other actions, like activating feats like Arcane Strike, magic items that activate with a Swift Action in the default system, and other such abilities which in the default system are swift actions, but don't otherwise consume daily resources. If you commit an act to movement (not a move equivalent action) then the passive act cannot be committed to a 5-foot step.

Shadow Lodge

I like how you handled natural attacks. It's simpler that the ruling I'm using, and it limits the mobility of anything with primary and secondary ones.

The other way I saw it getting handled, anything with a single primary natural attack requires 2 actions to make it (so monsters with one huge bite attack won't accidentally outperform 2 claws/bite ones); otherwise, it takes 1 action to do one natural attack, 2 to make all primary ones but no secondaries, and 3 to make all primary and secondary ones.

So, a dragon could cast a spell and bite you; or bite and use their claws, then move away; or attack with claws/bite/tail/wings. It gives them more options, while making it more finnicky than your setup.


The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

I like how you handled natural attacks. It's simpler that the ruling I'm using, and it limits the mobility of anything with primary and secondary ones.

The other way I saw it getting handled, anything with a single primary natural attack requires 2 actions to make it (so monsters with one huge bite attack won't accidentally outperform 2 claws/bite ones); otherwise, it takes 1 action to do one natural attack, 2 to make all primary ones but no secondaries, and 3 to make all primary and secondary ones.

So, a dragon could cast a spell and bite you; or bite and use their claws, then move away; or attack with claws/bite/tail/wings. It gives them more options, while making it more finnicky than your setup.

I don't dislike that approach, it does make enemies more lethal, but I fear abuse on behalf of the players like a druid making all primary natural attacks effectively gaining pounce without having to commit to a charge or taking the AC penalties.

Shadow Lodge

Ah, the way I meant it was, you could only make all primary natural attacks with 2 actions if you had secondary ones in the first place. If all you have are primaries, then it'd take 3 actions to do them all.
Or did you get that, but are still worried about druids wild shaping into something with claws/bite/tail, and just never bothering with the tail attack?


The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

Ah, the way I meant it was, you could only make all primary natural attacks with 2 actions if you had secondary ones in the first place. If all you have are primaries, then it'd take 3 actions to do them all.

Or did you get that, but are still worried about druids wild shaping into something with claws/bite/tail, and just never bothering with the tail attack?

that, or shifting into something with more than 2 primary attacks and getting to spend a move for a single act and still getting off a full round's worth without having to get pounce.


DOTTING for interest.

Paizo Employee Sales Associate

Removed a post. Please keep the discussion civil and constructive. Ad hominem attacks do not foster discussion.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone insulted someone else about this??

Anyway, I do like the take on counterspells, and decided to try using that. Maybe it'll be useful enough for people to try it.


I've got a few questions about this. I want to try it out with a group, bUT it may not go over well as we have two psionic spell casters, a warpriest, an unchained monk, and a cleave/vital strike barbarian.

1) How would you rule combat maneuvers, since they are a standard action but you can replace them in full attack.

2) Would an unchained monk get 6 hit's at level 11 or just 5 if he uses all his acts on attacks? Unchained only gets two extra attacks since he is full bab.

3) would the unchained monk still be able to spend a ki point to get an extra attack, possibly stacking with haste? That's 5 acts if so and seems excessive.

4) is vital strike a 1 act or 2 act action? 2 act seems useless but 1 act I'd crazy unless you restrict no more attacks

5) what happened 's with rapid shot and many shot? Do they get 3 attacks/damages on one act?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, for your first question:

Hitting someone takes 1 action, but grappling takes 2; the way I'd rule it, you need to make a grapple check in order to do something to your grapple target that's in the grapple rules. So you can't make the grapple check, maintain the grapple and smack your target while you're at it, and spend the third attack on the same person; you could draw a weapon, move around your target's place, or even make an Intimidate check to make fun of said target instead.

As for other combat maneuvers, here's a rule of thumb: if it's a Standard Action, it takes 2 consecutive actions in this setup. If you can replace an attack in your full attack with it, it takes 1 action.

On question 4 (again, this is me talking and not Master Marshmallow), I'd make a Vital Strike 1 action for your first and only attack in the round. So, no TWF VS, but Power Attack/Deadly Aim would work with it. Likewise, if you VS for Action 1 and it drops your target, you could use your other 2 actions to cast a spell, just as long as it doesn't require an attack roll. I'd allow spells like Fireball to work, though.

As for the others, I don't know yet.


The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

Okay, for your first question:

Hitting someone takes 1 action, but grappling takes 2; the way I'd rule it, you need to make a grapple check in order to do something to your grapple target that's in the grapple rules. So you can't make the grapple check, maintain the grapple and smack your target while you're at it, and spend the third attack on the same person; you could draw a weapon, move around your target's place, or even make an Intimidate check to make fun of said target instead.

As for other combat maneuvers, here's a rule of thumb: if it's a Standard Action, it takes 2 consecutive actions in this setup. If you can replace an attack in your full attack with it, it takes 1 action.

On question 4 (again, this is me talking and not Master Marshmallow), I'd make a Vital Strike 1 action for your first and only attack in the round. So, no TWF VS, but Power Attack/Deadly Aim would work with it. Likewise, if you VS for Action 1 and it drops your target, you could use your other 2 actions to cast a spell, just as long as it doesn't require an attack roll. I'd allow spells like Fireball to work, though.

As for the others, I don't know yet.

We've been testing two different solutions to combat maneuvers.

1: Actions in the default system that require the Attack Action (i.e. the specific standard action) are one act, treated as primary attacks, but bar committing any other acts to making single act attack actions.

2. [Same actions] are two acts.

In case 1, it empowers using haste to make a single attack, or maneuver, while still casting/doing whatever. But I'm considering having it not interact with haste at all.

Case 2 is where I'm leaning. Makes the most sense and follows the rule of thumb.


I really like the revised system you've presented herein Master_Marshmallow. I'll have to spend a lot more time studying it before I can comment too much on its ramifications on gameplay, from your responses within the thread it seems like your already covered everything but the odd corner cases. So my critique today will center around formatting and document flow, rather than the content of the rules itself. What follows is a fairly lengthy wall of text, the summary of which is that I actually think you've done a great job. All that is left is to refine the details (and the devil is in the details, ergo the length of these critiques).

Given that this is primarily a digital document, I'd suggest pushing the margins all the way to 0.5" (or even 0.25). This will cut down on page/line-count significantly, and everything will still print just fine on standard printers.

I'm rather fond of the Double-Column style standard to most RPG rulesets; I use it in all of my own house-rule documents. Typically with a margin between columns equal to the width of the edge margin. But admittedly it is less convenient for reading on some devices if you aren't printing the document out.

Regarding your terminology. Some of the terms used in this document feel a little kludgy. It feels like you're having to fight with your own terms in order to phrase rules around them appropriately.
Instead of using the terms "Single-Act Action", "Double-Act Action", etc.; I would refer to them as "Single-Actions", "Double-Actions", "Triple-Actions", and "Passive-Actions". This will both save line-space and make the rules easier to explain aloud.
In a similar vain, instead of "committing acts" you could use "performing actions". For example, "In this system, a character can perform up to three actions on their turn;".
Likewise your basic definitions of various classes of action could be tightened up. For example, "Single-Actions require one Action to perform.", "Double-Actions require two Actions to perform.", etc.

Regarding the use of Bolded Text. This is just a personal opinion mind you, but I don't like it.
I get the impression you are using it to declare emphasis. However in most cases these sentences are supporting statements, and their being bolded makes them draw more attention than the thesis statements they are supposed to support. Basically they make my eyes want to skip past the unbolded sections, which visual weight is declaring are less important; making the document harder to read and fully comprehend rather than easier.

Regarding the descriptions of Action classifications. I think some of these descriptions could benefit from being broken into multiple paragraphs. The description of Single-Actions in particular covers a lot of ground for instance, and some of those rules might benefit from being broken up a little bit, or even put into their own sections.
I might make liberal use of bullet pointed lists to show examples of things that qualify as Single, Double, or Triple-Actions.

Regarding areas where the rules modify and interact with existing feats. I would consider moving all of these rules into their own sections (perhaps in an appendix). For example, Two-Weapon Fighting, Spring Attack, and Maneuver Feats which modify action economy (such as Improved Feint) deserve their own sections (or at least their own short paragraphs) explaining how they work in the new system you're presenting.

I think that is all I have for now in terms of formatting critique.
If you've gotten through all of this I just want to apologize if my critiques came across as being too harsh, I certainly don't mean to offend you. When I was trained in graphic design my teachers didn't pull any punches with their critique, and that has shaped my methods as well. I also want to reiterate that this is already a really good document, I simply want to see it live up to its true potential and become a great document!


I've been meaning to revise this. I plan to get this into publishable form.


bumping to request more feedback and/or play testing from similar sets of house rules.

Perhaps someone has insight based on 5e experiences?


So, been playing a bit with this. Party just reached level 3 and I have some questions. How do you handle level 1-2 and levels after that?

How the game is going:

I'm running Emerald Spire with this, so level one the PCs got to fought Goblins that did very Goblin things to make up for the super magical darkness on that level.

Level 2 was against more contentment enemies, and I noticed the PCs could easily be downed by a single opponent depending on rolls. I try to hold my punches, letting the dice do as they please, but when a Zombie suddenly gets 3 attacks in a round, it can ruin PCs.

Level 3 is switching over very quickly. The Rogue just got his Weapon Finesse (went from 1d6-1 to 1d6+5), the Druid is becoming a powerhouse with his Toad and own attack. The Myrmidon is doing well and the Aegis is using guns so really can't miss and is about to get Path of War Customization next level.

Level 1-2 seems like the PCs can easily die since most encounters are meant to be "move and hit" enemies that get one attack.

Level 3+ seems like the PCs can one-turn finish off most enemies thrown at them. I'm mainly wondering if DR or bloating HP is the better way to go with this.


SorrySleeping wrote:

So, been playing a bit with this. Party just reached level 3 and I have some questions. How do you handle level 1-2 and levels after that?

** spoiler omitted **

Level 1-2 seems like the PCs can easily die since most encounters are meant to be "move and hit" enemies that get one attack.

Level 3+ seems like the PCs can one-turn finish off most enemies thrown at them. I'm mainly wondering if DR or bloating HP is the better way to go with this.

Bloating HP usually seems right, going for full HP instead of half HP on pregenerated enemies adds in an extra turn or two normally for me.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Dotting for now. Will play test some when I have time.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Was wondering about lay on hands. Its a standard action but being able to use it 3 times in one turn seems a little extreme so thinking of limiting it to only once per turn. A paladin is able to use lay on hands as a swift action if they target themselves. Do you think should be a one act action as well.


One act for self, two for others.

The point of the system is that a paladin can use lay on hands, declare a smite, and attack all in the same turn.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Oh yeah! i forgot to ask about the staggered condition. How would that work with these rules?


Silver Scarab wrote:
Oh yeah! i forgot to ask about the staggered condition. How would that work with these rules?

They can take one action, it can take no more than two acts.


Ummmm guys?

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Marshmallow's Revised Revised Action Economy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.