A couple houserules for elegant simplification I need feedback on - and some of your suggestions

[Errant Mercenary]

Hey so we're taking on a new campaign (an AP) in Pathfinder after a short foray into 5e. 5e had some decent things, but it didnt have Pathfinders depth. That said, Pathfinder becomes waaay too clunky fast...what bonus where not to this because sacred but wait does dodge go with all? Etc.

Armour Class:
-Touch AC is removed. Instead anyone targetting Touch AC gets to add +5 to their attack.
-Touch Spells (and Su, etc) use Caster Level instead of Bab.
-Guns have no misfire.

-Flat Footed AC is removed. If attacking a flat footed target you get Advantage (as in 5e, you roll twice take best). If attacking whilst FF you get Disadvantage. Rogues and company still get their bonus stuff when attacking FF targets.

Goal here is to remove a lot of the buff recalculating and making things go faster in combat.

Movement and Attacks:
-Split movement; you may split your movement as you wish and make an attack at any point. Example move 15 ft, attack, move 15 ft. I believe this is in 5e too but we never used it.

-Potentially also thinking of allowing people to sacrifice 1 attack and gain up to their move during a full attack. Pseudo pounce basically...this might be too strong, definitely need feedback here.

Spells and campaign effects:
- Mirror Image is 1d2 images + 1/3 levels
- Blur/Displacement/Mirror Images/similar buffs do not stack
- Haste is level 4
- Maximum spell buff per character of 3. (or 2 offensive 2 defensive?

The goal here is too minimise a lot of the obsesive compulsive buffing that happens sometimes when taking minor challenges and just takes time. One player wants to buff..it triggers a paranoid reaction of everyone bathing in a million buffs. The Mirror Image and displacement not stacking is to level the playfield a bit between arcane casters and non arcane casters. All of this is also applied to enemies.

----------------------

Overall I'm looking for house rules that do away with the clunk of Pathfinder while remaining elegant and not adding more number crunching. Not because we are not capable, but because I want to focus more on combat narrative and quicker resolution/flow of combat. I'm all ears for any you may have and any feedback you can give me!

[Meirril]

Armor Class: Has the exact opposite effect of what is stated. Touch, Flat footed and normal AC should be precalculated and written on the character sheet. Almost everything you're talking about modifies what is being done and has to be judged in each situation.

Movement and Attacks: Effectively giving free feats to all characters. Expect a melee heavy campaign filled with cheese if you go with this.

Spells and campaign effects: a bunch of miss chance effects don't stack already. You pick one and apply it. Ignore the rest.

Bumping Haste to 4th level won't change anything other than delaying it 2 character levels. Also if you are going to do that bump the level of Blessing of Fervor since its basically improved haste.

Putting a cap on buffs hurts big boss encounters. Most bosses have a ridiculous amount of buffs on them. Also, do you consider permanent buffs from items buffs? Is a stat-belt a buff? Is an Amulet of Natural Armor a buff? If it isn't, then its clearly superior to Barkskin, which is a fairly huge nerf to druids and other classes that cast Barkskin instead of using an expensive neck slot item.

Also lots of comfort style buff spells become detrimental. Who wants to use Endure Elements when they might need to Fly and Resist Elements? If there is a bard in the group, a cleric casts prayer, a wizard casts haste and I'm already flying and invisible do I have to choose which buff doesn't work? Can I change my mind each round? Putting a cap on it makes things weird.

[Errant Mercenary]

Thanks for the reply Meirril that is exactly what Im after!

On the buffs part, I meant explicitly by "spell buff" those from spells so effects from items like amulets might fists work fine. You have a good point that in essence there is a tier list and no one will bother but with the few essentials.
Also bosses..yeah. Good points I will probably scrap that and just try to reign the paranoia buff cascade.

On AC, I still think removing 2 calculations of AC doesnt complicate things. Casting 2 buffs and having to think if that type affects my touch AC but not normal when the boss is casting something critical, that slows the game and is the sort of thing we dont like in Pathfinder.
"Add 5 to touch attacks" and "use caster level instead of bab for spells" isnt difficult to understand or implement and speeds the above up.

On attacks, I think I will keep the move-attack-move but not the rest, 5e has it and the most noticable thing is shooting from cover I think.

[Errant Mercenary]

To elaborate on the touch AC thing, here's Sean K Reynolds on personal thoughts of it, I thought it was quite neat: https://fivemoonsrpg.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/the-weirdness-of-touch-attack -ac/

[Magewareinc]

A big benefit of the touch and flat-footed ACs is that you lower the number you're trying to hit. Rolling twice, once you get to mid levels, is going to really mess with enemy CRs. Let's say a PC is up against a high-Dex (+5 bonus) enemy and they need a 16+ to hit. Having them flat-footed changes the odds from 25% to 50% for a hit. In your rule change, the odds are only about 44%. Conversely when you have an enemy that has a FF at or near it's normal AC, like an Adult Red Dragon, giving your PCs an extra roll is actually very powerful.

A +5 bonus against touch AC has the exact same problem. A +5 when there is no difference in ACs is a powerful ability, but let's instead look at that Dragon from above. There is a 21 point difference, 29 to 8, in regular vs touch ACs. It completely negates the use of touch abilities against enemies like this, which is a cornerstone strategy for non-martial characters.

It's an interesting idea but I see it as a huge mistake without a whole heck of a lot of in-depth balancing. And since every single monster Paizo has produced has the math already done in their entries, I don't see how this sort of fix could be a benefit.

[Schadenfreude]

I'm not sure whether the feedback you get here will be as useful as actually playtesting your changes. You can always change back (and maybe let your players know you're going to be putting in place these house rules for 3 sessions, and then talk as a group about whether they're achieving what you wanted or not).

AC
The change to touch AC is mostly going to affect arcane spellcasters and gunslingers. A frequent complaint about gunslingers is that their target numbers more or less stays constant or slightly decreases (starts at 12, drops to 5 by CR 20), but their attack bonus keeps increasing, which allows them to benefit from Deadly Aim etc far more than most other characters, and churn out colossal amounts of damage. You'd expect a gunslinger without Deadly Aim etc to hit most targets on a 2+ from about level 5, and maybe from level 3 (again, using the average touch AC by CR) on their first attacks, and on their subsequent attacks about a level after they get them. Under this system, they'll hit on a 2+ on their primary attack from level 6, but their subsequent attacks won't be as effective from the moment they're available. So the difference at low levels would be minimal, but it'll have increasing effect (reducing damage output) from mid to high levels.

This is less of a complaint for arcane spellcasters, except maybe around rays of enervation, which can have very large effects on single targets like boss fights. Under normal BAB rules, they'll hit more often at low levels, have equal chance about level 8, and at level 15, a wizard will only hit with a ray on a 15+, as opposed to on a 2+. With your modification to using CL instead of BAB, they'll work more or less like the gunslingers, but benefit more strongly at low levels.

I'm not sure your change will affect buff recalculating, or make things go faster in combat, but if you're concerned about high-level wizards or gunslingers overshadowing other players, and/or if you intend to use a lot of single target combat encounters, then your change should address that. Or if you want low-level wizards to hit more reliably at low levels.

The change to flatfooted has the biggest effect when characters can hit 50% of the time, in which case it's equivalent to about a +5 bonus. If they can only hit on a 20, it'll still double the chance of a hit, but that's only worth a +1 bonus.

The effects will be biggest here if you've got rogues or other characters who have reliable ways to make people flatfooted, and if they have some special effect that comes into play against flatfooted enemies (like sneak attack).

Secondarily, it'll more or less double the frequency people get crits against flatfooted enemies, but, again, this is only going to have an effect on the first round of combat, or if they've got some reliable way to make people flatfooted.

Movement
For the changes to movement, there's a risk that (by increasing another decision point), you may slow things down. If you play using miniatures, it'll slow slightly there as well. I can't imagine it'll slow things down too much though.

A potential negative is that meatshields will feel less useful, because their ability to block is slightly reduced. On the other hand, there's more opportunity for attacks of opportunity as people move past (which will slow things down again). People used to standing back and using spells/missiles may find themselves threatened more quickly. But these provisos work as much for the PCs as against them.

On sacrificing an attack for movement: spellcasters won't benefit at all, whereas higher BAB characters will. A fighter with lots of attacks is probably better off attacking once (or twice at high levels) and moving rather than trying to hit with their last attack, in a wide range of situations. Rogues definitely would.

Spells
Adding in a maximum number of spell buff will most affect clerics, and those who rely on self-buffing to make themselves effective in combat. As noted above, some bosses may be less durable as well. But if you and your players really enjoy tactical decisions around opportunity costs, it might be worth it. Again, that'll slow things down rather than speed things up.

Having opponents that shut their eyes so they aren't distracted by mirror image, and are more proactive to limit buffing time, or (out of the game), asking players to sort themselves out and stop wasting time, might all prove to be better solutions.

[Schadenfreude]

Forgot to say: I like your ideas, and I'd encourage you to give them a go and see how they work. At worst, you can always change back.