How does haste work?looks kinda nerfed to me. other than you can 3x your movement without run penalties now so the +30 movement is insaneWhen making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject's normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don't stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.
I would think it offers just an extra act, but no boost to speed. Instead you can simply take that extra act to move which is the same thing as doubling your speed. The +1's I would say can stay there.
That extra act can be used to gain an additional attack as well. Under this system, it seems allowing speed and flurry of blows to stack with it are not unbalanced anymore.
How does haste work?looks kinda nerfed to me. other than you can 3x your movement without run penalties now so the +30 movement is insaneWhen making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject's normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don't stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.
Haste gives you 1 extra act, but it can only be used for an attack action...I'll be house ruling that to just give the 4th act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay kestrel, I'm not seeing the problem with swift actions. They can still take what would've been a swift action along with a move and attack in this system. There is no real loss. There's just a gain for people that don't use swift actions (that probably needed it. Looking at you, Fighter). And If you have a two claw natural attack, it probably still only takes one action (as it was standard before, no?) to attack.
And all of the stuff you described doesn't seem to point to "everyone losing out". I really don't follow, man. A loss at higher levels is probably meaning quicker, more streamlined high level combat, which this game direly needed.
Maybe I just don't follow you? It's hard to have parse out a meaning from a sentence for each class. Help me understand the problems you have with it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, commenting that everybody is worse off under the new system = complaining about casters getting nerfed.
I'll ask again: who benefits?
See, that's the thing. You're looking for a boost, a benefit to your characters.
While I happen to think it does give an overall boost to mobility of melee types and a slight, and well deserved, control on some aspects of casters, that is arguable.
But, what if it benefits no character over any other? It is a total reworking of the action economy.
It can benefit an entire group's gameplay.
If it makes your game better.
Okay kestrel, I'm not seeing the problem with swift actions. They can still take what would've been a swift action along with a move and attack in this system. There is no real loss. There's just a gain for people that don't use swift actions (that probably needed it. Looking at you, Fighter). And If you have a two claw natural attack, it probably still only takes one action (as it was standard before, no?) to attack.
And all of the stuff you described doesn't seem to point to "everyone losing out". I really don't follow, man. A loss at higher levels is probably meaning quicker, more streamlined high level combat, which this game direly needed.
Maybe I just don't follow you? It's hard to have parse out a meaning from a sentence for each class. Help me understand the problems you have with it?
this basically, other than full attacks being nerfed they still get 2 attacks, the ones most likely to hit, or if they can't full attack it's now exactly the same.
martials got buffed, casters are worse off and gishes are inbetween.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of the cool alternate action system that Stephen put together is one that no one has mentioned yet: The specific creation of huge cinematic-in-scope actions that might require lots of acts across multiple rounds, and for which any character can contribute acts. Super useful for running encounters with special actions built into them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of the cool alternate action system that Stephen put together is one that no one has mentioned yet: The specific creation of huge cinematic-in-scope actions that might require lots of acts across multiple rounds, and for which any character can contribute acts. Super useful for running encounters with special actions built into them.
this is true
For example
Disarming the ManaBomb requires a DC 20 Disable Device test and 10 actions The first 5 Actions do not need to be consecutive but after that a countdown timer starts and the remianing 5 actions must be consecutive.
Many monsters would seem to lose out, and badly, under this system. The obvious fix is to allow 3 actions to equate to a full-round action (ie, you get all your attacks as now).
How does Ready work? Just one act?
Does the action economy sections in the book says how certain feats are affected, like rapid shot, TWF and spring attack?
Many monsters would seem to lose out, and badly, under this system. The obvious fix is to allow 3 actions to equate to a full-round action (ie, you get all your attacks as now).
How does Ready work? Just one act?
Monsters with Natural attacks have access to this
Make All Natural Attacks (Attack; 3 Acts): A creature that
is using only its natural attacks can make all its natural
attacks with this action instead of making separate attacks
with attack simple actions.
Ready an action costs you 1 act and you ready a simple or advanced action for a specific trigger. You have to have enough Action Points left to trigger the readied action. The Readied action counts as your Reaction for the round, so unless you have Combat Reflexes it eats your AOO
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the system could be great, just different from what we're used to so there will a lot of angry players who were used to abusing the action economy.
Magi for example, apparently now have to spellstrike only once per turn, where before they could do it twice.
What it really does is opens up two handed magi. Spell Combat is there for buff spells so you can still take 3 attacks but not deliver shocking grasp, where spellstrike is there to allow you to still get two attacks in plus deliver it.
Haste offers the ability to attack an additional time, meaning you can Spell Combat and Spell Strike, and still get 3 attacks off, so normal under this systems conditions.
The big thing here is that everyone is nerfed. No more full round 5 attacks from a paladin into the BBEG ending the entire encounter.
There oughta be a Monster Feat or Universal Monster Rule with an ability listed that gives specific monsters extra acts in their turn. This allows enemies like dragons to get in full rounds, assuming there isn't already something in there about natural attacks.
I would not be surprised if there was a simple fix like: All Primary Natural attacks can be taken with one act, and all Secondary attacks require the use of a second act. This does however, give all enemies pounce that otherwise have nothing to do with their remaining act.
Let's also consider ideas like augmenting the swashbuckler and/or gunslinger's abilities by allowing grit to be spent for an extra act, uncrippling the class, once per turn or x number of times per turn.
Hero Points can easily be worth an extra act.
The 5 foot step should remain a non action imo. Since movement is an act, the 5 foot step should not be, unless we are more concerned with the fact that movement does not prevent multiple attacks, and we don't want anyone to take more than 3 attacks after moving now?
Is the 5 foot step no longer a tactical move that does not provoke?
So many questions, so many possibilities. I think people really need to give this system a try, it may be my new default way to run the game.
looking at monsters it just occured to me that a Dragon could Breath and still make 1 attack with this system. (Breath wweapons would fall under Standard action Supernatural ability, which is only 2 Acts.)
the 5' step does cost 1 Act but it doesn't count as the Movement subtype (IE: doesn't trigger AOO) so you could 5' step, attack and then 5' step again.
Hello Stab and go Rogue
Heck, Hasted Rogue could 5'step, Haste Attack Action, 5' step, Move action to get to the other side of the room.
Someone mentioned reactions, as in 5e kind?
How does this work? Is it like an immediate action? How do attacks of opportunity work?
Someone mentioned reactions, as in 5e kind?
How does this work? Is it like an immediate action? How do attacks of opportunity work?
You get 1 Reaction a round
This can be-perform a readied action
-make an attack of opportunity
-do an action that spends an attack of opportunity
-do an immidiate action
Combat reflexes lets you get extra reactions but they can only be ones that use up Attacks of Opportunity
You get 1 Reaction a round
This can be
-perform a readied action
-make an attack of opportunity
-do an action that spends an attack of opportunity
-do an immidiate actionCombat reflexes lets you get extra reactions but they can only be ones that use up Attacks of Opportunity
Wait... So if you make an AoO you can't use immediate actions or readied actions?! WTF?! Why?
This system is really poorly thought...
You get 1 Reaction a round
This can be
-perform a readied action
-make an attack of opportunity
-do an action that spends an attack of opportunity
-do an immidiate actionCombat reflexes lets you get extra reactions but they can only be ones that use up Attacks of Opportunity
Wait... So if you make an AoO you can't use immediate actions or readied actions?! WTF?! Why?
This system is really poorly thought...
If you have Combat reflexes you can but not if you don't
I don't think it's poorly thought out, it's designed to reduce the amount of action clutter at the table, and that is exactly what it does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Everything in this post is wrong.
Martial characters only get 3 swings on a full attack, big whoop. Now you don't get your attack at -15.
As for swift actions, sure I see the point where certain styles are weaker. Lay on hands eats up one of your attack slots so now you only get two. Still not the end of the world since most players only experience the game prior to level 11 anyway. That means literally nothing has changed except that you have more versatility with your actions.
Magi are not nerfed. Spell Combat is one act, and still grants an attack. You can't spell strike with it, but you can still take your other two attacks and have a full round plus a spell to buff or whatever. Spell Strike is now completely severed from that ability meaning you can either spell strike for two actions, gain an attack and cast your spell, plus have an action left over, or get in two attacks, one of which delivers burst damage. Either way, it's still two attacks plus a spell, only now you can do it with two handed weapons.
Two weapon fighting is the new God in this system. Move and still take 4 attacks. You just win. Or, move, take two attacks, and have an act left over for whatever your swift action would have been. There is no downside to TWF that isn't mitigated by the fact that actually investing all your feats into it now actually makes you better in combat than anyone else.
Rapid Shot I'm presuming allows two attacks on the first act. Awesome, 4 attacks per round. Still seems pretty good to me.
And how is mounted combat any different under this system? Charge is a two act maneuver, so you can charge and also get an extra attack in. So mounted combat got better, and you're complaining, seems legit. Or you can charge still and take your would be swift action. Still not seeing the problem.
Really this system affects high level play when players expect to make 7 attacks anyway.
As far as the reaction goes, I like it. It finally defines what kind of action an AOO is, and it gives you something else to do with it.
Casters are nerfed, huzzah.
I see nothing but good things from this system, and would love to see supplements for it that expand on it. Having magic items that either grant acts, or only take a single act to activate, or feats that do the same thing.
So, the new system is not very good, from what I can see. Too bad.
It might have been good, if it was the original core of the system. But instead, it just chaffs over all the material written and balanced around the current system.
It basically goes against pathfinder's original founding principle- a desire for backwards comparability and a wish to continue using the large body of previous books.
Particularly with the relatively recent release of ACG, which has at least 7 out of the 10 introduced classes with swift actions tied to one of their core abilities.
Brawler martial flexibility, hunter animal focus, investigator's optional upgrade to their study ability (which is what makes that ability useful in the first place, really), skald's upgrade to their warsong, slayer's upgrade to studied target, warpriest's sacred weapon, and the swashbuckler's.....almost everything.
I think, at best, you are going to see more attempts to make the unchained versions of some of the classes fit into the old action system than you will see attempts to use the new action system.
You get 1 Reaction a round
This can be
-perform a readied action
-make an attack of opportunity
-do an action that spends an attack of opportunity
-do an immidiate actionCombat reflexes lets you get extra reactions but they can only be ones that use up Attacks of Opportunity
Wait... So if you make an AoO you can't use immediate actions or readied actions?! WTF?! Why?
This system is really poorly thought...
If you have Combat reflexes you can but not if you don't
I don't think it's poorly thought out, it's designed to reduce the amount of action clutter at the table, and that is exactly what it does.
Wait, does that mean that combat reflexes gives you extra 'reactions' instead? Doesn't that give you more immediate actions?
...I feel like there is room to abuse this, but I still think the swashbuckler is generally dead......
If the mechanics behind the reaction are as written, then we got buffed, not nerfed.
You get a reaction for free. That means your immediate action doesn't do jack sh+t to your full round of three acts.
It's like everything that you like about 5th edition, without reducing the game to a crappy version of e6 spread across 20 levels.
There are feats that allow you to make an additional attack while mounted. Out becomes more valid with this system.
From what I've come to understand, TWF and Rapid Shot allow two attacks per act.
I see now how Spell Strike kills frostbite builds. It's possible thus was an oversight, doesn't change the fact that you can still get two spells off in a turn without quickening anything and get two attacks in as well as a magus, which is pretty damn good. The equivalent of 5 acts in one turn, no 6 acts actually. The main thing is that we are so used to the old way that we don't see how strong this is yet.
I honestly can't imagine a game where I'd go back to the old system considering how much good this new system has. The problems that exist are easily fixed with house rules, which is the whole point of unchained, right Mark?
I think this is a system that causes a lot of knee-jerk reactions because it's so unfamiliar. I'd suggest people sit down, start a tutorial campaign to get the hang of it, and make up their own mind.
From my limited experiments I think it has a lot of merits compared to the standard system, but it also glosses over quite a bit (probably to keep it relatively brief, it tries to sum up everything in the CRB combat chapter in 8 pages) and so requires a fair bit of on-the-spot rulings and GM adjudication. It's not really something I'd spring on a group of rookies.
Edit: While Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting are covered by a sidebar, Rapid Shot and Manyshot is not. Rapid Shot would be fairly easy to extrapolate from the TWF rules, but Manyshot is a bit trickier.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It basically goes against pathfinder's original founding principle- a desire for backwards comparability and a wish to continue using the large body of previous books.
That statement above is pretty much the whole point of the book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it would be easy to house rule further that each class gets a "Swift Act" in addition to their normal acts that can be used for a swift action, as long as you specify that it can't be used to cast a spell. Yes, that adds some power to many classes, but it does make the aforementioned ACG classes work properly. As for Magus, just rule that Spellstrike isn't an action and you have the original class back. Not a big deal, seeing as this book is literally "House Rules: The Book".
Although I haven't gotten the chance to read the book yet, from what I hear the balance issues aren't hard to fix with a quick ruling. It gives martials more versatility and power, and it may even be a buff to feats like Vital Strike (still waiting to know for sure on that one). April 29th is looking really far away now...
That statement above is pretty much the whole point of the book.
It basically goes against pathfinder's original founding principle- a desire for backwards comparability and a wish to continue using the large body of previous books.
Still...going against your own body of work with only a half loaded book is...risky.
It isn't its own system, and it does quite fit well with the existing system. You might have gotten more mileage out of it if you had a more well rounded set of unchained classes (you might have set up a nice fighter/rogue/wizard (summoner)/cleric thing for a nice bare bones campaign if there was a divine class...unless summoner somehow got healing tacked on for their trouble)
Of course, I hardly know what I am talking about. Still...how many people consistently run 'armor as DR' campaigns? And I have yet to read the actual book- are the unchained version of classes as tied into the new action system as...well....swashbucklers are tied to the usual one? If someone doesn't like the new action system, could you still have the unchained variant of classes stand on their own?
Slaughtering sacred cows is fine when you have something else to pull the plows in the fields (one of the interesting explanation for why they are sacred- eating your farm equipment means you eat today, and starve tomorrow)
Rather than seeing this system as the swift action getting nerfed, see it as the move action getting buffed. Now things like martial flexibility work much better even at early levels.
This does have the unfortunate side effect of having swift actions being less upgraded and more just kinda there. At the same time, you no longer have issues like multiple abilities competing for the swift action. War priests can do their sacred weapon/armor, fervor a buff spell, and still get an attack off all in the same round. (two attacks if haste, blessing of fervor, or divine power is involved)
This system is awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything in Unchained is pretty much optional plug ins. Use the ones you want to use, leave the rest.
Some rules will work better for different campaigns or play styles than others. It all comes down to what kind of feel you want for your campaign.
For example there is the Limited Magic rules later in the book.
Instead of spells being dependant on Caster level they are all considered to be cast at Minimum Caster Level and Minimum Attribute.
IE: Fireball is 5d6 DC:14. Doesn't matter if you are a 3rd level Wizard of a 20th level wizard. It never changes unless you use the Highten Spell Metamagic to put it in a different spell slot.
For some people using that rule will fit with how they want their campaign to run for other people it won't
Flip side you have the Overclocking Spells rule where if a Wizard wants to supper charge his spells he makes a Spellcraft Roll and gets a boost to Caster Level or save DC. Fail and you loose the spell. Fail by 5 or more and it explodes in your face.
Again some games it'll fit others it won't
Or combine the two and Overclocking allows the mage to use his Caster level for the Spells instead of the limited power version.
This book is about putting new options into the hands of the group. Use the ones that best fit the campaign you want to run. It's about customization not Nerfs and Buffs.
Rather than seeing this system as the swift action getting nerfed, see it as the move action getting buffed. Now things like martial flexibility work much better even at early levels.
This does have the unfortunate side effect of having swift actions being less upgraded and more just kinda there. At the same time, you no longer have issues like multiple abilities competing for the swift action. War priests can do their sacred weapon/armor, fervor a buff spell, and still get an attack off all in the same round. (two attacks if haste, blessing of fervor, or divine power is involved)This system is awesome.
Yeah, I agree with you there. My first thought was how awesome it would be to be a warpriest under this system.
So, does the stamina system have anything that allows you to buy more acts? I feel like it literally turns the game into Descent at that point, but it might not be a bad thing in this regard.
So, does the stamina system have anything that allows you to buy more acts? I feel like it literally turns the game into Descent at that point, but it might not be a bad thing in this regard.
No, like everything in this book the Stamina system is completely seperate thing from everything else in the book.
Although some of them do have advice on how different systems interact with each other, they are all pretty much stand alone options.With Stamina you can do things like extend the duration of Arcane Strike so that you get more than 1 round out of activating it. So if you did use both the Action system and the Stamina system you would probably combine the Action of activating Arcane Strike with a few stamina points to make it last 3 or 4 rounds.
A tricky one would be spending Stamina on Whirlwind attack. Under the Rules Whirlwind attack would be a 3 point action but spending Stamina lets you use bonus attacks from Feats, Spells, etc... but you don't have any Action Points left to use them.
There is no reason to delve into detailed comparison or other complicated set up. The question is simple. A system where a lesser action (5' step, swift action) takes the same economy of a greter action (move action, attack) is badly thought and umbalanced with the existing material.
If you want to make "alternate systems", you better do your job and make them functional into the existing ruleset. Otherways, what's the point? Just go write Pathfinder 2.0 new CRB.
There is no reason to delve into detailed comparison or other complicated set up. The question is simple. A system where a lesser action (5' step, swift action) takes the same economy of a greter action (move action, attack) is badly thought and umbalanced with the existing material.
If you want to make "alternate systems", you better do your job and make them functional into the existing ruleset. Otherways, what's the point? Just go write Pathfinder 2.0 new CRB.
What's "lesser" about swift actions? A warpriest's swift actions might be casting enlarge person, for example. I'd hardly call that "lesser". And a 5 foot doesn't provoke, which is quite important.
So, take a look at it another way. If not for this baseline that you are used to, would this system seem bad? That's the metric by which you should measure it. How it functions within itself.
In the reverse, I could say that the limitation of one action deemed a "swift action" per turn is ludacris, especially when classes have lots of those actions. Or how a melee fighter can only ever move and make a single attack. Comparing the systems never gets us anywhere.
A system where a lesser action (5' step, swift action) takes the same economy of a greter action (move action, attack) is badly thought and umbalanced with the existing material.
A 5 foot step is a means of moving around with zero chance of taking an AoO. A Swift action allows you to unleash all kinds of special powers. These have never been 'lesser' than a move action, or a third attack at minus 10, or half a spell.
Here is a fun idea
Instead of disliking the flaws in the new system, lets figure out a way of easily spot fixing it.
My suggestions, given how I understand the system thus far:
-Add a 4th action unit per round. That action can only be used on swift/immediate actions.
-The natural attacks 3 round action also allows up to 1 attack action per action unit spent on the action (normally 3 actions/attacks, but see pounce). This follows all the normal rules for mixing manufactured and natural attacks, such as natural attacks becoming secondary when used alongside manefactured weapons.
-Pounce allows a creature to take a natural attacks action(action points used=2) at the end of a charge instead of the normal attack.
I think that fixes a good deal of the system's problems, while not screwing martials who have the audacity to move 10 feet before attacking. Feel free to point out any unintended consequences of my suggestions or a better idea.
Are you arguing that Studied Target as a swift action instead of a move is not an upgrade? That Quickened Spell as a move is not a nerf? Letting people take a full move as a free action (5') is not a bonus? When those (and many other abilities) where written, in the devs mind there where a clear action hierarchy. Standard action was never intended to be interchangable with move action. Changing it it's a major overhaul of the relative balance of skill, feats and abilities, and it's, of course in my humble opinion, way above and beyond what a simple "alternative system" should mess up with.
If you try and propose those changes in the already existing system, everybody is gonna start shouting and complaining. But somehow, start changing a few names and call it an "alternate system" and people can't seems to see beyond the veil of absurdities.
Sounds like an interesting new Action system, I will have a lot to read once i finally get a copy of that book. Or its contents go up on the PRD or PFSRD, which, considering how long it is until preorders will be shipped around here is not entirely unlikely to happen first.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you arguing that Studied Target as a swift action instead of a move is not an upgrade? That Quickened Spell as a move is not a nerf? Letting people take a full move as a free action (5') is not a bonus? When those (and many other abilities) where written, in the devs mind there where a clear action hierarchy. Standard action was never intended to be interchangable with move action. Changing it it's a major overhaul of the relative balance of skill, feats and abilities, and it's, of course in my humble opinion, way above and beyond what a simple "alternative system" should mess up with.
If you try and propose those changes in the already existing system, everybody is gonna start shouting and complaining. But somehow, start changing a few names and call it an "alternate system" and people can't seems to see beyond the veil of absurdities.
I'm not arguing about "nerf". Especially when it comes to spellcasters. The point is, you can take three actions per round, be they attacks, moves, or swifts. That's two more swifts than in the old system. That's one more move than the previous system. That's a variable amount of attacks depending on level. A gain for the first 10 levels.
Concerning swift actions, you can still carry out a move, an attack, and a swift action, just like before. What this system does is allow a lot more flexibility to everyone except maybe spellcasters (who don't need more). It also addresses the problem of higher level play bogging down because of two many actions. It also lets characters move more while attacking.
As I've been saying, don't look at this in the eyes of the previous system. Look at it for its own merits. There's a lot of good things in here. And, really, an action in the new system is not comparable to a standard, a swift, or a move in the old. It's a different metric attempting different things.
Are you arguing that Studied Target as a swift action instead of a move is not an upgrade? That Quickened Spell as a move is not a nerf? Letting people take a full move as a free action (5') is not a bonus?
Wouldn't you agree that being able to sacrifice a move action to get an extra swift action or 5-foot-step would be a powerful boost in many cases?
Pathfinder's game balance has always been wonky. Melee characters who can't pounce become increasingly inflexible as they level up. Action types have always been confusing. (Can a Paladin Lay on Hands on himself as a move action?) I'm not convinced the problems with this system are any worse than the old problems.
The people who have tried this system mostly seem to be OK with it. Lots of other people who haven't tried it or even read it seem very quick to dismiss it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm arguing is that is BS that most classes have to wait until they're about 10 or 11 levels in to finally be able to use their abilities as swift actions anyway.
Studied Target now functions as intended.
Martial Flexibility now functions as intended.
Arcane Strike has always been garbage as far as action economy goes, but a magus can still use it, his arcane pool, and spell combat all in the same round and still get off a spell and an attack.
People need to get over the swift action. It was a bad mechanic in 3.x that only existed because quickened spells were a thing. Then they came up with more abilities they didn't want to be free actions because they didn't want the game to break so they invented the swift mechanic well into 3.x's run.
I think the real fix here isn't giving more actions or coming up with ways to get the swift action back, but getting used to a game where you can choose not to take an attack, but gain what would've been a free swift action before. E.G. imagine a magus who chooses to forgo one of his melee attacks so he can instead gain a second swift action to use his spell recall in the same turn he uses Arcane Strike. Not overpowered, but limited because of the swift action, now it's possible.
Is a move action worth the same as a swift action? Yes, it should have always been. Moving takes the same amount of time as making a single attack, or activating an ability, or whatever else.
I only feel bad for the old way having class abilities that upgrade to being able to be used as a swift action. House rules can give those classes something else, like a free feat (Extra x class ability) or something to compensate for the fact that that ability is rendered a dead level. Or leave it because it means you essentially get that same class ability so many levels earlier.
The thing people are going to have to get used to is the idea that a full round only consists of three attacks, and to do anything else you must give up one or more of these attacks.
But gishes gain greatly from this, you can now make an attack and still cast a spell in the same round. Paladins, Rangers, Inquisitors, Hunters, even Clerics and Druids all basically get the old Spell Combat for free. An archer with Rapid Shot could now theoretically cast Gravity Bow and still get off two shots in the same turn under this system.
I'm okay with the swift action dying if it means a better game, and it looks to be that way from what I can tell.
EDIT: AND I just realized, Mythic Haste would grant you two additional acts.
The design philosophy around swift actions seems to be that swift actions are for actions that should be limited per turn but shouldn't cost a move or full attack to use. Making swift=move really goes against this, now that stuff like studied target and arcane strike has to compete with an extra attack.
Also, Something just occurred to me.
Is vital strike now pretty much a straight damage boost? Does vital strike on a greatsword net you a straight +2d6(average 7) damage increase? Does greater vital strike on an impact greatsword while enlarged give you a 42 average damage increase off the vital strike dice.
And Mythic Vital Strike...oh god, no.
Also, big 1-hitters like the T-Rex become scarey now. Here is a question, however. How do Mariliths work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Marilith is a tricky one.
Unarmed is no problem she just uses the Attack with all natural weapons option.
with weapons though.....
Option A) Her first Attack action gets 6 attacks, 2nd and 3rd ones only get 1 with the normal penalties.
Option B) She gets 2 attacks with every attack action and never suffers the multiple attack penalties, loosing out on the Tail Slap.
Option C) continue to use the Attack with all natural weapons action despite the fact she is using weapons.
Re: Rapid shot, etc. - there's actually a line before the actions list that can be paraphrased as "we don't have the space to cover everything. Use your own judgment for actions that we haven't covered."
My inclination is that anything that requires a standard action normally oughta be a 2 act action. This includes vital strike.
That works for me because standard action abilities are supposed to be 2 acts anyway.
What are consumables? And other specific non-spell non-attack standard actions?
Also, spring loaded wrist sheaths feel sad.
2 acts also I would think, as for wrist sheaths, that would be an act still.
My inclination is that anything that requires a standard action normally oughta be a 2 act action. This includes vital strike.
That works for me because standard action abilities are supposed to be 2 acts anyway.
I think that's fair, considering that standard action spells are 2 acts.
I'm somewhat at a loss as to do with spell combat. Given the wording I want to say that for three acts you get a spell and three acts of attacks. Given the TWF connection I think it would also be fair to Make the spell and attack one act or turn the spell into one act.
Spell Combat was specially rewritten; Spellstrike too.
Spell Combat's rewrite makes some sense. One act, you get one spell and one attack, you can't cast another spell on your turn (except via Spellstrike, or a Quickened Spell). It's in full on the first page of the thread.
I've probably b&&#%ed about the new Spellstrike enough for one thread so... we'll just leave it at "Spellstrike went from a non-action to a two-act ability".
On one hand that doesn't make sense. Why would spellstrike even need to be rewritten unless the new action economy makes standard action touch spells three acts to accomplish through the loss of the free action attack. I'll probably house rule that on the way.
On the other hand, in the back of my head I always felt the whole spellstrike to get two attacks at 2nd level was kind of cheesy, particularly with 0 level spells. Although even then I can see it as an act but not two acts. Although at 2nd level you are functionally doing the same thing (two attacks and a spell)