[unchained] How is the new action economy system?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 752 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Amusingly, mathematically the two-attacks thing kind of sucks at level two.

As to why it needed to be rewritten... couldn't tell you. But it was. The casting of a spell is now a subset of Spellstrike.

This has some really massive implications for the Magus: they have no way to leverage all of their class features in one round; not even close (no swift action ability + Spell Combat + Spellstrike), they can only deliver touch spells with weapons while using that specific action (Frostbite is dead and holding a charge dies with it), Spellstrike is mechanically stronger than Spell Combat, albeit less flexible (makes it the logical focal point of any Magus build, which locks a class that was once wide-open past level 5 into probably something like 3-4 more feats), renders a handful of arcanas totally useless (Arcane Accuracy, Accurate Strike are the big two), wrecks their traditional late-in-the-day combat flexibility that is Spell Recall while simultaneously making them more dependent on it, and, most hilariously, massively hurts their mobility options (D-Door Spell Combat is no longer effective, so their only real option is to give up a big chunk of their firepower to move normally or lean even more of their capabilities on Bladed Dash).

It brings the view of the Magus as a nova class that does nothing but spam Shocking Grasp from a reality that was as true as you made it into a cold, hard fact. I could probably pilot one in my sleep under these actions.

*Shrug* That said, the Magus under this system can still rock two attacks at level two, and it appears at full BAB to boot (with Spell Combat's penalty, but whatever). They can also cast two spells in a round from level two, which only the Warpriest can match. That one's rather ridiculous for entirely different reasons.

Okay. Now I'm done complaining about Spellstrike. Hopefully.

Dark Archive

I think I'd set it that swift actions, immediate actions, and 5' steps count as 1/2 an act with maximum of each being used 1/round and set the acts/round to be 3.5 at 1st giving +1 act to everyone at 10th. I would also give fighter +1 act at 5th and 15th to make them feel like they are doing just as much as the other classes... Probably the Swashbuckler and Rogue would also gain 1/2 an act at the same points to make them more attractive. I would also allow a feat with minimum prereqs being Dex 17, BAB +5 for +1/2 an act each round usable only on 5' steps, swift actions, or immediate actions. This would allow Fighters, Rogues and Swashbucklers to be the quickest on their feet as they should be especially at high levels(Fighter with 7 actions/rnd while wizard has 4.5) I would also make an advanced rogue talent that allows rogue's to use their extra acts in the surprise round IE at 15th they could have up to 3.5 actions in the surprise round and 6 actions out of it.


Wait, holding charges doesn't work in this system?


Malwing wrote:
Wait, holding charges doesn't work in this system?

Not with Spellstrike, no.

Quote:

Spellstrike (Complex; 2 Acts): You cast a spell from the

magus spell list with a range of touch, but instead of
making a touch attack, you make a melee attack with a
weapon you are wielding. If the attack hits, the attack deals
its normal damage as well as any effects of the spell. You
must have the spellstrike class feature to take this action.

If you miss you can use an attack action to deliver the touch, just like any other caster-- but you won't get to use your sword with it.


kestral287 wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Wait, holding charges doesn't work in this system?

Not with Spellstrike, no.

Quote:

Spellstrike (Complex; 2 Acts): You cast a spell from the

magus spell list with a range of touch, but instead of
making a touch attack, you make a melee attack with a
weapon you are wielding. If the attack hits, the attack deals
its normal damage as well as any effects of the spell. You
must have the spellstrike class feature to take this action.
If you miss you can use an attack action to deliver the touch, just like any other caster-- but you won't get to use your sword with it.

Wait, That's just Spell Combat+Spellstrike only with one strike. From that wording you cast a spell and make an attack. I'll probably house rule that away because it adds a spell to what spellstrike does. If you leave it alone then it nothing really happens.


Spell Combat is its own action separate from that one.

Quote:

Spell Combat (Attack, Complex): You make an attack roll

with a light or one-handed melee weapon, then cast a spell
on the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard
action. You take a –2 penalty on the melee attack, but the
spell is cast regardless of whether the attack hits. If you
cast the spell defensively, you can subtract your Intelligence
bonus from the result of the attack roll to add the same
value as a circumstance bonus on the concentration check.
You must have the spell combat class feature to take this
action, and can take this action only once per turn. To take
this action, you must have one hand free. You can’t also
take the following actions this turn: cast a standard-action
spell or cast a 1-round-action spell.

Thus you can do Spell Combat + Spellstrike, to cast twice per round and attack twice per round both (which still makes the Magus really good at action economy with their obnoxiously-constrained niche; that's six acts worth of stuff). However, the only way that you can ever deliver a touch spell with a weapon is with the actual Spellstrike act.

I'm honestly really curious about the design thoughts behind that one, because I can't puzzle it out.

Interestingly, Spell Combat itself ate a nerf there. Standard Spell Combat, you can take a penalty up to your Int bonus to add to your concentration check. You now have to take your Int bonus as a penalty/bonus.

... Curious about the reasons behind that one too but I suspect that's a case of not reading closely, to be honest.


I don't think I like the new spell strike, and would probably just house rule it away so it works like it used to. At the same time, the way it is now allows for two handed fighting, so there's both good and bad here.

I'd probably also house rule the 5 foot step back to a non action.


Dekalinder wrote:

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.

When I look at the cost of actions in the Revised system, I see a lot of move actions effectively taking up less time, and quite a few standard actions cost just 1 act. So is the bedrock standard action, Attack, a lesser action?

As I said before, you really need to see the whole thing. And if you don't like it, it's optional. There is no reason to sling vitriol at the designers for a completely optional rule.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I don't think I like the new spell strike, and would probably just house rule it away so it works like it used to. At the same time, the way it is now allows for two handed fighting, so there's both good and bad here.

I'd probably also house rule the 5 foot step back to a non action.

What?

The old Spellstrike worked better with TWF than the new one. And Spell Combat is unchanged. "a light or one handed weapon" is still singular.


kestral287 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I don't think I like the new spell strike, and would probably just house rule it away so it works like it used to. At the same time, the way it is now allows for two handed fighting, so there's both good and bad here.

I'd probably also house rule the 5 foot step back to a non action.

What?

The old Spellstrike worked better with TWF than the new one. And Spell Combat is unchanged. "a light or one handed weapon" is still singular.

With the new system, under haste, you can spell strike and still get 3 attacks off plus burst damage, with a two handed weapon. This was not possible before because without spell combat and a one handed weapon you could only deliver a single melee attack to deliver your standard action spell.

At the same time, builds that do something other than burst damage like shocking grasp or vampiric touch, like the aforementioned frostbite builds, no longer function properly. Plus, spell combat no longer allows you to even cast an offensive spell. You have to use spell strike now, a different action.

If spell strike is a non action, then the magus can do things like it did before, using a swift action buff like arcane strike, then getting off two spells and three attacks under this system.


Ok im pretty sure that you guys are misreading the magus situation and that they are actually BETTER off than before.

In general classes that have medium BAB benefit because as long as their attack bonus is high enough they can make as many attacks as a full BAB class can.

While this is a benefit to the combat side of medium BAB characters, a lot of medium BAB classes also have access to spells and because full attacks have been removed casting spells would effectively be like replacing part of their full attack with a spell cast, which would be broken as all hell

of course full casters could beef up their attack bonus and do the same thing with some BS high level spells

this is the magus's thing and because of that they have to find a way to give them their standard schmuck while still maintaing balance

what people dont realise is that the spellstrike action does not replace the ability to spell strike, meaning that every spell cast can still be spellstriked

what it does do is allow the magus to decide between casting two spells and making an additional attack, OR making three attacks and casting the spell, but because all movement costs at least 1 action, maguses have to already be adjacent to their target which forces them to make concentration checks for both spell casts, balancing the uber blasting power with the mobility they can get with spell combating and attacking

this new system buffs magus mobility while also giving them some serious concentrated damage, this comes at the price of their swift action abilities which i assume is part of balancing them

Spellstrike (Complex; 2 Acts): You cast a spell from the magusUM spell list with a range of touch, but instead of making a touch attack, you make a melee attack with a weapon you are wielding. If the attack hits, the attack deals its normal damage as well as any effects of the spell. You must have the spellstrikeUM class feature to take this action

for reference here's the spell strike action and nowhere in the section does it state that class abilities are replaced by actions


Considering that none of the developers have contradicted the other reading of the actions I can't tell if that was their intention or not so please correct me if I'm wrong


keep in mind that all characters have stuff they can stack on while standing in place, for example a melee character could vital strike or cleave three times per round

ranged characters can exploit vital strike as well except that they can make three attacks every round regardless of anything else or they could use the focused shot feat to add more mods to their damage, remember mods>dice

characters with natural attacks can attack with all of them as a combination of 3 actions, which makes stuff with natural attacks beat out the attack action economy even further but they become much weaker when it comes to mobility because they can only make two of their attacks, which may be stonger attacks because they would effectively be making two proper primary weapon attacks but on the other hand natural attacks suffer from not being easily enchantable and rely on numbers to make up for it

this system's main upside is that it redeems a lot of feats and balances the playing field, the downside is that optimization and feat tax also become more severe, casters also got the life beat out of their supremacy but that was sort of the point of this book


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the thing that no one realizes, and why a lot of people think you're character is worse off, is the fact that enemies are just as nerfed as your characters. AKA, you're still not more likely to die, and several combos before have been opened up, while previous ones have been destroyed. for instance, you can do several swift actions now, and immediate actions don't eat your swift, instead they eat your AOO.

suddenly weird standard action options that would suck before are fine now. demoralize and then a shattered defense attack and get sneak attack then run away(using acrobatics).

swift actions got nerfed, standard actions got buffed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

suddenly you can full attack with vital strikes...


Bandw2 wrote:
suddenly you can full attack with vital strikes...

Does it say that in the book? I'm pretty sure it's a two act action.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
suddenly you can full attack with vital strikes...
Does it say that in the book? I'm pretty sure it's a two act action.

The feat in the core reads

Quote:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage

and the Attack action in this system is 1 Act. So as written yeah full attack Vital Strike is allowed.

Individual DMs might decide otherwise but honestly .... I have no issues with a 6th level fighter carrying a long sword dishing out 6d8 to one target in a round when a 6th level wizard can dish out 6d6 to a half dozen or more at the same time.

And of course what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Any Monster with Vital strike gets to do the same


Bandw2 wrote:

the thing that no one realizes, and why a lot of people think you're character is worse off, is the fact that enemies are just as nerfed as your characters. AKA, you're still not more likely to die, and several combos before have been opened up, while previous ones have been destroyed. for instance, you can do several swift actions now, and immediate actions don't eat your swift, instead they eat your AOO.

suddenly weird standard action options that would suck before are fine now. demoralize and then a shattered defense attack and get sneak attack then run away(using acrobatics).

swift actions got nerfed, standard actions got buffed.

The thing people don't like is that whether the system is a nerf or a buff is completely dependent on class and build.

Dependent on swift+full round action or move+standard - sucks to be you
Natural attacks+manefactured attacks - ditto

Swift + Standard (typical fullcasters) - you can't move anymore. Not as bad as Swift+full round, but still a nerf.

Controlling melee build (reach tripper or some such) - Most things that beat face are a lot more mobile now - sucks to be you

Many natural attacks - Your mobility still sucks and you lose your swift
One big natural attack - AFAIK Behemoth Hippo Druids are very happy with their 16d8 vital striking bite full attacks.

Dumb full-attacking beater - You got reasonably buffed, congrats

It is really all over the place.


The attack action is a standard action, where in the new system a single attack is one act.

The system more or less breaks down the full round into individual attacks and allows you to do something else in place of one of your iterative attacks. Standard action abilities to my understanding are meant to be two act actions to prevent thus kind of thing.


master_marshmallow wrote:

The attack action is a standard action, where in the new system a single attack is one act.

The system more or less breaks down the full round into individual attacks and allows you to do something else in place of one of your iterative attacks. Standard action abilities to my understanding are meant to be two act actions to prevent thus kind of thing.

The specific standard action used to Vital Strike is a one-act action. Most are two, but the one Vital Strike relies on is explicitly called out otherwise.

Very reasonable houserule to make it two acts, and if my table does wind up using this system I'm ganking that one in a heartbeat, but the straight-out-of-the-book answer is "one act".

pinapple-nuggets wrote:

Ok im pretty sure that you guys are misreading the magus situation and that they are actually BETTER off than before.

In general classes that have medium BAB benefit because as long as their attack bonus is high enough they can make as many attacks as a full BAB class can.

Valid.

Of course, the Magus' baseline attacks are made with the same BAB as the old Rogue. Worse, actually-- the same BAB as a TWF Rogue. Remember how much those suck?

Now, the Magus can boost that! Come level 5, if he puts a +2 (big if; +1 Keen is a thing) on his weapon with his Arcane Pool ability, he has the stunning to-hit of... a baseline Rogue that wasn't dumb enough to TWF. That's one swift action, though as it lasts for ten rounds, not a huge issue.

The real way that the Magus boosts their to-hit? Swift actions, that are used every round. Arcane Accuracy, Accurate Strike. And the ones that took a big hit with the nerf-bat are.... yeah, Swift actions.

pinapple-nuggets wrote:
While this is a benefit to the combat side of medium BAB characters, a lot of medium BAB classes also have access to spells and because full attacks have been removed casting spells would effectively be like replacing part of their full attack with a spell cast, which would be broken as all hell

So... the thing the Magus could always do?

The Magus has been the expert of "combine spells and melee in an efficient action package" since day one. This is not a benefit to the Magus; this is a benefit to every other casting class.

pinapple-nuggets wrote:

of course full casters could beef up their attack bonus and do the same thing with some BS high level spells

this is the magus's thing and because of that they have to find a way to give them their standard schmuck while still maintaing balance

Sure. Spell Combat's action economy still rocks under the new system. That was easy. Spell Combat isn't the point of contention here.

pinapple-nuggets wrote:
what people dont realise is that the spellstrike action does not replace the ability to spell strike, meaning that every spell cast can still be spellstriked

Literally every other part of this system is replacing the old piece. We're going to need a much stronger rules citation than "it doesn't say that Spellstrike isn't special" before I buy into that one.

Which maybe the book has. I'll find out in a week I suppose.

pinapple-nuggets wrote:
what it does do is allow the magus to decide between casting two spells and making an additional attack, OR making three attacks and casting the spell, but because all movement costs at least 1 action, maguses have to already be adjacent to their target which forces them to make concentration checks for both spell casts, balancing the uber blasting power with the mobility they can get with spell combating and attacking

The Magus didn't have mobility problems before. Once it got a handle on second-level spells it was set; Bladed Dash was a thing. Once it got fourth-level spells it had the cheesy-but-RAW-legal Dimension Door Spell Combat. The former is unchanged by the new action system; the latter died in flames.

So, a Magus going full nova is less mobile than it was before.

pinapple-nuggets wrote:
this new system buffs magus mobility while also giving them some serious concentrated damage, this comes at the price of their swift action abilities which i assume is part of balancing them

So it gave them something they were already good at, took away the thing that they direly needed, and thus they were buffed?

Beyond that, what Snowblind said is my reading thus far.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

the thing that no one realizes, and why a lot of people think you're character is worse off, is the fact that enemies are just as nerfed as your characters. AKA, you're still not more likely to die, and several combos before have been opened up, while previous ones have been destroyed. for instance, you can do several swift actions now, and immediate actions don't eat your swift, instead they eat your AOO.

suddenly weird standard action options that would suck before are fine now. demoralize and then a shattered defense attack and get sneak attack then run away(using acrobatics).

swift actions got nerfed, standard actions got buffed.

The thing people don't like is that whether the system is a nerf or a buff is completely dependent on class and build.

Dependent on swift+full round action or move+standard - sucks to be you
Natural attacks+manefactured attacks - ditto

Swift + Standard (typical fullcasters) - you can't move anymore. Not as bad as Swift+full round, but still a nerf.

Controlling melee build (reach tripper or some

yes, just like how before if you relied on standard actions it sucked to be you, demoralize seems more capable now since you can attack in the same turn.


kestral287 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The attack action is a standard action, where in the new system a single attack is one act.

The system more or less breaks down the full round into individual attacks and allows you to do something else in place of one of your iterative attacks. Standard action abilities to my understanding are meant to be two act actions to prevent thus kind of thing.

The specific standard action used to Vital Strike is a one-act action. Most are two, but the one Vital Strike relies on is explicitly called out otherwise.

Very reasonable houserule to make it two acts, and if my table does wind up using this system I'm ganking that one in a heartbeat, but the straight-out-of-the-book answer is "one act".

pinapple-nuggets wrote:

Ok im pretty sure that you guys are misreading the magus situation and that they are actually BETTER off than before.

In general classes that have medium BAB benefit because as long as their attack bonus is high enough they can make as many attacks as a full BAB class can.

Valid.

Of course, the Magus' baseline attacks are made with the same BAB as the old Rogue. Worse, actually-- the same BAB as a TWF Rogue. Remember how much those suck?

Now, the Magus can boost that! Come level 5, if he puts a +2 (big if; +1 Keen is a thing) on his weapon with his Arcane Pool ability, he has the stunning to-hit of... a baseline Rogue that wasn't dumb enough to TWF. That's one swift action, though as it lasts for ten rounds, not a huge issue.

The real way that the Magus boosts their to-hit? Swift actions, that are used every round. Arcane Accuracy, Accurate Strike. And the ones that took a big hit with the nerf-bat are.... yeah, Swift actions.

pinapple-nuggets wrote:
While this is a benefit to the combat side of medium BAB characters, a lot of medium BAB classes also have access to spells and because full attacks have been removed casting spells would effectively be like replacing part of their full attack with a spell cast, which
...

You can still swift action and take two attacks, same as everyone else in this system.

What's the actual problem here? Are you just mad because there are less actions and therefore less attacks?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem is that in Pathfinder swift action mechanics are balanced around and designed to be an action you can only use once each round, and an action you take *in addition* to your attack(s) - not an action you take *in place* of an attack. The revised system creates a paradigm shift by equalizing swift, move and some standard actions, which in turn changes the power level of many swift-actions dramatically.

Consider Arcane Strike for example. In normal Pathfinder it's a minor but decent damage bonus for classes that don't heavily rely on swift actions for other things, such as bards and bloodragers. In the revised system, using Arcane Strike as one of your three actions to gain a +1 to +5 damage bonus is an unattractive alternative to simply making another attack.

On the other hand a paladin can now throw on three Lay on Hand effects each round, warpriests can use fervor to cast three personal-range buff spells each round... For those classes the new swift action is fantastic, and potentially a bit too good.

I can't say for sure until I actually play test the system. I think it is very very interesting, but I really wish it had gotten a bit more page space. There's a lot of feats and class features that are unclear.


Bandw2 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

the thing that no one realizes, and why a lot of people think you're character is worse off, is the fact that enemies are just as nerfed as your characters. AKA, you're still not more likely to die, and several combos before have been opened up, while previous ones have been destroyed. for instance, you can do several swift actions now, and immediate actions don't eat your swift, instead they eat your AOO.

suddenly weird standard action options that would suck before are fine now. demoralize and then a shattered defense attack and get sneak attack then run away(using acrobatics).

swift actions got nerfed, standard actions got buffed.

The thing people don't like is that whether the system is a nerf or a buff is completely dependent on class and build.

Dependent on swift+full round action or move+standard - sucks to be you
Natural attacks+manefactured attacks - ditto

Swift + Standard (typical fullcasters) - you can't move anymore. Not as bad as Swift+full round, but still a nerf.

Controlling melee build (reach tripper or some

yes, just like how before if you relied on standard actions it sucked to be you, demoralize seems more capable now since you can attack in the same turn.

I would be a little more sympathetic if it was a nerf to mostly the high tier casters and a boon to the classes/builds that are weak to decent.

Wizards, Druids, clerics, Witches, Summoners, Shamans don't feel it until they start using swift actions at higher levels. For the divine casters that go into melee, the new system is probably better to them, since it negates the penalties of their lower bab that can't be made up by buffs. Sorcerers, Arcanists and oracles are hurt quite badly if they are relying on metamagic (Yay, yet another reason arcane bloodline is better than everything else). Otherwise, they don't feel it much either.

Some low tier classes are straight up upgraded e.g. fighter. Some are screwed over once they want to use swift actions e.g. paladin, ninja and slayer. Middle tier classes (the ones that are the most fun and balanced) tend to get screwed over because they are the ones that rely on swift+full round actions the most e.g. the magus, and others that eventually get swift action activation like the bard and investigator. It also leaves a bunch of feats in a terrible position. Arcane strike is straight up awful, Weapon versatility is a joke etc. Natural attacks are terrible as well, because they take a whole full round action to use (and a swift too).

Basically, the new action economy kind of maybe helps some classes, kind of maybe harms some, and breaks a whole bunch of them because those classes were designed under the assumption that a +2 to hit and damage wouldn't be eating an attack. It changes fundamental assumptions the game is built around, and in doing so doesn't actually improve things much balance wise for most of the classes it doesn't outright break.


Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

the thing that no one realizes, and why a lot of people think you're character is worse off, is the fact that enemies are just as nerfed as your characters. AKA, you're still not more likely to die, and several combos before have been opened up, while previous ones have been destroyed. for instance, you can do several swift actions now, and immediate actions don't eat your swift, instead they eat your AOO.

suddenly weird standard action options that would suck before are fine now. demoralize and then a shattered defense attack and get sneak attack then run away(using acrobatics).

swift actions got nerfed, standard actions got buffed.

The thing people don't like is that whether the system is a nerf or a buff is completely dependent on class and build.

Dependent on swift+full round action or move+standard - sucks to be you
Natural attacks+manefactured attacks - ditto

Swift + Standard (typical fullcasters) - you can't move anymore. Not as bad as Swift+full round, but still a nerf.

Controlling melee build (reach tripper or some

yes, just like how before if you relied on standard actions it sucked to be you, demoralize seems more capable now since you can attack in the same turn.

I would be a little more sympathetic if it was a nerf to mostly the high tier casters and a boon to the classes/builds that are weak to decent.

Wizards, Druids, clerics, Witches, Summoners, Shamans don't feel it until they start using swift actions at higher levels. For the divine casters that go into melee, the new system is probably better to them, since it negates the penalties of their lower bab that can't be made up by buffs. Sorcerers, Arcanists and oracles are hurt quite badly if they are relying on metamagic (Yay, yet another reason arcane bloodline is better than everything else). Otherwise, they don't feel it much either.

Some low tier classes are straight up upgraded e.g. fighter. Some are screwed over once they want...

Arcane Strike was already terrible for everyone but Bloodragers.

Losing an attack really doesn't mean much in this system, because by design you are meant to take less attacks. Are you really missing that attack at -10 BAB? Really? I would much rather have a flat bonus to hit or to damage on two attacks that I know are going to hit or at least have a decent chance to rather than take a third swing that is going to result in a wasted action nine times out of ten.

For a lot of those middle classes that you are talking about, Haste is still going to be an option and it is still going to be prevalent. In fact, the most.

The new full round is going to consist of using an act to do some sort of buff, eg Litany of Righteousness, Spell Combat, Fervor, Judgment, Martial Flexibility, Studied Target, Arcane Accuracy, Lay on Hands, Greater Feint, etc; followed by two attacks at full BAB thanks to haste, and lastly another act that allows you to move either before or after all this crap happens. If you don't take the move, then you are probably going to take the third swing at -5. In the case of classes like magi and warpriests, you have an extra swift action to do more things with, like doing arcane accuracy and arcane strike in the same damn turn.

The magus specifically gets more actions than anyone because Spell Combat is a one act action that gives a free attack, in addition to the two attacks that he's probably taking anyway, for a total of three. The norm under this system.

It's not as powerful as the old system of getting in 5 attacks, but in most of the games I play, those fourth and fifth attacks are just fishing for nat 20's to hit anyway and add nothing really to the game other than the 5% chance to land a crit and prematurely end the encounter.

This is a better system, 100% of the time.


Medium BAB class with buffs hit the -10 attack at very least half the times. Someone even more often. With a bard, even the -15 is gonna hit (if they had one) with 11+. Let's stop pretending those last iteratives are there for show.


Dekalinder wrote:
Medium BAB class with buffs hit the -10 attack at very least half the times. Someone even more often. With a bard, even the -15 is gonna hit (if they had one) with 11+. Let's stop pretending those last iteratives are there for show.

At what level, with what stats?

Honestly, those last attacks pretty much are there for show.

As previously stated, this is a different system, and you have to get over the old system. This one is more balanced and gives more options at the same time. The lack of bottom attacks really doesn't affect the effectiveness of characters.

Let's also not forget that TWF is the new god. Rogue's sneak attacks under this system are completely broken. Greater Feint is now a swift action equivalent, and you can TWF and take 4 attacks gaining sneak attack on all of them. Under Haste even more.


I think "for show" is too strong a word to use. Depending on how the character is built, a -10 attack can have an excellent chance of hitting. Here's the stat block for the investigator I finished Rise of the Runelords with about a month ago, with buffs active. An average CR mob would have an AC of 33. Despite a fairly underwhelming gear selection (the end of the storyline had us too busy to liquidate all the gear we were finding, which is why he's carrying 140k in loose change) and a fairly unintuitive build (archery) for an investigator: With Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim active, Akorian can hit AC 33 with his -10 attack as long as he rolls a 2 or better.

Spoiler:

Akorian
Male half-orc investigator (empiricist) 18 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 30, 100)
NG Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +14; Senses blindsight 40 ft., darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +63
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 46, touch 31, flat-footed 33 (+4 armor, +5 deflection, +9 Dex, +4 dodge, +1 insight, +2 luck, +7 natural, +4 shield)
hp 201 (18d8+108)
Fort +22, Ref +33, Will +22; +2 morale bonus vs. transmutation spells
Defensive Abilities evasion, trap sense +6; Immune unfailing logic (immune to illusions)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 60 ft.
Melee luck blade (0 wishes) +41/+41/+36/+31 (1d6+27/19-20) or
unarmed strike +39/+39/+34/+29 (1d3+25 nonlethal)
Ranged +1 greenwood commanding adaptive cyclonic seeking shock composite longbow +42/+42/+42/+37/+32 (1d8+38/19-20/×3 plus 1d6 electricity)
Special Attacks studied combat (+9, 5 rounds), studied strike +8d6
Investigator (Empiricist) Extracts Prepared (CL 18th; concentration +23)
6th—heal (3)
5th—spell resistance (4), undead anatomy II[UM]
4th—death ward (2), fluid form[APG] (2), freedom of movement (2)
3rd—burrow[UM] (4, DC 18), displacement (2)
2nd—barkskin (3), extreme flexibility[ACG] (2), perceive cues[APG]
1st—heightened awareness[ACG] (3), long arm[ACG], shield (3)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 24, Dex 28, Con 20, Int 20, Wis 10, Cha 7
Base Atk +13; CMB +40; CMD 52
Feats Clustered Shots[UC], Deadly Aim, Endurance, Fast Learner[ARG], Manyshot, Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Ranged Study[ACG], Rapid Shot, Snap Shot[UC], Weapon Focus (longbow)
Traits fate's favored, student of philosophy
Skills Acrobatics +15 (+27 to jump), Appraise +7, Bluff +0, Climb +13, Diplomacy +19 (+26 to gather information (You can use your Intelligence Modifier instead of Charisma)), Disable Device +39, Disguise +0, Escape Artist +21, Fly +11, Heal +6, Intimidate +0, Knowledge (arcana) +28, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +11, Knowledge (engineering) +21, Knowledge (geography) +11, Knowledge (history) +28, Knowledge (local) +11, Knowledge (nature) +11, Knowledge (nobility) +11, Knowledge (planes) +11, Knowledge (religion) +28, Linguistics +11, Perception +63, Perform (string instruments) +6, Ride +11, Sense Motive +33, Sleight of Hand +20, Spellcraft +28, Stealth +15, Survival +3 (+5 to avoid becoming lost), Swim +9, Use Magic Device +28; Racial Modifiers ceaseless observation
Languages Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Giant, Necril, Orc, Thassilonian, Varisian
SQ alchemy (alchemy crafting +18), inspiration (1d8, 14/day), investigator talents (amazing inspiration, combat inspiration, combine extracts, infusion, mutagen, quick study, sickening offensive, studied defense), keen recollection, mutagen (+4/-2, +2 natural armor, 180 minutes), orc blood, trapfinding +9
Combat Gear adamantine durable arrow (50), blunt arrows (50), boro bead (1st level), boro bead (1st level), boro bead (1st level), boro bead (2nd level), boro bead (2nd level), boro bead (2nd level), cold iron durable arrow (50), durable arrow (50), gloves of arrow snaring, jaunt boots, jingasa of the fortunate soldier, mutagen, potion of delay disease, potion of gaseous form, potion of keep watch, potion of keep watch, potion of neutralize poison, potion of remove blindness/deafness, potion of remove curse, potion of shield of faith +5, potion of spider climb, silver durable arrow (50), wand of infernal healing (50 charges), antiemetic snuff (4), dye arrow (20), vomit capsule (5); Other Gear +1 greenwood commanding adaptive cyclonic seeking shock composite longbow, luck blade (0 wishes), dusty rose prism ioun stone, opalescent white pyramid ioun stone, admixture vial, belt of physical might +2 (Dex, Con), bracers of falcon's aim, cloak of resistance +5, cracked dusty rose prism ioun stone, elixir of hiding, elixir of vision, fog-cutting lenses, headband of vast intelligence +6, lantern of auras, ring of evasion, ring of protection +2, sihedron medallion, sihedron ring, swarmbane clasp, wayfinder, alchemy crafting kit, bandolier, bandolier, bedroll, belt pouch, flint and steel, handkerchief covered in fey blood, ink, black, inkpen, masterwork backpack, masterwork Lute, masterwork thieves' tools, masterwork thieves' tools, mess kit, soap, trail rations (5), waterskin, wrist sheath, spring loaded (2), 147,614 gp


Kudaku wrote:

I think "for show" is too strong a word to use. Depending on how the character is built, a -10 attack can have an excellent chance of hitting. Here's the stat block for the investigator I finished Rise of the Runelords with about a month ago, with buffs active. An average CR mob would have an AC of 33. Despite a fairly underwhelming gear selection (the end of the storyline had us too busy to liquidate all the gear we were finding, which is why he's carrying 140k in loose change) and a fairly unintuitive build (archery) for an investigator: With Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim active, Akorian can hit AC 33 with his -10 attack as long as he rolls a 2 or better.

** spoiler omitted **...

But, given Haste and Rapid Shot, are you really missing that extra attack?

In a simpler system, three attacks is plenty, four is overkill most of the time.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we shouldn't miss those extra attacks as they are a relic of the old system and this new system proves to be better in every way except for the full round of attacks which has been a point of contention for the game's balance anyway because no one wants to rely on them and now they don't have to.

It was a sacred cow that has been rid of in this new system, for better or worse. In my eyes, it's better, by a lot.


Well, let's think it through. With Haste and Rapid shot active, Akorian would normally make 3 (full attack) +1 (haste) +1 (rapid shot) attacks for a total of 5 attacks. Three at full to hit bonus, one at a -5 penalty and one at a -10 penalty. He'd also have a swift action, which is typically used on Studied Combat.

Using the revised system, Akorian would lose an attack in his first round since he needs to spend a swift action to apply Studied Combat. He'd then have two acts left to make an attack. I'm guessing Rapid Shot would work like Two Weapon Fighting, so he's making 1+1 (actions) +1 (rapid shot) +1 (haste) attacks for a total of 4, one with a -5 penalty. So he's down one attack compared to the old system.

Let's assume the target (somehow) survived. On the next round Akorian would make a full attack, using all three actions to fire. He'd make 1+1+1 (actions) +1 (rapid shot) +1 (haste) attacks for a total of five attacks, one with a -5 penalty and one with -10 penalty. Identical to the old system.

So I'm making the same number of attacks that I used on later rounds, except I lose an attack whenever I want to apply Studied Combat - the core combat mechanic for an investigator. I speak from experience when I say that Studied Combat needs to be reapplied often, since your target tends to die in the first round. The number of attacks is basically unchanged for me, but I can't help but feel like I'm being punished for using my class feature. :-/

I think the system is interesting and I like that it sidelines movement and removes the reliance on full attacks, but I wonder if it would run better if it was "three actions and a minor action", or something akin to that. Sidelining swift actions with attack actions causes a lot of problems for me. Maybe the design team played around with something like that?


master_marshmallow wrote:
]But, given Haste and Rapid Shot, are you really missing that extra attack?

That like asking if you could get by with one less finger since you already have other 4 of them. Yes, of course you can, there are people who even lost a whole hand and still get by. That doesn't mean they are better without it.


Dekalinder wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
]But, given Haste and Rapid Shot, are you really missing that extra attack?
That like asking if you could get by with one less finger since you already have other 4 of them. Yes, of course you can, there are people who even lost a whole hand and still get by. That doesn't mean they are better without it.

It really isn't though.

Remember that third attack doesn't even come online for most until 11th level anyway, which as far as I've been lead to understand is pretty late game for most people.

People need to get over the swift action. It was a bad mechanic to begin with, and the only reason it existed was to facilitate the full round which also doesn't exist anymore.

The benefits of the system far outweigh the downsides, of which the only one that people are complaining about is that they get one less attack because they have to instead use their swift action.

You are acting like you get nothing in return for that missing finger, you are incorrect. You gain more from this system than you lose.


so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.


AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.

Yes it does and yes it does, if you're using a heavy or repeating crossbow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.

It does do the first, but essentially by making the action into a swift action ahead of time. It's hard to argue that's a nerf.

Similarly, it doesn't really hurt early firearms, although it does make Rapid Reload a waste until you're using alchemical cartridges. Though since standard actions seem to translate into 2 acts, except for the attack action, it may still be useful.
Regardless, it doesn't hurt firearms. You can still attack as often as you could in the old system. You might, or might not, need one less feat to do it. Again, not a nerf.


Kudaku wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.

Yes it does and yes it does, if you're using a heavy or repeating crossbow, actually no. They've changed Rapid Reload to make reloading a free action with whatever you take it for. That's a great change!

Really? Does that mean no alchemical cartridges needed? That's pretty major.

Though I'm still not sure how it would have hurt otherwise.


thejeff wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.

Yes it does and yes it does, if you're using a heavy or repeating crossbow, actually no. They've changed Rapid Reload to make reloading a free action with whatever you take it for. That's a great change!

Really? Does that mean no alchemical cartridges needed? That's pretty major.

Though I'm still not sure how it would have hurt otherwise.

Unfortunately, I was mistaken. Reloading is a simple action with light crossbows that turns to a free action with rapid reload. Reloading heavy crossbows is a complex action (requiring two actions) that becomes 1 action with rapid reload. One-handed early firearms function the same way as heavy crossbows, while two-handed early firearms require three actions to reload, reduced to two actions with Rapid Reload.


thejeff wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.

It does do the first, but essentially by making the action into a swift action ahead of time. It's hard to argue that's a nerf.

Similarly, it doesn't really hurt early firearms, although it does make Rapid Reload a waste until you're using alchemical cartridges. Though since standard actions seem to translate into 2 acts, except for the attack action, it may still be useful.
Regardless, it doesn't hurt firearms. You can still attack as often as you could in the old system. You might, or might not, need one less feat to do it. Again, not a nerf.

it certainly might possibly aid people who didnt take them, but making a swathe of feats and class abilities effectively wastes fo ink seems like an odd practise to me--there is an investigator talent for studied combat that is now completely useless, there are now several brawler level-bonuses for martial versatility that do exactly nothing now. the entire advantage of most of the paladin spell list (them being swift actions) seems to have evaporated in an instant.

i havent even managed to wrap my head around how it affects the magus/monk/warpriest/twf/rapidshot-manyshot 'full-attack-plus-X' chunks of the game, and let's not even talk about bloodragers spells now, they dont exist at this point.

having things like declaring smite evil or challenge targets taking up an action that could have been a move or another attack makes me uneasy, but having access to those other attacks at all for low levels will make things more interesting for martials i guess.


thejeff wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, doesn't this system completely destroy the usefulness of any ability that previously downgraded an action (studied combat or martial versatility, for example) from a move action to a swift action?

this also seems to really hurt early firearms (since until you can get reloading to a free action, your rapid reload feat is literally a waste), and harms crossbows even further.

It does do the first, but essentially by making the action into a swift action ahead of time. It's hard to argue that's a nerf.

Similarly, it doesn't really hurt early firearms, although it does make Rapid Reload a waste until you're using alchemical cartridges. Though since standard actions seem to translate into 2 acts, except for the attack action, it may still be useful.
Regardless, it doesn't hurt firearms. You can still attack as often as you could in the old system. You might, or might not, need one less feat to do it. Again, not a nerf.

Pretty much this.

Actions that later 'upgrade' to being swift actions instead of move actions now function exactly the same at low levels making your character more complete earlier on. The reality is the swift action mechanic was bad and it should have been gotten rid of anyway.

Now maneuvers that were move actions essentially all get upgraded to swift actions, meaning you have more options than you did before. This does affect the usefulness of some feats, some become less usful, Rapid Reload is not one of them since it still downgrades the action type needed, to something actually useful because no matter what weapon you are using now, you can still take a shot that turn. Flat out upgrade. Greater Feint also becomes a fantastic feat under this system.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Actions that later 'upgrade' to being swift actions instead of move actions now function exactly the same at low levels making your character more complete earlier on.

Massively changing class balance and the function and power of swift actions in the process. Some (Lay on Hands, Fervor) are better than before, many are far worse.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Now maneuvers that were move actions essentially all get upgraded to swift actions, meaning you have more options than you did before. This does affect the usefulness of some feats, some become less usful, Rapid Reload is not one of them since it still downgrades the action type needed, to something actually useful because no matter what weapon you are using now, you can still take a shot that turn. Flat out upgrade. Greater Feint also becomes a fantastic feat under this system.

I wish I shared your optimism. This seemed like a fantastic opportunity to make crossbows less awful compared to bows by simply making it a free action to reload crossbows, or at least a free action to reload crossbows with rapid reload. Instead we're stuck with crossbow mastery still being needed if you want to get off more than one shot each round with a heavy crossbow. Whereas the bow user can make three attacks each round starting at level 1 with no feat investment.

I'm sounding really negative right now, so I want to stress that there are things I really like about this system. You can move and attack much more easily than before, pounce is no longer the alpha and omega for melee classes. It's a simple action to lower or reactivate Spell Resistance, making it a much more attractive ability. Demoralize and as Marsh mentioned, Feint are now really really good options. Heck, you can finally walk up to a door, open it, and keep moving afterwards. There are tons of things I really like about this system. That said, I think they sacrificed swift actions to make the system more approachable, and I think that was a poor decision. Personally I would have preferred it if they kept swift actions distinct from other actions, both because it limits how often they can be used and because swift actions would not have to compete with attacks for the effects they bring to the table.


similar to kudaku i'll note that despite my uneasiness i really like the idea of this system--it makes martials moving around in combat no longer a mortal sin, it makes vital strike WAY more interesting (i think?).

that it has so many negative (or initially seems this way) knock-on effects and possibly making a lot of commonly used tactics very fuzzy or completely useless is what i dislike.

...and crossbows (along with whips) are one of the most derided and picked-on weapon choices, getting made even worse seems like a slap in the face.


AndIMustMask wrote:

similar to kudaku i'll note that despite my uneasiness i really like the idea of this system--it makes martials moving around in combat no longer a mortal sin, it makes vital strike WAY more interesting (i think?).

that it has so many negative (or initially seems this way) knock-on effects and possibly making a lot of commonly used tactics very fuzzy or completely useless is what i dislike.

...and crossbows (along with whips) are one of the most derided and picked-on weapon choices, getting made even worse seems like a slap in the face.

I still don't see how they got made even worse. They didn't fix the problems with them, but that's not the same as being made worse.

Can you spell out for me how they're worse? How you're reloading slower, for example. Or needing more feats/investment to do so.


Crossbows are simple weapons, if you are using one, chances are it is because you are not proficient with martial weapons.

The benefits are obvious, and always have been, this system doesn't need to fix that to be better than the old system.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:

The specific standard action used to Vital Strike is a one-act action. Most are two, but the one Vital Strike relies on is explicitly called out otherwise.

Very reasonable houserule to make it two acts, and if my table does wind up using this system I'm ganking that one in a heartbeat, but the straight-out-of-the-book answer is "one act".

Not exactly. The book mentions that there will be certain abilities that require further adjudication, and it gives several examples of those, but there wasn't enough space to list everything (I was shocked how big and relatively-complete of a change Stephen managed to get in so few pages; it was awesome!). So the straight-out-of-the-book answer is that some abilities need you to answer them (as an aside, though, if you start next to an enemy, a 2 act vital strike, sacrificing only your -10 attack for higher damage on the full bonus attack, could be much better than the current Vital Strike is).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Crossbows are simple weapons, if you are using one, chances are it is because you are not proficient with martial weapons.

The benefits are obvious, and always have been, this system doesn't need to fix that to be better than the old system.

Or, y'know, because you like crossbows thematically. If rapid reload made crossbow reloads a free action then bows and crossbows would be virtually equal. Martial Weapon Proficiency: Longbow is better if you have a +1 strength modifier or higher, and obviously if you already have proficiency. On the other hand spending a feat to gain rapid reload: heavy crossbow is better if your strength is below average but you still want to do a bit of shooting.

I've seen way too many newbie players grab a crossbow because they're awesome and then flounder for five levels. Very frequently these are characters that have bow proficiency but simply like crossbows more.


Mark Seifter wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

The specific standard action used to Vital Strike is a one-act action. Most are two, but the one Vital Strike relies on is explicitly called out otherwise.

Very reasonable houserule to make it two acts, and if my table does wind up using this system I'm ganking that one in a heartbeat, but the straight-out-of-the-book answer is "one act".

Not exactly. The book mentions that there will be certain abilities that require further adjudication, and it gives several examples of those, but there wasn't enough space to list everything (I was shocked how big and relatively-complete of a change Stephen managed to get in so few pages; it was awesome!). So the straight-out-of-the-book answer is that some abilities need you to answer them (as an aside, though, if you start next to an enemy, a 2 act vital strike, sacrificing only your -10 attack for higher damage on the full bonus attack, could be much better than the current Vital Strike is).

I understand space limitations, but might it be possible to put at least some of the ones that got left out up online?


re-reading rapid reload you're correct--bringing heavier crossbows down from 2-3 actions to reload (however much a full attack action costs in the new system) down to one action keeps them at roughly the same speed, and it still affects light/hand crossbows fine.

the system itself opens the door for a heavy crossbow or firearm-sans-alchemy-cartridges to fire->reload->fire in a single round, which it couldn't do previously, so my worries for firearms/crossbows were seeing monsters where there were none, sorry.


AndIMustMask wrote:
the system itself opens the door for a heavy crossbow or firearm-sans-alchemy-cartridges to fire->reload->fire in a single round, which it couldn't do previously, so my worries for firearms/crossbows were seeing monsters where there were none, sorry.

The round after that he'd be doing reload-fire-reload though. While the archer is merrily firing off 4 arrows a round with Rapid Shot. :-/


Kudaku wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
the system itself opens the door for a heavy crossbow or firearm-sans-alchemy-cartridges to fire->reload->fire in a single round, which it couldn't do previously, so my worries for firearms/crossbows were seeing monsters where there were none, sorry.
The round after that he'd be doing reload-fire-reload though. While the archer is merrily firing off 4 arrows a round with Rapid Shot. :-/

yeah, but that's the same boat it was already in previously (just scrunched together) rather than a lowering of what it had before.

on the other hand, it *slightly* lessens the gap between lategame archers and crossbowmen, since apparently nobody ever gets a 4th iterative now?

(this isnt to say that crossbows still dont need some serious quality-of-life buffs, but that the new action system just leaves them in roughly the same position as they were already)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "you can now take multiple swift actions in a turn!" thing... really needs to stop.

That's a terrible idea. Like. Objectively useless in almost every case.

Magus using Arcane Accuracy + Arcane Strike? Needs to be taken out back and shot. He's objectively better picking up his -5 attack over Arcane Strike. That is not a thing that's actually going to happen.

The Warpriest is about the only class who can reasonably take advantage of it, due to the sheer variety of swift actions at their disposal. Other classes who depend on swift actions are often dependent on one specific swift action, as Kudaku pointed out with the Investigator.

I'm also going to massively disagree with the -10 attack being 'fishing for 20s'. The -15, that I can get behind. That's a loss I don't feel heavily. The -10 is a strong attack on a lot of classes. By the time that, say, the Magus gets it under the old system, he can burn a swift action to resolve it at touch, or add ~+8 to hit. +8 to hit brings it more or less up to par with a Barbarian's -5. Do we call full-BAB martial classes' first iteratives useless too? 'Cause that's a thing I don't think I've ever heard before.

And that's far from just the Magus. Investigator has awesome accuracy too; as does the Alchemist, the Inquisitor, at that level the Ninja, and probably the Bard and Skald too (though I can't say I've ever built either one). All 3/4ths BAB classes even, all in very good positions to hit with their -10s.

Of course, they largely did that by leveraging-- yes, I'm going to beat the dead horse-- swift actions. Options, removed. So it's certainly not automatically better. Can it be? Sure, if you're the right class or build. Is it inherently better? No. No it is not. Is it inherently worse? Probably not that either, no. Is it worse for some classes and builds? Yes. Definitively. The Cavalier and his horse are still crying in the corner over there.

master_marshmallow wrote:

As previously stated, this is a different system, and you have to get over the old system. This one is more balanced and gives more options at the same time. The lack of bottom attacks really doesn't affect the effectiveness of characters.

Let's also not forget that TWF is the new god. Rogue's sneak attacks under this system are completely broken. Greater Feint is now a swift action equivalent, and you can TWF and take 4 attacks gaining sneak attack on all of them. Under Haste even more.

1. I want to point out the irony of these two paragraphs existing side by side.

2. A Rogue could already do that. In fact, if the Rogue is only getting off four attacks he's doing it wrong. He should be taking Two-Weapon Feint.

3. Another way to say that Greater Feint is a swift action equivalent is that it's a move or standard action equivalent. There is no "swift action equivalent" here. The true valuation of anything is by its costs. The cost of Greater Feint here is two attacks. That is not "swift action equivalent", unless you had a way in the old system to make two attacks as a swift action (there are ways to produce comparable effects, but every one I can name is high level or Mythic).

Mark Seifter wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

The specific standard action used to Vital Strike is a one-act action. Most are two, but the one Vital Strike relies on is explicitly called out otherwise.

Very reasonable houserule to make it two acts, and if my table does wind up using this system I'm ganking that one in a heartbeat, but the straight-out-of-the-book answer is "one act".

Not exactly. The book mentions that there will be certain abilities that require further adjudication, and it gives several examples of those, but there wasn't enough space to list everything (I was shocked how big and relatively-complete of a change Stephen managed to get in so few pages; it was awesome!). So the straight-out-of-the-book answer is that some abilities need you to answer them (as an aside, though, if you start next to an enemy, a 2 act vital strike, sacrificing only your -10 attack for higher damage on the full bonus attack, could be much better than the current Vital Strike is).

Better than the current Vital Strike (in that scenario; if you have to move it falls off), but still probably not good. That's sort of the pain with Vital Strike in general. It's way too good to allow as a one-act action, but as a two-act action... probably not going to be used much. The ~+4.5 damage on average doesn't often match up to taking another swing, even at -10.

As for the rest... *Shrug* That's more or less what I'd label as license to houserule.

In other news, I'm curious: how's Pounce work, if it's detailed? That's a make it or break it for dozens of monsters.

101 to 150 of 752 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [unchained] How is the new action economy system? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.