[unchained] How is the new action economy system?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 752 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I did. Greater Feint a single-act action, which means that it's valued the same as the theoretical Rogue getting another two attacks. Calling anything a "swift equivalent" or "move equivalent" action is meaningless, since the system utterly does away with any notion of equivalency. Things are worth what they cost. Under the standard system, that means that Quicken Spell is worth a swift action, and costs whatever else you would do with that Swift Action (and thus the reason Quicken is so awesome; the answer to that for most casters is "not much"). However, it's easy for most players to understand the relative value of something that costs a move action: you're not moving, and you can't throw out a full round action. Okay. It's similarly simple to define the cost of a standard action. Swift Actions are only mildly more complex because they vary wildly between classes; a swift action for a Fighter is worth less than a swift action for a Warpriest.

That's straightforward enough I hope; it's pretty much basic Economics. So we call something in this new system a "swift action equivalent". Okay.

But what does that mean? If we actually take the words at face value, it means a thing I can do that's costing me whatever else my Rogue can do for a swift action, which is 'not much' because, yanno, Rogue. So, the wording used implies that it's an ability with low-to-no real costs.

The reality, of course, is that it's a one-act action, and as a one-act action it costs the same as that Rogue making six attacks instead of four. This renders the implication either misplaced due to bad wording or blatantly dishonest; I'd assume the former. There is a real cost to the Rogue using Greater Feint. Far more than if we simply gave the Rogue in the baseline system a Quicken Feint ability, which would be a true "swift action equivalent" Feint.

As for Greater Feint... Two-Weapon Feint is still a thing?

*Shrug* Not as needed now, and you can argue about the relative merit of the attack patterns (it basically comes down to what your to-hit ratio is), but this is not some new capability of the Rogue's. "Feint and attack a bunch of times" has been doable for a long time. And really, "hit a bunch of times with guaranteed Sneak Attack" has been around for a long time too. It's why the Vivisectionist is awesome.


Hmmm. Improved Two-Weapon Feint saves you an attack, but it costs you your best attack to do so.
2 attacks at -2, 2 at -7
vs
1 attack at -2, 2 at -7, 2 at -13.

Greater Feint used to be a move, not a swift, so it used to give you only a single attack if you used it. Improved Two-Weapon Feint was better, since you could use it and full attack. Now you can full attack with either.


Aye. As I said: it comes down to your to-hit bonuses. Which is hard to calculate, given that by definition we're aiming at flat-footed at this point, and that bounces all over the map.

Personally I think using either one is silly, since by the time the feats line up on a Rogue you can probably just pop an Extract of Greater Invisibility as an Alchemist or use a Ninja's Vanishing Trick, but hey. Once you include TWF & Improved we're looking at the tail end of a five-feat chain, just for those abilities. So level 9ish, figuring that we probably have one or two other feats that we like and one Combat Trick use available.

Community Manager

Removed a post. Please don't be insulting to other posters.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:


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.

difference from then to now

then - could i full attack?
swift for damage
attacks at +X/X-5/X-10(not likely to hit)/X-15(not likely to hit) if you qualified.

now - could i full attack?
swift for damage
attacks at +X/X-5

... not much power change, how about if i couldn't full-attack.

then
move
swift
attack

now
move
swift
attack

hmmmmm


Bandw2 wrote:
Kudaku wrote:


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.

difference from then to now

then - could i full attack?
swift for damage
attacks at +X/X-5/X-10(not likely to hit)/X-15(not likely to hit) if you qualified.

now - could i full attack?
swift for damage
attacks at +X/X-5

... not much power change, how about if i couldn't full-attack.

then
move
swift
attack

now
move
swift
attack

hmmmmm

The full attack one presumes that the -10 is not likely to hit, which is... a hard argument to make. It should be hovering around the 50% range for most classes, which certainly means it'll outclass another +10 damage (Arcane Strike at its best on two attacks).

Now, here's the thing. Let's say I have a Warpriest and a target 30' away in need of stabbing.

These are my options:

move
swift buff
attack

Or

move
attack
attack

Put another way, the swift action now costs an attack (which one varies; it'll be the -5 or the -10).

Now, what were my options under the old system?

Swift buff
move
attack.

Looks about the same. What if I'm not 30' away?

Swift buff
Attack
Attack
Attack

New system:

Swift buff
Attack
Attack

Or

Attack
Attack
Attack

One of those is pretty objectively better than the other, yes?

It goes both ways, of course. If you're a Demoralize Fighter, cool, you actually function. But I'm seeing a lot more hurting than helping. The big gain is giving martials mobility, but there are much easier ways to do that. Off-hand:

  • Give all classes the Champion's Fleet Warrior ability when they reach X BAB (I'd go for 11, personally, but that's me)
  • Rule that a character full attacking can trade an attack for the ability to move X percentage of their speed, starting with the lowest-iterative attack. Cap it at twice their speed. So, if X=1, a full martial at level 6 could trade their -5 attack for a move of up to their speed (beneficial if Haste is up). At level eleven the same martial could trade his -10 and -5 to move twice his speed and still get his normal attack (a Charge without penalties/bonuses, but better for TWF, Haste, etc.). At level sixteen, he could trade his -15 and -10 to move up to twice his speed, but trading in further attacks would be useless to him. On the flip side, he's a better charger than he was a level ago, since he's making his +0/-5/Bonus Attacks sequence.

    I'm actually seriously considering the latter, but I'm toying around with finding a good value for X. Either full speed or half speed seem like the best choices.


  • Bandw2 wrote:
    hmmmmm

    Great idea, let's illustrate with an example!

    Using Arcane Strike then:
    move
    Arcane Strike
    Single attack with +x damage

    Revised system with Arcane Strike:
    move
    Arcane Strike
    Single attack with +x damage

    Revised system, not using Arcane Strike:
    move
    First Attack
    Second Attack with -5 to hit

    Unless you have an exceptionally low damage output or you are extremely unlikely to hit (ie nat 20s only), the benefit of using Arcane Strike is significantly worse than just taking the extra attack at -5.

    Note that like sneak attack, Arcane Strike is best as a rider for classes that get as many attacks as possible, like an archer or a dualwielder. Let's do the same comparison, but assume you have TWF and improved TWF.

    Revised system with arcane strike:
    move
    Arcane Strike
    attack twice with +1-5 damage from arcane strike on each attack.

    Revised system, not using arcane strike:
    move
    attack twice
    attack twice more with -5 to hit on both attacks.

    See what I mean?


    I haven't really read much of the thread, so I haven't gotten a chance to parse a lot of the discussion, but re: swift actions, is it really that bad to modify the system from "3 actions" to "3 actions, plus a free swift action"? Then you'd erase a lot of the problems that seem to be passed around.


    AncientSpark wrote:
    I haven't really read much of the thread, so I haven't gotten a chance to parse a lot of the discussion, but re: swift actions, is it really that bad to modify the system from "3 actions" to "3 actions, plus a free swift action"? Then you'd erase a lot of the problems that seem to be passed around.

    Not really. I haven't playtested this yet, but I'm probably leaning towards doing just that. I'm assuming there's a reason why Stephen didn't want to make swift actions a separate action. Tricky part is figuring out why. :)


    Kudaku wrote:
    AncientSpark wrote:
    I haven't really read much of the thread, so I haven't gotten a chance to parse a lot of the discussion, but re: swift actions, is it really that bad to modify the system from "3 actions" to "3 actions, plus a free swift action"? Then you'd erase a lot of the problems that seem to be passed around.
    Not really. I haven't playtested this yet, but I'm probably leaning towards doing just that. I'm assuming there's a reason why Stephen didn't want to make swift actions a separate action. Tricky part is figuring out why. :)

    Because out goes against the intentions of the system.

    Get over the swift action people. It has always been a bad mechanic, the only reason it exists was because power creep made doing things as free actions ridiculous. 3.5 gave away a lot of abilities as free actions to allow you to full attack.

    Under the new system, the full attack no longer exists, nor should it.

    The real question here is: why everyone is so upset about only getting to take three attacks after their buff?

    Why can't people accept this is the norm for this system? Allowing swift actions just turns it back into the old system, and cripples the cases where they were crippled before, like the poor war priest who is borderline awful as a class because all its abilities once again compete for that swift action, all for the sacred cow of getting to take that third swing.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

    that's exactly the point though, pure martial got buffed and magic's action economy got nerfed.

    demoralize got buffed, anything that relied on move actions got buffed, a new meta is created, just because options that used to be good are bad, doesn't mean the system is bad.

    The system wasn't bad before when vital strike was a horrible option, but this one is because arcane strike(and other swift actions) is now suboptimal?


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Kudaku wrote:
    AncientSpark wrote:
    I haven't really read much of the thread, so I haven't gotten a chance to parse a lot of the discussion, but re: swift actions, is it really that bad to modify the system from "3 actions" to "3 actions, plus a free swift action"? Then you'd erase a lot of the problems that seem to be passed around.
    Not really. I haven't playtested this yet, but I'm probably leaning towards doing just that. I'm assuming there's a reason why Stephen didn't want to make swift actions a separate action. Tricky part is figuring out why. :)

    Because out goes against the intentions of the system.

    Get over the swift action people. It has always been a bad mechanic, the only reason it exists was because power creep made doing things as free actions ridiculous. 3.5 gave away a lot of abilities as free actions to allow you to full attack.

    Under the new system, the full attack no longer exists, nor should it.

    The real question here is: why everyone is so upset about only getting to take three attacks after their buff?

    Why can't people accept this is the norm for this system? Allowing swift actions just turns it back into the old system, and cripples the cases where they were crippled before, like the poor war priest who is borderline awful as a class because all its abilities once again compete for that swift action, all for the sacred cow of getting to take that third swing.

    i gotta say i feel sorry for the magus/cavalier/swashbuckler/paladin/investigator/etc then.

    people who want to see this interesting take on combat mechanics be fair/balanced for everyone (or at least not completely neuter them) can just not use it and stay in their already borked system!

    so it doesnt matter if this system is selective in which martials it helps (everyone's a 3/4 bab class sorta! twf/flurry/rapid-manyshot is now fantastic! swift actions are now standard actions wait what), because hey, this will all be just like wordcasting, right?

    paizo will never touch this optional system with additional book support or errata again, right?

    RIGHT?


    Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

    I actually think a better way to deal with the system is made the swift action buffs that normally last for the round they're use in, to instead last for a number attacks, maybe 4 or some such, or even just have it extend til the end of your next round.

    Opens them up for AOO and such

    also cavalier and paladin just need to do it once per enemy they feel like using a use on.

    Grand Lodge

    I think people are most upset be those "optimized" builds go right now the window, you can not longer 1 round the BBEG (although you probably could) so people don't like it.

    If you don't want to adopt the system then don't, move along to another thread and let people who want to use the system and discuss the merits of it.

    I know this is the first I have talked in the thread and I have been reading it since the launch of the thread, I am waiting for the PDF to be available to buy and put it into practice. I even think it will be good for helping introduce children to the system.


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Kudaku wrote:
    AncientSpark wrote:
    I haven't really read much of the thread, so I haven't gotten a chance to parse a lot of the discussion, but re: swift actions, is it really that bad to modify the system from "3 actions" to "3 actions, plus a free swift action"? Then you'd erase a lot of the problems that seem to be passed around.
    Not really. I haven't playtested this yet, but I'm probably leaning towards doing just that. I'm assuming there's a reason why Stephen didn't want to make swift actions a separate action. Tricky part is figuring out why. :)

    Because out goes against the intentions of the system.

    Get over the swift action people. It has always been a bad mechanic, the only reason it exists was because power creep made doing things as free actions ridiculous. 3.5 gave away a lot of abilities as free actions to allow you to full attack.

    Under the new system, the full attack no longer exists, nor should it.

    Just because full attack doesn't exist under this system doesn't mean that swift action shouldn't be part of the system. The reason why swift action buffs are allowed to be swift action is because they simply aren't worth the time of a standard attack. That does not change between this system and the original system; if they were, then there would be no reason to have swift action in the first place and all such buffs would be standard actions, like a lot of standard action spells.

    Would you spend a Ki point and a standard action to get an extra attack...instead of just using the standard action to get an extra attack? Would you spend Fervor to cast a spell as a standard action...instead of just using the standard action to cast the spell? That's effectively what you're saying are fair trades because "Swift Action should require an action under the new system".

    Raltus wrote:

    I think people are most upset be those "optimized" builds go right now the window, you can not longer 1 round the BBEG (although you probably could) so people don't like it.

    If you don't want to adopt the system then don't, move along to another thread and let people who want to use the system and discuss the merits of it.

    I know this is the first I have talked in the thread and I have been reading it since the launch of the thread, I am waiting for the PDF to be available to buy and put it into practice. I even think it will be good for helping introduce children to the system.

    I think there's a difference to be had when people complain about not being able to one- shot BBEG and when people complain that a basic ability is rendered almost completely non-functional, such as with Warpriest swift-action casting or Magus Arcane Blading or the vast vast majority of swift action spells.

    I think, after looking through the system, is that many abilities simply just no longer work or have radically different uses when using the new system. Which would be fine if many classes weren't built around the assumption that certain abilities are swift action. So rather than go through and house-rule every ability that could run into this problem, wouldn't it be easier to simply just add a swift action onto the 3 actions? Then you get both the advantages of possibly more mobile combat AND you don't have to run through and houserule a lot of different abilities.

    EDIT: And, if it's such a problem that you NEED to nerf Swift Action casting specifically, then just say "Quickened lowers spells from 2 Actions to 1 Action" as the only exception to the added Swift Action and you get a very targeted nerf. Yes, it's another houserule, but it's not like it's a complicated one to add onto the system.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
    AncientSpark wrote:
    Would you spend Fervor to cast a spell as a standard action...instead of just using the standard action to cast the spell?

    casting a spell is 2 acts btw...


    Bandw2 wrote:
    AncientSpark wrote:
    Would you spend Fervor to cast a spell as a standard action...instead of just using the standard action to cast the spell?
    casting a spell is 2 acts btw...

    My bad, keep equating action to standard in head still.


    Raltus wrote:

    I think people are most upset be those "optimized" builds go right now the window, you can not longer 1 round the BBEG (although you probably could) so people don't like it.

    If you don't want to adopt the system then don't, move along to another thread and let people who want to use the system and discuss the merits of it.

    I know this is the first I have talked in the thread and I have been reading it since the launch of the thread, I am waiting for the PDF to be available to buy and put it into practice. I even think it will be good for helping introduce children to the system.

    wanting a new and interesting thing to actually take existing class/ability design into account does not make one a muchkin.

    as-is, a lot of classes get shafted class ability-wise despite (or even because of) the new action options in combat (large examples being investigators, the magus, the cavalier, the swashbuckler, and the warpriest, and it kicks the previously forgiving paladin spell list in the teeth). wanting that to not be the case is not a bad thing.


    I like the new action economy system, and will be using it in my group.
    This system is different and simpler, it helps fighters who wouldn't ever use their swift actions anyway and keeps the gishes in check, also spellcasting is a bit more difficult (costs double) but if you are, say, a paladin, you could also make a simple attack just after the casting.

    Regarding vital strike, I think I'll tag it as a 2 act action.

    Just a question, how would haste work with the system? If it gives an extra act, would it be possible for a spellcaster to cast 2 spells in a turn? How about movement speed while hasted?

    Grand Lodge

    Many people have already found ways to make the gish classes work, so things change and we can adapt.

    I would hope that Paizo didn't make a new system just to break other classes, it is an optional system. That being said how many people have actually play tested it? I would be interested to see what the play test numbers are like, do higher level combats change so much?


    So, a Large demon moves up and attacks a 6th-level paladin who isn't wielding a reach weapon. The paladin then smites and attacks the Large demon...

    Using the normal rules:

    Large demon moves up to paladin. (move action)
    Large demon attacks paladin. (standard action)
    Paladin 5-foot steps up to Large demon. (5-foot step action)
    Paladin smites Large demon. (swift action)
    Paladin attacks Large demon. (part of full attack)
    Paladin attacks Large demon. (part of full attack)

    Demon 1, paladin 2.

    Using the alternate rules:

    Large demon moves up to paladin. (1 act)
    Large demon attacks paladin. (1 act)
    Large demon attacks paladin. (1 act)
    Paladin 5-foot steps up to Large demon. (1 act)
    Paladin smites Large demon. (1 act)
    Paladin attacks Large demon. (1 act)

    Demon 2, paladin 1 (or 2 if two-weapon fighting).

    Changing the 5-foot step to cost an attack doesn't seem to do any favors to martials who get jumped by opponents with superior reach.


    I don't see anything wrong with this example.
    Smiting full attacks usually kill a demon in one round anyway, so it's good that the demon gets to live for one more round.
    Superior reach is a good thing to have.

    Also, now a martial can move, attack and 5 ft step in the same round, or move, 5 ft step to avoid AoOs from reach and attack.
    However, I was speaking more of the fighter, who doesn't have any meaningful swift action to do and also needs more love.


    Am I right in thinking some monsters are a lot more dangerous now?

    Fighter: I charge the T-Rex!
    GM: You provoke an AoO. It's bites you, doing 35 damage, and grabs you in its mouth.
    Ranger: I charge the T-Rex while it's grappling! 29 damage!
    GM: The T-Rex goes next. For its first action, it swallows the Fighter. Then it bites the Ranger for 38 damage and grabs him. Then it swallows him.


    Bandw2 wrote:

    that's exactly the point though, pure martial got buffed and magic's action economy got nerfed.

    demoralize got buffed, anything that relied on move actions got buffed, a new meta is created, just because options that used to be good are bad, doesn't mean the system is bad.

    The system wasn't bad before when vital strike was a horrible option, but this one is because arcane strike(and other swift actions) is now suboptimal?

    Builds depended on Demoralize, or Vital Strike

    Entire classes depended on the swift action.

    Pretty stark difference, that.

    And no-- the pure magic users didn't get nerfed. Not badly. Okay, they're a bit less mobile. Do they really care?

    It's the 6th level casters and the 4th level casters who ate it on this one; the former more than the latter.

    Raltus wrote:

    I think people are most upset be those "optimized" builds go right now the window, you can not longer 1 round the BBEG (although you probably could) so people don't like it.

    If you don't want to adopt the system then don't, move along to another thread and let people who want to use the system and discuss the merits of it.

    I know this is the first I have talked in the thread and I have been reading it since the launch of the thread, I am waiting for the PDF to be available to buy and put it into practice. I even think it will be good for helping introduce children to the system.

    Have you actually read the arguments against the system?

    "It's polarizing" is an argument that translates to optimization becomes more important, this is not a good thing.

    "These classes no longer work" is an argument that translates to I want to play fun classes instead of the best classes but this one literally cannot use its core class ability well (seriously, Cavalier? Still crying)

    "It's a backwards way of solving the problem of martial mobility" just means that there are way easier ways to do that thing that don't involve screwing over half the classes in the game*.

    If all I care about is powergaming up an optimized monstrosity, I'm still... just gonna make a Wizard. And it's going to work just as well as it does now. All those natural attack monsters (read: most of them) have terrible mobility now, so control Wizardry gets even better. The most dangerous humanoids (read: casters) also have less mobility. The least dangerous humanoids (read: Fighters) have more... and are still boned by a nice Cloudkill. The system did not significantly neuter the Wizard.

    *Fair's fair, I haven't bothered counting yet.

    Matthew Downie wrote:

    Am I right in thinking some monsters are a lot more dangerous now?

    Fighter: I charge the T-Rex!
    GM: You provoke an AoO. It's bites you, doing 35 damage, and grabs you in its mouth.
    Ranger: I charge the T-Rex while it's grappling! 29 damage!
    GM: The T-Rex goes next. For its first action, it swallows the Fighter. Then it bites the Ranger for 38 damage and grabs him. Then it swallows him.

    Some are more dangerous (those with singular attacks), but a lot of the natural attack-based ones are less. Natural attacks being three actions hurts. You can just kite a lot of them now if your Acrobatics doesn't suck (move in - attack - move away; it can either pursue and get one attack, which you counter with attack - attack - move away, or stay in position so you move - attack - move again).

    Trade-offs, there.


    kestral287 wrote:
    Natural attacks being three actions hurts. You can just kite a lot of them now if your Acrobatics doesn't suck (move in - attack - move away; it can either pursue and get one attack, which you counter with attack - attack - move away, or stay in position so you move - attack - move again).

    That's possible with the standard action system too. Attack the dragon once and move away. If it moves up to attack you, it only gets one attack instead of six and you can hit it and back off again. If it doesn't chase you, use archery, Spring Attack, etc. The new system just makes it a bit easier.


    What about Combat Maneuvres?

    If they are 1 act they become utterly scary! See Grapple.

    Action 1- Grapple
    Action 2- PIN
    Action 3- tie down

    Or
    GRAPPLE
    PIN
    HIT

    Or
    Trip
    Grapple (hi -4 dex from trip)
    Hit (enemy has what, -8 dex?)

    In one round. I hope I missed something, otherwise I would rule CMBs cost 2 acts. If not things with Grab/swallow got deadly, see T rex example earlier.

    I would also rule 5ft is free and once a round, as it is with the chained system.

    Otherwise I really like this system, breaks the "full attack or suck of martials" but needs some testing/watching specially on:
    -Ranged (rapid shot working like TWF bad idea for me)
    -TWF (i like this option)
    -Vital Strike (3/round is perhaps too good)
    -Feint (i welcome the change)
    -Haste (i would rule the extra action you either attack or move, it was too good anyway)
    -Swift abilities classes; need a work around. F.ex swash consuming a readied action instead of an Act. Limited 1/round. CR works as written.
    -Magus (clusterf+!# to be houseruled imo)
    -Demoralise (new options!)
    -Max attacks/round. Ranged vs. Melee.
    -CMBs

    I dont own the book so its my opinion from this thread. I am in favour of this system, it is less monotonous, fairer albeit perhaps needing tweaks, and opens further play styles and combat mobility (HUGE for me).


    Matthew Downie wrote:
    kestral287 wrote:
    Natural attacks being three actions hurts. You can just kite a lot of them now if your Acrobatics doesn't suck (move in - attack - move away; it can either pursue and get one attack, which you counter with attack - attack - move away, or stay in position so you move - attack - move again).
    That's possible with the standard action system too. Attack the dragon once and move away. If it moves up to attack you, it only gets one attack instead of six and you can hit it and back off again. If it doesn't chase you, use archery, Spring Attack, etc. The new system just makes it a bit easier.

    This system is an integrated Spring Attack with AoO. Makes Mobility valuable along with many abilities/items toward AoO AC.

    Good thinking on strategy. Makes combat more fluid, going around the map, being smart and on your toes.
    You can still stand your ground and full attack, but it opens the other options as viable.

    Again, with tweaks Im inclined to this system.

    Edit
    Forgot to mention something I LOVE about this.
    Casters need to chose between 2 spells a round (quicken) or 1 spell and move.
    Cant fire 2 scorching rays and fly out of range anymore, or similar. They are still supreme in battle but less stupidly so.


    Errant Mercenary wrote:

    What about Combat Maneuvres?

    Pretty much every single combat maneuver is listed in the system each with their own cost. Bull Rush and Feint for example are 1 Act while Dirty Trick or Grapple are 2 Acts


    kestral287 wrote:

    Entire classes depended on the swift action.

    Pretty stark difference, that.

    That's a bit of a stretch considering that you can still play those classes and they still function exactly the same with the sole exception being the sacred cow of the full round attack, since that is the one thing everyone is upset about who has a problem with this system.

    I am also of the opinion that the 5 foot step should revert to a non action.

    Again, the swift action was a bad mechanic, the only reason it existed was because you otherwise couldn't do a full round. But the full round was also a bad mechanic which pretty much everyone on these forums universally agrees with.

    You can't get rid of full rounds and keep swift actions, because it just turns the new system into the old one again. At that point, why bother playing this new system?


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    kestral287 wrote:

    Entire classes depended on the swift action.

    Pretty stark difference, that.

    That's a bit of a stretch considering that you can still play those classes and they still function exactly the same with the sole exception being the sacred cow of the full round attack, since that is the one thing everyone is upset about who has a problem with this system.

    Again, the swift action was a bad mechanic, the only reason it existed was because you otherwise couldn't do a full round. But the full round was also a bad mechanic which pretty much everyone on these forums universally agrees with.

    You can't get rid of full rounds and keep swift actions, because it just turns the new system into the old one again. At that point, why bother playing this new system?

    That literally has nothing to do with it. If we were all using the old system, but changed all the swift actions to standard actions, everyone would still "Full attack on round 2", the difference would be "Move + Buff" vs "Move + Attack" on Round 1.

    And there's still plenty of reasons to use the system even with an extra swift action. Double movement + Standard Action Attack without terrible Charge rules, encouraging in-and-out mobility, making spells rightfully worth more time than a basic attack, actually functional run-and-gun gameplay for archers, maneuvers being incorporated into an actual full-round sequence rather than being stuck into the "Can I use a maneuver as an attack? No? Then it's kind of unusable", previously weak actions that were standard actions being more useful (such as Channel Energy), allowing multiple attacks at low level, culling multiple attacks into something more manageable, allowing characters with weaker to-attack rolls to convert their normally useless latter iterative attacks to maybe something useful, separating BAB determining your number of attacks out (which always was annoying), and so on and so forth. None of these benefits suddenly become invalid just because, say, the Investigator still doesn't have to spend an action to actually get their required combat bonuses to be a decent attacker.

    Again, swift action has nothing to do with full attack, it has everything to do with the fact that swift actions were worth less than move and standard actions and were balanced with that in mind. For example, almost no one uses Tactician in early levels as a Cavalier because standard action giving everyone a teamwork feat wasn't worth 1 attack (and yes, not a full attack. Again, most people would just go "Move + Tactician" replacing "Move + Attack". And this is at low levels, so the full attack argument is meaningless because full attack doesn't mean anything at pre-6 levels). Once it became a swift action, it became much more attractive because you don't sacrifice as much to do it.


    In a few cases the ability to throw up 2-3 swift action buffs in a round might be useful. Not multiple quickened spells; things like the ki-rin style line or an inquisitor who wants both bane and judgement active. I suspect this variant rule disables more tricks than it enables though.


    AncientSpark wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:
    kestral287 wrote:

    Entire classes depended on the swift action.

    Pretty stark difference, that.

    That's a bit of a stretch considering that you can still play those classes and they still function exactly the same with the sole exception being the sacred cow of the full round attack, since that is the one thing everyone is upset about who has a problem with this system.

    Again, the swift action was a bad mechanic, the only reason it existed was because you otherwise couldn't do a full round. But the full round was also a bad mechanic which pretty much everyone on these forums universally agrees with.

    You can't get rid of full rounds and keep swift actions, because it just turns the new system into the old one again. At that point, why bother playing this new system?

    That literally has nothing to do with it. If we were all using the old system, but changed all the swift actions to standard actions, everyone would still "Full attack on round 2", the difference would be "Move + Buff" vs "Move + Attack" on Round 1.

    And there's still plenty of reasons to use the system even with an extra swift action. Double movement + Standard Action Attack without terrible Charge rules, encouraging in-and-out mobility, making spells rightfully worth more time than a basic attack, actually functional run-and-gun gameplay for archers, maneuvers being incorporated into an actual full-round sequence rather than being stuck into the "Can I use a maneuver as an attack? No? Then it's kind of unusable", previously weak actions that were standard actions being more useful (such as Channel Energy), allowing multiple attacks at low level, culling multiple attacks into something more manageable, allowing characters with weaker to-attack rolls to convert their normally useless latter iterative attacks to maybe something useful, separating BAB determining your number of attacks out (which always was annoying), and so on and so forth. None of these benefits suddenly become invalid just...

    But what's the difference in the new system if you are just giving them the swift action back, if not to just allow them to take the full round again?

    You can tactician + attack or move + tactician in the new system, later you can move, tactician, and attack. Or if you prefer, Tactiican, attack, attack.

    Why is this bad game design with any other purpose than you just want more actions so you can do what you did before?

    That's an honest question.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    master_marshmallow wrote:

    Why is this bad game design with any other purpose than you just want more actions so you can do what you did before?

    That's an honest question.

    Okay, I'll take that at face value. I'll try and illustrate the problem I have with swift actions eating one third of your simple actions in the revised system. In the normal pathfinder system, we have a ~10th level character that's 20 feet away from an enemy. The character wants to engage that enemy. We'll run a comparison using some of the popular martial classes - the fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian, brawler, and the slayer. I'll put the class-specific details in spoilers since it takes a bit of space.

    Current Pathfinder combat system:
    The fighter moves up 20 feet with his move action, and makes an attack. He may or may not use his swift action to activate a style feat, a magic item, or something else.

    The swashbuckler moves 20 feet with his move action, and makes an attack. He may or may not use his swift action to activate a style feat, a magic item, or something else.

    The brawler moves up 20 feet with his move action, picks up a situational feat via Martial Flexibility as a swift action, and makes an attack.

    The paladin moves up 20 feet with his move action, declares Smite Evil with his swift action, and makes an attack.

    The barbarian moves up 20 feet with his move action, activates rage as a free action, and makes an attack. He may or may not use his swift action to activate a rage power, a magic item, a style feat, or something else.

    The ranger moves up 20 feet with his move action, casts Instant Enemy as a swift action, and makes an attack.

    The slayer moves up 20 feet with his move action, uses Studied Target as a swift action, and makes an attack.

    Those are all more or less equal, right? They each get the same amount of attacks, and their attack bonuses are more or less the same. The ranger and the paladin will likely be a little higher than the slayer, swashbuckler and the fighter, but they're also burning limited resources (spells and smites) while the swashbuckler and fighter's bonuses (feats and weapon training) are always active and the slayer can use Studied Target however often he wants. Now let's do the same example in the new system, and see how it goes.

    Revised combat system:
    The fighter moves up 20 feet with a simple action, then makes two attacks.

    The swashbuckler moves up 20 feet with a simple action, then makes two attacks.

    The brawler moves up 20 feet with a simple action, then uses Martial Flexibility to pick up a situational feat. He only gets one attack, since he used Martial Flexibility.

    The paladin moves up 20 feet with a simple action, then declares smite evil. He only gets one attack, since he used Smite Evil.

    The barbarian moves up 20 feet with a simple action, activates rage as a free action, and makes two attacks.

    The ranger moves up 20 feet with a simple action, then casts Instant Enemy. He only gets one attack, since he used Instant Enemy.

    The slayer moves up 20 feet with a simple action, then uses Studied Target. He only gets one attack, since he used Studied Target.

    Why does the barbarian, swashbuckler and fighter get to enjoy their class-specific bonuses with a free action (barbarian) or always have them active (fighter, swashbuckler)? Why are the paladin, brawler, ranger and slayer punished for using class features that are intended to be compatible with attacks, and that they rely on to reach similar bonuses as the fighter, swashbuckler and barbarian? Consider the slayer and the brawler. In many situations they'll be better off not using their iconic class features because getting that second attack in at -5 is better than getting a +3/+3 from Studied target or picking up a feat.

    I'm not unhappy with this system because "I want to get back to the full attack paradigm" or anything like that. I love the fact that in this system martials are less reliant on full attacks and can be a valuable addition even without access to Pounce or Pummeling Style. I'm unhappy with how this system handles swift actions because to me it's completely throwing out the internal balance between classes that are meant to be more or less equal to one another while doing the same thing. Some classes are designed to get along just fine without swift actions (fighters, barbarians, many casters) and others (slayers, cavalier, investigators, warpriests, inquisitors, monks, magi, brawlers etc.) rely heavily on using Swift Actions. Using the new system as is dramatically increases the power of always-on bonuses and long-term buff spells and significantly reduces the power for the classes that rely on swift actions. Obviously the old system isn't perfect (Unshackled fighter, fingers crossed) but I'd say the martial classes are a lot closer together in that system than in this one.

    That doesn't mean the whole system is broken. Like I've said multiple times, I really like about 90% of what this system brings to the table. However, consider the "three actions"-system as is and consider the "three actions and a swift action"-system suggested earlier. You can even say that characters can use multiple swift actions in a round if they so choose, but the second swift action takes a simple action. Heck, just add a single sentence to the action writeup. "The first swift action you take in a round does not count towards the number of actions you are allowed in a round". Problem solved.

    They play basically the same, except classes that heavily rely on swift actions to keep up with the classes who rely on free actions or always-on bonuses won't be shafted in the process.


    Kudaku wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:

    Why is this bad game design with any other purpose than you just want more actions so you can do what you did before?

    That's an honest question.

    Okay, I'll take that at face value. I'll try and illustrate the problem I have with swift actions eating one third of your simple actions in the revised system. In the normal pathfinder system, we have a ~10th level character that's 20 feet away from an enemy. The character wants to engage that enemy. We'll run a comparison using some of the popular martial classes - the fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian, brawler, and the slayer. I'll put the class-specific details in spoilers since it takes a bit of space.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Those are all more or less equal, right? They each get the same amount of attacks, and their attack bonuses are more or less the same. The ranger and the paladin will likely be a little higher than the slayer, swashbuckler and...

    Your breakdown is somewhat misleading.

    Do not forget that the Brawler by class progression has TWF and can make two attacks.

    Since we are on the topic, rangers and slayers who can have TWF for free, are no longer punished for having them because you can make both attacks for a single act. It is no longer a trap option, plus it is extra beneficial for the slayer to do so because Greater Feint and sneak attack is now a thing that he can have and do with minimal investment.

    This leaves the only class that actually can't make two attacks using his class progression gifts the paladin, arguably the class with the strongest burst damage on the list because of things like Litany of Righteousness, and smite multiplying on a crit unlike precise strike.


    master_marshmallow wrote:

    Do not forget that the Brawler by class progression has TWF and can make two attacks.

    Since we are on the topic, rangers and slayers who can have TWF for free, are no longer punished for having them because you can make both attacks for a single act. It is no longer a trap option, plus it is extra beneficial for the slayer to do so because Greater Feint and sneak attack is now a thing that he can have and do with minimal investment.

    So the brawler misses out on two attacks by using Martial Flexibility, and the ranger and slayer (if they chose to spec into TWF) miss out on two attacks by using Instant Enemy and Studied Target. Conversely if the fighter and the barbarian (the unchained barbarian is arguably better with TWF than THF!) were using TWF they'd now be two attacks ahead of a TWF slayer or ranger. My point still stands.

    Making TWF less dependent on full attacks is an intended effect of the system, and that's fantastic! But granting characters one free swift action each round work doesn't change that effect in any way whatsoever. It just makes the system less painful for classes that rely on swift actions versus classes that do not.

    Slightly off-topic, but don't discount TWF paladins. They're tricky to get off the ground in the early-game, but their damage potential is incredible!


    Kudaku wrote:

    So the brawler misses out on two attacks by using Martial Flexibility, and the ranger and slayer (if they chose to spec into TWF) miss out on two attacks by using Instant Enemy and Favored Target. Conversely if the fighter and the barbarian were using TWF they'd now be two attacks ahead of a TWF slayer or ranger. My point still stands.

    Making TWF less dependent on full attacks is an intended effect of the system, and that's fantastic! But granting characters one free swift action each round work doesn't change that effect in any way whatsoever. It just makes the system less painful for classes that rely on swift actions versus classes that do not.

    Slightly off-topic, but don't discount TWF paladins. They're tricky to get off the ground in the early-game, but their damage potential is incredible!

    The point was to compare just the base classes abilities, not considering feat investment.

    Under this system TWF is the new god.

    Since rangers and slayers get it for free, as does the brawler, we can consider it for this topic.

    If barbarians, fighters, and paladins choose to invest into it, more power to them, but it is not relevant because we are comparing the classes not the builds.

    But just comparing base classes in the new system, the paladin is the only one who misses out on attacks.

    Don't change the goal post because you missed the details.


    master_marshmallow wrote:

    The point was to compare just the base classes abilities, not considering feat investment.

    (...)

    Since rangers and slayers get it for free, as does the brawler, we can consider it for this topic.

    TWF is not purely a class feature, it's available for any class that chooses to invest the feats. Arguing that it should only be considered brawlers, slayers and rangers is shortsighted. If it really is "the new God" as you say it is, then other martial classes will happily spec into it as well. It's not like the fighter is going to have a hard time finding the feat slots.

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Don't change the goal post because you missed the details.

    Okay, take a deep breath, lean back in your chair - and please consider that right now I can't help but feel that you're coming across as really hostile. I posted an example to illustrate the problem I have with how the new system handles swift actions, you pointed out I made a mistake, and then when I correct that mistake you accuse me of moving the goal posts? Not cool, dude.


    Kudaku wrote:
    master_marshmallow wrote:

    The point was to compare just the base classes abilities, not considering feat investment.

    (...)

    Since rangers and slayers get it for free, as does the brawler, we can consider it for this topic.

    TWF is not purely a class feature, it's available for any class that chooses to invest the feats. Arguing that it should only be considered brawlers, slayers and rangers is shortsighted. If it really is "the new God" as you say it is, then other martial classes will happily spec into it as well. It's not like the fighter is going to have a hard time finding the feat slots.

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Don't change the goal post because you missed the details.
    Okay, take a deep breath, lean back in your chair - and please consider that right now I can't help but feel that you're coming across as really hostile. I posted an example to illustrate the problem I have with how the new system handles swift actions, you pointed out I made a mistake, and then when I correct that mistake you accuse me of moving the goal posts? Not cool, dude.

    But you did move the goal post.

    Compare the classes abilities vs the other classes abilities and the class features of the brawler, and the core ranger give two weapon fighting. This means that independently of the builds these classes will be able to make two attacks. Instead of comparing the classes by their class features, you decided that if we are going to compare the classes that get TWF for free then we have to consider all the classes getting TWF which defeats the point of comparing classes using their class features and making their move+attack option. Combat Style feats, and feats given on the Class Table under Special are indeed class features, because the character is not investing their regular feats into it in order to use it. I suppose fighters can get roped into that to some extent as well. But that makes the fighter the undisputed best combatant now.

    Of course builds will exist that change the nature of what is happening, but the builds should not be considered if you are going to start complaining that the system punishes class features when those same classes have class features that mitigate that weakness. Those classes are not punished by the new system as you say they are, and that's the point I'm making.


    master_marshmallow wrote:
    But you did move the goal post.

    No, I corrected a mistake in the previous scenario, one you pointed out. That's not moving the goalposts. I did not dismiss your evidence. I read it, considered it, and then pointed out that the evidence you provided actually makes the situation worse for those classes.

    master_marshmallow wrote:

    Compare the classes abilities vs the other classes abilities and the class features of the brawler, and the core ranger give two weapon fighting. This means that independently of the builds these classes will be able to make two attacks. Instead of comparing the classes by their class features, you decided that if we are going to compare the classes that get TWF for free then we have to consider all the classes getting TWF which defeats the point of comparing classes using their class features and making their move+attack option. Combat Style feats, and feats given on the Class Table under Special are indeed class features, because the character is not investing their regular feats into it in order to use it. I suppose fighters can get roped into that to some extent as well. But that makes the fighter the undisputed best combatant now.

    Of course builds will exist that change the nature of what is happening, but the builds should not be considered if you are going to start complaining that the system punishes class features when those same classes have class features that mitigate that weakness. Those classes are not punished by the new system as you say they are, and that's the point I'm making.

    I'm sorry, but arguing that TWF is unique to brawlers, slayers and rangers can only be described as nonsensical. The fighter completely avoids the swift action paradigm created by this system and purely via his class features, gains more bonus feats than any of the other classes. If the slayer is automatically choosing ranger combat style: TWF with his slayer talents and the ranger is automatically choosing Two-Weapon Fighting style, there's zero reason why the fighter wouldn't use his class features to pick up two-weapon fighting feats as well.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?


    AndIMustMask wrote:
    wait, unless im misreading this, marshmallow is the one who points out that apparently everyone's taking twf now, and then says 'we're just looking at class abilities not feats' when kudaku does consider the twf angle?

    Thank you!!! I felt like I was going insane for a while there.


    Not having read the material myself, and going by what's being said in this thread, I have to agree with Kudaku. Any attack-reliant class that has a core class feature as a swift action is getting nerfed by this system. Casting classes having less mobility is fine, but martial classes have to choose between activating a class feature or making an extra attack. I do not consider this to be particularly brilliant design, even if I really like what this means for the fighter, rogue and barbarian.

    Would a good houserule for the system be to make those swift-actions class features involve a single attack following normal BAB rules? So that a slayer can, for example, move, Studied Target (which includes an attack at full BAB), then attack at -5 BAB? Or Studied Target and then two attacks, for a total of one attack at full BAB, one at -5 BAB and one at -10?

    I feel this reasonably covers most cases.

    EDIT: Also, marshmallow is digging themselves a hole by mentioning TWF. If you have TWF, this system is even worse for the aforementioned classes, as activating a class ability costs you two attacks instead of one. Having TWF puts an even higher emphasis on attacking as much as possible every round, not less.


    When did 2WF become a ranger class feature? Last time i checked was only 1 of more or less 20 different option, exactly the same as slayers or fighters.


    Shadow Knight 12 wrote:

    Would a good houserule for the system be to make those swift-actions class features involve a single attack following normal BAB rules? So that a slayer can, for example, move, Studied Target (which includes an attack at full BAB), then attack at -5 BAB? Or Studied Target and then two attacks, for a total of one attack at full BAB, one at -5 BAB and one at -10?

    I feel this reasonably covers most cases.

    I think you're onto something here, but there are a ton of different things that use swift actions - hard to get a good idea of what would and wouldn't be covered. Off the top of my head I think style feats, studied combat*, studied target, smite evil, instant enemy, bane and judgement* would all work with that house rule. Martial Flexibility is iffy, since there are times when you want to pick up a feat preemptively.

    I'm really looking forward to play testing this system, but I'm still leaning towards making the first swift action in a round not take an action. It seems like the easiest way to fix the problem.

    *:
    Sometimes you want to activate defensive judgements (such as AC + fast healing) and use a Total Defense or Withdraw action rather than make an attack. Same goes for Studied Combat if you have the Studied Defense investigator talent.


    Kudaku wrote:
    Shadow Knight 12 wrote:

    Would a good houserule for the system be to make those swift-actions class features involve a single attack following normal BAB rules? So that a slayer can, for example, move, Studied Target (which includes an attack at full BAB), then attack at -5 BAB? Or Studied Target and then two attacks, for a total of one attack at full BAB, one at -5 BAB and one at -10?

    I feel this reasonably covers most cases.

    I think you're onto something here, but there are a ton of different things that use swift actions - hard to get a good idea of what would and wouldn't be covered. Off the top of my head I think style feats, studied combat*, studied target, smite evil, instant enemy, bane and judgement* would all work with that house rule. Martial Flexibility is iffy, since there are times when you want to pick up a feat preemptively.

    I'm really looking forward to play testing this system, but I'm still leaning towards making the first swift action in a round not take an action. It seems like the easiest way to fix the problem.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Even if you're allowed to make an attack with your (thing that is currently a swift action), you wouldn't have to. But yes, I don't think there's much of a difference between allowing an attack along with the swift and just making the swift not take an action.

    With the possible exception of quickened spells.


    thejeff wrote:
    With the possible exception of quickened spells.

    Good point! Quickened Spells would definitely not be included in my houserule for quickened actions.


    okay wait, can someone clear this up for me:

    we all know casting spells costs two actions (this has been brought up repeatedly, and is generally accepted as fine and balanced) unless you us quicken spell to drop it to a swift action (one action)

    do spells that are already swift actions cost one action or two?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Matthew Downie wrote:
    kestral287 wrote:
    Natural attacks being three actions hurts. You can just kite a lot of them now if your Acrobatics doesn't suck (move in - attack - move away; it can either pursue and get one attack, which you counter with attack - attack - move away, or stay in position so you move - attack - move again).
    That's possible with the standard action system too. Attack the dragon once and move away. If it moves up to attack you, it only gets one attack instead of six and you can hit it and back off again. If it doesn't chase you, use archery, Spring Attack, etc. The new system just makes it a bit easier.

    Possible, but a lot more difficult to pull off-- who actually takes Spring Attack? This gives you a built-in Spring Attack. Now, if it chases it's doable under the current system, but you're trading attacks at a 1:1 basis. How confident are you that your one sword swing outclasses a Dragon's Vital Strike Bite? New system, you make your attacks 2:1.

    You can debate whether or not this is a bad thing (I don't think it is), but it will trivialize a lot of lower-leveled monsters.

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    kestral287 wrote:

    Entire classes depended on the swift action.

    Pretty stark difference, that.

    That's a bit of a stretch considering that you can still play those classes and they still function exactly the same with the sole exception being the sacred cow of the full round attack, since that is the one thing everyone is upset about who has a problem with this system.

    Only thing everyone is upset about... honest question. Have you been reading? 'Cause I mean... Cavalier. Corner. Crying.

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    Again, the swift action was a bad mechanic, the only reason it existed was because you otherwise couldn't do a full round. But the full round was also a bad mechanic which pretty much everyone on these forums universally agrees with.

    You've set this lots of times and never explained why, exactly, the swift action was a bad mechanic. You gave us its genesis and that was it. That doesn't make it bad. Thus far you've expressed an opinion and done nothing to support it. I happen to think that the Swift Action is a good mechanic.

    Of course, I also happen to think that the full round action is a fine mechanic. The full attack action could use some polishing, as it overemphasizes one half of the full-round over the other, but that's no reason to throw a mechanic that only says "some actions take a long time" under the bus.

    master_marshmallow wrote:
    You can't get rid of full rounds and keep swift actions, because it just turns the new system into the old one again. At that point, why bother playing this new system?

    Because I might like some other aspects of the system?

    master_marshmallow wrote:

    Why is this bad game design with any other purpose than you just want more actions so you can do what you did before?

    That's an honest question.

    It de-diversifies combat styles: Natural Attacks suffer drastically, ranged is a mixed bag depending on enemy types; those without natural attacks have an easier time closing with them while natural attack dependent monsters are just boned, TWF, contrary to your assertations, is not in any way the "new god" because it gains nothing over two-handing, and two-handing is still what it is. In fact, Two-Handing is still mathematically the strongest option, because New Monk. Unless Flurry got nerfed to all hell and back too, in which case... see the second point.

    It encourages some classes (Magus, Cavalier) to not use their core class abilities. Kudaku covered this point well already.

    It doesn't actually solve the mobility problem well; I'm still strictly better off standing still and triple-attacking. Am I more able to move? Yes. Am I still mathematically best off doing what I was doing in the old system, and standing there and letting them come to me? Yes. (We'll ignore the implications of the 5' step no longer being free, as it's a sideshow that most people have agreed is silly it seems. To those that haven't: the 5' step costing an action makes fighting Large monsters kind of ridiculous. Get rid of that).

    It doesn't actually reduce the power of full casters in any meaningful way. Oh no, the guy who's invisible, with eight duplicates of himself, with a 20% chance to auto-dodge any attack, can't move. What a nightma- oh you just got Dominated.

    AndIMustMask wrote:

    okay wait, can someone clear this up for me:

    we all know casting spells costs two actions (this has been brought up repeatedly, and is generally accepted as fine and balanced) unless you us quicken spell to drop it to a swift action (one action)

    do spells that are already swift actions cost one action or two?

    I would assume one. If that's not explicitly listed, it'll probably be under the same heading as Vital Strike, where the book tells us that the system needs GM ruling to be fully functional, so do that.


    I would just let swift effects that only last 1 round last more, so for example I'd let arcane strike last for a minute.
    Studied target, studied strike, smite evil, instant enemy, bane and judgment already last more than 1 round, so investing an act earlier lets you reap the bonuses in full for subsequent rounds.

    151 to 200 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.