As I said above, I think the most fair thing to do, if you want swift actions with all three of your attacks, is make it eat your reaction. You still cant do the full range of things you could do but swift actions already used up your immediate action so the main thing you'd be losing is your AoO and you can get a feat to gain more. I think that's going to be my house rule.
I may also house rule Spellstrike to work as normal but I wanted to ask; Is there any reason to keep it as is? Any kind of cheese that it does in this system? At best I think that your first attack could be two attacks at -2/-2 but that's about as good as TWF. Lastly I think I'm going to make Vital Strike add dice to your first, then second, then third attack like TWF. Its really good the entire point of the feat is gone in this system in the first place so it really needs to do something.
It's only crippled in the sense that the full round no longer exists.
The only class that's actually less effective is the magus, only because they made spell strike a specific action.
Unless I am mistaken, this is wrong. You need swift actions to activate lots of abilities for the three classes I mentioned. There's also to consider that using Quicken Spell with a normal spell suddenly means that you cannot move anymore aside from a five foot step (and I have no idea how Sorcerers who use other metamagic feats and Quicken Spell are affected, given how they need a full round action).
Do you think the system would work well if one adopted something like option #2 above, where you essentially make all swift actions free actions that can't be performed more than once per round?
(I think I'll probably go with option #1 instead, as my players don't tend to use those classes, but I was wondering whether you had any further worries that wouldn't be addressed by adopting something like option #2.)
That seems to be one solution to the problem, yes. But I'd really like to hear from Mark why they didn't put something like this into the actual rules. I mean, it's easy to say "if you houserule this, the alternate rule works fantastically!", but in the end the actual alternate rule does not include this provision.
Lastly I think I'm going to make Vital Strike add dice to your first, then second, then third attack like TWF. Its really good the entire point of the feat is gone in this system in the first place so it really needs to do something.
In my sorta comprehensive houserule list, I made Vital Strike take 2 actions. What this does is essentially eat the -5 from a second attack but incorporate it into one swing. However, the new system's "full attack" means that a character could Vital Strike and then swing at -5, which is basically an accuracy boost at the cost of an action. Improved versions just continue this way.That way I don't have to make any extra-special Vital Strike rules like "can only use once per round."
This means 1) Vital Strike is an option that still works to overcome DR, 2) it essentially acts the same way it did before, and 3) it works well with haste, since a character standing still can make one Vital Strike at full BAB and one at -5. I didn't want to make it one action because I don't want to have to continually adjudicate other uses that I'm not forseeing, and because the basic premise of the feat is that you combine two attacks into one to overcome DR or make move>attack less painful.
A character with Vital Strike still benefits from it in the same way they did before.
It's only crippled in the sense that the full round no longer exists.
The only class that's actually less effective is the magus, only because they made spell strike a specific action.
Unless I am mistaken, this is wrong. You need swift actions to activate lots of abilities for the three classes I mentioned. There's also to consider that using Quicken Spell with a normal spell suddenly means that you cannot move anymore aside from a five foot step (and I have no idea how Sorcerers who use other metamagic feats and Quicken Spell are affected, given how they need a full round action).
That seems to be one solution to the problem, yes. But I'd really like to hear from Mark why they didn't put something like this into the actual rules. I mean, it's easy to say "if you houserule this, the alternate rule works fantastically!", but in the end the actual alternate rule does not include this provision.Do you think the system would work well if one adopted something like option #2 above, where you essentially make all swift actions free actions that can't be performed more than once per round?
(I think I'll probably go with option #1 instead, as my players don't tend to use those classes, but I was wondering whether you had any further worries that wouldn't be addressed by adopting something like option #2.)
You can now take 2 swift actions and still attack.
The classes still work, the full round doesn't.That isn't bad design unless you can't get over the full round action, which it seems is the case here.
It also makes sense to me that really only full-BAB classes should get to use their first round of combat to move>attack>attack at full effectiveness. That's their schtick. Swashbuckler's getting the biggest treatment by me, but if a Warpriest or Magus has to use up an action to buff>move>attack or move>spellstrike, that's ok with me. Their classes provide flexibility that the full-BAB martials don't get, and to some extent this almost plays into iteratives: full martials are the best at going in and attacking. Other classes need setup to achieve the same goals.
You believe it perfectly fair that the Investigator gets two real actions per turn, due to needing to constantly refresh his Studied Combat, while the Alchemist gets three, due to only needing to take the Mutagen once (and that can be done before combat; Studied Combat really can't)
To be fair, that's already how it is anyways. Except that currently, an Investigator without Quick Study only has one action.
So MM:
You believe it perfectly fair that the Investigator gets two real actions per turn, due to needing to constantly refresh his Studied Combat, while the Alchemist gets three, due to only needing to take the Mutagen once (and that can be done before combat; Studied Combat really can't)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Because it sounds very much like you believe that the above statement is good design.
The medium BAB classes have to waste actions to perform as well as full BAB classes. The alchemist has swift poison, and if the poison roles were revamped in some new release somewhere then I'm sure it would be a more viable option.
Classes with medium BAB are counter balanced inherently by the system. In the old system, fighters and barbarians got just as many attacks at virtually the same bonuses as classes like the alchemist and magus who have abilities that actually make them stronger. The new system does not carry this flaw.
Hate it if you want, but if you want to play the old system then just play the old system.
There's also rules for mobile combat that doesn't take away your precious swift action, I recommend looking at that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't bad design unless you can't get over the full round action, which it seems is the case here.
You got me Marsh, despite my numerous attempts to explain to you that I'm not obsessed about "the full round action" and repeatedly stating that my concern is that the new system is problematic because it changes a design paradigm that half the classes in Pathfinder is balanced around and does literally nothing to resolve the problem that creates, I'm really only complaining about this because I can't get over losing the beauty that is the full round action. Curse your keen eyes that see through my obfuscation as I repeatedly and in detail explain the issues I have. You even cut through the haze of confusion I attempted to create when I asked Stephen directly if he had any plans to implement a system that made martials less reliant on full attacks. Balance? Classes being encouraged to use their class features? These are nothing more but flimsy wooden shields I grab at in desperation to defend the all-mighty full round action!
Seriously. Stop attributing false motives to people just because you disagree with them. It's insulting, and it needs to stop.
"Maintaining class balance" and "maintaining the full round action" are not inseparably linked. We've already designed several house rules in this very thread that proves that you can absolutely use the new system AND keep the classes in better balance than the way the new system handles it by default, and that includes house rules that you've personally contributed to and approved.
Concerning the Investigator, I'd probably just revisit the mechanic and figure out what works. Maybe make it a once per combat thing. I don't know. Haven't really looked at the investigator.
Otherwise, I look at it this way. In the new system, if the player wants to move, swift, and attack, they can. Just like the old system. If they just swift and attack, they get two attacks, which is better to the same below level 10.
Yes, it's true that there is probably less attacks going around, but I think that's a good thing. The game really starts to bog down at higher levels with the number of actions as well as the sheer damage being pushed out.
I think this system is a step in the right direction, but it certainly needs some adjudication. I do think the foundation of the system has a lot more potential than the old.
That isn't bad design unless you can't get over the full round action, which it seems is the case here.You got me Marsh, despite my numerous attempts to explain to you that I'm not obsessed about "the full round action" and repeatedly stating that my concern is that the new system is problematic because it changes a design paradigm that half the classes in Pathfinder is balanced around and does literally nothing to resolve the problem that creates, I'm really only complaining about this because I can't get over losing the beauty that is the full round action. Curse your keen eyes that see through my obfuscation as I repeatedly and in detail explain the issues I have. You even cut through the haze of confusion I attempted to create when I asked Stephen directly if he had any plans to implement a system that made martials less reliant on full attacks. Balance? Classes being encouraged to use their class features? These are nothing more but flimsy wooden shields I grab at in desperation to defend the all-mighty full round action!
Seriously. Stop attributing false motives to people just because you disagree with them. It's insulting, and it needs to stop.
"Maintaining class balance" and "maintaining the full round action" are not inseparably linked. We've already designed several house rules in this very thread that proves that you can absolutely use the new system AND keep the classes in better balance than the way the new system handles it by default, and that includes house...
You can create a new system that maintains the status quo established by the old system, but that does not mean it is a balanced one.
With a keen eye and calculating mind, an investigator can assess the mettle of his opponent to take advantage of gaps in talent and training. At 4th level, an investigator can use a move action to study a single enemy that he can see. Upon doing so, he adds 1/2 his investigator level as an insight bonus on melee attack rolls and as a bonus on damage rolls against the creature. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) or until he deals damage with a studied strike, whichever comes first. The bonus on damage rolls is precision damage, and is not multiplied on a critical hit.
An investigator can only have one target of studied combat at a time, and once a creature has become the target of an investigator's studied combat, he cannot become the target of the same investigator's studied combat again for 24 hours unless the investigator expends one use of inspiration when taking the move action to use this ability.
By the looks of things, the Investigator is actually buffed, since he can now use studied combat and make two attacks instead of one.
So unless you are telling me that it is good design to force all investigators to take Quick Study, then you are mistaken here.
False choices are not good design, if I have to take an option to make an ability work, then it's not really an option. What's worse, is unlike the case with Swashbucklers where an argument can be made about Combat Reflexes with this system, you have to consider that Quick Study is an investigator talent, designed to be an option for the class and not an ability that auto scales up.
That and, Studied Combat is demonstrably better than any mutagen giving maybe +4 to hit and damage (barring 2HW) where the investigator is getting +10/+10 for a bare minimum of 3 rounds and can turn that into burst damage before it expires.
Meanwhile the fighter doesn't even get bonuses that good, but it is such a crime that he gets to make 3 whole attacks while paladins can litany for almost 200 damage or whatever they end up dealing out?
Your perspective of balance is lacking true insight due to bias.
There is no doubt that the classes you like to play are fun, but giving classes the ability to simply be better than other classes is one of the biggest criticisms that paizo has ever gotten, and ruling this system to continue that design paradigm is fallacious at best as good design.
Two classes with medium BAB-- Alchemist and Investigator.
One activates his core buff once per combat.
One activates his core buff once per round.Under this system one is clearly advantaged over the other. And you believe that this is good game balance?
It's not that they have to waste actions. If they both have to waste actions to perform, and so does every other comparable class, cool. As long as the rest of the chassis is worthwhile this is not a problem.
It's that one has to waste actions and the other does not.
I really don't know how to phrase it any more clearly than that.
True, in one regard. But at the same time, Investigator gets to use Studied Combat as many times per day as he/she has enemies, with the investment of one action for each enemy (and zero with Quick Study, in my houserule list). The Alchemist's mutagen is far more limited, in that it takes an hour to brew, and it still takes two actions for the Alchemist to imbibe it at the beginning of combat.
A "surprised" Alchemist and Investigator, with no time to set up, on their first round of real (not surprise round) combat, look like this:
Investigator: Studied Combat>move>attack
Alchemist: Drink Mutagen>move
So it might be a bad example, and I get where you're coming from on this, but having some setup to keep up with a fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger, who would all pretty much look like move>attack>attack on his/her first turn. Also, an alchemist's bomb (as I'm ruling it) is a "standard" action, so should take two actions to perform. In this regard, too, an Alchemist acts the same way, but is also a bit less powerful in terms of bombing until he can get to Fast Bombs, just like an Investigator wants to invest in Quick Study.
Honestly, I'm considering removing Quick Study entirely, and just having the economy upgrade somewhere around 9th or 11th. Alchemist bombs, though, should have to take Fast Bombs, since the class is already pretty rockin' as is.
We're also getting into the knitty-gritty on how the classes themselves fundamentally operate. Investigator has a bit more flexibility with Studied Combat, but the cost is an action every couple rounds. The Alchemist's buff can last a long time, but he/she also gets some penalties, and an Alchemist that doesn't invest in their mutagen doesn't do melee as effectively by around level 10 as an Investigator that doesn't invest in Studied Combat (since it scales very well with levels).
Opening Manyshot(?) to other weapons would be a good step towards equalizing bows and the sling and crossbow variants. I'd be a little cautious about allowing it with thrown weapons though.
Yeah, good. I'm certainly on board with the thought that buffing slings and crossbows is a good thing!
I'd be more cautious about allowing it to guns. Unless you have something else to handle them like no double-barreled firearms.
Yeah, that's my big worry here too.
(I don't allow double-barreled firearms. But even so, I'm worried about allowing Manyshot to apply to firearms.
That said, it would be more elegant to not have to insert weird exception clauses into the feat regarding what kinds of ranged weapons feats apply to. So if someone had tried allowing Manyshot with firearms, and hadn't found that it unbalanced things, I would be willing to be convinced...)
Out of curiosity: Puna'chong, what have you decided with respect to weapon-restrictions on Manyshot?
Opening Manyshot(?) to other weapons would be a good step towards equalizing bows and the sling and crossbow variants. I'd be a little cautious about allowing it with thrown weapons though.Yeah, good. I'm certainly on board with the thought that buffing slings and crossbows is a good thing!
I'd be more cautious about allowing it to guns. Unless you have something else to handle them like no double-barreled firearms.Yeah, that's my big worry here too.
(I don't allow double-barreled firearms. But even so, I'm worried about allowing Manyshot to apply to firearms.
That said, it would be more elegant to not have to insert weird exception clauses into the feat regarding what kinds of ranged weapons feats apply to. So if someone had tried allowing Manyshot with firearms, and hadn't found that it unbalanced things, I would be willing to be convinced...)Out of curiosity: Puna'chong, what have you decided with respect to weapon-restrictions on Manyshot?
The main reason I'm nervous about throwing weapons (and yes, guns too!) benefitting from Manyshot is that most thrown weapons and 1h firearms can already use TWF and ITWF to emulate Rapid Shot and Manyshot, something slings and crossbows cannot. If thrown weapons and 1h firearms can use both the TWF chain and manyshot then they can double dip attacks at the expense of attack bonuses, and as we know Gunslingers really like to stack up attacks.
One possibility is to rule that Rapid Shot/Manyshot doesn't interact with TWF and Improved TWF? That'd mean that 1h firearms, hand crossbows and thrown weapons lose out on one attack (they can normally get +1 over bows by combining TWF, ITWF and Rapid Shot) and that two-handed firearms get one more attack than they normally would.
Ran a session of Rappan Athuk this morning. We had a bloodrager, UC rogue, and a wilder all at 1st level. Overall I feel that the session went pretty well except for the wilder. The player of the wilder said she felt useless in comparison to the bloodrager, or rogue. She said she didn't mind that her class isn't the strongest and doesn't want to do more but she said she felt that the other did too much under the new system. I'm not sure how to handle this situation. ATM she's looking at making something else.
This is unfortunate because it pretty much means that after I finish the mod that the new action economy system is probably dead for our games.
That seems to be one solution to the problem, yes. But I'd really like to hear from Mark why they didn't put something like this into the actual rules. I mean, it's easy to say "if you houserule this, the alternate rule works fantastically!", but in the end the actual alternate rule does not include this provision.Do you think the system would work well if one adopted something like option #2 above, where you essentially make all swift actions free actions that can't be performed more than once per round?
(I think I'll probably go with option #1 instead, as my players don't tend to use those classes, but I was wondering whether you had any further worries that wouldn't be addressed by adopting something like option #2.)
Yeah, fair enough.
Now, I'm not as interested in question "Were the designers at fault in presenting the system in the way they did?" as I am in the question "What is the best way to tweak these alternate rules is in order to get the game flowing as smoothly and enjoyably as possible?" So, to some extent, I think I just have my eye on a different target here.
(But this does make me especially interested in pitfalls people can think of with adopting one kind of revision over or another. So if you do end up thinking of worries facing a simple option #2-revision of the revised action economy system, please do let me know! It's the sort of thing that I, qua DM, would definitely like to know!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason I'm nervous about throwing weapons (and yes, guns too!) benefitting from Manyshot is that most thrown weapons and 1h firearms can already use TWF and ITWF to emulate Rapid Shot and Manyshot, something slings and crossbows cannot. If thrown weapons and 1h firearms can use both the TWF chain and manyshot then they can double dip attacks at the expense of attack bonuses, and as we know Gunslingers really like to stack up attacks.
One possibility is to rule that Rapid Shot/Manyshot doesn't interact with TWF and Improved TWF? That'd mean that 1h firearms, hand crossbows and thrown weapons lose out on one attack (they can normally get +1 over bows by combining TWF, ITWF and Rapid Shot) and that two-handed firearms get one more attack than they normally would.
Ah, I see. That worry had completely slipped under my radar...
Thanks for bringing it up!
Out of curiosity: Puna'chong, what have you decided with respect to weapon-restrictions on Manyshot?
Bows and crossbows. Other ranged weapons don't need it. I expanded it out to crossbows because now an "action" is a bit more mutable, and because crossbows get the short end of the stick far too often for how much investment has to be placed in them.
|
Other ranged weapons don't need it. I expanded it out to crossbows because now an "action" is a bit more mutable, and because crossbows get the short end of the stick far too often for how much investment has to be placed in them.
You could just allow X-bows that are fired two-handed to get the -1/+3 ration of Deadly Aim. Because loading multiple quarrels is kind of silly. Yes, even sillier that multiple arrows.
Interested to see your Swift Action Revisal thread when you make it.
Bows and crossbows. Other ranged weapons don't need it. I expanded it out to crossbows because now an "action" is a bit more mutable, and because crossbows get the short end of the stick far too often for how much investment has to be placed in them.
Out of curiosity: Puna'chong, what have you decided with respect to weapon-restrictions on Manyshot?
While I think excluding guns and thrown weapons is a good call, mind if I suggest that you consider adding the various sling variants to the Manyshot list? Everyone always forget about the slings. :(
Hm... Healing Spells are essentially unchanged while most low level characters will be making more attacks (potentially a lot more) so I'd say spell-based healing is somewhat less powerful than before. A channel-focused character can put out three channels each round if he's using Quicken Channel though, that has a fair bit of potential. This system is also quite interesting for an Oradin, since he can now use multiple Lay on Hands in one round whenever the incoming damage becomes problematic. IF you use the variant multiclassing rules the Oradin can now be made without dipping into Oracle, which is also pretty nice. :)
I am kinda surprised that this page is still open.
What does healing look like now? Since less chances of one shotting bosses and such?
I second this line of inquiry. Higher level play is dishing out less damage, so does anyone have data on this?
While I think excluding guns and thrown weapons is a good call, mind if I suggest that you consider adding the various sling variants to the Manyshot list? Everyone always forget about the slings. :(
That's a good point. I'll probably include that. I never have players that use slings, so it's easy to forget about them. I don't think it'd be a problem for them to also get access to Manyshot.
Less hit means less dmg from the BBEG, but also from the party, if you say double the HP of the BBEG and he lives for 5 rounds does a healer have to heal more? or Less?
Anyone done the play testing and builds for this?
My more experienced party is currently 8th (Mythic E8 Reign of Winter campaign; they're good with extraneous rules systems), and although this isn't high level stuff, I am planning to have them run through the Witchwar Legacy with old characters from a completed Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign. I can report on that then.
Edit: They've just reached level 8, and aren't mythic yet. The results I have right now are just from a straight level 7-8 party playing an AP at the correct level, with 15 point-buy.
Hm... Healing Spells are essentially unchanged while most characters will be making more attacks (potentially a lot more) at low levels so I'd say spell-based healing is somewhat less powerful than before. A channel-focused character can put out three channels each round if he's using Quicken Channel though, that has some potential. This system is also quite interesting for an Oradin, since he can now use multiple Lay on Hands in one round whenever the incoming damage becomes problematic. IF you use the variant multiclassing rules the Oradin can now be made without dipping into Oracle, which is also pretty nice. :)
I'm going to have a life oracle join my Rappan Athuk game so I'll probably be able to chime in on that next weekend.
Hey kudaku would you read my post above about my 1st RA session. You seem to be one that's focused on overall enjoyment of the group. I've seen lot's of suggestions for other martials but I've haven't seen anything yet about the enjoyment of low level casters. I said I felt that the Wilder would come be fine by level 5 but that could potentially be a long time.
Hm... Healing Spells are essentially unchanged while most characters will be making more attacks (potentially a lot more) at low levels so I'd say spell-based healing is somewhat less powerful than before. A channel-focused character can put out three channels each round if he's using Quicken Channel though, that has some potential. This system is also quite interesting for an Oradin, since he can now use multiple Lay on Hands in one round whenever the incoming damage becomes problematic. IF you use the variant multiclassing rules the Oradin can now be made without dipping into Oracle, which is also pretty nice. :)I'm going to have a life oracle join my Rappan Athuk game so I'll probably be able to chime in on that next weekend.
Hey kudaku would you read my post above about my 1st RA session. You seem to be one that's focused on overall enjoyment of the group. I've seen lot's of suggestions for other martials but I've haven't seen anything yet about the enjoyment of low level casters. I said I felt that the Wilder would come be fine by level 5 but that could potentially be a long time.
Not much experience with the Wilder itself, but to make up for the increased economy of martial characters I've made things like Elemental Ray take only one action. I've also been debating whether to remove the X/day cost of them, since they're touch attacks that don't really scale better than most spells, and a 10th level 1d6+5 ray is... Eh.
I'm going to have a life oracle join my Rappan Athuk game so I'll probably be able to chime in on that next weekend.
Awesome! Looking forward to reading it. :)
Hey kudaku would you read my post above about my 1st RA session. You seem to be one that's focused on overall enjoyment of the group. I've seen lot's of suggestions for other martials but I've haven't seen anything yet about the enjoyment of low level casters. I said I felt that the Wilder would come be fine by level 5 but that could potentially be a long time.
I did read it, with great interest! Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the Wilder (I've only had a Soulknife at my table, so my understanding of the Wilder or psionic spellcasting in general is hazy at best) so I'm not quite sure what it was she found frustrating, if that problem is specific to the wilder, or if it will apply to other casters as well.
What I can say is that in this system low level martials will be moving around and attacking a lot more than they did in the old one, whereas spellcasters work more or less the same as before. Based purely on that I'm not terribly surprised that she felt outperformed at level 1.
Any chance you could get more detailed feedback from her, or try another play test (possibly with a Paizo spellcaster like the arcanist) at a higher level?
Admittedly, Arcane Strike is the least of my worries. Unless you mean to extend this out to class abilities like Studied Combat/Target? In which case it just doesn't really make sense that way.
this is exactly what i mean
What I can say is that in this system low level martials will be moving around and attacking a lot more than they did in the old one, whereas spellcasters work more or less the same as before. Based purely on that I'm not terribly surprised that she felt outperformed at level 1.Any chance you could get more detailed feedback from her, or try another play test (possibly with a Paizo spellcaster like the arcanist) at a higher level?
Me, her, and the rogue's player had quite a long discussion. The issue was she felt that she couldn't compete with the bloodrager. She said she would have felt better about what she could do if the bloodrager couldn't do as much.
The classes still work, the full round doesn't.
That isn't bad design unless you can't get over the full round action, which it seems is the case here.
Yeah, it kinda is the basis around which many of the new classes have been built. So, a new system which breaks those new classes (not even to mention old functionalities like "cast spell - cast quickened spell - move") is automatically very suspect to me.
The new full round really consists of either two strong attacks and a buff, or three mediocre attacks.
Ultimately that's where the game finds balance.
So what happens to classes who cannot spend an action to buff themselves? Are they inherently unable to rise above the "three mediocre attacks"? What about classes who can buff themselves as a free action?
I consider the system interesting and promising, but I am inclined to agree with people who say that it ultimately nerfs classes that relied heavily on swift actions.
So what happens to classes who cannot spend an action to buff themselves? Are they inherently unable to rise above the "three mediocre attacks"? What about classes who can buff themselves as a free action?
I consider the system interesting and promising, but I am inclined to agree with people who say that it ultimately nerfs classes that relied heavily on swift actions.
Which classes are you referring to?
The fighter and barbarian are pretty much the only classes who don't use swift actions, and few would call three attacks from them mediocre.
A magus or war priest who doesn't get to buff, or a paladin who doesn't smite or use a buff spell is making three attacks, sure, but they are comparably weaker.
Exactly, that's precisely the point. The idea that a class is stuck between using its core class features to buff itself and make less attacks, or make the same amount of attacks with lower to-hit and damage. This is even worse when adding mobility into the mix, because the martial classes with strong attacks can afford to sacrifice one attack to move, whereas that is not the case for the class that needs to buff to make its attacks count.
The system nerfed mobility for casters. I loved this. It also broke up the full-attack so that martials could move and reposition between attacks. This was an excellent idea.
My problem is that it cannibalised the action economy, and it ended up hurting non-casters and partial casters the most. Full casters are less mobile but they don't really care, they can still use spells to move about or just show up to combat with a ton of defensive spells pre-cast.
Martials and partial casters are struggling to see which of them gets to define what is "standard" in a round. If 3 attacks at +X to-hit and +Y to damage becomes the standard, then by default having to spend one action buffing makes you substandard. And then everything goes downhill if we have to eliminate one attack (or two!) to allow for moving. If we change the standard, however, martials who can stand still and attack 3 times for significant damage become, well, the clearly optimised choice. And since they don't need to buff, they can afford the luxury of sacrificing attacks for movement.
What I would change to fix this would be to add a 4th action that cannot be used for an attack. So you have 4 actions per round, up to 3 of which can be used for attacking, and 1 of which can be used for anything that is not an attack. This way, the martials that do not self-buff have an action that they are encouraged to use for movement and reposition, while the partial casters and self-buffing martials can use that action to self-buff without paying for it with attacks. That means they have to sacrifice mobility, for self-buffing, but I consider that to be a fair trade.
EDIT: I forgot about full casters. Just make spellcasting take 3 actions instead of two. That way, casters can still cast a normal spell and a quickened one, but can't move if they do that, or they can cast a normal spell and move.
Exactly, that's precisely the point. The idea that a class is stuck between using its core class features to buff itself and make less attacks, or make the same amount of attacks with lower to-hit and damage. This is even worse when adding mobility into the mix, because the martial classes with strong attacks can afford to sacrifice one attack to move, whereas that is not the case for the class that needs to buff to make its attacks count.
The system nerfed mobility for casters. I loved this. It also broke up the full-attack so that martials could move and reposition between attacks. This was an excellent idea.
My problem is that it cannibalised the action economy, and it ended up hurting non-casters and partial casters the most. Full casters are less mobile but they don't really care, they can still use spells to move about or just show up to combat with a ton of defensive spells pre-cast.
Martials and partial casters are struggling to see which of them gets to define what is "standard" in a round. If 3 attacks at +X to-hit and +Y to damage becomes the standard, then by default having to spend one action buffing makes you substandard. And then everything goes downhill if we have to eliminate one attack (or two!) to allow for moving. If we change the standard, however, martials who can stand still and attack 3 times for significant damage become, well, the clearly optimised choice. And since they don't need to buff, they can afford the luxury of sacrificing attacks for movement.
What I would change to fix this would be to add a 4th action that cannot be used for an attack. So you have 4 actions per round, up to 3 of which can be used for attacking, and 1 of which can be used for anything that is not an attack. This way, the martials that do not self-buff have an action that they are encouraged to use for movement and reposition, while the partial casters and self-buffing martials can use that action to self-buff without paying for it with attacks. That means they have to sacrifice mobility, for...
It's not really substandard after you do the math.
Compare a magus who dumps a 10d6 shocking grasp on top of making two attacks to a fighter with his measly 3rd attack not coming close to 10d6 worth of damage.
Compare a paladin whose smites add an additional +20ish damage on those two attacks, essentially granting him an extra 33% damage.
Before, paladins were the undisputed kings of damage, thanks to the things like smite and dimensional dervish nonsense replacing pounce. Now they end up doing comparable damage to everyone else.
The problem with the old system was that allowing those full rounds with those amazing buffs invalidated the older classes like the fighter, who in this system thrive because of their simple design nature.
Whether or not this was intentional is irrelevant because it still ends up being balanced design.
The problem is that if you compare halfway optimised partial casters to a naked fighter, the fighter is always going to look worse. Comparing the partial casters to an archery ranger or pounce barbarian might actually yield a more accurate result.
Either way, that doesn't change what I originally said in the post before that one. If you take the buff + 2 strong attacks as the new standard, then classes who cannot follow that paradigm are either relegated to inherent mediocrity or inherent superiority. If they are inherently mediocre because they cannot self-buff, the system hasn't really balanced anything, and if they're inherently superior, then what everyone is saying about swift-reliant classes is true and the system needs some fixing.
The problem is that if you compare halfway optimised partial casters to a naked fighter, the fighter is always going to look worse. Comparing the partial casters to an archery ranger or pounce barbarian might actually yield a more accurate result.
Either way, that doesn't change what I originally said in the post before that one. If you take the buff + 2 strong attacks as the new standard, then classes who cannot follow that paradigm are either relegated to inherent mediocrity or inherent superiority. If they are inherently mediocre because they cannot self-buff, the system hasn't really balanced anything, and if they're inherently superior, then what everyone is saying about swift-reliant classes is true and the system needs some fixing.
I'm saying it's probably a lot closer to balanced than you are allowing yourself to perceive.
Classes that need to buff are mediocre without those buffs, classes that don't need to buff are usually not as strong at making novas, but with more attacks equal out in damage, resulting in more balance to the game as a whole.
How is that difficult to understand?
The new full round really consists of either two strong attacks and a buff, or three mediocre attacks.
Ultimately that's where the game finds balance.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
I think you are getting slightly emotional over the issue. :P
Either way, while I understand your position (that 3 unbuffed attacks allegedly equal 2 buffed attacks), you're not understanding mine. My point is that even if we assume that such an equality exists (which is a big "if" that I'm not fully convinced of), some classes cannot actually choose to swap between the two at will, they are locked with 3 unbuffed attacks.
Under your assumption of equality, a buffed attack equals 1.5 unbuffed attacks. What happens if we sacrifice an action for movement? The self-buffer only gets one strong attack off, while the other one gets off 2 unbuffed attacks. Now we're back to what I said before, either martials who don't self-buff are still inferior, or the system nerfs self-buffers. What happens when we add Haste into the mix? 4 unbuffed attacks vs. 3 buffed attacks. Again one of the two options must be superior, since it's mathematically different from the defined standard.
And if the original equality doesn't exist (if, for example, the 3 unbuffed attacks of a self-buffer are weaker than the 3 normal attacks of non-self-buffers), then this whole thing gets a lot more complicated.
I think you are getting slightly emotional over the issue. :P
Either way, while I understand your position (that 3 unbuffed attacks allegedly equal 2 buffed attacks), you're not understanding mine. My point is that even if we assume that such an equality exists (which is a big "if" that I'm not fully convinced of), some classes cannot actually choose to swap between the two at will, they are locked with 3 unbuffed attacks.
Under your assumption of equality, a buffed attack equals 1.5 unbuffed attacks. What happens if we sacrifice an action for movement? The self-buffer only gets one strong attack off, while the other one gets off 2 unbuffed attacks. Now we're back to what I said before, either martials who don't self-buff are still inferior, or the system nerfs self-buffers. What happens when we add Haste into the mix? 4 unbuffed attacks vs. 3 buffed attacks. Again one of the two options must be superior, since it's mathematically different from the defined standard.
And if the original equality doesn't exist (if, for example, the 3 unbuffed attacks of a self-buffer are weaker than the 3 normal attacks of non-self-buffers), then this whole thing gets a lot more complicated.
Okay, I'm certainly seeing what you're saying, but I don't think this is any worse than what we have now. A character can move and take a single attack or stand still and take all of their attacks and self-buffers get their swift buff per turn. Fighters just have to swing away.
Also, I'm not sure is positing that "An unbuffed attack is worth this much and a buffed equal this much". As the system is now, things aren't even designed to be 1:1 comparisons. Of course you can't break down the new action economy in such a way either.
I'm just using logic on the system according to the information I have, to see what flaws it may have. I like the system, and I want to use it at my table, I just don't think I'd use it as-is. I think it definitely needs some tweaking to avoid measuring martials up to a standard that everyone else needs to struggle to achieve.
I think the problem with the system is inherently logical, which is why I'm speaking in broad terms: I think there's a flawed concept in there somewhere.
Right now, I intuit the problem lies somewhere with the fact that a class whose main purpose is to make attacks should never have to choose between attacking or doing X (moving, self-buffing, buffing someone else, debuffing the enemy, etc.), because the odds are that it's usually going to be mathematically optimal for that class to attack. It feels terribly unintuitive to punish a martial class for not attacking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ran the new action economy system in my Rotrl group. I must say it's a ton more dynamic. Haven't had any players complain about swift actions yet as they are only level 6 using mostly core classes. Overall I see it as a huge improvement allowing for more action oriented combat.
All of these arguments about action economy balance have convinced me...
I shall use both action economy systems at the same time!
At the start of your turn, you choose to use either the normal action economy or the unchained action economy. This choice lasts until the beginning of your next turn. If you have an ability that is not defined in the unchained action economy (like Manyshot), you can only use that ability when also using the normal action economy.
Bam! The unchained action economy is now complete and fully integrated into the game.
|
Well we're using it in a mythic game, wrath of the righteous. Only 2 sessions so no really lengthy test, characters are 12/5 on book 4.
Rounds were far more dynamic, even with all the option available. The inquisitor, monk/paladin, cleric, witch and paladin/ninja all felt the system worked well. The apparent lost action with having to activate smite was more than balanced by the added bonus it grants, they agree the loss of a potential attack (-5 or -10 more likely) was balanced by the added attack and damage. A feature they felt should have been part of the paladin to start with since smite is actually a very good buff to start with. The witch and cleric initially found the lack of mobility a little disconcerting, but settled well into a differenet routine and behaviour. It balanced out spell casting well, the casters found they could still deal out the death, but needed to be very certain of positioning and movement, especially once swift spells hit the table and the caster effectively just sat in one spot, making him much easier to target.
The cleric actually liked the new system because he felt he had more options. The inquisitor was concerned about the swift action issue, but we all agreed after a few combats that taking an action to use judgement and/or bane was actually a fair trade and a balancing effect. I agree with them since I've played inquisitors before, love the class, and have found both features to be a huge buff. So the use of an action on a class feature designed to equalise the classes effectiveness was no biggy. In reality the inquisitors rounds could be condensed to activate bane>move>attack, same as before, or bane>attack twice if enemy came to him, pretty much same as before. If there was a ranger, barbarian or fighter present would he feel ripped off by the 1 less action? He said no, they should be better at attacking and now they are...a little bit.
The ability to use three swift actions was fantastic for encouraging different strategies and the players loved this.
As for damage, I didn't note a huge reduction for the enemies, but it did actually reduce the player output (except perhaps the flurrying, smiting monk) and allow monsters an extra round or two of actions.