PF Unchained's New Action System

[Felyndiira]

I haven't seen a thread about this yet, so I just wanted to gather some of GitP's perceptions of Unchained's new optional action economy system:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-action-economy

EDIT: I realized that the thread is a bit bare, so I wanted to add a brief summary of what the system actually encompasses. Basically, they completely replaced the Swift/Move/Standard system that was in place since the beginning of 3.0. Instead, you now have three actions per turn; a single attack costs one action, a move costs one action, and most (Ex) standard action abilities cost one action. Spells and supernatural attacks cost two actions. Full attacks no longer exist (except on natural attacks), but you can make multiple attack actions in one turn with iterative penalties. Swift actions, controversially, cost one action - the same as a move or a standard.

This is, of course, an optional ruleset (like the ones in Unearthed Arcana in 3.5).

The Paizo forum had a long discussion about it (I stumbled onto this recently, so I only skimmed the thread). Most of the Paizo forum was hostile to this at first, but after some playtesting it seem to be relatively well received at the Paizo forums. A lot of people focused on how this changes the action economy for casters - melee can now take a move and two iterative attacks (pseudo-pounce, if you will), or can move twice and still make an attack. Casters - because their spells take two actions naturally - have much less mobility built-in. Though it still doesn't prevent high-level wizard shenanigans, it does create a noticeable in-combat action economy nerf for the casters for most levels.

The swift action thing was probably the most hotly debated, especially for classes that depend on swift action buffs and for feats like Arcane Strike. There was a full rewrite of the classes with some class features being re-written as free actions 1/round, as well as (my) proposal to separate out Swift from this structure. Quicken spells are now one action as well, though they still adhere by the standard quicken limit of 1/round.

This is probably the biggest change that was presented in Pathfinder Unchanged, affecting pretty much the entire system on implementation.

[Grollub]

I havent read thru it all fully.. but i dont see a need for changing the current system..

[Seerow]

Turning Move and Swift actions into the same action type is really problematic. Any character that has usage of swift actions is majorly nerfed by this system.

Taking away the full attack action is really annoying. Not because it is a nerf (it actually is an overall boost to a typical Fighter. Right from level 1 you get 3 attacks at full BAB when you don't have to move, or 2 when you do have to move. That's huge. At level 20 you're down an attack, but the attacks you do get are at full BAB so it's arguably similar), but because you don't improve as you level so your attack routine never changes. Stuff like Speed Weapons, Haste, etc, are all left completely unmentioned (only TWFing and Flurry get a call-out for how to handle, and they are not handled in any way that is consistent with each other, so figuring out how to handle others based on that is not necessarily a simple process), and thus cause more problems.

Meanwhile, you have monsters still able to take a full attack action to gain all of their natural attacks and so get to sidestep all of the annoyances caused by the system, only getting better due to being able to take two attacks when moving.


Yeah, not really a fan. I think it would have benefited from a wider number of points, but as soon as you expand the number of points, even when adjusting costs to go with it, you end up with more potential loopholes as people take advantage of more discrete actions. For example if you double the action points to 6, and say swift = 1, move =2, standard =3, full round = 5, you get the ability to replicate the current action system pretty closely, but now you can cast two spells per round using 2 3 point standard actions. I just don't think subbing in a system that changes the underlying action economy like this is feasible in a game with as many existing options as Pathfinder. Action Point systems can work great in games designed around them, but as it is the conversion causes too much chaos with existing material, and doesn't really make the game better in any way to justify it.

[Felyndiira]

Haste is actually mentioned on the "Final Considerations" sidebar near the bottom (it was on page 109 in the original PDF). They recommended that haste and similar effects give you an additional action per round, but this additional action can only be spent on attack. I think they forgot to remove this extra action from the iterative attack penalties clause, though, so whereas a THF martial might have +30/+25/+20 without haste and +31/+31/+26/+21 with haste before, they now have +31/+26/+21/+16.

I definitely agree with you on the swift action issue. I proposed an alternate system with swift actions counted separately in the paizo forums, so something like 3 Actions + 1 Swift Action per round, to keep the intent while making sure that swift actions wasn't hugely nerfed. Haven't playtested this yet, though (most of the irl players I know would adamantly reject this system).

[ColdFire2112]

Taking away the full attack action is really annoying. Not because it is a nerf (it actually is an overall boost to a typical Fighter. Right from level 1 you get 3 attacks at full BAB when you don't have to move, or 2 when you do have to move. That's huge. At level 20 you're down an attack, but the attacks you do get are at full BAB so it's arguably similar), but because you don't improve as you level so your attack routine never changes. Stuff like Speed Weapons, Haste, etc, are all left completely unmentioned (only TWFing and Flurry get a call-out for how to handle, and they are not handled in any way that is consistent with each other, so figuring out how to handle others based on that is not necessarily a simple process), and thus cause more problems.

Unfortunately, you don't get all 3 attacks at full BAB.
Attack Actions: Actions with the attack subtype involve
making at least one attack roll against an opponent or
object. They typically provoke attacks of opportunity
only if the attack is a ranged attack or you don’t have the
appropriate feat to take that attack action without provoking
attacks of opportunity, such as Improved Unarmed Strike
for unarmed strikes or Improved Trip for trip attempts. In
the latter case, the action provokes an attack of opportunity
only from the creature you target. When an attack action
provokes an attack of opportunity, the attack of opportunity
is made before the provoking attack roll is made.
The first time during your turn that you take an action
with this subtype, you roll the attack as normal. Each
subsequent attack action taken during your turn imposes a
cumulative –5 penalty on the attack roll or combat maneuver
check (so the second attack action has a –5 penalty on the
attack roll, the third has a –10 penalty, and so on).

It doesn't directly use the iterative system, but applies the same penalties for multiple attacks. So in the end, you do lose 4th attack at higher levels, and still suffer the to-hit penalties. So you can still get extra attacks earlier than you could through the normal system, but at early levels, but given that they would be at -5 and then -10, they are very likely to miss.

[Psyren]

Note that you can combine this system with "Removing Iteratives" if you truly want everyone to have pounce.

[Milo v3]

Note that you can combine this system with "Removing Iteratives" if you truly want everyone to have pounce.

I don't think so, iirc the Removing Iterative's just removes Iteratives, not full attacks themselves. Full attacks still take a full action with it's system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Swift actions, controversially, cost one action - the same as a move or a standard.
What in the what? Why... how... but... who could possibly think that was a good idea? The whole point of a swift action is that it doesn't interfere with your main actions. They just... argh, I'm so upset I can't even word.

Clumsiness aside, it's not a terrible idea. I like the added flexibility and simplicity, but it does need some tweaking... perhaps, to copy an idea from an AP-based video game I played once, something more like this:

Every round, you get three actions and a reaction. You can take actions in any order you want, but if you attack or cast a spell, your turn immediately ends, and all remaining actions are converted into reactions.

Moving is one action
A combat maneuver is one action. (You could further divide them into attacks and non-attacks: say Aid, Feint, and Repositions aren't attacks, and others are)
A single attack is one action
A full attack is two actions (for compatibility's sake)
Casting a spell is two actions
A full-round spell is three actions
Swift and immediate actions are both reactions, as are AoOs.


Giving back full attacks makes compatibility work better, and the leftover action means that mundane characters still have added options. Meanwhile, "attacking ends your turn" means that you can let things like haste give bonus actions without breaking spellcasting wide open.

[Psyren]

I don't think so, iirc the Removing Iterative's just removes Iteratives, not full attacks themselves. Full attacks still take a full action with it's system.

There's a variant under that variant (Mobile Melee) that lets you move while full-attacking. You take large penalties without Acrobatics checks and/or Spring Attack though.

[stack]

What do vital strikes cost?

Haven't read the whole thing, but its sounds like a good idea incompletely executed, though I hope I'm wrong. (Words of power, anyone?)

[Seerow]

There's a variant under that variant (Mobile Melee) that lets you move while full-attacking. You take large penalties without Acrobatics checks and/or Spring Attack though.

Even with Acrobatics and Spring Attack those penalties are pretty brutal. I mean with a 40 athletics check and the Spring Attack feat, you still have a -10 penalty after moving 30 feet, effectively dropping 2 full hits off your attack, and chances are you aren't hitting anything level appropriate by enough to actually get the 4 hits necessary to get a second hit while moving.

I was about to say that Haste almost makes up for that (and is totally awesome in this variant), because it gives a bonus hit... but reading it again all haste actually does is increase your max hits, which is actually a huge nerf, since now to get the bonus attack from haste you have to beat the AC of your target by another 5 points, making it practically useless right around the time you hit BAB 6 or 11, and definitely not any good in the mobile melee variant where the penalties make sure you'll never have a high enough bonus to see that extra hit.

[grarrrg]

sounds like a good idea incompletely executed

That statement sums up the consensus on most of the stuff in Unchained.

[Psyren]

Even with Acrobatics and Spring Attack those penalties are pretty brutal. I mean with a 40 athletics check and the Spring Attack feat, you still have a -10 penalty after moving 30 feet, effectively dropping 2 full hits off your attack, and chances are you aren't hitting anything level appropriate by enough to actually get the 4 hits necessary to get a second hit while moving.

Most pounces aren't done at 30 ft. though, especially if you have a reach weapon - rather it usually happens that you need to move 10-15ft. to the next foe, which is very doable.

And remember, a miss is only really a miss under this variant if you miss by more than 5.

[Pex]

The concept was not a problem that needed fixing.

[Ilorin Lorati]

There were a lot of things that were done in the book that didn't need fixing. Kudos to them for the attempt, however ill advised it was.

So how can it be fixed? Grod has some good ideas, but I'm of the opinion that removing Swifts and AoOs from the act system is a better idea. Blame my lack of coffee. Also, I think making a single attack cost 2 acts until 6+ BAB sounds like it would reduce the overcompensated rocket tag at low levels. I, for one, like the removal of the full attack action in this case - I just think it could be better implemented for low levels.

Edit: So something like:

0 BAB: 2 acts = 1 attack
6 BAB: They get an extra attack with the action
11 BAB: Attacks only cost 1 act.
16 BAB: They get an extra attack with their first act spent attacking.

[CockroachTeaParty]

A cursory glance of the system suggests that Magi and Warpriests really get the shaft.

[Grommen]

Tried this out the other day. Seemed to work pretty good. The chapter did say that some things might need tweaking. After all their is a crap ton of class abilities in the game now.

What we liked:
We all liked that we can reserve an action so we might disrupt someone's action latter on in a round.
Liked the idea of moving, attacking, and moving again, or just standing still and whaling away!
3 attacks (and a lot of missing) at lower levels!

What was weird:
Had a character with Spring Attack (I think that's the feet). Could not decide if this was one or two points, and how it worked really. Were still working that one out.

As far as the Swift Actions all being one point, and equal to a move act or attack. Personally I do not like "swift" actions in the first place. They make sense sometimes. For example a quickened spell. However I think as 3.5 moved forward and then PF picked up the games development, far to many things got shifted to swift actions. These things tend to break the game and make some classes better than they should be.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, your game is yours mine is mine. Besides this is optional material. I try to keep everyone on the same plane of broken so I do a lot of tinkering anyway.

If a group decided that they liked the swift actions like they are, just move the abilities you think get the shaft to free actions and then limit them case by case. Again they did say this would require some working out.

I also think the action point system would work well with the stamina rules latter on in the book. However that was a huge section of new tweaks to nearly every feat. I'm not sure my melon can memorize that much new information and not bog down the game more than it is.