Marrying 5e and the Three Action Economy

[FilthyLucre]

I really, really want to come back to D&D - I currently DM PF2e. There are really only two things that, (in my opinion), at which PF2e is definitively superior to 5e: 1.) Character options 2.) Interesting/Dynamic combat. The first of these is really beyond the scope of what I want to talk about, which is the second of these two. I believe that, for me, problem #2 can be addressed by stealing PF2e's three action system. Allow me to elaborate by examining two actions: Trip and Disarm.

(DISCLAIMER: I realize that for many people the simplicity of D&D 5e's combat is a feature, not a bug, and there's nothing wrong with that. If that's your preference, then this thread/concept really doesn't do anything for you).

The 5e rules for the prone condition are:
1.) Your only movement option is to crawl, (1/2 - 1/3 speed).
2.) Prone creatures have disadvantage on attack roles
3.) Melee attacks against prone creatures have advantage/ranged attacks have disadvantage.
4.) You can spend half of your movement to stand up.

The problem I have with this is that in many, but not all, cases there's no real benefit to knocking someone down because the cost of standing up is relatively low. If a fighter knocks a creature down that they're in melee with, they've certainly gained an advantage on follow up attacks, as have their allies, assuming their availability. But the enemy merely stands up, being where it wants to be already if it's a melee oriented creature, and continues to wail away on the fighter that tripped it. This problem is even better illustrated with the disarm action.

Page 190 of the PHB explicitly says that picking up an item, like a dropped weapon, is minor enough to itself be part of movement or an action. So, if our fighter disarms his enemy, on the enemies turn it simply picks up it's weapon with an arbitrary amount of movement, and continues to attack. The outcome of the disarm is in effect exactly the same as if you had done something else - like attack. Given that 'dead' is the best status condition of all to inflict on your enemy, it seems pretty silly to ever disarm a creature unless you have a GM who likes to make up house rules on the fly, (of which I am not).

In both of these examples there's no real 'cost' to fix the condition or situation that the enemy finds itself in - in both cases, in most of the times this situation is going to arise, the enemy has to spend zero resources whatsoever to continue doing what they want to do.

Here is where I want to steal an idea from PF2e. Instead of 5e's action system, I want to replace it with PF2es - three discrete actions. Moving your speed is an action. Getting up from prone is an action. Picking up your sword from the ground is an action. All of these situations then become a cost/price the enemy has to pay to continue - they are losing an action they could have used on something that furthers their goal - normally killing PCs.

Now, obviously, this isn't the most light-weight hack for 5e considering it's a fairly big change. In a nutshell, here is a quick-and-dirty-definitely-not-comprehensive-list of what activities would cost how many actions:

Attack = 1 Action
Move/Interact = 1 Action
Cast a Spell = Usually 2 Actions, but could vary.

Bonus actions are where, I think, things become especially 'case-by-case'. Some 5e bonus actions would make sense to be just '1 Action' while others might make sense to be a free action.

Now, obviously this isn't a polished/complete variant rule and there's a lot more that could be said... but what do you all think of this at least conceptually?

"What happens to the 'Extra Attack' class feature?"
I would continue to steal ideas from PF2e and implement their 'multiple attack penalty'. Instead of providing you with another attack, the 'Extra Attack' class feature would instead let you ignore one level of MAP. The fight's 20th level extra attack could even be a special action extra that they can only use for making attacks (essentially making them hasted constantly as far as attacks are concerned).

[Marcloure]

Take a look at https://www.kryxrpg.com/, it's a system born from 5e that uses a 2 actions per turn + movement.

[quindraco]

Getting up from prone or picking up an item could be raised into cost to "all of your movement" - would that be a high enough cost to satisfy you?

I think it would be more compatible with 5E's general rules system to have both of those things provoke OAs and leave their current costs in place.

[Ashe]

I think you're misunderstanding what makes these features effective. Definitely not as effective as they deserve to be (just d&d things), but:


The problem I have with this is that in many, but not all, cases there's no real benefit to knocking someone down because the cost of standing up is relatively low. If a fighter knocks a creature down that they're in melee with, they've certainly gained an advantage on follow up attacks, as have their allies, assuming their availability. But the enemy merely stands up, being where it wants to be already if it's a melee oriented creature, and continues to wail away on the fighter that tripped it. This problem is even better illustrated with the disarm action.

If you grapple a creature, you reduce its speed to 0, meaning the grapple must be broken (a full action, and a contested check) before they can stand up from being prone. They're meant to be used in tandem.


Page 190 of the PHB explicitly says that picking up an item, like a dropped weapon, is minor enough to itself be part of movement or an action. So, if our fighter disarms his enemy, on the enemies turn it simply picks up it's weapon with an arbitrary amount of movement, and continues to attack. The outcome of the disarm is in effect exactly the same as if you had done something else - like attack. Given that 'dead' is the best status condition of all to inflict on your enemy, it seems pretty silly to ever disarm a creature unless you have a GM who likes to make up house rules on the fly, (of which I am not).

And you didn't catch the fact that you can pick up the weapon just as easily too?

[Stangler]

I think there’s a lot of value in the 2 action one movement approach that allows you to avoid a lot of the overly complicated parts of pathfinder. There is a big rabbit hole of issues that can come up when you start dealing with things like tripping. I actually think that the battle master approach is solid but it is only really available to them. I like pathfinder’s mechanics that deal with rolling 5 above the enemy ac. I think this would be a good way to allow for things like tripping or called shots without overly complicated action economy shenanigans or limitations on things that should be more widely available.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The first, "has to be said" point--if you feel like getting knocked down or disarmed isn't enough of a penalty (and you're right, it's really not), it would be a lot easier just to add an extra cost to those specific cases. If standing up provokes an opportunity attack, like it used to, prone matters a lot more without touching action economy.


Now, obviously this isn't a polished/complete variant rule and there's a lot more that could be said... but what do you all think of this at least conceptually?

I've never played PF2, so I'm going to take it on faith that the three-action-economy works and doesn't lead to, say, a 3.PF situation where melee fighters are forced to stand in one place to get their full compliment of attacks.


Bonus actions are where, I think, things become especially 'case-by-case'. Some 5e bonus actions would make sense to be just '1 Action' while others might make sense to be a free action.
This concerns me. There are so many different bonus actions out there, and they're so important, that you can't just say "case-by-case"-- you'd find yourself making half a dozen decisions per character. You need a universal rule; otherwise there's no way something like this works without rewriting just about everything.

(Also, because I'm finding myself using the word "action" so often it's losing its meaning, I'm going to refer to the actions in the 3-action-economy paradigm as Acts)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what that rule could be. Action economy is deep, deep in the guts of a system, and it's not easy to change. I have some pretty significant rules changes in my Grimoire of the Grotesque, but overhauling the action system is much farther than I went--and I was happy to tinker with things like "ability scores" and "armor class." You've got a couple major problems standing in your way if you want to try.

The value of a bonus action is in being able to use it at the same time as your attack, whether that be a literal Attack action, spellcasting, or something else. Using your action to move again is only occasionally useful; moving again and attacking is a powerful and iconic class feature.
A lot of bonus actions are conditional. You can't just swing your off-hand weapon anytime you want; you have to take the Attack action with a light weapon first. If suddenly everyone can cast a spell and take a swipe with a shortsword, that's a game-changer.


That said, it's also the kind of challenge I have a hard time turning away. So... let's see, maybe something like...

You get three Acts per turn. Actions and bonus actions both take one Act to perform; movement means using an Act to Dash.
If you take a given action twice in the same turn, you have disadvantage on all d20 rolls, and enemies have advantage on saving throws against any abilities you use, until the beginning of your next turn. If an ability like Cunning Action lets you use an action as a bonus action, they count as separate actions.
Casting a one-action spell takes two Acts; casting a bonus-action spell only takes one.
You can only cast one leveled spell per turn, regardless of how you're using your Acts.
If a bonus action is normally only available after performing a specific action-- Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master, War Magic, things like that--you have to take that action before you can use one of your other Acts on the bonus action.

That's the best I've been able to come up with after writing and rewriting this post for the last half-hour, and I'm still not entirely comfortable with it. (For example: I can't think of a good way to keep you from Dodging every turn). The good news is that a change like this is symmetrical-- if players are dodging every turn, well, monsters can do that too.


"What happens to the 'Extra Attack' class feature?"
I would continue to steal ideas from PF2e and implement their 'multiple attack penalty'. Instead of providing you with another attack, the 'Extra Attack' class feature would instead let you ignore one level of MAP. The fight's 20th level extra attack could even be a special action extra that they can only use for making attacks (essentially making them hasted constantly as far as attacks are concerned).

Probably something like "the first time you take the Attack action each turn, you can make one additional weapon attack."

[FilthyLucre]

I've never played PF2, so I'm going to take it on faith that the three-action-economy works and doesn't lead to, say, a 3.PF situation where melee fighters are forced to stand in one place to get their full compliment of attacks.
Just for your edification, if you stand and attack three times the odds of you landing your third attack rapidly approach 0 for any class and given almost any situation. It's a flat -10 to you roll.


For example: I can't think of a good way to keep you from Dodging every turn
You just make the 5e Dodge Action take 3 Actions to perform in this alternate system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Just for your edification, if you stand and attack three times the odds of you landing your third attack rapidly approach 0 for any class and given almost any situation. It's a flat -10 to you roll.
Then how do martial characters get anything done at higher levels? In 3.pf they depended on full attacks, but it sounds like those aren't a thing anymore?

[firelistener]

I think you're missing some valid options in the example scenarios. You might have some valid reasons to want to alter 5e, but I think there's a few things within vanilla 5e that could easily remedy the gripes you mentioned.

Firstly, the prone condition. It's actually great because if the foe uses half their movement to get up, they can usually only engage the melee fighter within range. That's nearly always going to be the party member with the highest AC and hit points. There are virtually no abilities in 5e that allow "tanking" like some video games have, so keeping foes from attacking the squishy people requires more creativity sometimes. When I DM, I often have something risk an attack of opportunity so they can go rough up the ranged attackers. Things like a monk knocking them prone or a barbarian grappling are great counters to that.

Second, disarming. Since picking up an item is free, so too is picking up the weapon you just knocked out of an enemy's hand. There are tons of foes that could easily fight without a weapon, so I don't personally see it as big enough concern to redo the action economy.

Since you aren't looking to argue the 5e philosophy, so I'll refrain from really defending it here beyond those specifics. I'll just say that as someone who got introduced with AD&D2, I've found 5e really refreshing for actually running games as DM and making characters I like as a player without buyer's remorse. And I would say the action economy design is a key piece of that.

[Hootman]

Then how do martial characters get anything done at higher levels? In 3.pf they depended on full attacks, but it sounds like those aren't a thing anymore?

In my experience, it was mostly by hitting like trucks one or two times per round (depending on positioning) while the primary caster tried really hard to be useful without getting in the way. The spells I experienced in PF2 seem suuuuper lackluster. Perhaps I was just bad at finding the "good" spells, but that suggests other problems to me, so I'll let the point stand.

Having a +3 sword that deals 3d8+2d6 Fire+1d6 Holy+16 or whatever really...uh...makes the big numbers happen for the Barbarian. And that seems to be the design intent for weapons--they get enchanted to hell and back so you aren't throwing up rookie numbers at level 14 or whatever.

[FilthyLucre]

Since you aren't looking to argue the 5e philosophy, so I'll refrain from really defending it here beyond those specifics. I'll just say that as someone who got introduced with AD&D2, I've found 5e really refreshing for actually running games as DM and making characters I like as a player without buyer's remorse. And I would say the action economy design is a key piece of that.
5e is an objectively good game, that's not even in question. It's just I'm trying to find a way to make it a good game for me and my table who really want a 'Tactics Ogre' (Or Final Fantasy Tactics, or Disgaea; whatever your JSRPG touchstone is) level of detailed combat to go along with our roleplaying out of combat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e is an objectively good game, that's not even in question. It's just I'm trying to find a way to make it a good game for me and my table who really want a 'Tactics Ogre' (Or Final Fantasy Tactics, or Disgaea; whatever your JSRPG touchstone is) level of detailed combat to go along with our roleplaying out of combat.
If that's what you're looking for, you might actually look at 4e D&D--the edition was designed from the ground up to be a tactical miniatures-based game with very crisp mechanics. People complained that it was too much a wargame without enough "roleplaying"*, but it sounds like that's what you guys want.



*Though 5e gets a pass, and noncombat stuff in both systems is pretty much just skill checks and "the GM will make it up," so <shrug>

[FilthyLucre]

If that's what you're looking for, you might actually look at 4e D&D--the edition was designed from the ground up to be a tactical miniatures-based game with very crisp mechanics. People complained that it was too much a wargame without enough "roleplaying"*, but it sounds like that's what you guys want.



*Though 5e gets a pass, and noncombat stuff in both systems is pretty much just skill checks and "the GM will make it up," so <shrug>

Nah I think that 4e skill system is absolutely abysmal. Maybe I should give 5e another shot but I just don't want the combats to be choice-less and boring.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Nah I think that 4e skill system is absolutely abysmal. Maybe I should give 5e another shot but I just don't want the combats to be choice-less and boring.
It's probably easier to patch an improved skill system into 4e (after all, it's pretty divorced from everything else) than to rebuild 5e around a PF2 style action system.

I've not really had problems with 5e combat being choice-less and boring, though. Yeah, you're better off using your action to make a normal attack, but that's true across a wide spectrum of RPGs. Between bonus actions, positioning, spellcasting, and resource management, 5e has its fair share of tactical decision-making. It's not terribly intricate, but it's not terribly slow either (coughExaltedcough).
Add in varied environments, enemies, and goals, and you'll be fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) It's probably easier to patch an improved skill system into 4e (after all, it's pretty divorced from everything else) than to rebuild 5e around a PF2 style action system.

2) Add in varied environments, enemies, and goals, and you'll be fine.

1) Agreed. an improved skill system wouldn't substantially change any of the things that 4e does well, and wouldn't touch the core mechanics. Which overhauling the core action economy of a game absolutely does.

2) Also agreed. Combat in any system in a white room where it's just "you and me fight until one of us dies" is boring. Combat as a means to achieve other goals, in varied environments and against creatures who do things and want things is much less likely to be boring. Even if the mechanical underpinnings don't change between the two. Really, the mechanics have the least important in deciding whether something will be boring or not IMO.

[Theodoxus]

Interestingly to me, I've thought about incorporating PF2's casting system in 5E, but the combat system just didn't really jive with how the action economy works (as Grod excellently pointed out).

But I do really like the idea of casting spells "super Sayan style", using more actions (Acts) to generate more bang. My rudimentary system looks like this:




Energy Type
Bonus 1
Bonus 2


Acid
Defense of choice reduced by 1 (only physical defenses, not attribute bonuses)
Damage over time, save ends


Cold
Target can't regenerate health for 1 round
10 feet move reduction


Fire
Disadvantage on next attack
Damage over time, save ends


Force
Ignores physical defenses, not attribute bonuses)
Increases die size by 1


Life/Healing
Provides THP equal to the number of dice rolled
Regenerates 1d4 THP per round, damage ends


Lightning
Can't take reactions for 1 round
Advantage to attacks rolls vs metal (weapon or armor)


Matter/Poison
Poisoned condition, save ends
Damage over time, save ends


Mind/Psychic
Disadvantage on next attack
Confusion for 1 round


Necrotic
Target can't regenerate health for 1 round
Provides THP equal to the number of dice rolled, capped by caster level


Radiant
Ignores partial and half cover and concealment
Energy Admixture: half damage is radiant, other half is another energy type, pick one attribute of that energy type to affect the whole attack


Spirit/Mana
Target is restrained
Increases die size by 1




So, if you cast a spell with 1 Act, it goes off normally. But if you upcharge it, taking 2 Acts provides the first bonus and taking 3 Acts adds the second bonus as rider effects. The idea then being no base spell would have rider effects. So, Sacred Flame, Shocking Grasp, etc would just do damage. If you wanted to add their relevant book standard riders, you'd need to use 2 Acts when casting a spell.

I haven't gotten around to dealing with non-energy/evocation spells, but my general supposition would be as Grod mentioned; 2 Acts for 1 Action casting time and 1 Act for bonus action casting times. 5E's general rules on multi-casting would remain in play... but it would slightly boost casters, as you could technically cast a 2 Act Fireball followed with a 1 Act firebolt... but trying to mimic exactly how 5E magic works kinda makes the whole endeavor moot anyway.

[Salmon343]

1) Agreed. an improved skill system wouldn't substantially change any of the things that 4e does well, and wouldn't touch the core mechanics. Which overhauling the core action economy of a game absolutely does.

2) Also agreed. Combat in any system in a white room where it's just "you and me fight until one of us dies" is boring. Combat as a means to achieve other goals, in varied environments and against creatures who do things and want things is much less likely to be boring. Even if the mechanical underpinnings don't change between the two. Really, the mechanics have the least important in deciding whether something will be boring or not IMO.

1) Yep, 4e's skill system could be changed while leaving the combat engine intact. 4e combat is strategically sound and very good, so is a great system to go for in terms of thrilling tactical combats. The action economy in 4e doesn't replicate Pathfinder 2E's 3 action system (from looks alone, I've played a lot of 4e but I've only looked at Pathfinder 2E) fully, as minor actions are - well, minor - though the ability to downgrade your actions (Standard -> Move -> Minor) does give you an extra bit of action granularity compared to 4e. 4e has two types of reaction, opportunity actions and immediate actions. Immediate actions are better but can only be used once per round, while opportunity actions can be used once per turn - so opportunity attacks are way better than they are in 5e.

2) I disagree with this, a little. I think whether or not combat on its own is fun depends entirely on the system. In 5e, I agree. 5e's combat system is fast, thematic, and easily understood, but you are fairly limited in your ability to control the flow of battle. The miss chance is way too high (this is a problem in all of the D&D systems I've played, 3.5, 4e, and 5e) to be fully dependable, outside of spells player options are limited in their actual effectiveness (the OP touched on this wrt knocking people prone, grappling can be an issue also). In 5e a long combat slog quickly becomes boring, which I've found from both sides of the table.

However, this can be compared to turn based RPGs. The bedrock of most turn based RPGs is its combat system, which you'll be spending most of the game in. A great turn based RPG makes a combat system that feels quite tactical - where you have to think about each action and your overall strategy. This either applies to all battles, or to the harder battles, with the shorter ones there to whittle down your HP and MP and make you feel like an adventurer. For example, Octopath Traveler features an adept Break system, with the Default and Brave system adapted from Bravely Default. The Break system enables you to reduce your enemy's actions through hitting their weak-points, akin to the Press-Turn system from Shin Megami Tensei (another series with amazing battle systems!); while the Default and Brave systems allow you to strengthen your next attack at the expense of future actions. And of course you still have the micro-tactics of managing HP and MP, reviving downed members, controlling status effects and buffing - all to achieve your goals. While this sort of game is pretty divorced from D&D, it proves that you can have a fun system where you're just beating each other down - when you have to think about more than just pressing the attack button.

So while I do agree that adding in varied environments and the desires and goals of the characters and players can make a combat more interesting (it does this really well, too!), a good combat system can be enjoyable by itself. And if you have a game that can do both, then you truly can work wonders!

[RSP]

3.) Melee attacks against prone creatures have advantage/ranged attacks have disadvantage.

This is a common misconception of the Prone rules, which actually state:

“An attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the
attack roll has disadvantage.”

So a Melee Attack made against a Prone target using Reach is still at Disadvantage, while a Ranged Attack made against a Prone target within 5’ gets Advantage.

[Hytheter]

while a Ranged Attack made against a Prone target within 5’ gets Advantage.

Worth noting that this will normally just cancel out the disadvantage a ranged attacker already suffers from having a foe within 5ft, but whack on Gunner or Crossbow Expert and you can go to town on a prone opponent.

[Sorinth]

As others have mentioned I think it makes more sense to simply have Interacting with an object and Standing from prone generate opportunity attacks then to redo the whole action economy.

Mechanically it means disarm/prone abilities, especially ones that don't cost an actual Attack become much stronger. That's great for things like Shield Master that can use a boost but the BM Maneuvers might be a little on the strong side. Alsolet's not forget knocking prone is fairly common for many monsters/beasts such as the Wolf making these more dangerous to the PCs.

Presumably there might be ways to not proc those OAs, a Monk/Rogue for instance might want/need abilities to get up from prone without provoking those OA.


I think the one potential downside is that it risks becoming overly used as a tactic, which can take away from the fun if everybody is just constantly trying to trip each other. Especially given that it's very easy for PCs to get super high Athletics there are balance concerns.

[EggKookoo]

As others have mentioned I think it makes more sense to simply have Interacting with an object and Standing from prone generate opportunity attacks then to redo the whole action economy.

Which the creature could presumably negate by using Disengage before grabbing the object or standing, but of course now at a cost.


Mechanically it means disarm/prone abilities, especially ones that don't cost an actual Attack become much stronger. That's great for things like Shield Master that can use a boost but the BM Maneuvers might be a little on the strong side. Alsolet's not forget knocking prone is fairly common for many monsters/beasts such as the Wolf making these more dangerous to the PCs.

Presumably there might be ways to not proc those OAs, a Monk/Rogue for instance might want/need abilities to get up from prone without provoking those OA.

As with any rules mod, it might work for one table but not for another. I have no fighter, rogue, or monk in my current party, but I do have a whildshaping druid who likes to use creatures with knockdown a lot.

[Chronic]

I doubt taking the 3 point system will work, because it barely works in PF2 already. As others said I would suggest simple fix without reworking the entire system.

[Gignere]

Disarm is not quite as useless as people say because interacting with an object is free, even if for stylistic issues you don’t pick up the weapon, you can use your item interaction to kick it away.

This leaves the enemy without a weapon unless they either disengage or risk an opportunity attack to move away to pick up said weapon.

[Tanarii]

The miss chance is way too high (this is a problem in all of the D&D systems I've played, 3.5, 4e, and 5e) to be fully dependable,
Interesting. I find the hit chance in WotC D&D to be amazingly high.

[Chronic]

Interesting. I find the hit chance in WotC D&D to be amazingly high.

Even more so in 5e, at least it's what it feels like. Not a problem for me, might be an issue for others tho.

[Tanarii]

Even more so in 5e, at least it's what it feels like. Not a problem for me, might be an issue for others tho.
Yes, I can see that. I just grew up with about 30-40% being the standard hit chance in RPGs. At least before pretty high levels.

[Salmon343]

Yes, I can see that. I just grew up with about 30-40% being the standard hit chance in RPGs. At least before pretty high levels.

Ah, I grew up on JRPGs, where the hit chance is high and missing is novel. Usually that means something has high evasion, or you're too low level or poorly kitted out. Even in SRPGs like Fire Emblem, hit chance is higher than in D&D if you have clever tactics, and you can plan around misses far more easily than in D&D.

End result - I find missing boring, and would rather lower AC and increase HP so that your turn feels like less than a slightly biased coin flip.

[Tanarii]

Ah, I grew up on JRPGs, where the hit chance is high and missing is novel. Usually that means something has high evasion, or you're too low level or poorly kitted out. Even in SRPGs like Fire Emblem, hit chance is higher than in D&D if you have clever tactics, and you can plan around misses far more easily than in D&D.

End result - I find missing boring, and would rather lower AC and increase HP so that your turn feels like less than a slightly biased coin flip.
CRPGs aren't really comparable to TTRPGs in a lot of ways, especially JRPGs. Mainly because the computer handles all the calculations. They can have math behind combat, whereas a TTRPG struggles with anything beyond simple addition and subtraction of comparatively low numbers.

And the idea, at least as I've experienced it personally and seen it at the table, is the roll of the dice creates tension. But I can certainly think of scenarios where it'd instead be annoying instead. E.g. lots of players with a DM that runs slow combat and only getting one turn more than every 3-4 minutes.

[Salmon343]

CRPGs aren't really comparable to TTRPGs in a lot of ways, especially JRPGs. Mainly because the computer handles all the calculations. They can have math behind combat, whereas a TTRPG struggles with anything beyond simple addition and subtraction of comparatively low numbers.

And the idea, at least as I've experienced it personally and seen it at the table, is the roll of the dice creates tension. But I can certainly think of scenarios where it'd instead be annoying instead. E.g. lots of players with a DM that runs slow combat and only getting one turn more than every 3-4 minutes.

This is true, JRPGs can have a lot more complicated maths. But I think it's more a difference in design intent like you mentioned with dice and tension. D&D tends to work with around a 65/70% hit chance, which I find a bit low for a single action every couple of turns. It does work better when you have multiple attacks/actions - so you still have some impact on your turn - or variable success/failure.

[DwarfFighter]

OP writes

"The problem I have with this is that in many, but not all, cases there's no real benefit to knocking someone down because the cost of standing up is relatively low."

This sounds a bit off to me. Sure, if you knock a guy down and your only focus is to exploit his prone condition, yeah, that can disappear quite quickly: He can stand up on his next turn.

However, that's the worst case scenario, that he immediately gets back up. If his turn was just before yours, your team has a full round in which to exploit the situation.

Also, knocking the guy down and then moving away further than he can reach means he needs to use his action to Dash to catch up with you, and he can't attack.

There's a lot of potential benefit to knocking an enemy over that does not involve you getting an immediate attack follow-up, but these are quite dependent on the situation.

Also, how would boosting the power of knock-down play out when the NPCs pull the same trick?

-DF

[FilthyLucre]

I doubt taking the 3 point system will work, because it barely works in PF2 already. As others said I would suggest simple fix without reworking the entire system.
I'm currently DMing a PF2e game and I can say, without doubt, the 3 action system is the best thing PF2e has to offer and that it works brilliantly. So, your experience and mine are clearly very different.

[FilthyLucre]

OP writes
Also, how would boosting the power of knock-down play out when the NPCs pull the same trick?

The goal isn't to make PCs more powerful, it's to increase the number of interesting and viable special maneuvers characters, PC or NPC, can employ beyond "I attack". So the answer to your question is that it would similarly expand NPC options as well.

[ZRN]

I really, really want to come back to D&D - I currently DM PF2e. There are really only two things that, (in my opinion), at which PF2e is definitively superior to 5e: 1.) Character options 2.) Interesting/Dynamic combat. The first of these is really beyond the scope of what I want to talk about, which is the second of these two. I believe that, for me, problem #2 can be addressed by stealing PF2e's three action system.


I get the appeal of the PF2 system here, but there's an actual mechanical reason 5e works the way it does here: movement is supposed to be "free" with few limitations on it, unlike in PF2 or especially in 3.x where a higher-level martial character got like 75% of his attacks taken away if he moved more than 5 feet on his turn. This is intended to promote more dynamic play.

Trip and Disarm are part of this design: the basic maneuvers, where you give up an attack to trip or disarm someone, are intentionally situational, but a martial character like a battlemaster fighter or open-hand monk can get them as part of his attacks (when using his maneuvers or ki). So the benefit of tripping someone isn't "they lose an action to stand up," it's "my level 20 battlemaster trips a guy with his first attack and then gets to stab him 7-8 more times with advantage that turn, and the rest of the party gets advantage too until he stands up on his next turn."

If you want to crank up characters' ability to keep each other from running all over the place, there are some DMG options granting characters more opportunity attacks, etc. That might be a quicker and more balanced way to achieve your overall goal of more tactical movement than revamping the whole action system.