Pathfinder E6: Breaking up the *Move* Action

[BlackOnyx]

Began a similar discussion a while back concerning modeling 5e movement in 3.5e, but I'm looking for a bit more insight on a specific proposition for a new E6 (or "P6" if you'd like) Pathfinder campaign I'll be running. Namely:


***


Move actions can be broken up into any number of smaller 5' movements (up to the creature's speed) around any discrete actions (standard, swift, immediate, or free) a creature might take during their turn.

All other restrictions on and consequences for movement remain unaltered.

AOOs and the fact that full round actions (such as full attacks or charges) effectively "consume" a creature's move action do not change.

For any discrete action would otherwise allow multiple attacks to be made, all of said attacks must be resolved before movement can continue. (They cannot be spaced out along a creature's movement.)

Five foot steps remain unaltered.


***


Effectively I'd be looking at either implementing either this ruling, or sticking with standard movement rules. I'm not really looking to expand or "free up" movement any more so than this ruling would already allow.

I have a number of 5e players I'm looking to introduce to the game, and I'd like to (if possible) implement something a tad closer to what they're used to. I also just like the idea of freeing up movement a bit myself.

Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

[gijoemike]

....

Let me get this straight, you want to give CASTERS the ability to partial move cast a standard action spell then move again? CASTERS who have access to expeditious retreat at level 1? Move from behind total cover at 100" +10"/level range, cast BOTH a standard and swift spell, and then move back behind 100% hard cover? But at the same time the melee don't get a full attack. They are reduced to a single attack action, but are still subject to Aoo because you aren't giving them Spring Attack.


Do you WANT your players to throw hardcover books at you? This rule is B A D. It heavily favors casters and hurts heavy armor wearers as they have reduced movement. No love at all for base attack +6 attacks. Stick with standard rules for movement.

[icefractal]

Eh, I don't think it's that extreme a change, Flyby Attack already does this (despite the name, it allows any standard action), so it's just giving a single feat out.

If you did want to help martial types more though, you could make full attacking a standard action (which is more similar to 5E anyway). Either automatically, or as a feature PC classes get at around BAB +6.

[BlackOnyx]

you want to give CASTERS the ability to partial move cast a standard action spell then move again? CASTERS who have access to expeditious retreat at level 1? Move from behind total cover at 100" +10"/level range, cast BOTH a standard and swift spell, and then move back behind 100% hard cover?

Valid points.

The hope was that readied actions could mitigate this issue somewhat, but hit-and-run tactics would certainly be more common for both players and npcs.

As you mentioned, the existence of Expeditious Retreat, in particular, doesn't help.

But at the same time the melee don't get a full attack. They are reduced to a single attack action, but are still subject to Aoo because you aren't giving them Spring Attack.

Valid.

While this rule would allow martials more options with their standard attacks, the benefit is lessened by the AOOs they would still provoke and the fact they can't utilize their full attacks.

It heavily favors casters and hurts heavy armor wearers as they have reduced movement.

Valid point on the armor front as well.

If you did want to help martial types more though, you could make full attacking a standard action (which is more similar to 5E anyway). Either automatically, or as a feature PC classes get at around BAB +6.

Mm. I believe this was something that was brought up in the previous thread as well.

It's a good idea, but there's some potential for messiness with all the different attack options/substitutions available in 3.5e and Pathfinder.

Perhaps I'll revisit the idea, though.

[gijoemike]

Funny, you mention the other thread. I commented on that thread a bit. Full attacking as a standard action is no good. 3.5 is built around the concept of mobility limiting a full attack. Full attack on standard makes spring attack, worthless. It makes TWF even more powerful. Also, rocket tag is introduced up to 5 full levels early.

In the standard rules, a Greatsword is 2d6 +strX1.5. This happens at 5" movement or 10+" movement. A TWF short sword duel wielder gets 2d6+str*1.5 at 5" but only d6+str on 10+". Over time the TWF gets more dice of damage, crit chances, etc for a heavy feat investment and movement tricks to have that full attack happen more often (anklets of translocaiton, travel devotion, etc).

BUT when we add Full Attack on Standard the TWF is just as good as all the weapons and only gets better for little investment. What appears to be a short rule change is a gigantic paradigm shift of power. And it isn't a good shift at all.

[Kurald Galain]

It heavily favors casters and hurts heavy armor wearers as they have reduced movement. No love at all for base attack +6 attacks. Stick with standard rules for movement.

While Gijoe has a point in theory, absent heavy optimization (and for players new to PF) it doesn't strike me as a big deal in practice.