Borrowing from PF2

[paladinn]

What features/has anyone "borrowed" from Pathfinder 2e? I haven't played or GM'ed, but I'm familiar enough to not appreciate the increased crunch and how so much has been feat-ized. That said, I've heard there are things like the simplified action economy that are a pretty-easy port.

I also understand that opportunity attacks are Only available for the fighter class. This could actually be a decent buff.

What sort of things have you borrowed/swiped/stolen for your 5e game, and how did you implement?

[Psyren]

I like the three actions model. "You can do three things on your turn, and powerful spells might take two or even all three of them" is intuitive and can help martials feel special.

I think that's it. Oh, I like their alchemist better! Yeah that's it.

[Leon]

Not PF2 but on multiple actions into more powerful spells, the end of 3.5 had several spells that scaled depending on how much you invested into casting it.

[Kane0]

I like the three actions model. "You can do three things on your turn, and powerful spells might take two or even all three of them" is intuitive and can help martials feel special.

I think that's it. Oh, I like their alchemist better! Yeah that's it.

OK sure but not movement as an action please

[stoutstien]

A modified version of the
bulk encumbrance rules.

Degrees of success in failure for effects

Rune or augmentation system to make equipment more personalizable.

I forwarded a few of the classes over because they were requested as well.

[Kane0]

A modified version of the
bulk encumbrance rules.

Degrees of success in failure for effects

Rune or augmentation system to make equipment more personalizable.

I forwarded a few of the classes over because they were requested as well.

Ooh, are those freely available somewhere?

[stoutstien]

Ooh, are those freely available somewhere?

Somewhere. I'm away from my personal material at the moment but when I get back home I see if I can put them all together with the reference material from Pathfinder.

It is funny being a DM who runs both systems regularly enough to be able to compare them that it's pretty consistent that I am running one system and wishing I had some tools from the other.

[Kurald Galain]

That said, I've heard there are things like the simplified action economy that are a pretty-easy port.

For this, you should port what Psyren said, i.e. "You can do three things on your turn, and powerful spells might take two or even all three of them"; PF2 takes a big step back by adding that feats cost one or two or three actions to use depending on the feat, and a number of things can only be used as your first action OR only as your last OR only once per turn. That part is really not intuitive nor simplified.

Ooh, are those freely available somewhere?

That's easy enough. Pass any check or attack by 10+ gives you a critical success, fail any check or attack by 10+ gives you a critical fumble. For instance, crit a reflex save means you take no damage; or fumble a climb check means you fall.

[Psyren]

For this, you should port what Psyren said, i.e. "You can do three things on your turn, and powerful spells might take two or even all three of them"; PF2 takes a big step back by adding that feats cost one or two or three actions to use depending on the feat, and a number of things can only be used as your first action OR only as your last OR only once per turn. That part is really not intuitive nor simplified.

Yikes. I knew they would take Unchained's brilliance and run it through the woodchipper...

[paladinn]

I like the three actions model. "You can do three things on your turn, and powerful spells might take two or even all three of them" is intuitive and can help martials feel special.

I'm liking this! So is there a limit on "only one of the 3 actions can be an attack"?

Is there any sort of guideline on spells? I can't see being able to cast 3 spells, except maybe cantrips. Maybe "you can only cast one leveled spell"?

[Psyren]

I'm liking this! So is there a limit on "only one of the 3 actions can be an attack"?

Is there any sort of guideline on spells? I can't see being able to cast 3 spells, except maybe cantrips. Maybe "you can only cast one leveled spell"?

I haven't actually tried converting this to 5e but maybe someone else has? I just liked it conceptually, it would definitely need to be heavily rebalanced and maybe even playtested.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm liking this! So is there a limit on "only one of the 3 actions can be an attack"?

No. In fact, you don't get Extra Attack or anything like it--you can make 3 Strikes (attacks, 1 action each), but you pay an accuracy penalty for each Strike beyond 1 (like 3e's/PF1's iterative penalty). And with as tight as PF2e's math is, that penalty hurts. So usually you're getting one, maybe two Strikes and moving/doing something else.

And you have to spend an action to get the benefit from a shield.

To me, the whole thing seems needlessly locked down and encourages turn-optimization in a way that slows things down. I'd prefer a model where you get
1) one big thing
2) one small, utility thing that doesn't directly do damage
3) movement broken up between those things
4) a possible interrupt action (but few of these, really)
and that's it. That means no bonus action attacks--any extra attacks are baked into your One Big Thing action.

[stoutstien]

No. In fact, you don't get Extra Attack or anything like it--you can make 3 Strikes (attacks, 1 action each), but you pay an accuracy penalty for each Strike beyond 1 (like 3e's/PF1's iterative penalty). And with as tight as PF2e's math is, that penalty hurts. So usually you're getting one, maybe two Strikes and moving/doing something else.

And you have to spend an action to get the benefit from a shield.

To me, the whole thing seems needlessly locked down and encourages turn-optimization in a way that slows things down. I'd prefer a model where you get
1) one big thing
2) one small, utility thing that doesn't directly do damage
3) movement broken up between those things
4) a possible interrupt action (but few of these, really)
and that's it. That means no bonus action attacks--any extra attacks are baked into your One Big Thing action.

Yea it's extremely limited unless you dump a bunch of feats to cancel out the penalties. It's a good system overall but very slow to play and boring once you figure it out.

I do like your angle here with a simpler action economy.

[paladinn]

Yea it's extremely limited unless you dump a bunch of feats to cancel out the penalties. It's a good system overall but very slow to play and boring once you figure it out.

I do like your angle here with a simpler action economy.

Wow, even in PF2 it's convoluted

[stoutstien]

Wow, even in PF2 it's convoluted

Eh. It's not really convoluted it's just extremely complex for no reason. There's not nearly as many trap options like there were in 3.x or unchained but they still exist until they get around to fixing them.
The math is extremely nailed down and it's constantly being adjusted to maintain that level of play. In a lot of ways it's the polar opposite of an evergreen system.
If you never plan on home brewing anything it's fine. The bitter curse of having a systems driven for an by balance.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm liking this! So is there a limit on "only one of the 3 actions can be an attack"?

Your second attack takes a -5 penalty, your third attack takes a -10. Due to how PF2 math works, this means that your third attack will miss except on a natural 20.

This means that in practice, almost all PF2 characters will, on each turn, either attack twice and move, or attack twice and use their class's special ability. Or in the case of spellcasters, either cast a spell and move, or cast a spell and use their class's special ability.

I can't see being able to cast 3 spells,

There are almost zero spells in the game that cost a single action, so this is not a big deal in practice.

[Psyren]

It's not really convoluted it's just extremely complex for no reason.

I kinda get what you were going for but this sentence is really funny

[stoutstien]

I kinda get what you were going for but this sentence is really funny

It was a half hearted joke lol.

[Warder]

PF2 is a fantastic system, but there's very little I'd port over to 5e. It's just two different systems with two different design goals. Bulk is easily portable though, and as with all of the other rules it's all available for free:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=187

The comments in this thread feels so weird to me, after having switched to it in my main game a little less than a year ago now. After we got used to the system, which admittedly took a while mainly because of the many similaries to 5e which sort of made some differences hard to spot, I don't think it plays any slower than 5e. There's some more math involved - sometimes - but battles have never gotten formulaic or convoluted. On the contrary, I'm excited for every combat because there's just so much I can do - as a martial or a caster - and it all feels worthwhile. It has truly invigorated my excitement for our weekly game night after WotC sort of sapped much of it out of me. Honestly, I'd probably encourage most long-time D&D groups with the time to give the starter box it a try - not for the purpose of switching over, but just for inspiration and for seeing a D&D-adjacent game that's "familiar but different". I don't expect everyone to like it, but it's educational, at least!

[Snowbluff]

OK sure but not movement as an action please

Indeed, basically having full attacks back by making it an action was rough.

[Ignimortis]

The three-action economy is bad. Hear me out here.

It ascribes the same value to movement as it does to attack. It ascribes the same value to drawing a weapon as it does an attack. It ascribes the same (or greater) value to pretty much any basic action, as it does to attack. And any "free" actions are actually tied to triggers from other actions.

What that actually means is that there are no small actions. Everything is compared to attacking, and even with a -10 penalty, a hefty one indeed in PF2, that attack can still hit on a 15 or more. Furthermore, a lot of things are still locked behind being 2 or 3 actions at once.

5e's action economy is better. It could be improved, sure (movement does not matter much in 5e and that is an issue), but it allows a much wider variety of actions, because you can ascribe a power level just by making a particular action take a different action. A reaction is different to a bonus action is different to an action is different to "takes half your movement". That is a very powerful tool for both designers and GMs, 5e just doesn't utilize it anywhere well (most classes don't even have an in-built reaction outside of AoOs, and several classes do not have a consistent use for Bonus Actions).

[Kurald Galain]

The three-action economy is bad. Hear me out here.

It ascribes the same value to movement as it does to attack. It ascribes the same value to drawing a weapon as it does an attack. It ascribes the same (or greater) value to pretty much any basic action, as it does to attack.

This is true. The result in practice is that PF2 characters do not take "small" actions because they want to take as many attacks as possible.

[stoutstien]

This is true. The result in practice is that PF2 characters do not take "small" actions because they want to take as many attacks as possible.

The usual goal of PF2 PCs is to stack actions by either removing/reducing the action costs or just adding in more actions to the pool. It's complex to look at but it isn't necessary a deep system in that regard. Like anything that gives you a free "step" adds up to a free move action in a lot of circumstances.

I like PF2 for what it is but it's limits are firmly established. Social economical factos mean I'll continue to purchase from them in a regular basis.

[Psyren]

The three-action economy is bad. Hear me out here.

It ascribes the same value to movement as it does to attack. It ascribes the same value to drawing a weapon as it does an attack. It ascribes the same (or greater) value to pretty much any basic action, as it does to attack. And any "free" actions are actually tied to triggers from other actions.

What that actually means is that there are no small actions. Everything is compared to attacking, and even with a -10 penalty, a hefty one indeed in PF2, that attack can still hit on a 15 or more. Furthermore, a lot of things are still locked behind being 2 or 3 actions at once.

5e's action economy is better. It could be improved, sure (movement does not matter much in 5e and that is an issue), but it allows a much wider variety of actions, because you can ascribe a power level just by making a particular action take a different action. A reaction is different to a bonus action is different to an action is different to "takes half your movement". That is a very powerful tool for both designers and GMs, 5e just doesn't utilize it anywhere well (most classes don't even have an in-built reaction outside of AoOs, and several classes do not have a consistent use for Bonus Actions).

What I'm after more is the modularity than the specific implementation. Getting three mutable actions instead of Jump Move + Action + Bonus Action alleviates 5e's crowding problem, but then you have to make sure to include language such that people aren't getting three attacks at level 1. And Object Interactions would definitely still need to be a thing.

[Snowbluff]

What I'm after more is the modularity than the specific implementation. Getting three mutable actions instead of Jump Move + Action + Bonus Action alleviates 5e's crowding problem, but then you have to make sure to include language such that people aren't getting three attacks at level 1. And Object Interactions would definitely still need to be a thing.

I prefer 5e and it looks like they're decrowding Bonus Actions, but what you said made me think of Icon. You have 3 actions in that basically, but you can only attack once anyway. I think double moving has you use a slower speed for the second move as well. Food for thought, I suppose.

[Psyren]

I prefer 5e and it looks like they're decrowding Bonus Actions, but what you said made me think of Icon. You have 3 actions in that basically, but you can only attack once anyway. I think double moving has you use a slower speed for the second move as well. Food for thought, I suppose.

I just want to be able to trade my Action for a Bonus Action. Let me Rage and Shift on turn 1 dammit! Or HM + SQ!

[Ignimortis]

What I'm after more is the modularity than the specific implementation. Getting three mutable actions instead of Jump Move + Action + Bonus Action alleviates 5e's crowding problem, but then you have to make sure to include language such that people aren't getting three attacks at level 1. And Object Interactions would definitely still need to be a thing.

What the three-action system actually is...

...is a poor excuse for an Action Point system. Three is too low for proper granularity for that sort of thing. You'd need at least 5AP to make it work, IMO.

Also, what crowding problem? That's the whole point of the move-action-bonus action setup. You have abilities priced at different action costs and you can't mix-n-match everything that would cost an action, but the designers can also price things as something less than an action (which usually includes most impactful things). If anything, 5e doesn't do enough to take advantage of its' system, because you are never guaranteed a meaningful BA spender on every class, or a meaningful reaction spender on every class, or any incentives to use movement in any way.

I just want to be able to trade my Action for a Bonus Action. Let me Rage and Shift on turn 1 dammit! Or HM + SQ!

That's perfectly reasonable and should be allowed. Trading actions down should not be a problem.

[Psyren]

Also, what crowding problem?
...
That's perfectly reasonable and should be allowed. Trading actions down should not be a problem.

That's what I mean, we can't do that currently.

[Eurus]

OK sure but not movement as an action please

With the caveat that I've only played very low levels so far:

I like movement as an action, honestly, at least in combination with the more generalized action system. 3.5/Pathfinder 1e was in a weird place where most martial characters were punished pretty hard for moving because it means you can't full attack, but some characters could more or less run around as they pleased.

2e doesn't quite fix that, but it seems to at least make "full attacking" less important. You can move and still get two of your three attacks, and the third attack is the weakest one anyway, so you're losing less than a third of your DPR. Opportunity attacks are less common, so you're not as likely to get punished with a bunch of free hits for daring to move around. Conversely, spellcasters can use their third action to shoot a crossbow or something instead of just standing in the back and using their move action to dance a useless jig.

From what I've seen (again, at low levels only so far), the standard procedure seems to be to use two actions attacking or spellcasting, and a third to either move or raise a shield or make a skill check or do something else -- something that's, yes, less directly significant than a full bonus attack, but doesn't incur the multi-attack-penalty. Maybe the group I'm playing with is playing wrong, idk, but it's pretty rare for anyone to just attack three times even when the option is available, and throwing a Demoralize or Bon Mot or something feels like a fun alternative to that -10 third attack.

...Weapon drawing does feel clunky.

[Warder]

With the caveat that I've only played very low levels so far:

I like movement as an action, honestly, at least in combination with the more generalized action system. 3.5/Pathfinder 1e was in a weird place where most martial characters were punished pretty hard for moving because it means you can't full attack, but some characters could more or less run around as they pleased.

2e doesn't quite fix that, but it seems to at least make "full attacking" less important. You can move and still get two of your three attacks, and the third attack is the weakest one anyway, so you're losing less than a third of your DPR. Opportunity attacks are less common, so you're not as likely to get punished with a bunch of free hits for daring to move around. Conversely, spellcasters can use their third action to shoot a crossbow or something instead of just standing in the back and using their move action to dance a useless jig.

From what I've seen (again, at low levels only so far), the standard procedure seems to be to use two actions attacking or spellcasting, and a third to either move or raise a shield or make a skill check or do something else -- something that's, yes, less directly significant than a full bonus attack, but doesn't incur the multi-attack-penalty. Maybe the group I'm playing with is playing wrong, idk, but it's pretty rare for anyone to just attack three times even when the option is available, and throwing a Demoralize or Bon Mot or something feels like a fun alternative to that -10 third attack.

...Weapon drawing does feel clunky.

No, your group is doing it right. The PF2 math is set up so that it's almost always better to do something different with your third action rather than attack, and that something can be extremely important anyway - demoralizing an enemy is a really strong option, or just moving away to deny an enemy with a big attack bonus THEIR third attack, or flanking, or metamagic, etc etc. Stacking flat-footed and frightened on an enemy might reduce their AC enough to make an ally's third action worth using for an attack! Very happy with the system, that alone has made combat far more exciting for me. I always wish I had one more action, but I never feel crippled by it - I just have to make hard choices.

The thing about PF2 is that there are so many ways to get discounted actions through feats, and there are so many different actions to take. I've never seen it become formulaic so far, at least. But again, it's a different beast than 5e and because the entire game - feats, action options and all - are built around the system. Porting it seems like a tall order to me.