PF2 rule, 3 actions per turn, anyone experimenting with this in 5e?

The one part that interests me is how spells are broken down into Verbal, Material, and Somatic components as individual required actions — such that casting a spell could require up to three actions. I’ve been curious how the system might involve casting time in a chunkier fashion (having started playing back in the day of segments). In the same way that many spells “cost” Concentration, I wonder if some spells that prove difficult to the campaign could be amended to “cost” Action+Bonus or Action+(Fraction)Move to represent the longer casting time within the Combat Round?

FrogReaver said:

Maybe once melee distance is closed the fight should resort to melee?

Click to expand...

Maybe.

mach1.9pants said:

Not at all because you have flexibility move attack move, or move attack attack, or attack move attack etc etc. So not like 3E at all.

Click to expand...

Er, you could do all that in 3.x ... y'know, with the spring attack feat chain... oknotquitereally...

Point was, though, that in 3.x, unlike 5e, you can simply stand still to gain more attacks (full attack or TWF or Rapid Shot precluded more than a 5' step), so movement is de-incentivized. This'd be like that, but moreso, because it'd apply to anyone at any level, not just those with feats or BAB to make a meaningful full attack.

I tend to favor simpler combat turns in game design, rather than more complex ones with multiple decision points. Move + Action is a solid go-to system. 5e klutzes it up a bit with bonus actions, object interactions and weird multiple spells per round rules but, overall, it's not awful. Simpler turns mean faster turns, which mean faster rounds, which mean players are "up" more often, which mean they pay more attention, which means combat is faster and more exciting all around, which mean everyone thanks the DM for a great game and returns next week bringing beer.

When the druid spends 45 minutes on a turn taking 3 actions with all his sprites, you've lost everyone but the druid.

While I find the idea interesting, one simple fact removed it for me. I hate move as an action, and 5E changing it to just something you can do was awesome. To use this, you'd have to bring back move as an action, and there's no way I'd be good with that.

Given the importance of SIM and 'rules as world physics' it seems like 3 actions would be a hassle for every kobold, goblin, wolf, summon, etc. and on the flip side adding complexity for creatures that normally have multiple attacks beyond the 3 of the standard '3 Action' economy.

This is reminiscent of Critical Role and house-ruling a bunch of Bonus action stuff in because the rounds take so long ... and just making the turns take longer. I'd rather just go 1 action and rotate around faster with say 2 second rounds.

IMO and IMX porting core mechanics from system to system fails more than it succeeds. core mechanics are simply wovern into the foundations too much.

Now, on the general notion of breaking things down to a core mechanic of multiple actions etc, i think it has merit and also that in order to work best it must be done whole hog, not piece-meal half and half. By this i mean it must be comprehensive not just partially worked into the other stuff. No "you have three actions... oh and a reaction and a talking..."

To illustrate i will avoid the term "action" and go with:

The System of Many-Does
Each turn your character gets a number of "Does".
Each "Does" lets you say "my character does this..."
Examples of "does" can include:
My character does this (draw a sword"
My character does this (attack with my sword"
My character does this (cover myself from attacks of opportunity)
My character does this (keep an eye out for opening to strike if they withdraw") (aka take an attack of opportunity.

etc etc etc...

key being that this puts "going all out", "being cautious", "ready to..." (actions, reactions, bonus actions etc etc etc all into the same basic framework which lets you dial-in your character's degree of focus or divided focus turn after turn after turn.

this likely means more than three "does" per turn.

It could even go so far as to include "saves" as in spending a "does" gives you bonus on a save for that turn replacing the core "this guy gets better saves than that guy" locks.

if you set "does" to six, the a "spread" would mean you could move, attack, "bonus" act, be on wary (one reaction), and be on guard for two saves (one does each) letting you get a very traditional 5e turn.

But it would also allow you to do more diverse combos of things.

A higher number of "does" and dumping tons of "default assumptions" like "favored saves" (or using my shield for Ac boost or attack) can also make "casting a spell costs for each component" more viable...

Classes, races, feats or whatever could cover a lot of their features with "free "does" of limited type." maybe rogue gets a free "does" for "better dex save" but maybe halflings get a free does for "any one save type per turn".etc etc etc.

this could be a "complex to write out" but "easy in play" core mechanic that allowed a great deal of control over all-in to all-out and everywhere in between choices for the players.

It could be workable... has merits... a sort of simple to grsasp and maybe difficult to master.

but again, has to be at the core of all things.

**THAT ALL SAID** where i think it has a potential fail or epic success is how well the system integrates it for "non-combat" challenges and objectives.

One might try and define/present/resolve "non-combat" objectives and challenges as simply the same resolution on a larger time frame... letting your "does" count cover say an evening for "social challenges" and with a robust list of "social "does" actions/reactions, etc.

this, if well done, could effectively create a single "combat" mechanical system to resolve both combat and non-combat challenges. The "social" equivalent to "i wear heavy armor" (resource) might well be "i buy lots of drinks" and the equivalent to "finesse weapon" might be "an appropriate gift for their station."

Side note: I have liked in the past when systems had say nine attributes - three physical, three knowledge and three social... and in each had a stat for "power", a stats for "skill" and a stats for "toughness" that worked much like how STR, DEX and CON work for the physical challenges. They did make it obvious and mechanically beneficial to cover multiple attributes in a cluster and did not as easily make any "type" of challenge a "one stat" affair.

Yaarel said:

Anyone implementing this rule for their 5e game?

Does it work? Does it work well?

Click to expand...

No.

Given action›move›flourish,

I wonder if 5e should have defined two-weapon attack as action+flourish. That would have left the ‘bonus action’ truly a bonus that only showed up in special circumstances.

I like the concept of flourish. It is a minor action that is done as part of an action (draw sword to attack) or as part of a move (open door to continue moving thru). As I use it, flourish is never an action by itself. So, there really are only an action and a move.

The two-weapon attack makes sense with an attack action with a followup flourish.

AmerginLiath said:

The one part that interests me is how spells are broken down into Verbal, Material, and Somatic components as individual required actions — such that casting a spell could require up to three actions. I’ve been curious how the system might involve casting time in a chunkier fashion (having started playing back in the day of segments). In the same way that many spells “cost” Concentration, I wonder if some spells that prove difficult to the campaign could be amended to “cost” Action+Bonus or Action+(Fraction)Move to represent the longer casting time within the Combat Round?

Click to expand...

Heh, I too consider Concentration to be one of the spell components. When tagging spells, I write CVSMGR, namely Concentration-Verbal-Somatic-Material-Gold-Ritual. With M meaning a wand or other focus, and G meaning a costly component that the wand cannot obviate.

Regarding your main point, I also find it interesting how the action economy might interact with spellcasting.

However, personally, I dislike the concept of a material component. Except when casting as a ritual, then I like the concept of ritual objects. I feel relief, 5e made the wand a focus to obviate the material component. I prefer to downplay spell components. So wouldnt want the action economy to emphasize components.

But, I like the idea of how a spell might make use additional action types to create other effects.