D&D 5E 5e with PF2 Elements

[Lefi2017]

This Sounds like the 3.x -5 per additional attack rule, and...it did not work out so well. 5e depends on melee classes increasing their damage via those multiple attacks, and--if I'm understanding this right--making attacks beyond the first one have disadvantage (or double disadvantage) feels wrong.

This is why I said the extra attack feature doesn't trigger the disadvantage same for Monster Multi attack it allows them to multiple attacks in one action many the bonus will be just for 1/turn

Example lvl 5 figther
use all 3 actions to attack
Uses extra attack on action 1
action 1 makes 2 attacks without disadvantage -action 2 1 attack with disadvantage - action 3 greater disadvantage 3d20 chose the lowest for a single attack
or
action 1 makes 2 attacks without disadvantage -action 2 1 attack with disadvantage - action 3 action surge -action 1b makes 2 attacks without disadvantage -action 2b 1 attack with disadvantage - action 3b greater disadvantage 3d20 chose the lowest for a single attack

 

[Lefi2017]

Out of curiosity, what is frustrating about the 5e action economy ? I actually find 5e to be too generous with actions - mostly bonus actions.

The only thing I would like to try porting over is the 3 action economy, but that would be a really fundamental rewrite of some core rules and I don't want to put in that effort!

People always say how great and easy 3 action economy is so why not give it a shot porting
this is one of the biggest praises I hear for PF2

 

[Lefi2017]

Well, the "solo monster" problem is a real one in 5e. You have lair actions and legendary critters, and, if you adopt the Theros rules, you can have special mythis creatures with mythic abilities to really spice it up.

But the idea of a solo BBEG is hard to pull off, and I don't think PF2 rules are going to help. Either go mythic, or try to have the Big Bad both do the combat in an intelligent way and have some spare cannon fodder around.

Long story short- it's really hard to get satisfying solo encounters in 5e with the 5-6 encounter, hit point attrition model. I don't think PF2 rules are going to help with that.

Actually I think your wrong on both accounts.

1. PF2 does have pretty good way to make solo fights at least tough and deadly. Any monster lvl+5 is pretty much a solo because they are harder to hit and hit more often (+1/lvl) and be cause of the way crits work, they hit a lot more and do a lot of damage. The rest depends on monster design
2. There are a ton of ways to make 5e solo monsters interesting fights. However, which method to use depends a lot on your group and how they play. A simple approach is to make them more deadly: Have a legendary monster do max damage on hit and get +1 per tier to all saves, checks, and AC is a good universal rule of thumb which is the same basic approach as PF2, but still respecting BA

I chose this adaption because this is a other big pause i head about PF2

if PF2 would be less fiddly It would be interesting basically make floating +1; +2 ,+3 rare and not tied to contents like second swing like on weapons also the mullite attack penalty should be come simpler and quicker

I love the advance disadvantage system

 

[RangerWickett]

Here's my quick kit-bash.

Two Action Economy
5e has one action, one bonus, and a move. The move is fun. The move is life. You can move before, after, and between actions. It's so f***ing simple I would hate to change it.

So now let's combine action and bonus action. And let's apply a -5 penalty if you make second attack in the same round. (In PF2, third attacks are lame and boring; they seldom hit unless you're using a high level monster, and if you have a big nasty powerful monster, it should be doing more interesting things than just HP damage.)

You can make two attacks if you want, but we're going to give you more interesting options. For instance, maneuvers like shoving and grappling don't count as attacks, so a pretty typical fighter turn would be to attack then do a maneuver.

4e-Style Defenses
You have Reflex defense, Fortitude defense, Will defense, and Maneuver defense. If someone wants to hit you, Reflex defense. Poison? Fort. Charm? Will. Grapple/shove/disarm/reposition? Maneuver.

Armor does something new aside from increasing a defense.

PF2-Style Degrees of Success
You have success (beat the DC/Defense), critical success (beat by 10), failure (don't beat it), and mishap (miss it by 10). This is a critical game mechanic, as you'll see below.

If you crit with an attack, instead of dealing extra damage, you can inflict a wound. Usually these are 'light wounds' (which can be cured with a 1st level spell, or a short rest and medical care), but if you run out of HP, they become 'serious wounds' (which can be cured with a 3rd level spell, or a long rest with medical care). I'll explain wounds below.

If you have a mishap on an attack, the person you attacked gets to make a maneuver against you.

If you crit with a maneuver, the maneuver is more effective - shoving farther, or pinning, or knocking their sword far from their hand, etc. If you mishap on a maneuver, the person gets to attack you.

If you have a crit with a spell, often there'll be something cool. But there's a lot of variety in spells, so it's hard to simplify them.

A Suite of Saves
Here's the piece de resistance: between each short rest, a PC can use between 2 (at first level) and 6 (at high level) saves. These are abilities that downgrade the severity of an incoming attack by one step, and usually add some extra perk. You might turn a crit into a normal hit, or turn a failure into a mishap.

The Basic Combat save lets you downgrade a maneuver or weapon attack against you, and then perform a maneuver against your attacker.
The Basic Reflex save lets you downgrade any reflex attack against you, then move half your speed.
The Basic Fortitude save lets you downgrade any fortitude attack against you, then lets you ignore the effect of your wounds for a round.
The Basic Will save lets you downgrade any will attack against you, then . . . okay, I haven't figured this one out yet.

Armor grants saves too that reduce the severity of weapon attacks (and can be repaired in down time).

You might learn new saves by leveling in different classes, but you can only prepare a limited amount.

---

The result is that the game encourages you to both fight and use maneuvers, and gives you a little bit of counterplay that is akin to 'parrying' an attack in a video game. I think combat would be more dynamic than 5e, and less clunky and mathematical than PF2.

 

[CubicsRube]

People always say how great and easy 3 action economy is so why not give it a shot porting
this is one of the biggest praises I hear for PF2

So many 5e systems are built into it. You could determine moves, bonus actions and actions just as single actions in the 3 action PF2 system, but then you have to determine if you are going to create multi attack penalties, how spells interact, how certain class features interact such as action surge, barbarian frenzy, etc.

 

[Lefi2017]

Here's my quick kit-bash.

Two Action Economy
5e has one action, one bonus, and a move. The move is fun. The move is life. You can move before, after, and between actions. It's so f***ing simple I would hate to change it.

So now let's combine action and bonus action. And let's apply a -5 penalty if you make second attack in the same round. (In PF2, third attacks are lame and boring; they seldom hit unless you're using a high level monster, and if you have a big nasty powerful monster, it should be doing more interesting things than just HP damage.)

You can make two attacks if you want, but we're going to give you more interesting options. For instance, maneuvers like shoving and grappling don't count as attacks, so a pretty typical fighter turn would be to attack then do a maneuver.

Yes it is simple, but so may say the 3 action is easy and fun and allows more tactical play I'm trying to use the easy mobility of 5e to make it more fun for my players trying to figure out a good balance

So what are the good points 5e could profit doing it more like PF2 (other than more custom choices)

Heck there is an advanced 5e form here so players and DMs want more.

As long as it points't boil down to tow things adding floating +x the DM has to track 5 monsters of
or that it is just player option that either put the DMs monsters in a weak spot because of poor gaming while the Monsters and DMIng is left at the wayside because it is only player focused

 

[Lefi2017]

So many 5e systems are built into it. You could determine moves, bonus actions and actions just as single actions in the 3 action PF2 system, but then you have to determine if you are going to create multi attack penalties, how spells interact, how certain class features interact such as action surge, barbarian frenzy, etc.

I would make them an action anything that is not a quick sentence talking or grabbing/dropping an item is an action

 

[Benjamin Olson]

People always say how great and easy 3 action economy is so why not give it a shot porting
this is one of the biggest praises I hear for PF2

Nothing wrong with giving it a shot. The issue is that, unlike changing critical hit mechanics or how ability checks are handled, it touches almost every aspect of the game. Every spell, most class, subclass, and racial abilities, and elements from every monster stat blocks are designed around the existing 5e action economy. The proposed 3 action economy makes a whole slew of action as bonus action abilities meaningless, requiring a major rewrite of Rogues and Monks in particular. It also requires a rewrite of a number of bonus action attack abilities, and puts a number of attacks per round into play that the game wasn't balanced for. Generally a lot of bonus action abilities become rather weaker if they are effectively full action abilities, because the power in bonus action abilities is that by default a character can't do anything with their bonus action. For dedicated spellcasters, since a spell is two actions, it seems to basically just mean they are either losing their movement or whatever they would do with their bonus action under normal 5e rules. Of course it might be a big step up in power for some spellcasters if it means they can now, say, use all three actions to strike three times with an active Call Lightning, or Spiritual Weapon, Flaming Sphere, or whatever.

Which is all not to say "don't do it", but simply to say "be prepared for it to throw the existing balance out the window and several blocks away".

 

[dave2008]

....but incorporating random PF2 rules into 5e doesn't fix that, does it. You'd have to pretty much whole-sale adopt the PF2 action economy and combat system and monsters ... at which point, you're playing PF2, not 5e.

I agree somewhat. However, you can incorporate some of the concepts from PF2 into 5e, but just taking the rules as is - probably is not a good idea.

 

[dave2008]

People always say how great and easy 3 action economy is so why not give it a shot porting
this is one of the biggest praises I hear for PF2

It is still a flawed system. We played with a bit and found we preferred the 5e action economy. On top of that, to fully integrate it would be a lot of work. We are all fighters and one wizard, so it wasn't to bad to give a trial. Ultimately, my players felt restricted by it and preferred the freedom of move, action, reaction and bonus action if you have one,