What would you bring from PF2e to your 5e game?

dave2008

Hero
I mainly want the three action system. I don't think it's impossible to bring over but it will take a LOT of work. Every spell has to be figured out. Most would just go to two actions but I could see arguments for a few to change number of actions. Movement would need to be reworked. Attacks would need to be reworked. Might be a way to change it to two-actions+movement but that's just as complicated, just removes one of the things you'd need to modify.
It is interesting, but I am not convinced it is better yet (still looking for a PF2e game). If I were to go to the effort to bring it to 5e I would make it a 6 action system and include reactions with it. That way you can control counterspell spam, and OAs (similar to how PF2e already does, but it is built into the action economy)

With 6 actions you have (off the top of my head):
Move = 1 action = 10 feet
Disengage = 2 actions = 10 feet
Attack = 2 actions (not sure if we should add the penalties from PF2e, maybe when fighters get extra attack you just reduce the penalty, makes them the best fighters)
Cast a spell = variable actions, most cost 4 actions (perhaps 2 actions per spell component or 1 +1 per spell level if you want to nerf casting a bit)
Reaction = 1 or 2 actions
Bonus action = 1 action

EDIT: this lines up nicely with a 6 second round too.
 
Last edited:

RSIxidor

Explorer
It is interesting, but I am not convinced it is better yet (still looking for a PF2e game). If I were to go to the effort to bring it to 5e I would make it a 6 action system and include reactions with it. That way you can control counterspell spam, and OAs (similar to how PF2e already does, but it is built into the action economy)

With 6 actions you have:
Move = 1 action = 5 feet
Disengage = 2 actions = 5 feet
Attack = 2 actions (I would add the penalties from PF2e, but when fighters get extra attack you just reduce the penalty, makes them the best fighters)
Cast a spell = variable actions, most cost 4 actions
Reaction = 1 action
Bonus action = 1 action

EDIT: this lines up nicely with a 6 second round too.
I like the three action system already and I'm happy with it. Your list there really looks like the three action system but split to me. The most interesting bit in yours for me is that it costs you reactions if you choose to keep acting in your turn. That said, 1 reaction to make an attack outside of your turn even though an attack in your turn costs 2? But the reaction bit could be added to the three action system as well. Could even hold multiple actions to ready things that cost more than one action, maybe.

For multi-attack penalty, I wouldn't bring over Pathfinder's way of doing it with static numbers. Instead, make it disadvantage after the first attack, then at extra attack levels allow an additional attack without disadvantage.
 

dave2008

Hero
I like the three action system already and I'm happy with it. Your list there really looks like the three action system but split to me.
Yes, but it is more granular allowing for more flexibility.
The most interesting bit in yours for me is that it costs you reactions if you choose to keep acting in your turn. That said, 1 reaction to make an attack outside of your turn even though an attack in your turn costs 2?
I'm not married to the idea, but what I was thinking is that a reaction attack wouldn't do the same damage, think a "basic" attack from 4e. Maybe you can't add any modifiers to the damage? I think of it as a quick opening in your opponents defenses so that allows the attack to take less time. Still need to think it through some more though.

For multi-attack penalty, I wouldn't bring over Pathfinder's way of doing it with static numbers. Instead, make it disadvantage after the first attack, then at extra attack levels allow an additional attack without disadvantage.
Your probably correct for the 2nd attack, but what about the 3rd attack? No proficiency bonus or no stat bonus? So at 5th level, 2nd attack no disadvantage and disadvantage on 3rd attack?

Then what do we do for fighters?
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Your probably correct for the 2nd attack, but what about the 3rd attack? No proficiency bonus or no stat bonus? So at 5th level, 2nd attack no disadvantage and disadvantage on 3rd attack?

Then what do we do for fighters?
Nah, I'd just do disadvantage the entire way down. Keeps it simple. So fighters at level 1 attack once normal, twice with disadvantage. Fighters at 5th attack twice normal, once with disadvantage. fighters at 11th attack three times normal. Then I guess at 20 we just give them an extra special action to attack again (Haste would also provide an extra special action to do stuff with as well). Damage math would have to change a bit, maybe increase HP some or just accept that exceptional situations will exist.
 

dave2008

Hero
Nah, I'd just do disadvantage the entire way down. Keeps it simple. So fighters at level 1 attack once normal, twice with disadvantage. Fighters at 5th attack twice normal, once with disadvantage. fighters at 11th attack three times normal. Then I guess at 20 we just give them an extra special action to attack again (Haste would also provide an extra special action to do stuff with as well). Damage math would have to change a bit, maybe increase HP some or just accept that exceptional situations will exist.
Ok, are you suggesting that all other classes don't remove advantage on the 2nd attack at 5th level. Otherwise it seems like a nerf for the fighter which I don't like.

Regardless, I think there is a better approach, I am just not sure what it is yet. I don't like how your solution basically plants the fighter in one place for it to take advantage of its primary class feature
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Ok, are you suggesting that all other classes don't remove advantage on the 2nd attack at 5th level. Otherwise it seems like a nerf for the fighter which I don't like.

Regardless, I think there is a better approach, I am just not sure what it is yet.
Nah. Fighters get a third attack without disadvantage when they would get their third extra attack. Other classes would never remove that third disadvantage. Not sure how that works out to a nerf for the fighter.

EDIT: Read your comment again, yeah, we misunderstood each other. Classes with Extra Attack that aren't fighters would never get the third attack without disadvantage without removing that DA through some other means. There's some other stuff I want to play with, like two-weapon fighting and flurry of blows but I'm not sure on those yet.
 

FitzTheRuke

Adventurer
The only trouble with using Disadvantage to simulate MAP, is how easy it is to get Advantage to cancel it out. Then you just lay into a creature with all your attacks. I'm not sure that's totally bad, but it sure would make getting knocked prone brutal.
 

dave2008

Hero
Nah. Fighters get a third attack without disadvantage when they would get their third extra attack. Other classes would never remove that third disadvantage. Not sure how that works out to a nerf for the fighter.

EDIT: Read your comment again, yeah, we misunderstood each other. Classes with Extra Attack that aren't fighters would never get the third attack without disadvantage without removing that DA through some other means. There's some other stuff I want to play with, like two-weapon fighting and flurry of blows but I'm not sure on those yet.
I still see it as nerf for fighters. Currently in 5e an 11th level fighter can make 3 attacks and move, all others (with extra attack) can make 2 attacks and move.

Your suggestion removes the movement from the fighter. The fighter is basically stuck in place. So you have all other classes with extra attack can make 2 attacks with no penalty and can move (just like 5e but with less movement) and the fighter can make 3 attacks with no penalty, but no movement (which is a downgrade from they can do in 5e). Not to mention if the non-fighters get advantage (or a bless) they can essentially act like a fighter which means they are more versatile.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I personally would not try to implement the 3 action economy in Fifth Edition. Completely changing the action economy of a game is major surgery. Every element of the game from movement rates, bonus actions, spells, and special abilities were written based on an assumed baseline. You pretty much have to rewrite the game from the ground up.

Besides the main benefits of the three action economy come from abilities and spells that take advantage of it.
 

dave2008

Hero
I personally would not try to implement the 3 action economy in Fifth Edition. Completely changing the action economy of a game is major surgery. Every element of the game from movement rates, bonus actions, spells, and special abilities were written based on an assumed baseline. You pretty much have to rewrite the game from the ground up.
It would be a big task, but you don't have to rewrite everything. You only have to rewrite what you use in your game. For instance, we don't have any full casters in our group and very little magic in general. I only need to look at the spells my players (and monsters) use, not the entire spell list. Similarily, I only need to look at the handful of classes we use, not the whole list.

Besides the main benefits of the three action economy come from abilities and spells that take advantage of it.
I agree with this, but like I said that is not as big an issue if your just doing for your table.

EDIT: I think it is mostly a fools errand, but I really like the idea of a revised action economy, I just don't think PF2e went far enough. If think they could possibly made the ultimate action economy if they had included reactions. Then you wouldn't even need special rules for reactions. I think taking this big idea from PF2e and mixing it big ideas from 5e (A/DA & BA) could get close to my ideal version of D&D
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I still see it as nerf for fighters. Currently in 5e an 11th level fighter can make 3 attacks and move, all others (with extra attack) can make 2 attacks and move.

Your suggestion removes the movement from the fighter. The fighter is basically stuck in place. So you have all other classes with extra attack can make 2 attacks with no penalty and can move (just like 5e but with less movement) and the fighter can make 3 attacks with no penalty, but no movement (which is a downgrade from they can do in 5e). Not to mention if the non-fighters get advantage (or a bless) they can essentially act like a fighter which means they are more versatile.
Shoot, I actually did forget about movement. Whoops. Maybe fighters at level 5 can attack twice with one action once a turn. Hmm, need to think on that some more. Or maybe I find another way to boost fighters damage and accuracy outside of attacking more. Back to drawing board.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
Something that stood out to me was the standard ability score building. Flat 10's base with race adjustments, class adjustment, backgrounds, and then some selected choices. Background feats look like a version of 5e's features but I like moving some of the ability score distribution to the background. It's simple and looks easy to move over.

The other thing is sorcerer bloodlines dictating spell lists, but I think that might need a closer look at the class itself.
 

dave2008

Hero
Something that stood out to me was the standard ability score building. Flat 10's base with race adjustments, class adjustment, backgrounds, and then some selected choices. Background feats look like a version of 5e's features but I like moving some of the ability score distribution to the background. It's simple and looks easy to move over.

The other thing is sorcerer bloodlines dictating spell lists, but I think that might need a closer look at the class itself.
Would you include the negative race adjustments?
 

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
I think spells wouldn't be that hard in terms of the 3 action system. Basically every component is an action. Since divine word, for example, has just one component (V), it would take one action. You could cast a second spell if it had 2 or fewer components (say sacred flame with V,S). I would have it cost 1 action for any "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn to mark a new creature." The 3 action system would replace the bit about only being able to cast a cantrip on an OA if you have already cast another spell.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
This probably requires redoing all spell lists to separate lists n a way similar to what PF2 has.
It might. I was already thinking of simply using divine for cleric, primal for druid, arcane for all wizard, and occult for the combination of sorcerer and warlock as a basis to test it. There's certainly nothing wrong with more sources than just arcane and divine. I'm not sure I would go as far as to separating the lists by those sources, however; I think a tailored list has more flavor.

Would you include the negative race adjustments?
Yes, because it's already built into 5e with the 8 base point buy instead of the 10 base PF uses with boosts.
 

dave2008

Hero
I think spells wouldn't be that hard in terms of the 3 action system. Basically every component is an action. Since divine word, for example, has just one component (V), it would take one action. You could cast a second spell if it had 2 or fewer components (say sacred flame with V,S). I would have it cost 1 action for any "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn to mark a new creature." The 3 action system would replace the bit about only being able to cast a cantrip on an OA if you have already cast another spell.
I like the idea, but clearly it is a bit more complex as the 5e spells didn’t have this concept in mind whe they were designed.
 

Advertisement

Top