| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Richard Feynman was way smarter than me, by a lot. Now whether or not I can personally wrap my head around the concept that matter flows both forward and backward in time through a gauge symmetry that enables matter to experience a difference in time thus creating the concept of entropy is mostly irrelevant to our cause here, but I have a background in communications so I have to front-tease a later paragraph.
When going over the action system, there are a lot of little things that never used to impede game play which now enforce interactions which restrict your ability to play the game. The worst offenders of this are the abilities which now cost feat taxes to overcome where in previous and other editions of the game it does not. Step is now an equivalent action to Stride, despite the fact that attacks of opportunity are much more rare in this edition and often the step action is unnecessary. Changing your grip on a weapon now costs an action, thus anyone who wants to use a two-handed sword cannot anything but without spending 2 actions to un-grip and then re-grip the weapon per RAW. Of course, you can bypass this restriction on most classes by taking extra feats.
Now what does this have to do with Feynman? Feynman is most famous for his self-named diagrams which are used to map only the important interactions of particles at the Planck scale. In-between interactions in these diagrams however, a literal infinity of virtual interactions are possible, plausible, and in the cases where QED was discovered and established, also real. However, despite these small virtual interactions that are by definition immeasurable, the end results of what the actions and interactions between particles remains the same, with virtual interactions throwing the numbers off by a value that only differs from the mathematical expectations after ten decimal places.
I said he was smart right? The point is, most of the micro-managey tiny interactions that are forced to take place in between taking the actions you actually want to take on your turn are actually not very important to the game, especially since so many of them have ways around them written into the game. Why needlessly complicate an otherwise stellar action system?
Certainly, a keyword denoting whether or not something could provoke an attack of opportunity is important, and more efficient than using a large block of words such as: "this provokes an attack of opportunity," however the sheer multitude of actions which mandate this and force players to work around the extraordinarily complex system may cause more problems than it solves by simply removing the feat taxes to bypass them and letting the players and DM act within the system.
I can only postulate, but I imagine abilities like the paladin's lay on hands starting out as d4s is a result of realizing that adding in feats to simply overrule the paradigm of the restrictive action system wouldn't be strong enough options and thus I fear many class abilities have been deliberately weakened to allow this 'upgrading' of them via feats which then become nigh mandatory in order to use the abilities as intended.
Dual-Handed Slice is another perfect example of an incredibly weak feat that exists for the purpose of facilitating duelist builds. This is only necessary because the action system mandates you waste all those actions to change your grip and the style would otherwise be non-functional. The tricky part is, it's still non-functional, because of the math associated with the new critical system and the manner in which AC is designed (this promotes making two attacks for two actions is in almost all cases better than trading two actions for one attack).
Do you have any examples of the new action system clogging up your turns and limiting your ability to play the game?
pretend I'm relevant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
So far, so good on the action system. Not much play time, but explaining it was a lot faster than move/standard/swift/immediate/full-round action and the first combat went smoothly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
So far, so good on the action system. Not much play time, but explaining it was a lot faster than move/standard/swift/immediate/full-round action and the first combat went smoothly.
Mine didn't, and the rules needed to create a workaround just for the paladin to function by mandating a feat isn't exactly running smoothly.
I'd rather see them be accessible as free actions by martial characters, seems better and it gives them more they can do over casters who would otherwise have to waste actions, or fight with one hand free, which re-creates the magus mechanic in a neat way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
So far, so good on the action system. Not much play time, but explaining it was a lot faster than move/standard/swift/immediate/full-round action and the first combat went smoothly.
Yeah, but let's say I want to actually use my character's feats or class abilities--like Rage, Hunt Target, Power Attack, or various short-term buffs--in a way that will actually make me more effective.
Because of the action economy, the action(s) required to do this always come at the opportunity coat of another attack. Should I spend an action to start raging, getting +2 damage on all my hits this round and the following two, or use it to take another swing with my greataxe, getting a chance of 1d12+4 up front?
This is an arithmetic problem: the answer depends on the circumstance. (What's my target's AC? How many other attacks over the next three rounds am I likely to be able to attempt?) The new action economy makes these problems SUPER COMMON, which I take to be part of marshmallow's point. I guarantee you that they'll eat up way more game time than explaining how a full action equals a move plus a standard, you get one swift or immediate action on top of that which refreshes at the end of each turn (where the only difference otherwise is that you can take immediate action when it's not your turn), and you can also take a five-foot-step on top of that if you don't otherwise move.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reaction is the same mechanic, as there are several abilities which trigger on your turn like the Holy weapon ability and such.
If this were so, then I'd say rename the Reaction to something that grants agency. I want the 5ft step back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, tl;dr: the reason most TTRPGs have different action types is to limit the range of options you have to compare when choosing how to use each, thereby massively decreasing cognitive load. In giving this up, Paizo is buying simplicity on a superficial level at the cost of greatly increased complexity on a deeper level.
(They could avoid this with careful design: for instance, by calibrating the numbers on abilities like Power Attack and Hunt Target in such a way that there are reliable rules of thumb for when you should use them. But as lots of basic mathematical analyses on the board have shown, this is not what Paizo did.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally no one toiled over things like "should I rage?". Our barbarian just raged because that's what he does and had 2 more actions thereafter on that round. He didn't worry about probability and action use effectiveness (expected damage vs. hit probability, etc).
Dude, that's fine. It's great that he played like that! The problem is that the game's math is such that a lot of the time it PUNISHES him for playing like that. It shouldn't.
Funny how things change from player to player and group to group. My players actually liked having Step be a part of the action system as it allowed them to take multiple 5'-steps as a tactical maneuver for different situations and the monk's ability to take a 10' risk free step was something he really enjoyed.
Yeah, I actually really like that change too. It makes tactical positioning more important, and it's neat that things like pushing someone or using feats like Step and Strike can mess with an opponent's action economy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lud, I am guessing there's a bigger difference in our gaming table play styles because no one at mine worries about calibrating numbers or mathematical analysis to justify or incentivize their actions.
Not that there is either anything wrong with doing so or that my players aren't capable of number crunching, just that our environment is one where maximizing action efficiency is simply not necessary or prioritized.
In fact, I am pretty sure any player who suggested that someone do something because there's a 4.2% action efficiency gain by using their action pool differently would result in some strange looks.
Plus, we play at a relative steady, high energy pace to keep things lively and reflective of the tension of combat. With new rules to learn, this isn't always possible, but it is certainly the intent.
You guys sound a lot like us (and a lot of fun)!
Again, I'm NOT saying the game should cater to people who like crunching numbers at the table! I'm saying it shouldn't make you have to CHOOSE been crunching numbers at the table and reasonably optimal play. The game's math should incentivize the kind of fluid play you describe, not discourage it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why shouldn't the game cater to people who like crunching numbers?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people really having that much trouble understanding this 3 action system?
Understanding and implementing the system isn't the problem. The problem is that things that used to not take "any time" now do (former free actions are now 1-action actions), or take the wrong amount of time (two weapon fighting doesn't give you more strikes than one-handed: both have 3 actions and each strike is an action).
The point isn't to impose number crunching on anyone when the product comes out.
The goal is to get all the kinks out of the system so when it comes out we don't need the spreadsheets to figure out what options in the game did and didn't work as intended.
Personal play style comes second when you're testing a new product ime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
I've been looking for more information on this and the only places I have seen this described in the book are under the description of Hands (p.184) and Method of Use (p.345). Both describe using an Interact action to "change your grip," irrespective of releasing your grip or re-gripping. Oddly enough, the Interact action doesn't mention changing your grip in the description at all.
I interpret this the same way as the OP.
My players were also unhappy with having to spend an action to get any shield benefit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been looking for more information on this and the only places I have seen this described in the book are under the description of Hands (p.184) and Method of Use (p.345). Both describe using an Interact action to "change your grip," irrespective of releasing your grip or re-gripping. Oddly enough, the Interact action doesn't mention changing your grip in the description at all.Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
It's a free action to drop things, and the intent was that you could "drop" with only one hand. They clarified this in the v1.1 errata, making it explicit that removing one hand and only one hand is a free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
I've been looking for more information on this and the only places I have seen this described in the book are under the description of Hands (p.184) and Method of Use (p.345). Both describe using an Interact action to "change your grip," irrespective of releasing your grip or re-gripping. Oddly enough, the Interact action doesn't mention changing your grip in the description at all.
I interpret this the same way as the OP.
My players were also unhappy with having to spend an action to get any shield benefit.
Errata:
• Page 307—In Basic Actions, in Drop, before the period at
the end of the first sentence, add “or release your grip from
one hand while continuing to hold it in the other”.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we need an errata for gripping weapons in the first place?
Did my overly complicated metaphor demonstrating how overly complicated the system is not come through clear enough?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my playtest game all of the players said it was the best change compared to PF1. There was even a paladin amungst them though they used the bastard sword so they could cast lay on hands and make one handed attacks then regrip and make two handed attacks the next round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for pointing me to the errata. I agree with marshmallow about needing an errata for something like this in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm taken out of it, I provoke for grabbing my weapon, but not for releasing it?
Tiny interactions shouldn't change the game's pace.
I also think this carries into Quickdraw, which I now hate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can't be combined with other strategies, and has little to no synergy anymore with the game.
There's a bunch of feats that essentially just cram two little actions together, instead of letting me choose to attack with a different feat like sudden charge or double slice.
I'm also not sure if it works with ranged weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my playtest game all of the players said it was the best change compared to PF1. There was even a paladin amungst them though they used the bastard sword so they could cast lay on hands and make one handed attacks then regrip and make two handed attacks the next round.
In PF1 it was free to switch grips as many times as you wanted. It's bizarre to me that it takes 2 seconds to switch your grip from one to two handed in this system. Anyone who's ever wielded a sword would know that switching grips is very quick and straightforward, as well as necessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my playtest game all of the players said it was the best change compared to PF1. There was even a paladin amungst them though they used the bastard sword so they could cast lay on hands and make one handed attacks then regrip and make two handed attacks the next round.
Your players like this?
I prefer the freedom to use my abilities without the tax, and being able to still use my two handed weapon without wasting actions to reload my weapon.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my playtest game all of the players said it was the best change compared to PF1. There was even a paladin amungst them though they used the bastard sword so they could cast lay on hands and make one handed attacks then regrip and make two handed attacks the next round.Your players like this?
I prefer the freedom to use my abilities without the tax, and being able to still use my two handed weapon without wasting actions to reload my weapon.
They liked the three action economy in general. The one bastard sword using character didn't feel strongly one way or the other about the regrip action they just saw it as part of the larger action economy which overall they liked.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is skewed then, because I've been using the 3 action system since 2014 when Unchained came out, so when I see them add things to it that make this system worse than I take issue.
|
Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.
So far, so good on the action system. Not much play time, but explaining it was a lot faster than move/standard/swift/immediate/full-round action and the first combat went smoothly.
Yeah, but let's say I want to actually use my character's feats or class abilities--like Rage, Hunt Target, Power Attack, or various short-term buffs--in a way that will actually make me more effective.
Because of the action economy, the action(s) required to do this always come at the opportunity coat of another attack. Should I spend an action to start raging, getting +2 damage on all my hits this round and the following two, or use it to take another swing with my greataxe, getting a chance of 1d12+4 up front?
This is an arithmetic problem: the answer depends on the circumstance. (What's my target's AC? How many other attacks over the next three rounds am I likely to be able to attempt?) The new action economy makes these problems SUPER COMMON, which I take to be part of marshmallow's point. I guarantee you that they'll eat up way more game time than explaining how a full action equals a move plus a standard, you get one swift or immediate action on top of that which refreshes at the end of each turn (where the only difference otherwise is that you can take immediate action when it's not your turn), and you can also take a five-foot-step on top of that if you don't otherwise move.
I wouldn't call this a problem so much as a choice... and yes, certainly, if you're going to run the math, it's going to bog down the game. I love having these choices... do I just swing now thinking the opponent is going to go down, or do I think this battle is going long, in which case the long term benefits of rage will help? I don't know the math, but I'm going to need to make a choice.... I like that, and am comfortable in not knowing what the optimal answer is at every given moment.
I'd rather the tactics of the class not be so bogged down.
I'm really not a fan of the barbarian in particular this edition, I even had a player basically ruin everyone's night in the lvl 4 playtest when he had to keep on fighting or risk 'falling' because of the anathema.