All About Actions

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

One of the most important aspects of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is combat. Monsters and villains are a very real threat that adventurers have to deal with on a daily basis, and quiet negotiation is rarely the answer. When talking fails, swords are drawn and combat is joined. In Pathfinder First Edition, combat could become rather bogged down just by the weight of options available. Time and time again, we heard new players talk about the complexity of the action system, how it made the game slow down as players looked to eke the most out of their turns.

Basically, the previous system was a barrier, and so it should come as no surprise that we are looking at ways that we can simplify it to make the game run more smoothly and intuitively. The hard part was making sure that the versatility of the old system was still present, while cleaning up the overall experience. We want your turn in combat to be exciting and full of interesting choices. We want you to be elated by coming up with just the right combination of actions to win the day. We just don't want those choices to be hedged in by a number of complex categories.

Seven Types

Before I explain the new way of doing things, it might be good to look back to find some perspective. The previous edition of Pathfinder featured seven distinct action types: free, full-round, immediate, move, standard, swift, and a nebulously defined “other” category. These helped to curb what a character could do and encouraged varied tactics to get the most out of your round. In particular, the immediate action was of interest because it was something you could do outside your turn.

This approach has served us well over the years, but we have long looked for better ways to accomplish some of the same goals with a more intuitive system.

Three Actions

It's your turn. You get to take three actions. That's it. You want to move three times? Done. Instead you want to move once, draw your sword, and attack? No problem. How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack). With only a few notable exceptions, most things in the game now take one action to accomplish. Opening a door, drawing a weapon, reloading a crossbow, moving up to your speed, raising your shield, taking a guarded step, swinging your greataxe—all of these and much more take just one action to perform.

There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon. Conversely, most of the spells in the game take two actions to cast, although some can be cast quickly, such as a heal spell that targets yourself. Many of the classes can teach you specific activities that take two more actions to perform. The fighter, for example, has a feat that you can select called Sudden Charge, which costs two actions but lets you to move twice your speed and attack once, allowing fighters to get right into the fray!

One Reaction

One aspect of Pathfinder First Edition that was important to us was the ability to occasionally, if the circumstances were right, act outside your turn. While this was most often a simple attack of opportunity, we saw this as a way to add a whole new dimension to the game.

So now, all characters get one reaction they can take when the conditions are right.

Reactions always come with a trigger that must occur before the reaction can be taken. Let's say you're playing a paladin with a shield and you have spent an action to defend yourself with that shield. Not only does this boost your Armor Class; it also allows you to take a special reaction if you are hit by an attack. This shield block reduces the damage taken by an amount up to the shield's hardness!

Not everybody will have a reaction they can use during combat, but you can always ready an action that allows you prepare a special action that you can take later if the conditions you specify are met. You might ready an action to attack the first orc that walks around the corner, allowing you to make a strike if that happens before your next turn.

Finally, some monsters have reactions they can take as well. While some have simple reactions that allow them to attack those who drop their guard while adjacent to them, others have wildly different abilities. An earth elemental, for example, can spend its reaction after being hit to crumble into a pile of rocks, burrowing down into the ground for safety.

The New System in Practice

The three-action-and-a-reaction system really has done a lot for gameplay around the office. Turns are quite a bit more dynamic. The breadth of options now compete with each other, not based upon what action type they are, but instead on their merits in the current combat situation. Concentrating on a spell might be vital, but not if you need to move away, draw a potion, and drink it. Maybe you could wait to drink it until your next turn to keep the spell going, or maybe you could not move and hope the monster does not eat you.

Most importantly, taking your turn in Pathfinder is now filled with a wide variety of possibilities, allowing you to get the most out of your time in the spotlight, while still keeping the game moving and engaging.

Well, that about wraps up our in-depth look at the new action system for Pathfinder. Come back on Friday for a blog post looking into all of the spoilers from the first part of the Glass Cannon Network's podcast of their playtest of the game. In addition, if you want to see the game yourself, and maybe even get a chance to play, stop by Gary Con this weekend, where we will be running a number of Pathfinder charity games, raising money for the Wounded Warrior Project!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
601 to 650 of 759 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

QuidEst wrote:
Well, it seems like skills can scale as full level, unlike 5e’s small proficiency bonus. That means that, at the very least (assuming ability scores still improve), a 20th level character can automatically succeed at something a first level character couldn’t achieve on a nat 20. I think that’s a pretty big difference in design philosophy,

This, in my opinion, is an excellent analogy

Something that a first level character might only succeed at by rolling a natural 20, is, if all the conditions are the same, automatically a success for a 20th level character

I get that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And that is, by itself, a totall different issue than "the 20th lvl fighter can't even attempt to sneak past guards, because they have stats to challenge the 20th lvl rogue".

A 20th lvl fighter and a 20th lvl rogue could have a gap of, say, 10 points between them, AND still have a 20 point gap vs a lvl 1 fighter and lvl 1 rogue.
It's not that characters should not advance. That's not the point. It's that if you offer a huge plethora of +1 modifiers, the guy who is obsessed collecting each one of those +1 ends having a unsurmontable gap vs the guy who just collected half of them. Customization is desirable. But we don't need a gap of 45 points to show customization


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I don't believe it is good for me to have these kinds of discussions with other people. I obviously do not understand this game as it is played. I am a relic.

I hope you do continue to have these conversations with the community. I understand it can be frustrating and there will be a lot of times where people wont agree or understand your point of view. However, without a community of varying opinions and understandings one doesn't promote growth. I appreciate your understanding and point of view and learn much from everyone I debate with, which also helps me grow as an individual, player, and GM.

In the end it can help me see something I may not have seen before or come to a different understanding/interpretation of the rules I never saw before. The whole point anyway is to work towards a better system as a community going forward into P2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping the trend of success and failure by 10 or more is applied to skills as well. That way we can have DCs that don't escalate drastically while still rewarding characters who invest heavily in certain areas.

E.g Character A has +10 in Athletics, B only +2.

They are attempting to climb a wall with a DC of 15. B only has to roll a 13+ to do it. It might take him some time, but its not impossible. A Only has to roll a 5+ but the more important thing is that if he rolls a 15 and there for gets 10 over the DC he gets to not only climb the wall, but do so twice as fast!

If this is applied to all skills it could be very nice.


Malk_Content wrote:

I'm hoping the trend of success and failure by 10 or more is applied to skills as well. That way we can have DCs that don't escalate drastically while still rewarding characters who invest heavily in certain areas.

E.g Character A has +10 in Athletics, B only +2.

They are attempting to climb a wall with a DC of 15. B only has to roll a 13+ to do it. It might take him some time, but its not impossible. A Only has to roll a 5+ but the more important thing is that if he rolls a 15 and there for gets 10 over the DC he gets to not only climb the wall, but do so twice as fast!

If this is applied to all skills it could be very nice.

It is for now. In the Glasscannon playtest a character was given false information because his society check critically failed, but the other players were able to correct him because they did better.


If fighters are the only one that can AOO, how do you tank against something moving in biting and leaving?

In 1e that sort of thing would get you a lot of AOOS. if you only need to worry about the fighter, not so much.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

If fighters are the only one that can AOO, how do you tank against something moving in biting and leaving?

In 1e that sort of thing would get you a lot of AOOS. if you only need to worry about the fighter, not so much.

Probably with some other form of reaction, maybe one that enables actual tanking beyond just punishing people for trying to move past you.


Joana wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Might be nice if Paizo could provide stat block coversions, etc. where possible from each PF1 book to PF2 for a nominal price. Anything to make this easier. What if the PDF for each of these PF1 to PF2 conversion guides was something like $3 or $4?

A GM might prefer using a single set of books for both PF1 and PF2. For example, I've got Bestiary 1 through 6. I'd probably rather consult those for both editions of the game and a conversion guide for each book providing just the new PF2 stat block for each monster and any other changes to each monster.

Or give PF1 owners a 50% price break or so on PDF files for books they own that have been modified and republished for PF2. Surely, for many books only some moderate editing will be needed to do the conversion -- and it should be done to support their current PF1 customers.

.....

So, after further thought, to be fair Paizo to your existing customers, convert the PF1 Adventures, Bestiaries, Ultimate, and other rule books to PF2. I am guessing that while game mechanics changed that a lot of the basic descriptions won't. CHARGE US ONLY FOR THE VALUE YOU ADD -- DON'T CHARGE US FOR THE PARTS THAT DON'T CHANGE. GIVE US A PRICE BREAK FOR THESE BOOKS WE ALREAY OWN IN PF1. BE TO US AND DON'T MAKE US BUY THE WHOLE THING OVER AGAIN. Expand the new books if you want.

Your video shows on the fly conversions, so doing some moderate editing on the PF1 books to create PF2 books should not be so hard. An advantage to doing that is that it become much easier for us to find things when running both PF1 and PF2 campaigns.

Making a PDF (to Paizo's standards) is not a quick and easy process. It still requires editing, layout, proofreading, etc., just like a real print book. One that is mostly statblocks is even more prone to errors: a +1 being read as a +7, for example.

Keep in mind that the free PDF Player's Guide for War for the Crown, not a crunch-heavy product, was supposed to be released...

I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.

I'm sure the writers, editors, layout designers, artists, and printers responsible for making those books will be happy to take a pay cut just so you can have content that will have to be designed from the start with respect to the balance and systems of the new edition, just so you can have it for a discount.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
(Stuff) I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.

I whole heartily disagree with you on this. It will not be the same, it will not be the Bestiary 1 with different stats etc.. These books will have to go through all new layouts, additions, artwork, writing, flavor, and more. Nothing is invalidating your PF1e collection. It is still usable and they are not out to "screw us" as you may think. You are not forced to by this product and you are not forced to stop using PF1e content.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.

Unless something changes, the bestiary contents will generously be available online for free. That's a no-cost conversion guide. If that's not enough, I feel it means that all the time and expense of laying out the PDF and commissioning new artwork is something worth paying full price for.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

There is some granularity possible between "skills go from +0 to +11 max" and "skills go from +0 to +45".

Things do not need to be black or white. Grey is a nice color.

in 5e skills to from +0 to +17, because skill monkey classes can take expertise in skills. But yes from my reading of the blogs and replies, PF2 will be some point in between


coxey292 wrote:
I am increasingly concerned about the viability of shields in this edition. They already see little play, as getting that extra damage is usually the optimal way to play, but giving up an entire attack just to get a small bonus, especially when you already had to move to keep up with the retreating foe who s still casting at you every round, sounds tedious and like a restriction one martial characters.

I disagree entirely. The way shield are presented are awesome. Why attack for something like a -10 to hit on your third action when you could put up a shield and remove 10-ish damage to yourself? Especially at low levels, shields are going to be more important than ever before.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.

Remember that Pathfinder 2 would still be bound under OGL, which means people will put it online as part of an SRD. You'll still be able to reference the stuff online if you're not willing to pay for it.

But you need to accept that if you want the actual books, or the PDF versions thereof, you'll have to pay for them. We keep explaining how this is not a slapdash reskin. People, who make money for their time, are going to be writing all of this material, testing it, doing art for it, doing page layout for it, etc. It's a new product, not an errata to an existing product. If you want to buy it but save money, just get the PDF instead of the physical version.

Liberty's Edge

The action economy is sounding very similar to other D20 games.

TBH the reaction system seems more confusing than the current system. It also seems to me that the magic classes are being targeted, pretty much all spells have 2 needs which means 2 actions.

I won't make a judgement until the release of the playtest but this seems to swing the favourism towards the melee. they get more bang for their buck. It will also kill off things like the Harrower class (who using the new rules - would use 3 actions to cast a spell).

an alchemist like a feral vivisist one would use all actions in the first round
1) pull out potion
2) Drink Mutagin
3) move....

I feel if you add items or skills your going to create a system inherent to break. If you add that Alchemists can do the mutagen pulling and driunking as one action you undermine alot of your action economy...

Liberty's Edge

Meadow lark wrote:
TBH the reaction system seems more confusing than the current system.

How so? The current system is "You can use an immediate action on someone else's turn, but doing so prevents you from using your Swift action next turn." The new system is "You can use a reaction on someone else's turn."

Unless you mean the fact that there will be more reactions available to most people, in which case that's not actually more confusing, since nobody will have access to all those reactions, you'll just have a small few that you focus on.

Quote:
It also seems to me that the magic classes are being targeted, pretty much all spells have 2 needs which means 2 actions.

That's not "being targeted", that's just keeping spellcasting pretty much like it is now, in that you can move and cast a spell on your turn, or two spells if you use a fast one (either a swift spell in PF1, or a one-action spell in PF2).

Quote:

an alchemist like a feral vivisist one would use all actions in the first round

1) pull out potion
2) Drink Mutagin
3) move....

Again, this isn't a change from how it is now.


Meadow lark wrote:
It also seems to me that the magic classes are being targeted, pretty much all spells have 2 needs which means 2 actions.

All spells' DC now scales to your highest spell level and the overcasting system of spell selection means that casters will be able to have any spell they need available, meaning Schrodinger's God-Wizards got a huge buff, and can still move action and cast a spell just like before.

You now have to use up an action every round to gain the AC bonus from a shield, and you need special training just to make an AoO. Furthermore, you cannot critical unless you have an overwhelmingly large attack bonus, meaning characters in melee combat need very high AC to avoid constant enemy crits and cannot hope to get lucky against a high AC.
How exactly are magic classes being targeted here?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
All spells' DC now scales to your highest spell level and the overcasting system of spell selection means that casters will be able to have any spell they need available, meaning Schrodinger's God-Wizards got a huge buff, and can still move action and cast a spell just like before.

Where do you get this?


Mark Seifter said so in the thread about spell damage no longer scaling with level.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Thank you


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
All spells' DC now scales to your highest spell level and the overcasting system of spell selection means that casters will be able to have any spell they need available, meaning Schrodinger's God-Wizards got a huge buff, and can still move action and cast a spell just like before.
Where do you get this?

Here's Mark's post from the Spell thread.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey gang! Here's an interesting thought exercise to think about. Suppose I was running a home game of PF1 and decided that blasting spells weren't doing enough damage, so I made a new rule that fireball started at 10d6 damage at 5th level and cone of cold started at 15d6 at 9th level. The spells are now non-scaling, but I've also buffed those spells. Now I'm not saying we did exactly that (in fact, we did something similar for the new math, but it doesn't work out to exactly the old cast cap, but the spell damage of a fireball is still usually looking at ~1.5x a martial attack to a big area). Not only that, there's actually one thing that does scale in the new game but not in the original, and I think maybe the interview gave the wrong idea by saying spells don't scale at all: spell DC! Having a low DC spell that the enemy is super likely to succeed (or critically succeed in the new game) is really really bad. It's potentially worse than having fewer damage dice, depending on the starting dice and the save bonus (for example say you're 13th level and have cone of cold; doing 10d6 that the enemy needs a 13 to save for no damage is actually better than 13d6 that the enemy needs an 11 to save, due to not only the increased fail chance but also the chance to critically fail and take double damage). So spells have a fixed effect that is appropriate for their level, and their DC scales to be equal to your highest level spell.

As a second aside, Logan and Erik were correct that the spell system's genesis came without reading 5e. This is because we actually had that part in place before 5e came out (we've really been working on this a long time!)


Zaister wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
All spells' DC now scales to your highest spell level and the overcasting system of spell selection means that casters will be able to have any spell they need available, meaning Schrodinger's God-Wizards got a huge buff, and can still move action and cast a spell just like before.
Where do you get this?

The bit about spell DCs was from Mark Seifter's post. I think Bloodrealm might be off about how overcasting works, though- as I understood it, the benefit is to spontaneous casters like Sorcerer (who presumably can pick a slot on the fly) rather than Wizard (who now presumably has to decide in advance how strong of a fireball they'll need).


QuidEst wrote:
the benefit is to spontaneous casters like Sorcerer (who presumably can pick a slot on the fly) rather than Wizard (who now presumably has to decide in advance how strong of a fireball they'll need).

I can see wizards being able to spend both a lower level prepared spell and a higher level one to cast the lower at the higher level.


QuidEst wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
All spells' DC now scales to your highest spell level and the overcasting system of spell selection means that casters will be able to have any spell they need available, meaning Schrodinger's God-Wizards got a huge buff, and can still move action and cast a spell just like before.
Where do you get this?
The bit about spell DCs was from Mark Seifter's post. I think Bloodrealm might be off about how overcasting works, though- as I understood it, the benefit is to spontaneous casters like Sorcerer (who presumably can pick a slot on the fly) rather than Wizard (who now presumably has to decide in advance how strong of a fireball they'll need).

Well, yes, God-Sorcerers would get much more benefit, though at the very least it's easier for Wizards to get more spells in their book without paying.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

I'm excited for what three actions a round means for spells. Instead of a spell's power just being a function of its level you can easily make one, two, and three action spells.

Bless, for example, in PF1 is generally not castable in combat. It takes too long and provides too slight a bonus to be worthwhile. If Bless had only verbal components and was castable as 1 action it suddenly becomes a much more viable option.

What are you even talking about?

Bless is one standard action. It is a go-to combat spell in every group I've been in.


Sounds interesting, but the combat is the least important thing about d20, in terms of why I play d20.

In fact, I have an encounter system that handles non-combat and combat equally simply, and much simpler than standard d20, as combat is far from the most important thing in my games.


But combat is by far the primary component of d20 rules.

While I enjoy the role play far more than the fights, the rules dedicate far more bandwidth to battle than anything else.


Combat is the central focus of d20 style systems, it's true. I don't see how anyone could ever think the opposite.


coxey292 wrote:
I am increasingly concerned about the viability of shields in this edition. They already see little play, as getting that extra damage is usually the optimal way to play, but giving up an entire attack just to get a small bonus, especially when you already had to move to keep up with the retreating foe who s still casting at you every round, sounds tedious and like a restriction one martial characters.

I feel the same.

It looks like a martial character need to trade an attack for a simple defense that is "already there". Seems that now they, will be more "stupid" and action limited. An even bigger handcap against spellcasters...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:
coxey292 wrote:
I am increasingly concerned about the viability of shields in this edition. They already see little play, as getting that extra damage is usually the optimal way to play, but giving up an entire attack just to get a small bonus, especially when you already had to move to keep up with the retreating foe who s still casting at you every round, sounds tedious and like a restriction one martial characters.

I feel the same.

It looks like a martial character need to trade an attack for a simple defense that is "already there". Seems that now they, will be more "stupid" and action limited. An even bigger handcap against spellcasters...

I get the feeling that the draw of shields won't be the shield bonus, but the reaction it grants you. You're not losing much with sacrificing your -10 attack anyway, and the ability to reduce incoming damage by your shield's hardness is going to be very useful (adamantine, anyone?)

One thing that's been mentioned is that your -10 attack will still have a chance of hitting low-threat enemies. This means that a shield-user will have more interesting choices to make, based on the way the combat is going. If you're facing a bunch of mooks, you can lower your shield and make those -10 swings, knowing that your unshielded AC can probably handle their attacks, and your -10 attacks will still have a decent chance of striking. But when you face the more dangerous enemies, you have the option to raise your shield and go on the defensive, sacrificing the attack that is least likely to hit the (probably higher) defenses of the stronger enemy, in return for defending yourself against their (probably stronger) attacks.

This will lead to more dynamic combats, and more interesting choices to make in those combat. This is a good thing.


I'm not a fan of how shields work currently either.

What is my character doing with his shield arm during a fight, just letting it hang there limp? Your arms can work simultaneously.

Here's a video of some people sparing with historical marital arts using shields. Notice how the shields are always up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966ulgwEcyc

Not saying PF2 has to be perfectly accurate in how it portrays combat, it's just that the way shields work now feels clumsy and video-game-y.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

It's this type of argument that boggles my mind. Why do you need to compare the sad situation of only having a +11 to a roll to facing a target of 30+?

In any game, if your bonus is +x, and the target is x+xn so that you need to roll consistently numbers that are difficult, the game will, in the long run, not be fun. So why would any DM make that the default?

Why not find out what the players think is a good "feeling" challenge, rolling 12+ to succeed, 14+, 8+, 6+ some value that all the players agree feels "right" and apply that to both characters and foes equally, so there is some sort of fairness involved.

This argument of "It's only fun for me if I succeed on rolls of 4+, but you only succeed against my character if you roll 16+" seems strange to me

Because each choice you make eats your resources. Feat slots, level slots, gold pieces, all of these are resources that can be expended to specialize. One of the worst things about 5e is that it's so homogenized that you have a slightly better than 50% chance of success at the thing you specialize in the hardest. In a better system like PF1e, if you spend a bunch of resources to allow yourself to be a light armor tank or unarmored tank, you're not going to be nearly as good at killing things as the crit fiend barbarian. Or if you want to pump Perception to be hilariously high, you limit your choice of races and classes, have to spend a few feat slots on it, have effectively 1 fewer skill rank per level (it's already guaranteed to go to Perception), and have to spend gold on Perception-boosting items.

The reward for all of this is that the party effectively autopasses certain types of challenges. This is great because the other party members can specialize in other things, and the net effect is that the party as a whole can better prepare for the challenges they can't autopass. Pathfinder is not a competitive game, it is a cooperative one.

What really seems strange to me is why you think that rolling a number on a die is inherently challenging. It's a challenge in the sense that it is an obstacle that can be overcome, but it's not difficult, it's just random.


Bruno Mares wrote:
coxey292 wrote:
I am increasingly concerned about the viability of shields in this edition. They already see little play, as getting that extra damage is usually the optimal way to play, but giving up an entire attack just to get a small bonus, especially when you already had to move to keep up with the retreating foe who s still casting at you every round, sounds tedious and like a restriction one martial characters.

I feel the same.

It looks like a martial character need to trade an attack for a simple defense that is "already there". Seems that now they, will be more "stupid" and action limited. An even bigger handcap against spellcasters...

As I understand it from what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong), you do still get a passive shield bonus just from having the shield equipped. What taking a Defense/Block action does is further increase that bonus by +2, and then also give you the option of a Reaction before your next turn where you block an attack that manages to hit anyway with your shield and reduce the damage taken by your shield's hardness. That seems like a pretty good option to me, tbh, especially if you also get to use that block reaction against spells or against area attacks like a breath weapon.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm curious to see how damage scales in this edition. I feel like that's going to have a huge impact on the usefulness of shields. I don't want them to be only a low-level thing. But if damage scales really sharply, then giving up that attack for the shield bonus starts to look worse and worse. Of course, the right feats/abilities could compensate for that.


Sorcerers can be reigned in by giving them less spells now that all/most of their spells scale to fill higher spell slots. Saves will determine how powerful sorcerers are.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
I'm curious to see how damage scales in this edition. I feel like that's going to have a huge impact on the usefulness of shields. I don't want them to be only a low-level thing. But if damage scales really sharply, then giving up that attack for the shield bonus starts to look worse and worse. Of course, the right feats/abilities could compensate for that.

Hopefully they've already accounted for that, so that at the very least you add your level / BAB / underwater basketweaving skill ranks / whatever to the shield's hardness when determining damage block.

At the very least, stronger shields with higher "plusses" will also have higher hardness and damage block, but yeah, that won't be enough to keep up with increasing damage on its own.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
I'm curious to see how damage scales in this edition. I feel like that's going to have a huge impact on the usefulness of shields. I don't want them to be only a low-level thing. But if damage scales really sharply, then giving up that attack for the shield bonus starts to look worse and worse. Of course, the right feats/abilities could compensate for that.

Hopefully they've already accounted for that, so that at the very least you add your level / BAB / underwater basketweaving skill ranks / whatever to the shield's hardness when determining damage block.

At the very least, stronger shields with higher "plusses" will also have higher hardness and damage block, but yeah, that won't be enough to keep up with increasing damage on its own.

Yeah, waiting for blog posts is excruciating...at least it looks like we're going to get A LOT of them before Aug 2.


QuidEst wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.
Unless something changes, the bestiary contents will generously be available online for free. That's a no-cost conversion guide. If that's not enough, I feel it means that all the time and expense of laying out the PDF and commissioning new artwork is something worth paying full price for.

If PF2 content will be available online for free as I think PF1 content is, then that works for me. I just haven't ever accessed it that way before -- and forgot about that option.

No, I don't think I can warm up to the idea of paying for the layout and artwork, again. I think the work done for PF1 was absolutely the best -- makes D&D look foolish (really). But, no, I'm not sure I can pay for it again in PF2. I've already got that kind of stuff. I have all six Bestiary books.

Do I need PF2? Maybe. I'm sad to say here in Frisco, TX we play at three local comic book stores and are having a very hard time getting players. We advertise (with a very nice ad, BTW) and the store owners have been constantly trying to direct people to our group -- but they report and you can see from the number of active game tables that D&D 5e is dominating right now. I am deeply puzzled by this. The store managers each believe it's the simpler rules -- but I'm not convinced that's it. I've started looking at D&D 5e closely. It is not really simpler, I think. I think it's just newer. People like to play the lastest thing. Maybe, new PF2 will turn the tables?

If you can do that, I will pay for the art work, layout, and everything all over again. If I had my choice (and I'm not sure I do because we simply can't find players), I'd play PF1 for another 10 years -- because I think it is way over the top good enough ... a classic.

So, it's a tall order, but we might now unfortunately need something better in PF2 -- I say with a sick feeling because I can't tell how long it will be till we'll all be forced through market forces to abandon that for PF3. 3 years? 5 years? 10 years -- I hope but probably not.


I’m not really sure how 5e isn’t simpler. Instead of AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, CMD, and flat-footed CMD, you have AC. You make decisions other than stats increases and spells at two levels (more if you trade stat increases for optional feats, GM permitting). Etc. It’s much easier on new players. Some of that is too much lack-of-choice for me, but I really won’t miss having half a dozen types of combat movement and at least as many bonus types to track.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

But combat is by far the primary component of d20 rules.

While I enjoy the role play far more than the fights, the rules dedicate far more bandwidth to battle than anything else.

Dude, an rpg is not chess. Playing the rules is not your only option here.

Some of us actually prefer playing the story. You know, the old days of buying 10' poles, shims, and bags of jacks or marbles.

Seriously, this whole "there's an anti-trap skill there-fore your only option to defeat a trap is by rolling the anti-trap skill and you don't even roleplaying why you get to make that roll" is really tiring. It can be fun sometimes, but it seriously limits the game to a miniscule portion of the possible enjoyment that can be achieved compred to other styles of play.

There is a reason why the 3.x dmg spent pages and pages telling gms how they should adapt things to individual situations, even going so far as to give examples on modifying classes for individual character concepts.


QuidEst wrote:
I’m not really sure how 5e isn’t simpler. Instead of AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, CMD, and flat-footed CMD, you have AC. You make decisions other than stats increases and spells at two levels (more if you trade stat increases for optional feats, GM permitting). Etc. It’s much easier on new players. Some of that is too much lack-of-choice for me, but I really won’t miss having half a dozen types of combat movement and at least as many bonus types to track.

Thanks for clarifying that. Then, complexity may indeed be causing a problem with attracting players. Is this being addressed in PF2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
coxey292 wrote:
I am increasingly concerned about the viability of shields in this edition. They already see little play, as getting that extra damage is usually the optimal way to play, but giving up an entire attack just to get a small bonus, especially when you already had to move to keep up with the retreating foe who s still casting at you every round, sounds tedious and like a restriction one martial characters.

I feel the same.

It looks like a martial character need to trade an attack for a simple defense that is "already there". Seems that now they, will be more "stupid" and action limited. An even bigger handcap against spellcasters...

As I understand it from what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong), you do still get a passive shield bonus just from having the shield equipped. What taking a Defense/Block action does is further increase that bonus by +2, and then also give you the option of a Reaction before your next turn where you block an attack that manages to hit anyway with your shield and reduce the damage taken by your shield's hardness. That seems like a pretty good option to me, tbh, especially if you also get to use that block reaction against spells or against area attacks like a breath weapon.

All reports are that the shield does nothing unless you spend an action. Then and only then you get a +2 AC bonus (which is better than it used to because of the +10 to crit) and the ability to use the shield block reaction to absorb a hit.

This is a good change.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
I’m not really sure how 5e isn’t simpler. Instead of AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, CMD, and flat-footed CMD, you have AC. You make decisions other than stats increases and spells at two levels (more if you trade stat increases for optional feats, GM permitting). Etc. It’s much easier on new players. Some of that is too much lack-of-choice for me, but I really won’t miss having half a dozen types of combat movement and at least as many bonus types to track.
Thanks for clarifying that. Then, complexity may indeed be causing a problem with attracting players. Is this being addressed in PF2?

Yeah- that’s one of the big motivations.

CMB/D is going away, AoOs are more of a class feature, BAB/saves now have a unified progression, and the action economy is a lot simpler (action, reaction, and not-an-action). Feats are getting more useful categories so the stuff you look through is relevant to your character.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

But combat is by far the primary component of d20 rules.

While I enjoy the role play far more than the fights, the rules dedicate far more bandwidth to battle than anything else.

Dude, an rpg is not chess. Playing the rules is not your only option here.

Some of us actually prefer playing the story. You know, the old days of buying 10' poles, shims, and bags of jacks or marbles.

Seriously, this whole "there's an anti-trap skill there-fore your only option to defeat a trap is by rolling the anti-trap skill and you don't even roleplaying why you get to make that roll" is really tiring. It can be fun sometimes, but it seriously limits the game to a miniscule portion of the possible enjoyment that can be achieved compred to other styles of play.

There is a reason why the 3.x dmg spent pages and pages telling gms how they should adapt things to individual situations, even going so far as to give examples on modifying classes for individual character concepts.

So your upset that specific ideas might require DM fiat like they always have? But you've always been doing it anyway? I'm not sure what the problem is. PF 2E will have the Golden Rule just like every other RPG has ever had.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

But combat is by far the primary component of d20 rules.

While I enjoy the role play far more than the fights, the rules dedicate far more bandwidth to battle than anything else.

Dude, an rpg is not chess. Playing the rules is not your only option here.

Some of us actually prefer playing the story. You know, the old days of buying 10' poles, shims, and bags of jacks or marbles.

Seriously, this whole "there's an anti-trap skill there-fore your only option to defeat a trap is by rolling the anti-trap skill and you don't even roleplaying why you get to make that roll" is really tiring. It can be fun sometimes, but it seriously limits the game to a miniscule portion of the possible enjoyment that can be achieved compred to other styles of play.

There is a reason why the 3.x dmg spent pages and pages telling gms how they should adapt things to individual situations, even going so far as to give examples on modifying classes for individual character concepts.

First, you're preaching to the choir about modifying the game to suit creativity and promote roleplay.

Second, the scenario you highlighted is actually exploration which is comparatively far more rules light in 3.P compared to combat.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Nemo_the_Lost wrote:

I was excited by this idea yesterday, but, “move once, draw your sword, and attack,” and, “move away, draw a potion, and drink it,” seem like the definition of 'action' is going to be pretty pedantic. Three actions is still better than two, and I'm still watching with interest, but this post has made me more trepidatious, rather than less.

...Trepidatious is totally a word, Paizo forum spellchecker.

I believe the site just uses whatever your browser is set to. For me, armor shows up as incorrect despite it being the common spelling in much of Paizo's text. (Armour does not)

From re-reading what they said it would be both, all classes can setup a planned action such as stab the bard the moment he starts singing gilbert and sulivan (a ready action that happened to one of my bards back in the day)

In addition to special ones they have such as the shield ability mentioned above to use the hardness of their shield to reduce the damage they take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

But combat is by far the primary component of d20 rules.

While I enjoy the role play far more than the fights, the rules dedicate far more bandwidth to battle than anything else.

Dude, an rpg is not chess. Playing the rules is not your only option here.

Some of us actually prefer playing the story. You know, the old days of buying 10' poles, shims, and bags of jacks or marbles.

Seriously, this whole "there's an anti-trap skill there-fore your only option to defeat a trap is by rolling the anti-trap skill and you don't even roleplaying why you get to make that roll" is really tiring. It can be fun sometimes, but it seriously limits the game to a miniscule portion of the possible enjoyment that can be achieved compred to other styles of play.

There is a reason why the 3.x dmg spent pages and pages telling gms how they should adapt things to individual situations, even going so far as to give examples on modifying classes for individual character concepts.

So your upset that specific ideas might require DM fiat like they always have? But you've always been doing it anyway? I'm not sure what the problem is. PF 2E will have the Golden Rule just like every other RPG has ever had.

No. It's about how flexible it is with little or no mechanical alterations, and how easy and simple it is to make mevhanical alterations when desired.

Basically, how flexible is it without using rule 0, and how easily and simply can you use rule 0.

For example, in 3.5, if I wanted to be a wizard that uses spontaneous casting techniques instead of preparation, I had options. Without modifying mechanics at all, I could just select sorcerer and flavor it as a wizard. If the gm actually didn't mind rule 0, she could allow me to use int instead of cha for my casting stat and possibly use the wizard list for class skills.

Pathfinder is more difficult, because the sorcerer now has mechanics that are designed to feel like innate power, making it far less straightforward, and requiring more and deeper alterations on flavor and radically limiting my options compared to what I could do using the default flavor.

Furthermore, flexibility without rule 0 is particularly improtant because few gms are willing to use rule 0, which puts creative types like myself i the position of relying solely on flavor changes in a system with heavily segmented choices.

It does not feel fair to have a bunch of abilities I don't use because they don't make sense for the character but came bundled up with things I needed for the character.

Additionally, even though I'm willing to use rule 0, the less work I need to do there the better, not just for me, but also for the players. The players also have better ideas of what they can expect from me when I don't need to make radical alterations to enable creativity.

And that is just the obvious character centered stuff.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

But combat is by far the primary component of d20 rules.

While I enjoy the role play far more than the fights, the rules dedicate far more bandwidth to battle than anything else.

Dude, an rpg is not chess. Playing the rules is not your only option here.

Some of us actually prefer playing the story. You know, the old days of buying 10' poles, shims, and bags of jacks or marbles.

Seriously, this whole "there's an anti-trap skill there-fore your only option to defeat a trap is by rolling the anti-trap skill and you don't even roleplaying why you get to make that roll" is really tiring. It can be fun sometimes, but it seriously limits the game to a miniscule portion of the possible enjoyment that can be achieved compred to other styles of play.

There is a reason why the 3.x dmg spent pages and pages telling gms how they should adapt things to individual situations, even going so far as to give examples on modifying classes for individual character concepts.

First, you're preaching to the choir about modifying the game to suit creativity and promote roleplay.

Second, the scenario you highlighted is actually exploration which is comparatively far more rules light in 3.P compared to combat.

It doesn't matter how rules light of heavy, for it is the way of thinking that matters, how the rules are used.

You needed those extra things not because the mevhanics called for them explicitly, but because you had to use them in order to get the roll. You couldn't just rely on the mechanics, instead yoh had to actually do something, and the mechanics did nothing more then tell you how good or bad you did.

Playing the rules does away with players actually doing anything. No longer does the player need to think their way out of a jam, instead they just let the dice do it all. That is what makes it playing the rules and not playing the story. In a way it gets rid of the middleman, but in this case, the middleman is what makes the game worth it. The journey, not the destination.

751 to 759 of 759 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: All About Actions All Messageboards