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
51 to 100 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cylerist wrote:
Will there be "reaction" casting time spells?

I can't see how or why such spells would be avoided. Feather Spell is too iconic a spell.


Just wondering about Two-Weapon Fighting and how it'll work. Really hoping not to be dampened as in Starfinder...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for the teasers for the rules updates. I'm personally for a Pathfinder 2 but I acknowledge that my play group is different when compared to other groups.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
croc64 wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that

Language barrier, in this instance, reaction is not referring to common English. It is a term used to define actions you can take outside of your turn in combat, think attacks of opportunity. It doesn’t mean “dude calls you green, what do you do”, it means “rogue, you invested in a class feat for this, your enemy tries to drink a potion, so you want to use your reaction to attempt to steal it out of his hands?” Hope that helps clarify.

Oh THAT I got. And I stand by my first reaction that this reaction system is limiting. So let's say I play that rogue, I see that enemy drink that potion and all I can do as reaction is a steal attempt? Where are the choices? Maybe I want to shoot at the bottle, maybe I want to take advantage of the fact the enemy is occupied to retreat or attack. If I'm limited to only one possible reaction or a short list of possible reactions that is the same for every other rogue, what makes my rogue stand out? Limiting the roleplay aspect of a roleplaying game is never a good idea, even more so if I seemingly still have unlimited choices of ACTIONS I can take. "My three actions: retreat, taunt, juggle... no wait, attack, move, write a poem...no wait, paint a portait of my enemy, crush it, and hear the lamentation of his woman..."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

*yawn* Why are weapon-based classes simply hated so much by PF?


Bruno Mares wrote:
Just wondering about Two-Weapon Fighting and how it'll work. Really hoping not to be dampened as in Starfinder...

The iconic ranger is being moved to a TWF design in order to be a better representation of the class, so presumably that means they have some ideas for the playstyle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds good, this system seems interesting and much simpler.

I'll echo others concerns that AoO might be class specific now but on the other hand it means BBEG mages might actually be able to cast spells from time to time when swarmed by PC's.

Scarab Sages

20 people marked this as a favorite.
ZᴇɴN wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
It's the latter (0/-5/-10).
Ew

Consider this is the exact penalties that iterative attacks get, they are essentially giving you iterative attacks up to level 11 at 1st level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Will there be love for the "Combat Reflexes plus Reach Weapon Zone Control" character, or will the new action economy basically render that entire playstyle DOA like it is in Starfinder?

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm really excited about the versatility of reactions. When did your wizard ever take an AoO?

The ranger can hamper a foe that lowers their defenses, the fighter gets a free attack, the rogue can make them bleed.

Many PF1 combats have been tactical exercises around avoiding AoOs. Mixing up each characters options opens up some much more dynamic gameplay.


Could be worse. Let's see how the playtest goes.

Scarab Sages

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

*yawn* Why are weapon-based classes simply hated so much by PF?

Not sure how this is punitive. This is the exact same penalties that iterative attacks get right now. As a matter of fact, you get up to level 11 iteratives at level 1 now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If this is the same as Unchained action economy it doesn't really change anything, just makes it more pedantic in having to track amount of actions used instead of action types used.

I honestly don't see how this makes it any easier on new players. Are core rulebooks going to come with like punch out cheat sheets showing actions and their action amounts on card stock?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So you can get up to three iterative attacks at first level, and reactions for most classes aren't just "I can take an attack of opportunity if someone provokes" (which the GM will often prevent through tactical movement) ... and this is somehow a bad thing? I see only improvements here.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Really want confirmation on the "Only fighters get AOO" thing because that is a HUGE part of the Pathfinder Tactical system, where positioning of martial characters is key to controlling space and protecting your allies. AOO are too important to not be universal, or at least on all characters that would wanna use em.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that

Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daigotsu wrote:


I honestly don't see how this makes it any easier on new players. Are core rulebooks going to come with like punch out cheat sheets showing actions and their action amounts on card stock?

Unless you're taking 5 minute breaks in between three actions, I don't believe it'll be that difficult to keep track of three things your character does.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Diffan wrote:

"How about attack three times? Go ahead (but you'll take an increasing penalty for each additional attack)."

So....more punitive things for Martial characters...

*yawn* Why are weapon-based classes simply hated so much by PF?

Not sure how this is punitive. This is the exact same penalties that iterative attacks get right now. As a matter of fact, you get up to level 11 iteratives at level 1 now.

"Paizo hates martials" is really the silliest take from this. Everyone gets iterative attacks is a great thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:


Oh THAT I got. And I stand by my first reaction that this reaction system is limiting. So let's say I play that rogue, I see that enemy drink that potion and all I can do as reaction is a steal attempt? Where are the choices? Maybe I want to shoot at the bottle, maybe I want to take advantage of the fact the enemy is occupied to retreat or attack. If I'm limited to only one possible reaction or a short list of possible reactions that is the same for every other rogue, what makes my rogue stand out? Limiting the roleplay aspect of a roleplaying game is never a good idea, even more so if I seemingly still have unlimited choices of ACTIONS I can take. "My three actions: retreat, taunt, juggle... no wait, attack, move, write a poem...no wait, paint a portait of my enemy, crush it, and hear the lamentation of his woman..."

...it's no more restrictive RP wise than an immediate action. We also dingy know what a given clclasses reactions are or how many they get.

What if in 1e they gave every class a set of immediate actions they could take. Would you say that is restricting rolplay?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Trastone wrote:
With a -10 to your last attack(the third), a shield may be well worth it!!!
In our sessions, it depends very much on what foes you are facing off against. Lesser minions are very "hitable" with that -10

I'm excited to playtest this. I'm imagining Valeros cutting down goblins relentlessly, but then slowing down and raising his shield against the Orc barbarian. Meaningful player gameplay options.


Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.

sorry, I just try to get that part with the reactions right.

THe three actions per turn part, I actually like. It might be the first thing I read about PF2 that actually seems like an improvement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sayt wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:


Oh THAT I got. And I stand by my first reaction that this reaction system is limiting. So let's say I play that rogue, I see that enemy drink that potion and all I can do as reaction is a steal attempt? Where are the choices? Maybe I want to shoot at the bottle, maybe I want to take advantage of the fact the enemy is occupied to retreat or attack. If I'm limited to only one possible reaction or a short list of possible reactions that is the same for every other rogue, what makes my rogue stand out? Limiting the roleplay aspect of a roleplaying game is never a good idea, even more so if I seemingly still have unlimited choices of ACTIONS I can take. "My three actions: retreat, taunt, juggle... no wait, attack, move, write a poem...no wait, paint a portait of my enemy, crush it, and hear the lamentation of his woman..."

...it's no more restrictive RP wise than an immediate action. We also dingy know what a given clclasses reactions are or how many they get.

What if in 1e they gave every class a set of immediate actions they could take. Would you say that is restricting rolplay?

If it's a limited set and I could only choose between a handful, based on my class, yes. mostly because every character in the class more uniform instead of more unique. If there a ways in PF2 to change that set completely and to pick reactions that fits the character best, this action economy system would actually be quite nice (not nice enough for a whole new edition, but nice enough to use that rule in a real PF game)


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
Bless, for example, in PF1 is generally not castable in combat. It takes too long and provides too slight a bonus to be worthwhile.

Could you explain what you mean about "not castable in combat" and "too long", please? Bless takes one standard action to case. The CRB says that preparing material or focus components is a free action unless they're elaborate.


coxey292 wrote:
Xenocrat 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.
You're giving up a single attack with a -5 penalty to increase your AC by (at least) +2 against all attacks against you, and getting the option to have your shield soak one attack that hits you. That's not obviously bad, although it does suggest it's best for melee combatants who rush into groups and emphasize survivability over 1 vs. 1 DPS duels. But even in a 1 v 1 the AC plus optional DR might be better sometimes.
You are also giving up a huge amount of damage per hit, if damage works like PF1. A two handed build currently outpaces 1 handed by extraordinary margins. So you give up an attack, massive damage, and get +2 to AC, which is not a significant amount in comparison to the losses.

By my experience with Unchained:

If the third attack is at -10, like it was in Unchained, changing it for anything else is not a bad option. My players sometimes used that action to intimidate, for example.

Two attacks and +2 to AC with damage reduction from one hit will probably be a better option than 3 attacks, if system is like unchained.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

This is purely and simply a consumering scam to get more of our money. I bought almost all of the hardcovers for "PF1", do you think I'll do it again? Sure as hell not!

I won't jump on that bandwagon.


Cheburn wrote:
So you can get up to three iterative attacks at first level, and reactions for most classes aren't just "I can take an attack of opportunity if someone provokes" (which the GM will often prevent through tactical movement) ... and this is somehow a bad thing? I see only improvements here.

It's an improvement, based on my experience. It worked great for us in Unchained. It had some problems adapting some swift actions from certain classes (like Magus), but that was not because the system itself was bad, but because those classes were not built with the system in mind.

For a class without that kind of actions, such as fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue, it worked better in my experience.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.

We're supposed to complain if something is bad. That's the point of a playtest.


I think I read somewhere that you can attack 3 times at 0/-5/-10 but if you have a special weapon property (agile I think? Don't quote me on that) it drops it to 0/-2/-4.

My question is why not make it just 0/-2/-4 core?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Love it. Me and the players for my roll20 Pathfinder game all went over the Blog Post, and pretty much universally agree this new system makes more sense.

This is especially true for two of my players, who are new to Pathfinder (from 5E), and are constantly confused by the action system, especially Swifts and Immediates.

These 2E changes all look pretty great to me and my 5 players, especially the players from 5E who wanted more character options and customization possibilities, but are struggling with the overly-complex action system.

Reading through all the posts here, I am really surprised at some of the negativity.

Silver Crusade

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.
We're supposed to complain if something is bad. That's the point of a playtest.

The playtest hadn’t started. At this point it’s complaining about speculation which is not what a playtest is at all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks really promising, and was the thing I was most excited for in 2E.

Though now, I realize, I am going to have a lot of difficulty wrapping my head around a system without the 5ft step.

Looking forward to seeing how reactions and movement work as a result of this.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Concordia wrote:

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

This is purely and simply a consumering scam to get more of our money. I bought almost all of the hardcovers for "PF1", do you think I'll do it again? Sure as hell not!

I won't jump on that bandwagon.

Luckily your hardcovers won't turn to dust upon 2e's release and can still enjoy them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Concordia wrote:

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

That's pretty good for you, because then, you are already set. Don't need to buy anything else, with or without a new edition, so don't care about this, and be happy with what you have.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.
We're supposed to complain if something is bad. That's the point of a playtest.

We haven't even seen the rules yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:


If it's a limited set and I could only choose between a handful, based on my class, yes. mostly because every character in the class more uniform instead of more unique. If there a ways in PF2 to change that set completely and to pick reactions that fits the character best, this action economy system would actually be quite nice (not nice enough for a whole new edition, but nice enough to use that rule in a real PF game)

...amazing, you'd resent being given something new if it didn't give you enough choice, even though it's free?

Also based on the podcast, the fighter had two, one of which was only useful if you had a shield, I'd be surprised if they expected polearm users or archers to pick it up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not entirely sure if this is how it works, but honestly, if special reactions are things you can get by leveling, and your class decides which special reactions you can choose from...

I'm actually really down with that. I wouldn't like only the fighter to have access to AoO, but if it's available for a group of martial classes, and a choice you need to make while building your character, I can see reactions becoming a very interesting part of a character's build.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.
We're supposed to complain if something is bad. That's the point of a playtest.

Exactly. Telling someone who doesn't like the direction a playtest is going to keep it to themselves is not 'productive conversation'


Sayt wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:


If it's a limited set and I could only choose between a handful, based on my class, yes. mostly because every character in the class more uniform instead of more unique. If there a ways in PF2 to change that set completely and to pick reactions that fits the character best, this action economy system would actually be quite nice (not nice enough for a whole new edition, but nice enough to use that rule in a real PF game)

...amazing, you'd resent being given something new if it didn't give you enough choice, even though it's free?

yep, I'm pro-choice all the way. or at least I don't like systems were all characters of a given class feel and play more or less the same


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
DM Alistair wrote:

I think I read somewhere that you can attack 3 times at 0/-5/-10 but if you have a special weapon property (agile I think? Don't quote me on that) it drops it to 0/-2/-4.

My question is why not make it just 0/-2/-4 core?

Math (or more specifically both gameplay balance and game-feel)

Assuming they take the lessons they learned making Starfinder and apply them to 2E, agile weapons will have more accurate iteratives but deal less damage in some way, probably by having both worse damage dice and scaling worse with your stats.

This gives distinct playstyles:
Big attacks that rapidly drop off in accuracy if you try to jam too many of them in quick succession.
Small accurate attacks that land reliably and rapidly.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that

Honestly everything I've seen so far suggests that a LOT of material is being locked behind class gates.

And I am seriously not okay with that.

This is exactly my concern as well. Sounds like feats, basic reactions, and I'm sure other things as well. The more that gets locked behind class, ra...errr...ancestry, background, etc. the more you are locked into a specific path at character creation and the less you can mix and match to make a unique character.

I'm holding off judgement until we know more, but this is where my concerns lie at the moment.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
syll wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.
We're supposed to complain if something is bad. That's the point of a playtest.

Exactly. Telling someone who doesn't like the direction a playtest is going to keep it to themselves is not 'productive conversation'

As addressed above, we don't have the specific rules in our hands at the moment, so it's not a complaint about the direction of the playtest.

That being said, no one is obligated to look on the bright side of things, and concerns about something like class restricted reactions is something that's absolutely fair to bring up, even if at the moment it's just from a teaser that was released. I'm sure there will be plenty more discussion about it as time rolls on.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erdrix wrote:
Concordia wrote:

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

This is purely and simply a consumering scam to get more of our money. I bought almost all of the hardcovers for "PF1", do you think I'll do it again? Sure as hell not!

I won't jump on that bandwagon.

Luckily your hardcovers won't turn to dust upon 2e's release and can still enjoy them.

Right, but won't be supported anymore (as of 2019, if I read correctly). What if I like that 2nd Ed? No way I'm buying a new Core Rulebook (70 Canadian $), another Campaign and GM guide, and 5 or 6 Monster manuals...

Skill system probably won't be the same, feats won't be the same, combat is already determined to not work the same way.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I LOVE the idea of reactions. I can easily see monster creation allowing you to pick & choose different reactions based on a monster's kit. Also, it could make fights so much more deadly/interesting than a creature simply making a physical AOO. Imagine a dragon's reaction allowing it to reactively use it's breath weapon if enemies enter an ideal configuration. A gelatinous cube that engulfs enemies if they remain too close. A creature that bullrushes as a reaction to push you off an edge if you have bad positioning. Also, I love the idea of different classes granting access to different reactions as a form of customization. You could even have a subclass of feats that grant reactions, so that say all martial classes have access to AOO reactions, or w/e.

Personally I'm all for the simplified action economy. I hated trying to keep track of what class abilities were immediate/swift/standard. I also disliked not being able to move-attack-move. I think this will also help reduce turn time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that

Honestly everything I've seen so far suggests that a LOT of material is being locked behind class gates.

And I am seriously not okay with that.

Not that this is going to be how it works, but the inner game designer wannabe immediatly sees this as a way to do multi-clssing dips. Sorta like Varient multiclassing. Blow 1 feat (or something) get a basic class ability, and access to that class' feat tree.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I far prefer this style of AE. Definite signs of improvement. I do have concerns are about things like the shield block, I hope the reduced damage is significant and not just the 2-5 points we so for such reduction in 1e. Reducing damage by 1-5 points is great at low levels but at higher levels were you gave 150 hp and damage is usually also high that reduction is meaningless.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Damage reduction was tied to the shield's hardness. The basic shield prevented 9 pts of damage on the podcast.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Erdrix wrote:
Concordia wrote:

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

This is purely and simply a consumering scam to get more of our money. I bought almost all of the hardcovers for "PF1", do you think I'll do it again? Sure as hell not!

I won't jump on that bandwagon.

Luckily your hardcovers won't turn to dust upon 2e's release and can still enjoy them.

This is an incredibly hostile and aggressive comment I keep seeing repeated.

It amounts to cursing at someone and telling them to shut up if they are in anyway conceded, distressed, or annoyed by this entire process, or if they are concerned that their favorite play styles aren't being given a fair shake.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Concordia wrote:
Erdrix wrote:
Concordia wrote:

I am not excited at all by this. I know I'll get thrashed by saying so, but I think the game is perfect as it is now.

This is purely and simply a consumering scam to get more of our money. I bought almost all of the hardcovers for "PF1", do you think I'll do it again? Sure as hell not!

I won't jump on that bandwagon.

Luckily your hardcovers won't turn to dust upon 2e's release and can still enjoy them.

Right, but won't be supported anymore (as of 2019, if I read correctly). What if I like that 2nd Ed? No way I'm buying a new Core Rulebook (70 Canadian $), another Campaign and GM guide, and 5 or 6 Monster manuals...

Skill system probably won't be the same, feats won't be the same, combat is already determined to not work the same way.

You've never had to do any of that. The rules have always been free.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

16 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Patrick Newcarry wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

wait, the 'reaction' is class based and not, say, roleplay based? I can't really decide WHAT my reaction is but have to select from a list of reactions available for the class I play? Do I understand that correctly? (might be the language barrier, who knows?)

I'm sorry, but if that's the case, that is extremely limiting, I don't see much fun in that
Instead of seeing the negatives in everything about this new edition, please look on the bright side of things. A great many updates are coming to the game, and complaining about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You don't have to play the new edition - no one does - but your point of view has been established, and you're de-railing productive conversation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, or start a fight, I'm just trying to keep the peace.
We're supposed to complain if something is bad. That's the point of a playtest.

Only if you first play and test.

51 to 100 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: All About Actions All Messageboards