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
101 to 150 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Phylotus wrote:

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.

It isn't from only the teaser, but also the podcast. Multiple times now they have said -Fighter- gets an AoO. The -Fighter- has a charge action.

It would be very easy for Jason or someone else from Paizo to allay these fears if they are misplaced and set folks (like me) at ease.

More importantly they have said, in this very article "Not everyone will have a reaction they can use during combat"

The more people who are aware of that, and unhappy with that, the less likely it is to show up in the final version.


Other people have mentioned this, but it is worth mentioning again, agile weapons are potentially a trouble source.

Exalted 2nd edition had a similar issue. Faster weapons went more often and did more damage over time than heavy weapons. Agile weapons hit more often and possibly might do more damage over time than heavier weapons.

I'm not saying this is a bad or broken idea yet, but it will be worth scrutinizing when the playtest drops.

Looking forward to seeing it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thumbs up! The action system is what needed maintenance the most. It was too confusing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Paizo wants to simplify things, eliminate the draw weapon and BAB interaction. It's so rare that a character with BAB +0 is drawing a weapon, and only occurs with 1st level characters.

With iterative attacks going away, it won't matter in PFS play since those characters are usually below 16th level. A character with two iterative attacks gets all three attacks with the three actions. I look forward to how this works with high-level characters and feats like Rapid Shot.

Limiting AoO to a few classes is problematic. Imagine telling a player "I'm sorry, your character can't make AoOs, so the wizard it's attacking stops defending herself in order to dig around in her backpack, cast a spell, move away then touch your ally. Your character stands there and let her."


Greylurker wrote:

If I remember the podcast right

Spend 1 Action on Shield = +2 AC for the round and gain a Reaction that reduces the damage of one attack by 9

and I still get 2 attacks in that round
.
I think that is probably worth the trade of that 3rd attack at -5 to hit.

Ok my Shield is going to get battered as heck If I'm defending against an Ogre for a few rounds but the extra staying power is probably worth it.

hmmm...this also means that Parry with a weapon could be an action, maybe not as much as an AC bonus (if any, or maybe depending on the weapon) and getting that Block reaction but using your weapon instead of the shield.

It's potentially more worth it if the 3rd attack is at -10, as opposed to -5


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Concordia wrote:
gustavo iglesias 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.

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.

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

Yeah, the 2nd Edition of Pathfinder is going to be a different animal than what currently players are use to doing today.

Yes, they have already said that as of 2019 they will no longer be making new material for Pathfinder 1st Edition but they will continue to sell the books as long as people are interested in buying them.

I have personally seen people discuss rules from Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 on Reddit messageboards recently, a whole community that never come over to Pathfinder or followed in the other editions of D&D. Base off some of the comments about this update, there is going to be a lot of people wanting to just stick with Pathfinder, just got to find a group and you're good. An RPG is not the same as a video game not having any future support, you have all the RAW material to craft/play in adventures for years.

Please don't take this post as being negative, just trying to shine some light your way.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
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 what I despised about 4th edition D&D. I really ,really hope we're not getting it in P2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

The backside, naturally, is that there are more information to track for each spell. Currently, components only matter is certain situations.


Stone Dog wrote:

Other people have mentioned this, but it is worth mentioning again, agile weapons are potentially a trouble source.

Exalted 2nd edition had a similar issue. Faster weapons went more often and did more damage over time than heavy weapons. Agile weapons hit more often and possibly might do more damage over time than heavier weapons.

I'm not saying this is a bad or broken idea yet, but it will be worth scrutinizing when the playtest drops.

Looking forward to seeing it!

Depends on how it ends up mathing out. Compare, for instance, a hypothetical greatsword to a hypothetical dagger. The greatsword will deal 2d6 base damage and benefit from 1.5x Strength modifier. For a hypothetical character with a Strength modifier of 4, that's 2d6+6 for an average of 13 damage. The dagger will only deal 1d4 and benefit from only 1x Strength modifier, plus the dagger wielder likely has invested significantly more in Dexterity, assuming that this special property is designed to work with Dex-to-hit. So we'll say that the dagger wielder has that +4 modifier in Dex, and his Strength is a modest +2 bonus. That's 1d4+2, for an average of 4.5 damage, a little more than a third of the greatsword. That means that the dagger wielder has to hit all three of their attacks in order to deal as much damage as the greatsword wielder does on his one.

Now, the math probably won't work out this way, because that's just as bad. What it will probably mean instead, is that the balance is skewed so that light weapon users are benefited for making multiple attacks in a turn, while heavy weapon users have to rely on making one attack count.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Though now, I realize, I am going to have a lot of difficulty wrapping my head around a system without the 5ft step.

I think this is what was meant by a guarded step, which is the term used in Starfinder for a 5 foot movement which doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

In Starfinder this is a movement action, whereas in Pathfinder 1e it occupied that nebulous "other" slot, in that it wasn't actually a move action, but prevented you from taking a move action. As a result, the guarded step of Starfinder (and, presumably Pathfinder 2e) is two sentences long, instead of the four paragraphs of the 5-foot step in Pathfinder 1e.

So long story short, you should still be able to make a one square movement without provoking an AoO, but how it will interact with other actions remains to be seen.


I greatly liked this blog post. Keeps me excited for the full-release.

Edit: I think it's important for Paizo's members to look into the forums. While forums do have bad ideas, they also have good ones. Might be worthy to check ^^


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So ... in Pf2, you could conceivably take a 5-foot- guarded step, attack, and then move up to your speed? Interesting....


1 person 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).

So what? You already have what you feel it's a perfect game. Play with that. One of the guys in my PF/SF group also plays 4e with another group. Another of the guys plays 3.5 (without any PF stuff) with yet another group. Those groups are happy with their systems, and play with that. THey have been playing those systems for a decade now. Both systems died time ago. But their core books do not magically delete, so they still use them and play them. More power to them.

Quote:
What if I like that 2nd Ed?

Wait... are you complaining because you might actually like what they are building???


Joana wrote:
So ... in Pf2, you could conceivably take a 5-foot- guarded step, attack, and then move up to your speed? Interesting....

Or make 3 guarded steps, or guard step, attack, guard step, etc. It was that way in Unchained, and I liked it. It made combat more tactic and mobile, de-emphasizing full attack options, and bringing things to do with your skills during combat (intimidate no longer cost you the whole turn of attacks, for example, just the third -and weaker- attack)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I tentatively don't have a problem with this new action economy system.

I sort of would've liked an elimination of the -5/-10 penalties on further attacks, for simplicity's sake, but it's no dealbreaker.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't understand how the current system is not straightforward. It's not exactly rocket science. I have never met anyone who struggled with it, nor has it ever really slowed a game down. Analysis paralysis is going to be an issue no matter how you break down the actions.

I hope we see a draw a weapon combined with a move option - having both of those as separate actions feels wrong to me.

I really hope we get some form of Combat Reflexes - it is one (of many) things lacking in Starfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
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..."

They say right in the post that you can ready an arbitrary action:

Quote:
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.

Presumably that requires using one of your actual actions for your turn, as opposed to getting to do it at the cost of your reaction, but the ability to do some special thing during someone else's turn is just that, an ability, it's something you get as part of your class. Presumably classes that don't have that ability get something else instead.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Rooneg makes a valid point. If readying an actions costs a single action, this changes a lot of tactics up. With three actions, any PC could move to an enemy, attack once, and ready an attack if that enemy were to run away, essentially creating an AoO.

However, the Fighter gets to do the AoO for free without readying, which makes perfect sense to me: their senses of combat are honed in such a way that they can do it more reflexively than other classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Woo! The Unchained action economy was one of my favorite parts of the book! So happy to see that coming to PF2.

Quote:
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!

This is super scary. This goes back to what I was saying in the other thread about what I love about Pathfinder--the way I can combine different classes, archetypes, etc. to get the abilities that I want. It will kind of suck if my character can't do cool thing X because they don't have the right class. Yes, there are boundaries within reason, but they have to be thematically justified.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I really, really, really dislike the progressive penalties for multiple attacks. Each attack having a different bonus is what bogs down combat the most with multiple attacks.

I'd prefer a uniform penalty across all attacks. It's much faster and easier to roll a handful of dice and apply the same number to each die.


I like the basic concept so far...but it sounds like a lot of basic actions (like charging & AoO) are locked behind class. I don't want to have a situation where only the monk is allowed to grapple and it takes someone 6 feats to put someone in an effective choke hold.


caps wrote:

Woo! The Unchained action economy was one of my favorite parts of the book! So happy to see that coming to PF2.

Quote:
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!
This is super scary. This goes back to what I was saying in the other thread about what I love about Pathfinder--the way I can combine different classes, archetypes, etc. to get the abilities that I want. It will kind of suck if my character can't do cool thing X because they don't have the right class. Yes, there are boundaries within reason, but they have to be thematically justified.

I'm pretty sure it's called Sudden Charge for a reason. They're charging "faster", everyone else probably gets to charge as a full round (or 3 actions).


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SquishyPoetFromBeyondTheStars wrote:
I like the basic concept so far...but it sounds like a lot of basic actions (like charging & AoO) are locked behind class. I don't want to have a situation where only the monk is allowed to grapple and it takes someone 6 feats to put someone in an effective choke hold.

Exactly.

Designer

25 people marked this as a favorite.
syll wrote:


It isn't from only the teaser, but also the podcast. Multiple times now they have said -Fighter- gets an AoO. The -Fighter- has a charge action.

It would be very easy for Jason or someone else from Paizo to allay these fears if they are misplaced and set folks (like me) at ease.

More importantly they have said, in this very article "Not everyone will have a reaction they can use during combat"

In Jason's podcast group, the fighter is the one who had a relevant reaction in that situation (Attack of Opportunity), and only the fighter is certain to have it. Without revealing too much, at least one other class can just pick it up for a feat, and everyone else could in theory gain access if they are willing to commit to that style of play (flexibility is key for the new system!). But they might not want to do that if they have a reaction or reactions they like better, since at some point, you'll have enough reactions competing for use that you won't necessarily be prioritizing getting more of them. Whether you have a reaction to take in a given situation will depend on your choices, both in character building (did you choose that reaction ability or the cool action instead?) and in play (did you decide to use a shield, for example?).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just rolled a Will Save to resist the playtest and failed miserably. Here, take all my money.

Silver Crusade

syll wrote:
Phylotus wrote:

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.

It isn't from only the teaser, but also the podcast. Multiple times now they have said -Fighter- gets an AoO. The -Fighter- has a charge action.

It would be very easy for Jason or someone else from Paizo to allay these fears if they are misplaced and set folks (like me) at ease.

More importantly they have said, in this very article "Not everyone will have a reaction they can use during combat"

The more people who are aware of that, and unhappy with that, the less likely it is to show up in the final version.

... I don't disagree with your opinion?

Liberty's Edge

Ataraxias wrote:
caps wrote:

Woo! The Unchained action economy was one of my favorite parts of the book! So happy to see that coming to PF2.

Quote:
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!
This is super scary. This goes back to what I was saying in the other thread about what I love about Pathfinder--the way I can combine different classes, archetypes, etc. to get the abilities that I want. It will kind of suck if my character can't do cool thing X because they don't have the right class. Yes, there are boundaries within reason, but they have to be thematically justified.
I'm pretty sure it's called Sudden Charge for a reason. They're charging "faster", everyone else probably gets to charge as a full round (or 3 actions).

Yeah, anybody can move twice their speed and make an attack, they just use three actions to do it. A Fighter with the Sudden Charge feat just does it with two actions.

Scarab Sages

Mark Seifter wrote:
In Jason's podcast group, the fighter is the one who had a relevant reaction in that situation (Attack of Opportunity), and only the fighter is certain to have it. Without revealing too much, at least one other class can just pick it up for a feat, and everyone else could in theory gain access if they are willing to commit to that style of play (flexibility is key for the new system!). But they might not want to do that if they have a reaction or reactions they like better, since at some point, you'll have enough reactions competing for use that you won't necessarily be prioritizing getting more of them. Whether you have a reaction to take in a given situation will depend on your choices, both in character building (did you choose that reaction ability or the cool action instead?) and in play (did you decide to use a shield, for example?).

This is how I interpreted it. As long as there don't end up being huge feat chains/taxes for further reactions, I like the idea of allowing other characters to pick up relevant reactions through feats. And obviously not every character will have a relevant reaction every round!


Mark Seifter wrote:
syll wrote:


It isn't from only the teaser, but also the podcast. Multiple times now they have said -Fighter- gets an AoO. The -Fighter- has a charge action.

It would be very easy for Jason or someone else from Paizo to allay these fears if they are misplaced and set folks (like me) at ease.

More importantly they have said, in this very article "Not everyone will have a reaction they can use during combat"

In Jason's podcast group, the fighter is the one who had a relevant reaction in that situation (Attack of Opportunity), and only the fighter is certain to have it. Without revealing too much, at least one other class can just pick it up for a feat, and everyone else could in theory gain access if they are willing to commit to that style of play (flexibility is key for the new system!). But they might not want to do that if they have a reaction or reactions they like better, since at some point, you'll have enough reactions competing for use that you won't necessarily be prioritizing getting more of them. Whether you have a reaction to take in a given situation will depend on your choices, both in character building (did you choose that reaction ability or the cool action instead?) and in play (did you decide to use a shield, for example?).

Thank you very much for the response Mark


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
syll wrote:


It isn't from only the teaser, but also the podcast. Multiple times now they have said -Fighter- gets an AoO. The -Fighter- has a charge action.

It would be very easy for Jason or someone else from Paizo to allay these fears if they are misplaced and set folks (like me) at ease.

More importantly they have said, in this very article "Not everyone will have a reaction they can use during combat"

In Jason's podcast group, the fighter is the one who had a relevant reaction in that situation (Attack of Opportunity), and only the fighter is certain to have it. Without revealing too much, at least one other class can just pick it up for a feat, and everyone else could in theory gain access if they are willing to commit to that style of play (flexibility is key for the new system!). But they might not want to do that if they have a reaction or reactions they like better, since at some point, you'll have enough reactions competing for use that you won't necessarily be prioritizing getting more of them. Whether you have a reaction to take in a given situation will depend on your choices, both in character building (did you choose that reaction ability or the cool action instead?) and in play (did you decide to use a shield, for example?).

So just to clarify if I want to make an Attack of Opportunity I have to either play a fighter or multiclass?

I get the logic sort of get the logic in that but, that seems really limiting and contrary to the whole "build it your way" mindset.

I would really hope that at the very least something relatively basic like taking an AoO would be available to everyone either automatically or as a universal feat that can be taken. otherwise I feel like your setting a precedent where we get nickle and dimed for wanting to build something "less traditional". And if that's the case then we're back where we started with characters needed to spend a ton of feats to just one thing kinda well.


My problem with the Pathfinder Unchained Revised Action Economy (what this seems like) is that it removes the fourth iterative completely... Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it isn't, but if the only difference between an inquisitor and a Fighter is 5 points of BAB, and they both get 3 attacks at most, then the fighter had better have more than "Feats!" to make up the difference - because the inquisitor can make up 5 points of attack bonus difference in about three actions - and some of those options last for hours, so it isn't even in-combat buffing.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What if I like that 2nd Ed?
Wait... are you complaining because you might actually like what they are building???

No: complaining about the money-milking scheme that this is.


So I'm assuming that old standbys like "haste" and "quicken" are going to exist in some form with Pathfinder 2nd. Probably the most obvious way to handle these would be "haste gives you an extra action" and "quicken reduces a thing from 2 actions to 1". So I'm curious what kinds of restrictions there are on either "what kinds of actions you can take" or "on those mechanics themselves". Or are we just going to say "Casting 4 quickened spells under haste is fine"?

Obviously I'm going to have to wait to see specifics but there are probably ways to add actions and to reduce or increase the action cost of certain things.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

29 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, one class getting a thing, does not mean no others also get that thing.

Be patient. We will give you a better picture of things, but we will need time to make it all clear.


AoO is important. That is the way to tank since ages, and a it seems natural to a lot of people. I am okay with having different reactions but only if they are at least in the same power range than AoO, otherwise it will be a real disappointment.

Please counterspell as a Reaction like in 5E or with the Arcanist. Please please please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Concordia wrote:


No: complaining about the money-milking scheme that this is.

So you complain that they might make something you like enough to willingly pay for it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nomenclature question. So in Pathfinder to date I might refer to a character's choice to cast a spell, move, or drop something as "actions" since those are actions that a character is taking in the non-game-mechanical sense.

But now, casting a spell (generally) takes 2 actions, moving costs 1, and dropping something is a non-action (even though your character is acting). Since "that action costs 2 actions" sounds awkward" (sort of in the grand tradition of "we have to go up a level before we go down to the next level"), what do I call that category of "things that a character elects to do" just as a class?

Or am I just going to have to get used to "that action costs 2 actions"?


River of Sticks wrote:
My problem with the Pathfinder Unchained Revised Action Economy (what this seems like) is that it removes the fourth iterative completely... Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it isn't, but if the only difference between an inquisitor and a Fighter is 5 points of BAB, and they both get 3 attacks at most, then the fighter had better have more than "Feats!" to make up the difference - because the inquisitor can make up 5 points of attack bonus difference in about three actions - and some of those options last for hours, so it isn't even in-combat buffing.

As far as we know, it looks like "straight buffing numerical bonuses" are being reduced, so I suppose the Fighter will still have an edge in to-hit.

Also, with hits being crit if they pass AC by 10+, having more accuracy with to-hit, also mean having more average damage. Pretty sure the Fighter will get more mileage from their 3 attacks than most (if not all) other classes.

Sovereign Court

Interesting and opens up some new styles of play with this more open ended way with actions.

With regard to the shield reaction, maybe finally we have a reason to remember that enchanting armour/shields boosts their hardness and HP, meaning we can now block more damage and less risk of the shield being destroyed. How this would scale with the damage at higher levels we will have to see, but will improve on that 9 hardness of a non-enchanted shield in the podcast.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks, one class getting a thing, does not mean no others also get that thing.

Be patient. We will give you a better picture of things, but we will need time to make it all clear.

As expected.

My first impression of the class-defined feat options was a rebuilding of Rogue talents. Given how Rogues share talents with Ninjas, Slayers, Investigators and Vigilantes, and Investigators share discoveries with Alchemists...

Well, this seems like making the whole talent system ten times more manageable and something you can publish in a sane way.


SteelGuts wrote:

AoO is important. That is the way to tank since ages, and a it seems natural to a lot of people. I am okay with having different reactions but only if they are at least in the same power range than AoO, otherwise it will be a real disappointment.

If I remember correctly from my 4e days, fighters had some kind of "special AoO", which only they could use. They could attack with this special AoO even against enemies shifting (which would be Guarded steps by PF 2.0 parlance), and they get a AoO against NPC that attack an ally.

The AoO the fighter gets might be some kind of "this is an AoO, but better", just like Sudden Charge is an upgrade from Charge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Concordia wrote:


No: complaining about the money-milking scheme that this is.
So you complain that they might make something you like enough to willingly pay for it?

How dare they make something good that people want to buy! :) In all seriousness though. Totally stoked for this. Like what im hearing and im in for the test for sure. I love diversity in gaming and gaming systems so bring it on.


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.

Reading the other tidbits of information that have been posted so far, if you soak with your shield, your shield eats the damage, potentially being destroyed in the process.

Not only are you giving up actions that could be used to attack, if you soak damage you are giving up your shield.

If these rules remain, shields will be an option that results in everyone else at the table pointing and laughing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Each class having "class Feats" could amount to how the Fighter Gets Combat Feats now. If you break the Feats into Combat, Arcane, Divine, Scoundrel, etc.... groups, and then each class gains bonus feats from a specific group, you have what they are talking about.

It doesn't preclude have access to all those feat groups with just Character Level Feats, like we do now. So the Wizard gets bonus Arcane feats as he gains Wizard levels, but Feats gain normally outside of his class could still be used for Combat or Divine Feats.

IE: Just the way things are now, only the Feats are grouped more specifically and every class gets some range of bonus feats from one of those groups.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Reading the other tidbits of information that have been posted so far, if you soak with your shield, your shield eats the damage, potentially being destroyed in the process.

Not only are you giving up actions that could be used to attack, if you soak damage you are giving up your shield.

If these rules remain, shields will be an option that results in everyone else at the table pointing and laughing.

Doesn't that depend on how many hits your shield can take, how easy or hard it is to repair your shield, and how expensive it is to replace a shield that can't be fixed?

Like if a shield will last a whole day and can be restored to full strength with a single 1st level spell or a successful craft check, then absolutely this is a thing you'll want to do.

A lot of this stuff isn't worth being concerned about because it comes down to specifics.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now this is one change I approve of. All those different actions I found confusing starting out, and still (as someone who gets to play very irregularly at that) get a bit mixed up at times on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Reading the other tidbits of information that have been posted so far, if you soak with your shield, your shield eats the damage, potentially being destroyed in the process.

Not only are you giving up actions that could be used to attack, if you soak damage you are giving up your shield.

If these rules remain, shields will be an option that results in everyone else at the table pointing and laughing.

Doesn't that depend on how many hits your shield can take, how easy or hard it is to repair your shield, and how expensive it is to replace a shield that can't be fixed?

Like if a shield will last a whole day and can be restored to full strength with a single 1st level spell or a successful craft check, then absolutely this is a thing you'll want to do.

A lot of this stuff isn't worth being concerned about because it comes down to specifics.

Or maybe the shield ignores damage done to it that falls below it's hardness rating?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... I'm not quite clear what makes this a better action system. It seems like a lot of trivial stuff will be eating actions, and ranged characters (except crossbows, as usual) will have a distinct advantage as they can just attack-attack-attack every round. (Particularly since apparently -10 to hit doesn't matter against a lot of monsters?). This is seems reinforced by things like moving and holding a shield up are explicitly actions that will limit close combat characters.

So I'm unclear why this is 'better' rather than just 'different.' I like the idea of PF2 for a lot of reasons, but this action system reads like a lot of fiddly bits with a balance issue on top.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

So we get a bad mechanic 10 levels eaelier...yay? For the record, diminishing attack modifiers were bad 18 years ago with 3.0 and continued to stink in 3.5 and in PF.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Reading the other tidbits of information that have been posted so far, if you soak with your shield, your shield eats the damage, potentially being destroyed in the process.

Not only are you giving up actions that could be used to attack, if you soak damage you are giving up your shield.

If these rules remain, shields will be an option that results in everyone else at the table pointing and laughing.

Doesn't that depend on how many hits your shield can take, how easy or hard it is to repair your shield, and how expensive it is to replace a shield that can't be fixed?

Like if a shield will last a whole day and can be restored to full strength with a single 1st level spell or a successful craft check, then absolutely this is a thing you'll want to do.

A lot of this stuff isn't worth being concerned about because it comes down to specifics.

Or maybe the shield ignores damage done to it that falls below it's hardness rating?

That's exactly how it worked in the podcast example. His shield had hardness 9, so it would only be damaged by an attack that did 10+ damage. It wasn't spelled out exactly how much HP the shield had, or how it could be repaired, but the implication was that it would take multiple hits to break and damage could be repaired.

101 to 150 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