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
251 to 300 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

People comparing this to revised action economy: yes, the two systems look very similar. No, it will not have remotely the same mechanical issues, because this is not the same game. Classes and combat mechanics will be designed with the three generic action economy in mind rather than the standard-move-swift economy. No class will have to worry about "relying on swift actions" and that being a nerf because they won't be designed with swift actions, they'll be designed with single-action abilities that are appropriately balanced relative to other single-action abilities.

I do have some concern about archery being overpowered in this system, considering that archers don't have to move, and I'll be keeping an eye on how they balance that, but that's a concern specific to PF2, and not related to how things functioned in PF1.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.

That's assuming a lot about a system whose rules we haven't seen yet, to say nothing of the fact that such issues will hopefully come out during the playtest.

In terms of the magus and swashbuckler, I think it would be a perk if those classes can be replicated using existing base classes or multiclassing. That would free up future supplements to cover new design space.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.

We don't have any of the information we'd need to know whether or not this is true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

If this system has to have so many complicated options that break the rules to allow more things to happen, how is it any simpler?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

True. Not the same game. Not so different that we can't convert over our favourite components from the original I hope.


Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One-handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

I only use the 3 action system and what you are saying is not true.

two-handers are at the same efficiency more or less.

Two weapon fighters get more powerful because they don't need to full attack to make their off-hand attacks. They can do attack once with both weapons as 1 act. this gives them a lot more flexibility. So they get a big buff.

one one-handed weapon would stay at the same power level. No difference from a 2h fighter.

The bard will most likely use a free action in the 2e as well. just like in the 3 action system now.

the magus could have spell combat that is 2 acts that let you cast 1 spell and make 2 attacks. The spell could also be spell strike. Don't know if this is how they will make it work. But it could be.

a wizard would just cast a spell 2 acts and then attack once.

So one spell and 3 attacks vs 1 spell and 1 attack.

or have the op system for magus that they have in 3 action system without any changes.

Spellstrike lets you cast one spell and then att with it throw your weapon. 2 acts.

spell combat 1 act that lets you cast one spell and attack with your weapon. the spell you cast here can be used as normal and spell strike with.

So a turn could be Spell combat. Cast spell and makes a weapon attack with it. then attack. this was at -2
then spell strike. cast a spell and then attack with it.
-5 or -7

So 2 spells+meala attacks and then 1 additional melee attack.

I hope that they don't use this option and uses something that is closer to the one I typed before.

polar and swashbuckler build would probably be able to take a feat like combat reflexes. it would most likely look like this.

"Combat Reflexes: If you have this feat, you can take a number of additional reactions between your turns equal to your Dexterity bonus, but those reactions can be used only to make attacks of opportunity. You gain all the other abilities of this feat."

That's from the 3 action system that we have now.

I don't think they will make stuff worse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:


I do have some concern about archery being overpowered in this system, considering that archers don't have to move

easy way to fix that is to make arrow-redrawing an action. bows don't work with magazines and no, Legolas at Helm's Deep was not a documentary


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
I do have some concern about archery being overpowered in this system, considering that archers don't have to move, and I'll be keeping an eye on how they balance that, but that's a concern specific to PF2, and not related to how things functioned in PF1.

I would expect Paizo to plan around it. Generally, archers in PF1 can compete in full-attack damage because of the ability to put a high number of arrows in the air (rapid shot / manyshot), despite lower per-hit damage.

From the little bit I've seen on the website and gleaned from the Glass Cannon Podcast, it seems that full attacks are less of a "thing" (maybe non-existent, but who knows), and melee characters mobility is increasing. In the new system, it should be relatively common for melee characters to have to move and still deal around their optimal damage in a round.

In PF1, at level 6, a full BAB melee would often have to move and make only a single attack. A full BAB archer, on the other hand, would hang out in position and make 4 or 5 (with Haste) attacks per round, every round.

Unless Paizo decides to specific break their "one action, one attack" for range attackers, it seems like this new system could easily move more towards balance between melee and ranged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:


What about attacks of opportunity? Why can't every character do those from the get-go now? Why do only 2 classes get to "learn" that when previously anyone could do it?

Holy crap, you have the playtest document! Can you link it here, the rest of us have only been speculating on the tiny information we have.

I would love to be like you and know definitives.

2 pages ago, in this thread. Dev Mark Seifter's comment.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

Yes, and?

I wouldn't keep applying previewed 2nd Edition rules to 1st Edition classes, because I can grantee you they're not gonna work the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

Yes, and?

I wouldn't keep applying previewed 2nd Edition rules to 1st Edition classes, because I can grantee you they're not gonna work the same.

Then why did they preview the rules?

Seriously, what's the point of a preview if it doesn't make us think about it will change different things?

I get that we can't have all the answers yet, but if we can't do speculative analysis then the blog post shouldn't have comments enabled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

If this system has to have so many complicated options that break the rules to allow more things to happen, how is it any simpler?

So you think talking will cost you an action too?

Anyway it's not true that they are taking out free actions. The Revised Action Economy from pathfinder Unchained this is obviously based on has free actions, and examples of what you can do by developers such as Marc Seifter show there are free actions such as dropping a weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder how we replace the construction "as a free action, she can..." to refer to those things a character can choose to do, even if they don't cost actions.

Like I could imagine "Bardic Performance may be maintained each round without spending an action" or something similar, which is slightly more awkward than "As a free action".

Liberty's Edge

syll wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:


What about attacks of opportunity? Why can't every character do those from the get-go now? Why do only 2 classes get to "learn" that when previously anyone could do it?

Holy crap, you have the playtest document! Can you link it here, the rest of us have only been speculating on the tiny information we have.

I would love to be like you and know definitives.
2 pages ago, in this thread. Dev Mark Seifter's comment.

I don't know if it was that specific comment or elsewhere, but it has already been stated that anybody can gain the ability to make attacks of opportunity if they want to, it's just that the Fighter will start with that ability, and that one other class can gain it more easily than others. Everybody still has the ability to get it, though, if they want to devote the resources to it.

And just to be clear, this is just the basic "attack of opportunity" we're talking about. Since we have no idea what other Reactions will be in the game for various classes, there's no way of knowing what's available. Maybe there are other reaction options that are similar to the attack of opportunity, but that work differently enough that they don't count as the same thing. Maybe some tanky classes get "Stand Still" instead of "Attack of Opportunity". We have no way of knowing yet.

We're almost a full year out from the actual playtest, and almost two years from the final release, people need to stop acting like the tiny tidbits we have so far are everything there is to know about the new system. There is so much information we don't have that assuming that what we do have is all that's available is just pointless.


From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.


Maybe inspire courage will be an action to start and it lasts x number of rounds. Less tracking, plus frees up the actions


Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
Maybe inspire courage will be an action to start and it lasts x number of rounds. Less tracking, plus frees up the actions

Or possibly you simply choose to end it at the start of your turn. There are lots of options for how it could be done.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

And how do you know that Bardic Music will work the same way in PF2 as it does in PF1? How do you know that it even will be "an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds"? And even if it is, that doesn't mean it will require an action to maintain. It could just cost 1 round per round of use, and say that it lasts until you choose to stop it (which, obviously, would not be an action).

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

That is an assumption you are having.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

And how do you know that Bardic Music will work the same way in PF2 as it does in PF1? How do you know that it even will be "an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds"?

Because bardic music is the core of what the Bard is and has been?

This is like asking, "how do you know Wizards will cast spells?"

Unless they are changing the game so far that the current classes no longer exist, and they aren't, then the Bard has to have a combat buffing music based ability- and that's not going to be "infinite" so it has to have limited uses and duration.

Maybe they don't measure it in rounds, and do like 5E where you get a few per day- but the 5E Bard doesn't feel or play anything like a bard- it's either a fighter with a few buffs, or a wizard with worse spells.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

And how do you know that Bardic Music will work the same way in PF2 as it does in PF1? How do you know that it even will be "an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds"?

Because bardic music is the core of what the Bard is and has been?

This is like asking, "how do you know Wizards will cast spells?"

And as we all know, there is only exactly one way to represent Bardic Music.

The fact remains that you have no idea how these abilities will work, you just keep acting like they're tacking on this one new system and keeping everything about PF1 the same otherwise. I'm really starting to doubt that you're even arguing in good faith, given your refusal to accept that it's impossible to know how these things will work based on the very limited information we have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

If this system has to have so many complicated options that break the rules to allow more things to happen, how is it any simpler?

The system has non-actions, so I don’t see that needing to be a huge exception.

Options:
At the start of your turn, choose to spend a round or not.
Bard song is good enough to be worth one of your three actions. Giving up an attack at -10 is pretty cheap, and it doesn’t stop you from casting either. Bonuses to attack are twice as likely to matter with the new crit rules, too.
Bard song mechanics could be different. Spell-songs provide lingering bonuses with a duration, or inspiration is given before combat and is used to reroll misses or failed saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

And how do you know that Bardic Music will work the same way in PF2 as it does in PF1? How do you know that it even will be "an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds"?

Because bardic music is the core of what the Bard is and has been?

This is like asking, "how do you know Wizards will cast spells?"

And as we all know, there is only exactly one way to represent Bardic Music.

The fact remains that you have no idea how these abilities will work, you just keep acting like they're tacking on this one new system and keeping everything about PF1 the same otherwise. I'm really starting to doubt that you're even arguing in good faith, given your refusal to accept that it's impossible to know how these things will work based on the very limited information we have.

Nobody is arguing with me.

"Shut up, they will figure it out, you don't know" isn't an argument.

My assessment was that if Bardic Music cost one of your actions it would be a huge nerf to an already not powerful class--

No one has argued anything else, just said "have absolute blind faith that it will work somehow!"

I'm not the one in bad faith here, you are.


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

And lesser enough minions to hit at -10 probably are not warranting you going more defensive by putting your shield up in the first place. So good trade off if you are fighting a more serious opponent to turtle up a bit and swing more accurately. For moshing minions just have at them.


QuidEst wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

If this system has to have so many complicated options that break the rules to allow more things to happen, how is it any simpler?

The system has non-actions, so I don’t see that needing to be a huge exception.

Options:
At the start of your turn, choose to spend a round or not.
Bard song is good enough to be worth one of your three actions. Giving up an attack at -10 is pretty cheap, and it doesn’t stop you from casting either. Bonuses to attack are twice as likely to matter with the new crit rules, too.
Bard song mechanics could be different. Spell-songs provide lingering bonuses with a duration, or inspiration is given before combat and is used to reroll misses or failed saves.

Bard song is definitely not good enough to give up an action for.

It's not good enough now when you don't give up an action for it, especially when it can be superceded by spells so easily.


Voss wrote:

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.

From my unchained experience, there are several adventages to it.

Moving in combat is punished less. You can move and make 2-attacks.

Meh actions can be properly balanced woth great scioms. Intimidate is much less powerful action than casting Cause Fear, yet both are Standard. In unchained the later cost twice as much.

It doesn't punishes old classes without swift actions, conpared to Magus, warpriests, etc.


ProximaC wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.

We don't have any of the information we'd need to know whether or not this is true.

If they are patterning this a bit on how starfinder works dual wielding is a lot less useful/mandatory in starfinder than in classic pathfinder. With the new action economy I would somewhat expect this to be the case as well. But we shall see once we get the initial playtest docs that cover this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First, as is Bards are a great class. I'm happy most times I see one at a table.

Second, I don't believe that Bards are going to be in a bad place in PF2. But in a "worst case" scenario, where you have to spend one action every round to maintain your buffs, I'd happily spend a single action every single round to buff the entire party's damage output by 10-30+% (depending on the level of Inspire Courage, and the average necessary d20 roll to hit for the party).

In that worst-case scenario, I'd then either use my two additional actions to cast a spell (Good Hope, if it transferred over), or to make two iterative attacks with my bow. I'm literally only losing my lowest attack bonus attack, while simultaneously buffing myself and the whole party. I fail to see the nerf compared with the current situation.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

Yes, and?

I wouldn't keep applying previewed 2nd Edition rules to 1st Edition classes, because I can grantee you they're not gonna work the same.

Then why did they preview the rules?

Seriously, what's the point of a preview if it doesn't make us think about it will change different things?

I get that we can't have all the answers yet, but if we can't do speculative analysis then the blog post shouldn't have comments enabled.

Paizo gives previews to try and get us excited for things, the same reason companies but out trailers for movies and video games. There isn't anything wrong with speculation, it just seems like a lot of speculation is assuming the worst of Paizo. ...it's quite odd to be playing defense for Paizo for once, but I think that a lot of people are assuming people that Paizo are going to be really really excessively dumb about how this.

Why would they try and squish the PF1 classes into the PF2 action system in such a way as to make the classes not fun to play? Paizo knows that (most) players wouldn't play bards in PF1 if you had to spend moves or standards to maintain bardic music. So, why would Paizo not either improve bardic music such that it's worth spending actions on constantly, or find a way to make it not take up constant actions?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

And how do you know that Bardic Music will work the same way in PF2 as it does in PF1? How do you know that it even will be "an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds"?

Because bardic music is the core of what the Bard is and has been?

This is like asking, "how do you know Wizards will cast spells?"

And as we all know, there is only exactly one way to represent Bardic Music.

The fact remains that you have no idea how these abilities will work, you just keep acting like they're tacking on this one new system and keeping everything about PF1 the same otherwise. I'm really starting to doubt that you're even arguing in good faith, given your refusal to accept that it's impossible to know how these things will work based on the very limited information we have.

No one has argued anything else, just said "have absolute blind faith that it will work somehow!"

That's not what people are saying. We're not saying to have faith that it will work, we're saying that it's too early to know if it will work or not yet. You keep saying "if Bardic Music costs an action, it will be bad", but neither part of that is something we know enough to say yet. There's no reason to assume that it will cost an action, and even if it does, maybe that will be because they made it far more powerful. What if they change it to +2 attack, +2 AC, +2 saves, and +1d6 damage? I'd happily pay one action per round for that, it's a great buff to my entire party and will probably end up with a far greater damage output than the one attack at -10 I likely would have made otherwise. Which is my entire point: until we know exactly how Bardic Music works, we can't assume anything.

We're not saying "have faith", we're saying "wait and see before you start complaining".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What makes you think a bard will need to spend actions to maintain his bardic performance?

Because they've taken out free actions?

Otherwise it would have to be "not an action". . .

If this system has to have so many complicated options that break the rules to allow more things to happen, how is it any simpler?

The system has non-actions, so I don’t see that needing to be a huge exception.

Options:
At the start of your turn, choose to spend a round or not.
Bard song is good enough to be worth one of your three actions. Giving up an attack at -10 is pretty cheap, and it doesn’t stop you from casting either. Bonuses to attack are twice as likely to matter with the new crit rules, too.
Bard song mechanics could be different. Spell-songs provide lingering bonuses with a duration, or inspiration is given before combat and is used to reroll misses or failed saves.

Bard song is definitely not good enough to give up an action for.

It's not good enough now when you don't give up an action for it, especially when it can be superceded by spells so easily.

Okay, but it could be. As I said, boosting attack is now about twice as good, at least in terms of how often. Spending just one action is generally giving up some movement or a weak attack. If spells no longer outshine bard song, then you’ve got a good deal on your hand.

You might even be able to do something cool like remove the limited amount of singing per day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Because bardic music is the core of what the Bard is and has been?

It still could work completely different than it works in First Edition, just as that was completely different from how it worked in D&D.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

From the blog post:

"There are, of course, some exceptions. A few things don't take an action at all, like talking or dropping a weapon."

That seems to be saying there are VERY FEW things that take no actions, so I would not expect an ability with limited uses per day measured in rounds to be one of them.

In my experience "a few" and "very few" have different connotations and are not used interchangeably.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm very excited to try out this 3 action style of combat. But, I hope that Paizo keeps the Two Weapon Fighting version from Unchained (or something like it) and not drop it like they did in Starfinder. Two weapon fighting is a character flavor I still like playing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Love to get some clarification on spell actions. The podcast implied that the time to cast a spell was based on the components used (1 action for verbal, 1 for somatic, etc). Is that just the way it was interpreted in that podcast, or is that the idea going forward?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just some thoughts, not directed at anyone, just my ideas of how I see the design space for actions and class-specific reactions and whatnot.

Someone mentioned upthread that move, attack, ready allows the equivalent of PF1’s move, attack, AoO, so it occurs to me that the fighter getting to use AoO as their reaction is not class-locking AoOs, it’s making them easier for the fighter (or anyone else who builds for AoO) to do.

If class-specific reactions are in a number of cases something a character could do with the normal action economy, that’s a huge bonus to the class, but doesn’t take anything away from what other classes can choose to do. That’s design gold, right there. Let “everyone” do “anything” (obvious exceptions like casting spells aside), but let people build for some “anythings” to be quicker, easier (more seductive...).

This is a beautiful feature, not a bug.

I have no special insight, here, but to me this is an obvious means of using the simplified action economy to give benefits to classes - you don’t take away from anyone else, but you give more in certain places.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on two weapon fighting with the 3 action system would be to simply remove or greatly reduce the penalty for iterative attacks when you use a new weapon (-2 for normal weapons, -0 for agile weapons, for example). So someone with a longsword and shortsword could go -2/-2/-7, while someone with a pair of rapiers could go -0/-0/-5. And if you get a third arm, you're even better off.

Also, I don't think there needs to be an increased penalty for using two one-handed weapons. It's not especially realistic in the first place, and it's just unneeded rules clutter. Plus, I think using the agile weapon property can handle that issue anyway.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Love to get some clarification on spell actions. The podcast implied that the time to cast a spell was based on the components used (1 action for verbal, 1 for somatic, etc). Is that just the way it was interpreted in that podcast, or is that the idea going forward?

I think that was just how that player fluffed his actions for the spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.

Sword-and-board now gets limited a DR option.

It sounded like agile weapons take less penalties on iteratives (only -2!), so if that’s a property of daggers or something, there’s a nice reason to one with a one-hand-only weapon.
We don’t know how TWF works.
Crossbow users fire 1.5 times per round now, I think, up from 1 time. That’s an improvement.
Magus and Swashbuckler are really heavily tied to Pathfinder action economy. If they show up in 2.0, they will get redesigned mechanics.

I’m just saying that we already have some hints that what you’re afraid of won’t be how it works.

Liberty's Edge

QuidEst wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.

Sword-and-board now gets limited a DR option.

It sounded like agile weapons take less penalties on iteratives (only -2!), so if that’s a property of daggers or something, there’s a nice reason to one with a one-hand-only weapon.
We don’t know how TWF works.
Crossbow users fire 1.5 times per round now, I think, up from 1 time. That’s an improvement.
Magus and Swashbuckler are really heavily tied to Pathfinder action economy. If they show up in 2.0, they will get redesigned mechanics.

I’m just saying that we already have some hints that what you’re afraid of won’t be how it works.

Where are people getting this -2 number for Agile weapons? When I listened to the podcast, I heard him say normal weapons were -5, and Agile weapons were -4.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Chemlak wrote:

Just some thoughts, not directed at anyone, just my ideas of how I see the design space for actions and class-specific reactions and whatnot.

Someone mentioned upthread that move, attack, ready allows the equivalent of PF1’s move, attack, AoO, so it occurs to me that the fighter getting to use AoO as their reaction is not class-locking AoOs, it’s making them easier for the fighter (or anyone else who builds for AoO) to do.

If class-specific reactions are in a number of cases something a character could do with the normal action economy, that’s a huge bonus to the class, but doesn’t take anything away from what other classes can choose to do. That’s design gold, right there. Let “everyone” do “anything” (obvious exceptions like casting spells aside), but let people build for some “anythings” to be quicker, easier (more seductive...).

This is a beautiful feature, not a bug.

I have no special insight, here, but to me this is an obvious means of using the simplified action economy to give benefits to classes - you don’t take away from anyone else, but you give more in certain places.

In Unchained, readying an action and taking that action uses an action for readying, and you must still have an action left to take the actual readied action. So, unlike First Edition readying does actually cost you one of you actions.

I expect the new system to work in a similar way.

Liberty's Edge

Zaister wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Just some thoughts, not directed at anyone, just my ideas of how I see the design space for actions and class-specific reactions and whatnot.

Someone mentioned upthread that move, attack, ready allows the equivalent of PF1’s move, attack, AoO, so it occurs to me that the fighter getting to use AoO as their reaction is not class-locking AoOs, it’s making them easier for the fighter (or anyone else who builds for AoO) to do.

If class-specific reactions are in a number of cases something a character could do with the normal action economy, that’s a huge bonus to the class, but doesn’t take anything away from what other classes can choose to do. That’s design gold, right there. Let “everyone” do “anything” (obvious exceptions like casting spells aside), but let people build for some “anythings” to be quicker, easier (more seductive...).

This is a beautiful feature, not a bug.

I have no special insight, here, but to me this is an obvious means of using the simplified action economy to give benefits to classes - you don’t take away from anyone else, but you give more in certain places.

In Unchained, readying an action and taking that action uses an action for readying, and you must still have an action left to take the actual readied action. So, unlike First Edition readying does actually cost you one of you actions.

I expect the new system to work in a similar way.

It's already been stated that readying an action is one action, then taking that readied action is a reaction.


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

I don't know if this have been covered, I've skipped a few pages, but it sounds like most AoO are going away, so why would you bother?


JRutterbush wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

So it seems like this change benefits:

two-handed weapons users
Spellcasters

And it penalizes:

One handed Only weapons users
Sword and shield users
Two weapon fighters
Crossbow users

It seems to completely kill:

Magus, who now will have nothing that base wizard can't do

Swashbuckler who was built on getting extra reaction actions through Aoo and Opportune Parry-Riposte

Bard- who if he has to use one third of his actions to maintain his song which already was underpowered as a completely free action.

Polearm stop builds.

So, the two most powerful character types get more powerful, and a bunch of the already weaker character types get even weaker.

I can't wait to sit down at PFS2 table with a Bard and be immediately told to play something else every single time.

Sword-and-board now gets limited a DR option.

It sounded like agile weapons take less penalties on iteratives (only -2!), so if that’s a property of daggers or something, there’s a nice reason to one with a one-hand-only weapon.
We don’t know how TWF works.
Crossbow users fire 1.5 times per round now, I think, up from 1 time. That’s an improvement.
Magus and Swashbuckler are really heavily tied to Pathfinder action economy. If they show up in 2.0, they will get redesigned mechanics.

I’m just saying that we already have some hints that what you’re afraid of won’t be how it works.

Where are people getting this -2 number for Agile weapons? When I listened to the podcast, I heard him say normal weapons were -5, and Agile weapons were -4.

Thanks for the correction! That sound much more balanced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Something else I wanted to bring up: Unless you own every 1e book, and have played every AP, module, and PFS scenario that's ever been released for 3.5 and PF 1e, complaining about them not supporting 1e sounds like whining to me. You haven't done what's already there, why does it matter if there's nothing new?


Jodokai wrote:
Joana wrote:
So ... in Pf2, you could conceivably take a 5-foot- guarded step, attack, and then move up to your speed? Interesting....
I don't know if this have been covered, I've skipped a few pages, but it sounds like most AoO are going away, so why would you bother?

It was mentioned that some (most?) monsters would still get AoO, while some monsters would get unique other reactions, so still potentially useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
Something else I wanted to bring up: Unless you own every 1e book, and have played every AP, module, and PFS scenario that's ever been released for 3.5 and PF 1e, complaining about them not supporting 1e sounds like whining to me. You haven't done what's already there, why does it matter if there's nothing new?

Because if all the PFS tables switch to PF2 you don't get to play them?

If at GenCon 2019 (or 2020) the Paizo room is all PF2 tables, then PF1 players are excluded from GenCon, for instance.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Something else I wanted to bring up: Unless you own every 1e book, and have played every AP, module, and PFS scenario that's ever been released for 3.5 and PF 1e, complaining about them not supporting 1e sounds like whining to me. You haven't done what's already there, why does it matter if there's nothing new?

Because if all the PFS tables switch to PF2 you don't get to play them?

If at GenCon 2019 (or 2020) the Paizo room is all PF2 tables, then PF1 players are excluded from GenCon, for instance.

If there are enough PF1 players left that they'd be able to fill out the tables, then there will be tables for them. If not, then there aren't enough PF1 players left anyway, so it's not a big deal.

Paizo waited 10 years for a new edition, putting out tons of great content, but it's getting pretty bloated these days as well. Let the game evolve, that's just how things work. Or are you going to complain that there aren't any 1e D&D tables at GenCon as well, since the game has moved on to new editions since that one was made?

251 to 300 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: All About Actions All Messageboards