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
351 to 400 of 759 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Let me get this straight. If I want to be able to stop a guy from drinking a potion or casting a spell right next to me, I either have to have special training to react to this situation, or I have to devote part of my turn to preparing to interrupt the action?

Everyone just got a bit better about taking a quick drink without opening their guard to everyone with a quarterstaff.

It's not as if you'd get to take that AoO in PF1, anyway. Unless you are specifically trained to prevent it, they can just five foot step away from you first.


Mark Seifter wrote:
It's cool to see all the different speculation, particular those in this thread who were clever enough to predict that "Attack of Opportunity" might have some extra benefits now for fighter and friends, and that someone dedicated to interrupting without that reaction could ready an action. AoOs are pretty nice at interrupting actions nowadays, and they're not the only game in town for these kind of "attack when the enemy does something particular" reactions; they're just the one that's most recognizable. A certain character might hate magic enough to attack whenever someone casts any spell, even one they thought was safe, and another might be so skilled at combat that they get an attack whenever an opponent misses them by 10 or more! The reaction system allows characters to have all sorts of different reactions that surprise and confound their foes!

This was the original text of Mark's message. I'm glad that he felt it necessary to edit it.

I'm not thrilled when someone "in the know" thinks our speculation is somehow cool. The messaging here is that those who guess right are the clever ones and the rest are bumbling about in the dark providing the viewer with some cheap laughs.

We love your work and want very much to see you succeed. Please don't toy with us and our adoration of your product. You have built a great amount of goodwill with your customers, but this goodwill isn't a fixed asset.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's cool to see all the different speculation, particular those in this thread who were clever enough to predict that "Attack of Opportunity" might have some extra benefits now for fighter and friends, and that someone dedicated to interrupting without that reaction could ready an action. AoOs are pretty nice at interrupting actions nowadays, and they're not the only game in town for these kind of "attack when the enemy does something particular" reactions; they're just the one that's most recognizable. A certain character might hate magic enough to attack whenever someone casts any spell, even one they thought was safe, and another might be so skilled at combat that they get an attack whenever an opponent misses them by 10 or more! The reaction system allows characters to have all sorts of different reactions that surprise and confound their foes!

Let me get this straight. If I want to be able to stop a guy from drinking a potion or casting a spell right next to me, I either have to have special training to react to this situation, or I have to devote part of my turn to preparing to interrupt the action?

Are there going to be penalties to performing actions that would normally provoke an opportunity attack? (Like casting defensively)

It feels kinda video game-y to just have to stand there while someone does something utterly defenseless because I lack special training.

I don't see what is so special about swinging your sword at someone who let's their guard down.

I'm going to argue that this isn't any more video gaming than taking turns has been since 3.0. Your actions on your turn are supposed to represent what you are doing during the round. A character isn't standing still while other characters act, that is a conceit to manage the game. The whole structure is video gamey! I actually enjoyed the everyone declare then everyone act structure of older style games but they tended to be slower and harder to wrap your mind around. Shadow of the Demon Lord sort of brings it back with their quick and slow action system.

If a character wants to pay more close attention to their opponent's actions and attempt to disrupt it, it sounds like the ready action should be good for that since it works off of reactions and only requires one action. My hope that the ready action allows a degree of open endedness (I hit them if they let down their guard). Ready in 3.x style games had a huge opportunity cost. Now it is one of three actions and depending on how readying a third attack works might be a really good circumstantial option even without reaction abilities.

AoO were a way to make combat feel more dynamic, live and simultaneous. They did good at that. But now actions are being broken down a little more fluidly in a turn. Since the opportunity cost of the ready action is significantly lower, it makes sense to meld everything together. That some characters will be better at this sort of thing does not mean that other characters will be horrible. They will just likely have different incentives.

Rogue-like characters being good with AoOs is a style I hope carries forward in the system. I just don't expect it to work out exactly the same. My suspicion is that Fighter types and Rogue types will have a very different feel to the reactions, and opportunist style rogues will still be a thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please don't replace AOO with ready actions. As it is, ready actions can cause HUGE strain in player-gm relations since announcing the trigger conditions can sometimes be used unfairly by the opponent, and not announcing it can also seem as cheating.

AOO is cool because they can happen spontaneously and are only responsability of the guy triggering them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My hope is largely that the rules clearly indicate what sorts of triggers are appropriate for readied actions and what are not. Like I was never comfortable with "I will ready an action for when someone yells 'GO!'."

So specifying something like "actions can only be readied to be triggered by things which are themselves actions" might work. So you can ready a response for a spell, an attack, movement, drinking a potion, drawing a weapon, opening a door, etc. since those are all actions, but not for "when I hear the code word" since talking is a non-action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Please don't replace AOO with ready actions. As it is, ready actions can cause HUGE strain in player-gm relations since announcing the trigger conditions can sometimes be used unfairly by the opponent, and not announcing it can also seem as cheating.

AOO is cool because they can happen spontaneously and are only responsability of the guy triggering them.

because of this post, I'm going to make laminated cards for people to write down the triggers for their ready actions so I can't see them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
Woodoodoo wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I've tried to teach many new players Pathfinder and it's a pretty daunting prospect in most cases, to the point that I teach my current group rules as they come up rather than trying to get them to learn everything. I'm all for a system that's easier to teach, pick up, and play.
What? Teaching people the game as the rules come up is literally the best way to teach it. Learn by playing

Weeeeeell, you see, the thing is, um...

My first experience playing / learning Pathfinder was about 5 1/2 years ago when I purchased a set of dice and hardback copy of the CRB and read it front-to-back about 3 times in the span of a week, built test characters to determine if I had done it right, and came to the first meeting of a tabletop club on campus prepared with extra blank sheets just in case anyone else forgot them. I wanted to make sure that I understood how to play and came ready and armed with the knowledge that I knew what I was doing. And that's the story of how I became GM before I was even a player.

Reading these things all the way through in an attempt to understand how they work before playing is just how I do it personally. It took a while before I figured out that was maybe not the best way to teach it. Whoops.

I remember challenging a couple of guys at work to Battletech, having never read the rules. I borrowed a half-dozen books and a stack of magazines two days before the game, with tonnage set a 2000.

I memorized everything in a single night and decimated my opponents the following Saturday.

It was a glorious victory.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's cool to see all the different speculation, particular those in this thread who were clever enough to predict that "Attack of Opportunity" might have some extra benefits now for fighter and friends, and that someone dedicated to interrupting without that reaction could ready an action. AoOs are pretty nice at interrupting actions nowadays, and they're not the only game in town for these kind of "attack when the enemy does something particular" reactions; they're just the one that's most recognizable. A certain character might hate magic enough to attack whenever someone casts any spell, even one they thought was safe, and another might be so skilled at combat that they get an attack whenever an opponent misses them by 10 or more! The reaction system allows characters to have all sorts of different reactions that surprise and confound their foes!

Let me get this straight. If I want to be able to stop a guy from drinking a potion or casting a spell right next to me, I either have to have special training to react to this situation, or I have to devote part of my turn to preparing to interrupt the action?

Are there going to be penalties to performing actions that would normally provoke an opportunity attack? (Like casting defensively)

It feels kinda video game-y to just have to stand there while someone does something utterly defenseless because I lack special training.

I don't see what is so special about swinging your sword at someone who let's their guard down.

Everything about the initiative system in a RPG requires suspension of disbelief, because we can't process real time interactions.

Regular combat: fighter A has a bow, fighter B has a Sword. They are 60 feet apart. Fighter B gains intiative by the most minuscule difrference ever (they tie, they have the same Dex Bonus, they coin flip to see who resolve first). Fighter B somehow manage to produce a time bubble, move 60 feet, get next to Fighter A, and hit him with a Sword, all while Figther A is frozen in time, with his arrow knocked into his bow, and his feet gripping to the ground.

Fortunately, a tenth of a second later, Fighter A manages to get his revenge. He makes a 5ft step, carefully aim Fighter B (who is barely one arm away), and proceed to shoot vs him, several times (thanks to BAB and rapid shot), while drawing arrows from his quiver. Meanwhile, Fighter B is frozen in time, barely a yard away, looking how Fighter A picks arrow after arrow from his quiver, knock them into the bow, point at him, and shoot, while he is unable to do a small step and hit him with his sword.

All of that happens in the current PF ruleset.

Initiative, actions, and rounds, WILL require suspension of disbelief. Because they have ALWAYS required it.


Reactions seem really cool to me, the one thing I think would really put a bright sheen on it would be the ability to take multiple reactions in round in some fashion. Something like combat reflexes, or everyone just getting bonus ones slowly as you level.

Paizo Employee Franchise Manager

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pappy wrote:

I'm not thrilled when someone "in the know" thinks our speculation is somehow cool. The messaging here is that those who guess right are the clever ones and the rest are bumbling about in the dark providing the viewer with some cheap laughs.

We love your work and want very much to see you succeed. Please don't toy with us and our adoration of your product. You have built a great amount of goodwill with your customers, but this goodwill isn't a fixed asset.

The realities of book publishing are that we can't do more than give little bits of information here and there at this point. The book isn't done yet.

But we also couldn't sit on the fact that we'd be releasing it any longer. We have to give people a window to preorder it, and we need to give retailers the time to both order stock for themselves, and to ask us questions about the process and playtest rules set at GAMA in a few weeks. So we had to announce the playtest one way or another.


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

One interesting artifact of the new rules that will shatter the Golarion Olympics is that, come Second Edition, people can now be 1.5 times as fast as before.

Dark Archive

Personally I'm up for the change from AoOs to Reactions. In my experience AoOs are typically avoided by enemies just by altering their movement path, making it so that the only characters that really get use out of them are Reach builds and Swashbucklers / Bodyguard characters. Ranged characters and mages rarely interacted with the combat outside their own turn. Reactions are already more varied than the AoO out the gate just by nature of giving each class different types, and it leaves room for monsters to have some cool mechanics during fights too.

Besides, it doesn't look like the AoO is going away completely - we already have examples of two Reactions that basically function as the old AoO but on different triggers, so it's a pretty safe bet that there's more on the way. What about a Reaction to attack an enemy who attacks one of your allies, or one that allows a mage to slow down or stop an approaching enemy?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
One interesting artifact of the new rules that will shatter the Golarion Olympics is that, come Second Edition, people can now be 1.5 times as fast as before.

In PF1e a character can run 4x their speed as a full-round action. 5x with the Run feat.

With what we know of PF2e, a character can take three move actions, so in a turn at most they can trace at 3x their speed.

So characters are a bit slower (at least with the knowledge we have now)

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Can you clarify the "increasing penalty," Jason? The podcast made a three-attack sequence sound more like 0/-5/-5 but this blog seems to be saying something closer to 0/-5/-10. Can you sort that out?
It's the latter (0/-5/-10).

I have to admit, I'm not thrilled about that, especially in the context of crit fumbles also apparently being a thing. If it's true that rolling AC -10 or less is a critical miss in addition to a natural 1, then consider the following math:

Attack bonus of +5 (1st level character) vs AC 14
First attack: hit chance 60%, crit fumble chance 5%
Second attack: hit chance 35%, crit fumble chance 20%
Third attack: hit chance 10%, crit fumble chance 45%

Martials seem to be specifically disincentivized from actually taking advantage of their new ability to take three attacks from level 1 except against the most trivial opponents. Taking that third attack is statistically suicidal, and even the second one is kinda iffy.

I have similar issues with critical fails on skill checks, especially knowledge checks. Obviously I need to see the rules and playtest them before I say anything definitively, but if playing the game produces the effects I currently expect, that's likely a dealbreaker for me: instant houserule for home games, and likely the end of my PFS career.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
One interesting artifact of the new rules that will shatter the Golarion Olympics is that, come Second Edition, people can now be 1.5 times as fast as before.

The 3-Act system made the Run action a 3-act action, and if that's still the case then this won't actually break the record - it just makes the JV league that much more interesting :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:

The realities of book publishing are that we can't do more than give little bits of information here and there at this point. The book isn't done yet.

But we also couldn't sit on the fact that we'd be releasing it any longer. We have to give people a window to preorder it, and we need to give retailers the time to both order stock for themselves, and to ask us questions about the process and playtest rules set at GAMA in a few weeks. So we had to announce the playtest one way or another.

I appreciate your response and I understand completely that difficult decisions are an integral part of all businesses.

Perhaps I was too critical of a post that I read as trivializing those of us who are desperate for clarity and not looking for some kind of guessing contest. This may not have been a charitable interpretation on my part.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of spells and actions -- while you're at it, please standardize spell casting times.

It sounds like you'd more or less have to, given the changes in the action system, but I just thought I'd say so anyway, because this distribution:

+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
count | casting time
+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
2208 | 1 standard action
. 182 | 1 round
. 153 | 10 minutes
. .88 | 1 minute
. .54 | 1 immediate action
. .50 | 1 swift action
. .32 | 1 hour
. . 7 | 1 full-round action
. . 7 | 3 rounds
. . 7 | 1 full round
. . 6 | 8 hours
. . 5 | 24 hours
. . 4 | see text
. . 4 | 30 minutes
. . 3 | 10 minutes; see text
. . 2 | 1 week
. . 2 | 2 rounds
. . 2 | 1 standard action or see text
. . 2 | 10 minutes (see text)
. . 1 | Casting time 1 minute
. . 1 | at least 10 minutes; see text
. . 1 | 1 full-round action, special see below
. . 1 | 1 minute/HD of target
. . 1 | 10 minute/HD of target
. . 1 | 1 day
. . 1 | 6 rounds
. . 1 | 1 minute per page
. . 1 | 2 minutes
. . 1 | 1 minute/lb. created
. . 1 | 1 round; see text
. . 1 | full-round action
. . 1 | standard action
. . 1 | 3 full rounds
. . 1 | 10 minutes or more; see text
. . 1 | 12 hours
. . 1 | 10 minutes, plus length of memory to be altered
. . 1 | 1 standard action or immediate action; see text
. . 1 | 4 hours
. . 1 | 2 hours
. . 1 | 6 hours
. . 1 | 1 standard
-------+-------------------------------------------------+

... is crazy. So many weird edge cases and oddities. At the very least, things like "24 hours" and "1 day" are synonymous; pick one and stick with it.

Not to mention that I've been playing this game for years and years, and still cannot reliably explain the distinction between a "full-round" and a "1 round" casting time. I have to look it up every single time.

EDIT: Also, hey Paizo web team! People post tables fairly often in this hobby, but there is no support for a "code" or "pre" tag in the forums. Please consider adding that. Thanks.


Mark Seifter wrote:
A certain character might hate magic enough to attack whenever someone casts any spell, even one they thought was safe, and another might be so skilled at combat that they get a riposte whenever an opponent misses them by 10 or more! The reaction system allows characters to have all sorts of different reactions that surprise and confound their foes!

To a certain extent, random action in combat can be fun. But 4E took this WAY too far with it's soldiers - that were essentially mobile minefields with random effects to stop players from doing cool movement stunts. Don't take things that far!


SenahBirdR wrote:
I'm going to argue that this isn't any more video gaming than taking turns has been since 3.0. Your actions on your turn are supposed to represent what you are doing during the round. A character isn't standing still while other characters act, that is a conceit to manage the game. The whole structure is video gamey! I actually enjoyed the everyone declare then everyone act structure of older style games but they tended to be slower and harder to wrap your mind around. Shadow of the Demon Lord sort of brings it back with their quick and slow action system.

There is a difference between taking turns and preventing characters from taking an action that any character should be able to perform. The former makes the game easier to play, the latter is removing player choice because you want to make a certain character type feel special.

Quote:
If a character wants to pay more close attention to their opponent's actions and attempt to disrupt it, it sounds like the ready action should be good for that since it works off of reactions and only requires one action. My hope that the ready action allows a degree of open endedness (I hit them if they let down their guard). Ready in 3.x style games had a huge opportunity cost. Now it is one of three actions and depending on how readying a third attack works might be a really good circumstantial option even without reaction abilities.

Readied actions are rarely used at my table because they influence the GM's and players' actions in a meta game-y way. There is also ZERO point in requiring a prepared action to react to something so blatant as drinking a potion in melee. In a real fight, you wouldn't do something like that because you would expect your opponent to try to stop you. There is no, "Well, he spent 3 actions so I can safely down this potion" or "He only spent 2 actions, so I can't drink this potion safely." If you honestly want to do something that will let your guard down, you should have to take precautions regardless of who you are fighting against.

Quote:

AoO were a way to make combat feel more dynamic, live and simultaneous. They did good at that. But now actions are being broken down a little more fluidly in a turn. Since the opportunity cost of the ready action is significantly lower, it makes sense to meld everything together. That some characters will be better at this sort of thing does not mean that other characters will be horrible. They will just likely have different incentives.

Rogue-like characters being good with AoOs is a style I hope carries forward in the system. I just don't expect it to work out exactly the same. My suspicion is that Fighter types and Rogue types will have a very different feel to the reactions, and opportunist style rogues will still be a thing.

Then give them SPECIAL versions of AoOs. Perhaps Rogues can sneak attack as part of an AoO and Fighters can do multiple in one round. Don't nerf everyone else just to give one or two classes special features. This was the biggest problem with feats in 3.P. Too many feats were just things that anyone could do, locked behind a mechanic tax to make other people feel special. If you could imagine an untrained individual attempting an action, then ANY character should be allowed to try.

Liberty's Edge

Shisumo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Can you clarify the "increasing penalty," Jason? The podcast made a three-attack sequence sound more like 0/-5/-5 but this blog seems to be saying something closer to 0/-5/-10. Can you sort that out?
It's the latter (0/-5/-10).

I have to admit, I'm not thrilled about that, especially in the context of crit fumbles also apparently being a thing. If it's true that rolling AC -10 or less is a critical miss in addition to a natural 1, then consider the following math:

Attack bonus of +5 (1st level character) vs AC 14
First attack: hit chance 60%, crit fumble chance 5%
Second attack: hit chance 35%, crit fumble chance 20%
Third attack: hit chance 10%, crit fumble chance 45%

Martials seem to be specifically disincentivized from actually taking advantage of their new ability to take three attacks from level 1 except against the most trivial opponents. Taking that third attack is statistically suicidal, and even the second one is kinda iffy.

I have similar issues with critical fails on skill checks, especially knowledge checks. Obviously I need to see the rules and playtest them before I say anything definitively, but if playing the game produces the effects I currently expect, that's likely a dealbreaker for me: instant houserule for home games, and likely the end of my PFS career.

To be fair, we don't know that there will be any baseline effects for critical failures. It could only have an effect if it triggers an ability or something - for example, one reaction mentioned was an attack against an enemy that critically failed an attack against you. It's entirely possible (and I would argue most likely, even) that critical failures won't do anything on their own, they'll just be there to act as triggers for certain other abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making the assumption that most of the base rules are not changing a lot. Things like the hardness of materials are going to be the same. Then an Adamantine shield will be very useful. Add in the impervious enchantment with a plus 5 on the shield, will have a hardness of 40. In the current system my sword adamantine sword gets the impervious enchant right after the plus one.

I thought they would have went with a 6 point action system. One point for each second in a round. The system would have be easy to make things backward compatible. 3 points for a standard action, 2 points for a move action, one point for a swift action, 5 points for full-round actions, 1 point from the next round for immediate action, and 0 points for free actions.

That being said, three actions will be simpler for a lot of players to keep up with. I think it is likely that we will see more feats like quick draw that reduce the cost of actions. With the new action system a lot of the feats that were not worth taking will be. Vital Strike is one example. You got the base weapon dice as bonus damage. A nice boost, but not worth giving up a full attack. Now you are looking at giving up two attacks or getting in three vital attacks. Even if it is the former, giving up two attacks is not the same as giving up 3 to 5 attacks.

Feats like lunge will have a lot more power with the three action system and a 5ft step now being a guarded step that takes an action. Think move up and use lunge to make two attacks. The enemy now needs to use one of their three actions to close instead of getting three attacks. It is even better with a reach weapon. They will need to move and possible have to eat an AOO or use two actions to take two guarded steps.

As for classes like the Magus that use a lot of swift actions, which is one of the classes I like to play the most. I would give it a week two tops before some players have figured out how to convert the class to PF2. If there is a very good model of some of the non-core classes are worked out during the play test, they may add them to the core book. I think this is possible but unlikely.

The more that is possible with the core the better. I have found that it can be hard to find a gaming group that uses a lot outside of core. Most of them use the core rule book and two or three others. One of the main reasons for this is the cost of the books. While I am will to buy a book to get a class I want to play, a lot of GM do not want to let in class to their games that they do not have the books for. GMs I have found are more willing to let in a feat, spell, or item from a book they do not have than a class.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
There is no, "Well, he spent 3 actions so I can safely down this potion" or "He only spent 2 actions, so I can't drink this potion safely."

Couching it in game terms is what's causing problem here. In a real fight, it would actually be "That guy's really focused on beating up my buddy over there, so it's probably safe to down a potion." versus "That guy's attacking my buddy, but it looks like he's also keeping as close eye on me, so I probably shouldn't risk it."


JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
There is no, "Well, he spent 3 actions so I can safely down this potion" or "He only spent 2 actions, so I can't drink this potion safely."
Couching it in game terms is what's causing problem here. In a real fight, it would actually be "That guy's really focused on beating up my buddy over there, so it's probably safe to down a potion." versus "That guy's attacking my buddy, but it looks like he's also keeping as close eye on me, so I probably shouldn't risk it."

How about, this guy just attacked ME 3 times, therefore I can drink a potion? Wait, that makes no sense.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this Reaction system has a metric ton of potential. There's so many things I can think of that would be really cool Reactions. I'll put them in a spoiler below. X is used in place of values that would vary based on the game's balance points.

Reaction Ideas:

Trigger: An enemy makes a ranged attack against you. Benefit: Move up to your speed towards that enemy.
Trigger: An enemy's attack misses you by 5 or more. Benefit: Target creature adjacent to that enemy becomes the new target of the attack.
Trigger: An ally hits an enemy with an attack. Benefit: You may make an attack against that enemy with a -X penalty.
Trigger: An ally takes hp damage. Benefit: You may spend a spell slot to heal your ally for Xhp.
Trigger: An ally is forced to make a saving throw. Benefit: You may add a +X bonus to your ally's saving throw.
Trigger: An enemy targets you with a melee attack. Benefit: You may attempt a Dirty Trick maneuver against that enemy. On a success, the attack takes a -X penalty.
Trigger: An enemy moves towards you. Benefit: You may make a ranged attack against that enemy. If you succeed, instead of dealing damage, the enemy suffers from Hamper 10 for one round.
Trigger: An enemy targets an adjacent ally with an attack. Benefit: The triggering attack targets you instead.


There are reactions in 1E. They’re called immediate actions.


Zaister wrote:
One interesting artifact of the new rules that will shatter the Golarion Olympics is that, come Second Edition, people can now be 1.5 times as fast as before.

You are assuming each of those actions allow you to move 30 feet. That might or might not be true. If they allow you to move 20 feet, you get as much movement per turn, just divided in 3 actions instead of 2. It could be also that you can only use 2 per turn to move, and it could be also that turns are 9s. Beyond that, the run option already allowed characters to move faster than 2x30 per round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This 2e playtest sounds like what 4e tried to sell 10 years ago. A bunch of “fixes” (i.e., dumbing down) for problems I didn’t have that didn’t make the game any better. Whatever sells books, I guess. Sigh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
There is no, "Well, he spent 3 actions so I can safely down this potion" or "He only spent 2 actions, so I can't drink this potion safely."
Couching it in game terms is what's causing problem here. In a real fight, it would actually be "That guy's really focused on beating up my buddy over there, so it's probably safe to down a potion." versus "That guy's attacking my buddy, but it looks like he's also keeping as close eye on me, so I probably shouldn't risk it."
How about, this guy just attacked ME 3 times, therefore I can drink a potion? Wait, that makes no sense.

What about "that raging guy is attacking me wavering a battle axe, but I'm going to make a 5ft step, take my backpack, get a potion, and drink it, all while he is there frozen in time"?


RicoDetroit wrote:
There are reactions in 1E. They’re called immediate actions.

Well, now I believe the idea is to make immediate actions everybody can use, rather than having some classes have a lot of immediate actions they can take and other classes having none. I figure that's good.

Also, immediate actions no longer cost you your swift action next round, and indeed your swift action is now equivalent to a standard action (so we no longer have the issue where some classes have a lot to do with swift actions and some classes never using them). I figure that's positive too.

Dark Archive

RicoDetroit wrote:
There are reactions in 1E. They’re called immediate actions.

Immediate actions are not the same as reactions. Immediate actions can be performed at any time on any turn (including your own), while Reactions seem to require a trigger. Using an immediate action prevents you from using your Swift action on the following turn, while a Reaction seems to not affect the following turn's actions. In P1e (petition to call 1st Edition Pathfinder "PIE from now on) practically none of the core classes had any Immediate actions, and while later classes did occasionally get them they typically fell under either Spells (Feather Fall, Wave Shield, Emergency Force Shield, etc) or class features that use a limited resoruce (Unchained Monk's Ki Pool, Magus' Arcane Pool, Occultist Focus, etc) - as of right now it seems like every class has options for Reactions of varying types and they don't use any limited resources (outside shields potentially breaking of course).

Immediate Actions are the predecessor to the Reaction feature, but as of right now there are clear differences that separate the two action types.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Zaister wrote:
One interesting artifact of the new rules that will shatter the Golarion Olympics is that, come Second Edition, people can now be 1.5 times as fast as before.

In PF1e a character can run 4x their speed as a full-round action. 5x with the Run feat.

With what we know of PF2e, a character can take three move actions, so in a turn at most they can trace at 3x their speed.

So characters are a bit slower (at least with the knowledge we have now)

Ah, you're right, I forgot running as an action. The Pathfinder Unchained Revised Action Economy has running as an advanced action that consumes 3 acts, so I guess that will likely be an option in Pathfinder Second Edition as well for three actions. It seems the Golarion Olympics are safe, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My hope is that Reactions do not always need to be called out. If you have a feat that allows a Reaction to a Trigger, then the character has the option to spend his action on the Reaction or save it for another Trigger.

I think the only time a Reaction should need to be called out ahead of time is if there is no feat supporting it.


Just an ideia: the AC bonus should always be passive, since shields already are a bad option in PF1.

If they have the passive AC bonus AND with an action you can receive some DR, it seems a good option to me.


I really hate hearing that only fighters get the ability to make an AoO. Why the hell are they be considered more "martial" than barbarians or rangers? I think that some basic options should at least be limited by class types: AoO for martial classes (Full BAB in PF1 terminology), magic-related reactions for wizards and clerics, smth really weird for alchemists. The most important thing, IMO, is to give the "mixed" classes some benefit of choise. It'd totally be cool for a bard to be able to choose between being able to make an AoO, a magical reaction or a roguish one. Being able to make an AoO would also look well as a rogue talent.

Liberty's Edge

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Zaister wrote:
One interesting artifact of the new rules that will shatter the Golarion Olympics is that, come Second Edition, people can now be 1.5 times as fast as before.
You are assuming each of those actions allow you to move 30 feet. That might or might not be true. If they allow you to move 20 feet, you get as much movement per turn, just divided in 3 actions instead of 2. It could be also that you can only use 2 per turn to move, and it could be also that turns are 9s. Beyond that, the run option already allowed characters to move faster than 2x30 per round.

In the podcast, human base speed was 25 feet.

Liberty's Edge

Dryxxxa wrote:
I really hate hearing that only fighters get the ability to make an AoO. Why the hell are they be considered more "martial" than barbarians or rangers? I think that some basic options should at least be limited by class types: AoO for martial classes (Full BAB in PF1 terminology), magic-related reactions for wizards and clerics, smth really weird for alchemists. The most important thing, IMO, is to give the "mixed" classes some benefit of choise. It'd totally be cool for a bard to be able to choose between being able to make an AoO, a magical reaction or a roguish one. Being able to make an AoO would also look well as a rogue talent.

Once again, Fighters aren't the only ones that can make attacks of opportunity, they're just the only ones that automatically get the ability to do so. Everybody else can gain that ability if they want, and many classes get reactions that are similar to attacks of opportunity, just with different triggers or actions they take in response.


Dryxxxa wrote:
I really hate hearing that only fighters get the ability to make an AoO. Why the hell are they be considered more "martial" than barbarians or rangers? I think that some basic options should at least be limited by class types: AoO for martial classes (Full BAB in PF1 terminology), magic-related reactions for wizards and clerics, smth really weird for alchemists. The most important thing, IMO, is to give the "mixed" classes some benefit of choise. It'd totally be cool for a bard to be able to choose between being able to make an AoO, a magical reaction or a roguish one. Being able to make an AoO would also look well as a rogue talent.

From what I understand, Fighters do not get the exclusive rights to Attacks of Opportunity, they just get access to the feat that allows them to make a sort of Improved AoO, and that other classes will have other ways to access that ability. We haven't even heard any mention of Rangers, Barbarians, or Monks yet, and currently I'm under the impression that they would also get prioritized access to the Improved AoO, for lack of a better term, so we just need to wait and see until more details come forth.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

Attack bonus of +5 (1st level character) vs AC 14

First attack: hit chance 60%, crit fumble chance 5%
Second attack: hit chance 35%, crit fumble chance 20%
Third attack: hit chance 10%, crit fumble chance 45%

Martials seem to be specifically disincentivized from actually taking advantage of their new ability to take three attacks from level 1 except against the most trivial opponents. Taking that third attack is statistically suicidal, and even the second one is kinda iffy.

I have similar issues with critical fails on skill checks, especially knowledge checks. Obviously I need to see the rules and playtest them before I say anything definitively, but if playing the game produces the effects I currently expect, that's likely a dealbreaker for me: instant houserule for home games, and likely the end of my PFS career.

To be fair, we don't know that there will be any baseline effects for critical failures. It could only have an effect if it triggers an ability or something - for example, one reaction mentioned was an attack against an enemy that critically failed an attack against you. It's entirely possible (and I would argue most likely, even) that critical failures won't do anything on their own, they'll just be there to act as triggers for certain other abilities.

Even if that's true - and I of course admit that it might be - it still raises the question of whether you'd want to risk whatever the trigger is if it's 4 and a half times as likely to go off as you actually hitting is.


JRutterbush wrote:
Dryxxxa wrote:
I really hate hearing that only fighters get the ability to make an AoO. Why the hell are they be considered more "martial" than barbarians or rangers? I think that some basic options should at least be limited by class types: AoO for martial classes (Full BAB in PF1 terminology), magic-related reactions for wizards and clerics, smth really weird for alchemists. The most important thing, IMO, is to give the "mixed" classes some benefit of choise. It'd totally be cool for a bard to be able to choose between being able to make an AoO, a magical reaction or a roguish one. Being able to make an AoO would also look well as a rogue talent.
Once again, Fighters aren't the only ones that can make attacks of opportunity, they're just the only ones that automatically get the ability to do so. Everybody else can gain that ability if they want, and many classes get reactions that are similar to attacks of opportunity, just with different triggers or actions they take in response.

Oh, I misinterpreted it then. It's basically what I wrote so that makes me a happier person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Just wanted to chime in and say that I love the idea of reactions being a thing you have to pick and choose what you are capable of, so different characters can specialize in different reactions.

I haven't seen an explicit system like that before, and I really like it.

Liberty's Edge

Shisumo wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

Attack bonus of +5 (1st level character) vs AC 14

First attack: hit chance 60%, crit fumble chance 5%
Second attack: hit chance 35%, crit fumble chance 20%
Third attack: hit chance 10%, crit fumble chance 45%

Martials seem to be specifically disincentivized from actually taking advantage of their new ability to take three attacks from level 1 except against the most trivial opponents. Taking that third attack is statistically suicidal, and even the second one is kinda iffy.

I have similar issues with critical fails on skill checks, especially knowledge checks. Obviously I need to see the rules and playtest them before I say anything definitively, but if playing the game produces the effects I currently expect, that's likely a dealbreaker for me: instant houserule for home games, and likely the end of my PFS career.

To be fair, we don't know that there will be any baseline effects for critical failures. It could only have an effect if it triggers an ability or something - for example, one reaction mentioned was an attack against an enemy that critically failed an attack against you. It's entirely possible (and I would argue most likely, even) that critical failures won't do anything on their own, they'll just be there to act as triggers for certain other abilities.
Even if that's true - and I of course admit that it might be - it still raises the question of whether you'd want to risk whatever the trigger is if it's 4 and a half times as likely to go off as you actually hitting is.

Yes. That's called a "tactical decision", and it's part of the depth of systems like Pathfinder that its players enjoy. "Does this enemy have a trigger if I fumble, or is it safe to take the risk?"


Bladelock wrote:

My hope is that Reactions do not always need to be called out. If you have a feat that allows a Reaction to a Trigger, then the character has the option to spend his action on the Reaction or save it for another Trigger.

I think the only time a Reaction should need to be called out ahead of time is if there is no feat supporting it.

and this is what happened woth AoO, people can still 'make attack out of own turn because of [trigger]' sure, nothing is preventing that. but if you take the class options, you just don't need to get ready anymore, no need to call it out.

and i think there would be differing options for different classes

i imagine AoO for fighters and few others martial class, counterspells for magical class
something like tripping an opponent.

heck, in this state of knowledge, the 'Aoo only for fighter' could turn out to be the worst option among those other option


gustavo iglesias wrote:
thflame wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
There is no, "Well, he spent 3 actions so I can safely down this potion" or "He only spent 2 actions, so I can't drink this potion safely."
Couching it in game terms is what's causing problem here. In a real fight, it would actually be "That guy's really focused on beating up my buddy over there, so it's probably safe to down a potion." versus "That guy's attacking my buddy, but it looks like he's also keeping as close eye on me, so I probably shouldn't risk it."
How about, this guy just attacked ME 3 times, therefore I can drink a potion? Wait, that makes no sense.
What about "that raging guy is attacking me wavering a battle axe, but I'm going to make a 5ft step, take my backpack, get a potion, and drink it, all while he is there frozen in time"?

You are forgetting that the 5 foot step is optional. That's my issue. Unless the guy attacking you is a fighter or has a particular feat, you can do whatever you want right next to them without penalty.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

A note to the people who have said "I've never had a problem with ____" and/or "How could anyone ____":

Please remember just how DIFFERENT people can be. We learn differently, find different aspects of the game interesting, etc.

I think a good example is me and my best friend. I usually do a pretty good job remembering the current "standard/move/swift" action economy *itself* pretty well, but I often forget class abilities that can be triggered on those actions, and which actions they're triggered on specifically. Sometimes I still get confused on whether or not you can take a 5ft step and still full attack.

My besty on the other hand is a MUCH more casual player than I am, and is constantly confused trying to keep the action types straight. The reason I have to keep trying to remember how 5ft steps work is that he's constantly asking "isn't there some kind of move I can do for free?"

I could loose DAYS just reading over the rulebooks coming up with all sorts of class/feat combinations and story ideas based on monster flavor text. My friend would fall asleep after 20 minutes, assuming trying to figure stuff out didn't trigger his anxiety.

All that said, you should see him role-play his characters. THAT is part of the game he finds the most fun.

And I am by no means trying to say that my friend is stupid or anything like that. If anything, I'd bet he's smarter than me. It's just that our brains are wired very, VERY differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

You are forgetting that the 5 foot step is optional. That's my issue. Unless the guy attacking you is a fighter or has a particular feat, you can do whatever you want right next to them without penalty.

As opposed to making a free 5 feet step and then do whatever you want while the other guy is affeccted by Time Stop because it's your turn in the initiative order.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I said this earlier but I do want to bring up again the amount of potential combat-based reactions have in P2e. If you can use your shield to absorb a blow for you, it's not too much of a stretch to have a type of dagger (an analogue to the Dueling Dagger from the Adventurer's Armor 2 comes to mind) where you hold it in your off hand and, if you spend an action to prepare it, you can use it to parry (maybe even riposte) an attack as a reaction. Rapier and dagger is a form of two-weapon fighting that gets under-represented all the time and I feel like that P2e's reaction system would work perfectly for it.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Can you clarify the "increasing penalty," Jason? The podcast made a three-attack sequence sound more like 0/-5/-5 but this blog seems to be saying something closer to 0/-5/-10. Can you sort that out?
It's the latter (0/-5/-10).

I have to admit, I'm not thrilled about that, especially in the context of crit fumbles also apparently being a thing. If it's true that rolling AC -10 or less is a critical miss in addition to a natural 1, then consider the following math:

There is no special effect for critically failing a normal attack roll, beyond the usual for missing. Now some sorts of characters might have a reaction to take in that situation (as I mentioned above), but if not, you're good. We know about the whole problem with multiple attack rolls and critical fumbles on a 1 doing "bad things" on an attack roll, it's a real problem with fumble rules especially in PF1.

EDIT: And JRutterbush has already figured it out!

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pappy wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:

The realities of book publishing are that we can't do more than give little bits of information here and there at this point. The book isn't done yet.

But we also couldn't sit on the fact that we'd be releasing it any longer. We have to give people a window to preorder it, and we need to give retailers the time to both order stock for themselves, and to ask us questions about the process and playtest rules set at GAMA in a few weeks. So we had to announce the playtest one way or another.

I appreciate your response and I understand completely that difficult decisions are an integral part of all businesses.

Perhaps I was too critical of a post that I read as trivializing those of us who are desperate for clarity and not looking for some kind of guessing contest. This may not have been a charitable interpretation on my part.

Mostly I'm just proud of our community that so many of you have such good instincts that you can read more into what we say and discover some of the design ideas behind them. You guys rock!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I posted this in another thread, but I'd love to see some of the less expensive level adjustment metamagic abilities use an additional action to cast rather than increase the spell level. Stuff like silent, still, extend, etc. The more expensive ones like empower, maximize and quicken would likely still need to increase the spell level, as they're too powerful for only an extra action (and for quicken wouldn't make a lot of sense).


FWIW, I appreciate the early notice. : D

351 to 400 of 759 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: All About Actions All Messageboards