I see no changes to Actions in Combat for PfRPG. I don’t understand this since the game has had major additions in the form of Swift Actions and Immediate Reactions that were bolted on with splat books. 3.5e had virtually no changes from 3e in Actions in Combat so we are dealing with a virgin set of rules. We have been told this is ‘open play test, not open design’ yet this rule set has had no changes I can identify. Several of us have attempted to suggest changes. From memory, I have seen recommendations for new Actions, development of Swift Actions, developing mechanics to ‘combine Move Actions’, development of Actions that cause Immediate Reactions, changes to Partial Actions, new Conditions (admittedly a tangent) and unified theory for Attacks of Opportunity (another tangent).
Is there a reason for no change? Was this intended to be ‘no change’ or were we being asked for input? Are there fundamental reasons such as the splat books being easy to exploit if we changed Actions in Combat? Are those of us who find the ‘Full-Round or Two Action’ system overly restrictive the minority? (Isn’t that what play testing was meant to identify?)
Do I take this to mean that Actions in Combat will remain unchanged? I find this disappointing since I feel this leaves players with three bad choices; undeveloped 3.5e Actions in Combat, House Ruling PfRPG Actions in Combat or adopting 4e Actions in Combat.
P.S. I am disregarding the ‘if it ain’t broken’ argument. We playtested 1-1-1 Diagonal movement for goodness sake! I also know I have bad ideas sometimes (maybe even often). I also know that ‘high-level’ combat needed to be the priority as it is ‘almost broken’. I also know no one should have to work through Xmas, even Design Gurus. But we were given nothing to work with for Actions in Combat.