I have been thinking lately around the action system they are going to introduce to PF2 reducing the "types" of actions down to the two types of "Actions" and "Reactions". I must admit i really like the sound of this system and then i started thinking of the possibilities and maybe issues around this.
Forexample in the terms of the feat "Combat Reflexes", will this feat even be a part of PF2E or maybe it will be as easy as "You get a extra reaction" type of feat. And granted there will be features that can add more actions to spesific things like blocking with a shield, or features that reduce the actions like quicken metamagic, or adding actions like a extra action used for movements.
Could this also possibly open for "Multi-action" monsters that might have weaker attacks/actions, but more than just the standard 3? How will the action pool work with dual whielding? Will that add a extra action for the off-hand attack, or will it be two attacks for every action?
So many questions, and so much playspace to theorycraft.
I like it, but the playtests suggest that first level characters will have a lame third action. Attack/Attack-5/Attack-10, just doesn't work all that well. Some playtesters weren't doing it, but raise shield is kind of a no-brainer once melee is on. The second attack is meh, but worth attempting, and the third attack is crap, so raise shield is far better. What do you do with two-handed weapons and two weapon fighting, though? I think there needs to be something, even at 1st level, that is better than doing nothing or attacking at -10.
One option with a two-handed weapon might be an action to wind up (available to everyone, not gated by a feat). Perhaps a two-weapon fighter could convert an action to a reaction that can only be used to parry (though this feels too strong relative to the Raise Shield action). Stuff like that. It's not a big deal probably because players routinely didn't take their move actions at 1st level (though later it mattered because of the full round action differentiation).
In the case of combat reflexes, it was mentioned somewhere(i believe in the fighter blog) that they could get a second shield block reaction. This suggests that it is possible for other reactions might get more, though which ones and how many is still very much up in the air.
As for multi action monster... it is certainly possible for them to get more actions(its been hinted that slow removes one or more actions, so perhaps a monster with constant haste has 4 actions per turn?), I imagine in the case of weaker stuff, they'd probably combine them with normal actions instead of making them their own, if an ability is weak enough, why not just use a normal ability everyone has instead(or just use it instead of a attack at -10 as totoro mentioned above)? But if it is a rider on an otherwise normal attack action they will likely try to use it as much as possible.
I might been wrong in the concept of just two actions as you might have your "free" or "non" actions around still, but the ones that matter is the Action and Reactions.
The new "power attack" or better known as vital strike supposely were going to cost 2 actions for the benefit of adding a damage dice, so a fighter action sequence in the first turns of combat could be something like: Move + Power attack or Charge + Attack or Charge + Raise Shield, then Power Attack + Attack or Attack + Power Attack or Power Attack + Raise shield.
Theres a possibility that you could do other actions besides this like attempting trip, disarm or similar without it being affected by your previous attacks, or maybe even "aid another"?
Iirc combat maneuvers came up in the glass cannon playtest and they are effected by the attack penalty, but perhaps there could be feat that reduces it for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the 5' step is now an action, I think that a common tactic will be about slightly repositioning yourself instead of doing that third iterative. In most situations this will basically cancel out one action from all the opponents you are facing, who will have to close the distance to strike back.
Unless you have the ability to AoO, in which case you could prefer to stand toe-to-toe to threaten.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing as 1st level characters only usually get one attack in the current system, I am not too upset that the third attack has a low chance of hitting. I am an even bigger fan of the idea that just standing around and attacking as much as possible is no longer the best way to fight. I like the idea that combats will be more mobile and cinematic. I am getting excited to play test it and see if this is true.
I like it, but the playtests suggest that first level characters will have a lame third action. Attack/Attack-5/Attack-10, just doesn't work all that well. Some playtesters weren't doing it, but raise shield is kind of a no-brainer once melee is on. The second attack is meh, but worth attempting, and the third attack is crap, so raise shield is far better. What do you do with two-handed weapons and two weapon fighting, though? I think there needs to be something, even at 1st level, that is better than doing nothing or attacking at -10.
One option with a two-handed weapon might be an action to wind up (available to everyone, not gated by a feat). Perhaps a two-weapon fighter could convert an action to a reaction that can only be used to parry (though this feels too strong relative to the Raise Shield action). Stuff like that. It's not a big deal probably because players routinely didn't take their move actions at 1st level (though later it mattered because of the full round action differentiation).
Maybe people will use that third action to aid another or set up a flank. I can see several ways in which it could encourage more teamwork in a fight.
Maybe people will use that third action to aid another or set up a flank. I can see several ways in which it could encourage more teamwork in a fight.I like it, but the playtests suggest that first level characters will have a lame third action. Attack/Attack-5/Attack-10, just doesn't work all that well. Some playtesters weren't doing it, but raise shield is kind of a no-brainer once melee is on. The second attack is meh, but worth attempting, and the third attack is crap, so raise shield is far better. What do you do with two-handed weapons and two weapon fighting, though? I think there needs to be something, even at 1st level, that is better than doing nothing or attacking at -10.
One option with a two-handed weapon might be an action to wind up (available to everyone, not gated by a feat). Perhaps a two-weapon fighter could convert an action to a reaction that can only be used to parry (though this feels too strong relative to the Raise Shield action). Stuff like that. It's not a big deal probably because players routinely didn't take their move actions at 1st level (though later it mattered because of the full round action differentiation).
Right on. Aid another and flank are great options.
Hmm, in its current state it basically give everyone "Spring attack" in essence that you could move in attack and then move out, or "shoot on the move" as a ranged character. And since AOO is now a feature rather than a core aspect then moving around is going to be less painful, but on the other hand getting into a bad position will be even more dangerous aswell if you get interrupted mid-movement by a Readied action to trip or similar.
Hmm, in its current state it basically give everyone "Spring attack" in essence that you could move in attack and then move out, or "shoot on the move" as a ranged character. And since AOO is now a feature rather than a core aspect then moving around is going to be less painful, but on the other hand getting into a bad position will be even more dangerous aswell if you get interrupted mid-movement by a Readied action to trip or similar.
Everyone can do them, but not for free: that costs all three actions of the round.
This leaves space for some kind of feat that allows you to move back and forth and attack with only two actions, if the distance is short enough.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply having 3 actions per turn will be great for teaching new and less experienced players.
But the most interesting thing about the new 3 action economy is the importance of a single action. Somehow, it feels to me like each action is both more AND less important than before.
More important because it's more flexible. With a single action you can move, draw a weapon, attack, cast (half) a spell, take a step, raise your shield and so on. Combining different actions becomes simpler than it ever was. Your first level Wizard can fire a crossbow and cast a spell in the same round. Your Cleric can use a touch ranged heal spell and still attack twice. Overall less need for "must haves" like quicken spell or overly complicated stuff like spell combat.
Less important because all actions are equal. Ignoring full-round actions and rarely used stuff like immediate actions, PF1 has basically 3 types of action. The extremely important standard action, the necessary move action and the valuable but (especially in core) underused swift action. PF2 just has 3 actions. None of these is more or less important than the others, so spending a single action is no big deal. Take raise shield as an example and let's assume it would work similarly in PF1, i.e. spend an action to gain an armor bonus. It would be terribly terrible as a Standard action, half-decent as a move action and pretty damn good as swift action.
PF is going from action economy to action equality. Abilities no longer need to be weighted against their action type. Each action has a fixed value. You don't need to look at stuff like Feint and think "This ability is bad as a standard action, but it would be pretty good as a swift action."
Of course, with most spells and some abilities costing 2 or 3 actions, Paizo still needs to balance things carefully. But with action types gone, I think it will be more easy than before - which hopefully will make the game more balanced than before.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply having 3 actions per turn will be great for teaching new and less experienced players.
But the most interesting thing about the new 3 action economy is the importance of a single action. Somehow, it feels to me like each action is both more AND less important than before.
More important because it's more flexible. With a single action you can move, draw a weapon, attack, cast (half) a spell, take a step, raise your shield and so on. Combining different actions becomes simpler than it ever was. Your first level Wizard can fire a crossbow and cast a spell in the same round. Your Cleric can use a touch ranged heal spell and still attack twice. Overall less need for "must haves" like quicken spell or overly complicated stuff like spell combat.
Less important because all actions are equal. Ignoring full-round actions and rarely used stuff like immediate actions, PF1 has basically 3 types of action. The extremely important standard action, the necessary move action and the valuable but (especially in core) underused swift action. PF2 just has 3 actions. None of these is more or less important than the others, so spending a single action is no big deal. Take raise shield as an example and let's assume it would work similarly in PF1, i.e. spend an action to gain an armor bonus. It would be terribly terrible as a Standard action, half-decent as a move action and pretty damn good as swift action.
PF is going from action economy to action equality. Abilities no longer need to be weighted against their action type. Each action has a fixed value. You don't need to look at stuff like Feint and think "This ability is bad as a standard action, but it would be pretty good as a swift action."
Of course, with most spells and some abilities costing 2 or 3 actions, Paizo still needs to balance things carefully. But with action types gone, I think it will be more easy than before - which hopefully will make the game more balanced than before.
Yep, I agree. I'm really excited to see feint becoming actually useful!
Its one of the things i am most interested in to see how they flesh out in the playtest is the action system. I suspect we might get features that are for "X Action only" like the reaction with Shield Block, while features that give a full fledged Action or Reaction will be the "bees knees" of features.
The negatives i am worried about is when the devs start to deviate too much of the Actions into "sub-actions" like the extra shield reaction. So are we then going to see characters with 3 Actions, 1 action more for movement, 1 action extra for haste, 1 reaction, 1 reaction shield block, 2 actions to sip your tea, 1 action to pet your cat and 1 action you can get if you moon the moon during full moon. I hope they manage to keep it clean that these "sub actions" are few, and not too demanding/situational.