| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cream of the crop is in unification. A lot of the confusion in PF1 is different classes operating on different systems. There will still be a learning curve and its not as simple as buttering bread, but once you learn it all like classes will play by the same rules. Players/GMs will have an easier time becoming proficient with PF2.
Thats how I see it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing how many actions a thing takes sounds a whole lot easier than remembering what kind of action a thing is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing how many actions a thing takes sounds a whole lot easier than remembering what kind of action a thing is.
Especially since if you do have a feat or ability that takes multiple actions, you can just quickly note it in the summary on your character sheet. Like "Sudden Charge (2 AP): Yadda Yadda"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The action system is the single thing I like the most about PF 2E. It is a great example of getting rid of complexity where it never was really needed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best things about the action economy in PF2 is that we have gotten rid of the difference between "an attack action" and "an action being used to attack".
Free actions are fairly intuitive, representing things like "you can walk and talk at the same time" and the system is phrased as "3 actions and a reaction" so the last one is right there in the name.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been using the Unchained Revised Action Economy for some time, and I cannot imagine going back to the standard economy.
Yeah, I recently converted and am enjoying it a lot. And that is with a system it wasn't designed for that requires a lot of house rules...
Full attacks were not an intuitive concept. Move 5 feet or less and I can get 5 or more attacks, but if I move 10 feet I only get 1? Having 1 attack = 1 action = one move is so much easier.
Also, being easier is really only one of several benefits. It also makes martials more mobile, helps make natural attacks work more like manufactured weapons, makes it so taking a -10 attack isn't always the best choice, and in general opens up new tactical design space the old system didn't accommodate. The new Heal spell isn't simpler, but it is a lot more interesting and flexible. I have to remind newbie healers that Cure spells are touch only super often.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1:
Making an attack is a standard action. If something lets you spend a standard action to make an attack, that’s different.
Something that takes one round takes much longer than something that takes a full round.
An immediate action uses next turn’s swift action.
A five-foot step is its own special action.
A full-round action is made of two other actions.
The new setup seems simpler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1:
Making an attack is a standard action. If something lets you spend a standard action to make an attack, that’s different.
Something that takes one round takes much longer than something that takes a full round.
An immediate action uses next turn’s swift action.
A five-foot step is its own special action.
A full-round action is made of two other actions.The new setup seems simpler.
Don't forget, a 5 foot step can be used with a move action but not a move action to move...
Or charging in the surprise round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah move actions during which you don't actually move are incredibly incredibly odd and I'm glad to see the back of them :) Especially with the way they interacted with the 5 foot step (which you use to move but is not a move action).
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the time it takes to know what you can do in a turn, it's about reducing the number of different action types and weird corner-case interactions you have to keep in mind at any time to know how each action you take interacts with each other and whether they're doable in the same round at all. I never had a problem figuring out how much time I'd need to cast a spell, but I swear I've searched hundreds of times whether someone could do two different things in their turn or not.
In PF2, anything that's not free, swift or a reaction will substract a number of actions from your three actions for the turn, (technically, free actions are just actions that cost 0, so only swift and reactions work differently), you then use your remaining actions to do other stuff. Period.
Whereas in PF1 you have Full Round Actions, Standard Actions, Move Actions, Move-Equivalent Actions, Actions that Attack but can't be used during Full Attack Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, Actions that aren't technically Actions, Standard Actions that represent the undertaking of a Full-Round Action that will be finished your next turn, Attack actions with variable durations such as Combat Maneuvers... and each of those classes of actions is comprised of several different actions that have their own special rules that make them interact with other different types of actions in different ways.
Full Round Actions take your whole turn and that means you can't move unless they include movement but you can still use a Full Attack Action and a Five-Foot Step in a round if you want because moving five feet is not actually a Move Action, but instead a miscellaneous non-action that you can only do if you don't move any more (by using a Move Action or as part of another kind of Action) in your turn. But some Full Round Actions can be done as a single Standard Action if you're limited to a single Action in a turn for some reason.
You can take a Move Action and a Standard Action in your turn but you can spend your Standard Action on a second Move Action instead.
A Withdraw action is a Full Round Action that allows you to move twice your speed as a Full Round Action while treating your starting square as if it wasn't threatened and what I just described is LITERALLY just taking a 5-Foot Step followed by a Move Action and then spending your Standard Action for the turn to do a second Move Action but it needs to exist as a separate entity because the 5-Foot Step Action (which actually takes No Action to be performed in combat, but still costs you your Move Action for the turn in most cases) doesn't allow you to move anymore during that turn and thus doesn't allow you do do this.
The way Actions work in Pathfinder 1 is an absolute mess because they depend on a restrictive core rule and everything else has to be codified as an exception to that rule, while PF2 has an actual System underneath its actions that offers a default behavior while leaving enough space for flexibility in order to account for the needs of different actions without having to break the core system too much.
It simplifies a lot of stuff. Just not the stuff you were looking for. You no longer have to remember whether you can stand up from a prone position and do a 5-foot step in the same turn because standing up is a move action but it doesn't really move you so does it actually count as "moving" for the purpose of moving 5 feet? You just stand up, then move.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On paper it looks just as complicated, as there's just as many actions.
In play it's a little easier. Mostly because people spend less time wondering what they can do with their Swift Action and the like. They know what they can do with an action already, so they don't need to check and wonder if there's a spell they can cast or ability they can use.
When the fighter or bard ends up with an extra action, they don't need to think, they can just attack again. Or take another 5-foot step.
On paper it looks just as complicated, as there's just as many actions.
Not really?
In PF1 you have, going by the CRB table on actions, these distinct types of actions, each of them with different "costs" and/or conditions under which they can be taken: Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies.
In PF2 there is: Actions, Free Actions, Reactions and Swift Actions. Literally half. And since combat stuff can take anywhere from 1 to 3 actions they no longer need weird action classes such as "Action Type Varies" or "No Action" to include them, so there's no reason to expect them to appear in the future (IIRC, the Step action, equivalent to the 5-foot step, costs one action and that's it).
Yeap the rules for "actions" in pathfinder are a nightmare.
We can be used to them and know them back and forth, but they are a nightmare none the less. I had like 3 minutes conversation if as part of a move action I can make a jump over a table climb a little wall and then make mi single attack.
Or the fact that I need to actively search ways to use swift action to improve my action economy.
I’m glad for the more stream lined system.
On paper it looks just as complicated, as there's just as many actions.Not really?
In PF1 you have, going by the CRB table on actions, these distinct types of actions, each of them with different "costs" and/or conditions under which they can be taken: Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies.
In PF2 there is: Actions, Free Actions, Reactions and Swift Actions. Literally half. And since combat stuff can take anywhere from 1 to 3 actions they no longer need weird action classes such as "Action Type Varies" or "No Action" to include them, so there's no reason to expect them to appear in the future (IIRC, the Step action, equivalent to the 5-foot step, costs one action and that's it).
Not really? Instead of full round actions [move + standard], you have 2 action actions and 3 action actions... Immediate actions changed into reactions. free are free still... We have no idea if no actions are still around [but i assume they will or you can't delay?] and we DO have variable type sp... By my count we have 1 more action the old way.
Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies = 8
1 action, 2 action, 3 action, free, reaction, no action, action variable = 7.
Myself, it's not seeming like a big difference either way: the new way seems slightly easier with the 3 actions seemingly the same though attack numbers go down through progressive use so they may not be exactly the same in practice.
On paper it looks just as complicated, as there's just as many actions.Not really?
In PF1 you have, going by the CRB table on actions, these distinct types of actions, each of them with different "costs" and/or conditions under which they can be taken: Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies.
In PF2 there is: Actions, Free Actions, Reactions and Swift Actions. Literally half. And since combat stuff can take anywhere from 1 to 3 actions they no longer need weird action classes such as "Action Type Varies" or "No Action" to include them, so there's no reason to expect them to appear in the future (IIRC, the Step action, equivalent to the 5-foot step, costs one action and that's it).
Not really? Instead of full round actions [move + standard], you have 2 action actions and 3 action actions... Immediate actions changed into reactions. free are free still... We have no idea if no actions are still around [but i assume they will or you can't delay?] and we DO have variable type sp... By my count we have 1 more action the old way.
Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies = 8
1 action, 2 action, 3 action, free, reaction, no action, action variable = 7.
Myself, it's not seeming like a big difference either way: the new way seems slightly easier with the 3 actions seemingly the same though attack numbers go down through progressive use so they may not be exactly the same in practice.
The thing is that you have "3 actions, and some things will take more than one action to do" is a lot more intuitive than "You have a move, a standard, and swift OR an immediate. But instead of a move and a standard you can do a full round, and 5 foot step you can do sometimes, and also you get one attack of opportunity...
Iterative penalties can be a pain to calculate, but that would be true in the old system too.
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that you have "3 actions, and some things will take more than one action to do" is a lot more intuitive than "You have a move, a standard, and swift OR an immediate. But instead of a move and a standard you can do a full round, and 5 foot step you can do...On paper it looks just as complicated, as there's just as many actions.Not really?
In PF1 you have, going by the CRB table on actions, these distinct types of actions, each of them with different "costs" and/or conditions under which they can be taken: Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies.
In PF2 there is: Actions, Free Actions, Reactions and Swift Actions. Literally half. And since combat stuff can take anywhere from 1 to 3 actions they no longer need weird action classes such as "Action Type Varies" or "No Action" to include them, so there's no reason to expect them to appear in the future (IIRC, the Step action, equivalent to the 5-foot step, costs one action and that's it).
Not really? Instead of full round actions [move + standard], you have 2 action actions and 3 action actions... Immediate actions changed into reactions. free are free still... We have no idea if no actions are still around [but i assume they will or you can't delay?] and we DO have variable type sp... By my count we have 1 more action the old way.
Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies = 8
1 action, 2 action, 3 action, free, reaction, no action, action variable = 7.
Myself, it's not seeming like a big difference either way: the new way seems slightly easier with the 3 actions seemingly the same though attack numbers go down through progressive use so they may not be exactly the same in practice.
It's the difference between:
1) There are quatloos, waznits, bliknorks, foozles, and barloks. On your turn, you can do a quatloo and a waznit, two waznits, or one bliknork, and either way you can do one foozle too, except you can do a barlok at any time and if you do, you can't do a foozle next turn. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
2) On your turn, you have three foozles. Some things might use more than one foozle and will tell you how many foozles. You can also do a barlok at any time. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
Without looking back at the above text, in #1 can you do a waznit, a foozle, and another waznit on your turn? In #2, can you do four foozles?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iterative penalties can be a pain to calculate, but that would be true in the old system too.
The difference is they aren't dependent on which action you take and when. Other actions may involve different rolls depending if you have already done that action before and/or done it twice before. It adds 2 more levels of complexity.
Without looking back at the above text, in #1 can you do a waznit, a foozle, and another waznit on your turn? In #2, can you do four foozles?
Honestly, neither one. :P
My point was on numbers of actions: they aren't that different. Using multiples of action can both be more or less confusing as I pointed out with attacks: the more actions you have that have some degree of change depending on what you've already done in the round make those actions more complicated.
In essence, my point is that the new way isn't hands down easier IMO. This is because your first foozle is sometimes treated differently that your third foozle even though foozle are meant to be equal units: in essence, it's foozle 1, foozle 2 and foozle 3 and not 3 foozles...
Iterative penalties can be a pain to calculate, but that would be true in the old system too.The difference is they aren't dependent on which action you take and when. Other actions may involve different rolls depending if you have already done that action before and/or done it twice before. It adds 2 more levels of complexity.
Without looking back at the above text, in #1 can you do a waznit, a foozle, and another waznit on your turn? In #2, can you do four foozles?Honestly, neither one. :P
My point was on numbers of actions: they aren't that different. Using multiples of action can both be more or less confusing as I pointed out with attacks: the more actions you have that have some degree of change depending on what you've already done in the round make those actions more complicated.
In essence, my point is that the new way isn't hands down easier IMO. This is because your first foozle is sometimes treated differently that your third foozle even though foozle are meant to be equal units: in essence, it's foozle 1, foozle 2 and foozle 3 and not 3 foozles...
Eh... In the old system, it still depended on what actions you have already taken, it was just those actions had to have all been attacks. And you could further tweak those numbers by power attacking or two weapon fighting.
I don't see how attack, move, attack -5 is any harder than attack, attack -5, attack -10, attack -15. Also, in PF1 you can take a 5 foot step or use a swift action between any of those actions. What you couldn't do was attack, attack -5 move {more than 5 feet.} Why not? Because.
Edit: to clarify, is it that the rules you mention are harder to understand, or the tactical choice of what to do is harder to decide? Because I'll grant the latter is probably the case, but that's a feature not a bug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how attack, move, attack -5 is any harder than attack, attack -5, attack -10, attack -15.
I didn't say it was: I was actually saying it ISN'T as some were saying one was ws much easier than the other.
Also, in PF1 you can take a 5 foot step or use a swift action between any of those actions.
*shrug* We might be able to take 5' steps, reactions and free actions between in the new so I'm not sure we can say anything is different in the new.
Edit: to clarify, is it that the rules you mention are harder to understand, or the tactical choice of what to do is harder to decide? Because I'll grant the latter is probably the case, but that's a feature not a bug.
The point I'm making is that the new way isn't hands down easier to understand/use. I understand both but I can see places where either could give problems to a new person coming in. That and I'm pointing out that the new three action aren't equal: using Mark's words, it's NOT as simple as having "three foozles" as they can be treated differently depending on multiple uses.
I don't see how attack, move, attack -5 is any harder than attack, attack -5, attack -10, attack -15.I didn't say it was: I was actually saying it ISN'T as some were saying one was ws much easier than the other.
Also, in PF1 you can take a 5 foot step or use a swift action between any of those actions.*shrug* We might be able to take 5' steps, reactions and free actions between in the new so I'm not sure we can say anything is different in the new.
Edit: to clarify, is it that the rules you mention are harder to understand, or the tactical choice of what to do is harder to decide? Because I'll grant the latter is probably the case, but that's a feature not a bug.The point I'm making is that the new way isn't hands down easier to understand/use. I understand both but I can see places where either could give problems to a new person coming in. That and I'm pointing out that the new three action aren't equal: using Mark's words, it's NOT as simple as having "three foozles" as they can be treated differently depending on multiple uses.
I think we are talking past each other, so I want to make sure I understand you. You're saying that because different tasks have different action costs, this system is (more or less) a lateral move in terms of how easy it is to understand? Maybe a little easier, but not by very much. Is that your stance? Because I think I can address that, but don't want to if that isn't what you are saying. :)
*shrug* We might be able to take 5' steps, reactions and free actions between in the new so I'm not sure we can say anything is different in the new.
Isn't a "5-foot step" just replaced with the "step" action in PF2? So instead of "5' step and attack" it's "an action to step, an action to strike, and then you have one action left."
You're saying that because different tasks have different action costs, this system is (more or less) a lateral move in terms of how easy it is to understand?
Not just different action costs but identical action get treated differently depending on if you've done the same action already.
Maybe a little easier, but not by very much. Is that your stance?
More or less: it seems different but I can't see that it's easier across the board. Maybe easier to pick up the basic idea but I think the actual in use difficulty is similar.
Because I think I can address that, but don't want to if that isn't what you are saying. :)
Oh, please do. If you think there is something I've miss, let me know.
PS: I should say, I think the new action system looks interesting. I just don't know if it'll be 'better' or 'easier' than the old system, especially without seeing the whole thing in the playtest.
Isn't a "5-foot step" just replaced with the "step" action in PF2?
I don't know, maybe?: that's why I said 'we might be' as I didn't know offhand. It wasn't important enough to try to figure out as either way you could do that action between actions/attacks in either case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're saying that because different tasks have different action costs, this system is (more or less) a lateral move in terms of how easy it is to understand?Not just different action costs but identical action get treated differently depending on if you've done the same action already.
Maybe a little easier, but not by very much. Is that your stance?More or less: it seems different but I can't see that it's easier across the board. Maybe easier to pick up the basic idea but I think the actual in use difficulty is similar.
Because I think I can address that, but don't want to if that isn't what you are saying. :)Oh, please do. If you think there is something I've miss, let me know.
PS: I should say, I think the new action system looks interesting. I just don't know if it'll be 'better' or 'easier' than the old system, especially without seeing the whole thing in the playtest.
Isn't a "5-foot step" just replaced with the "step" action in PF2?I don't know, maybe?: that's why I said 'we might be' as I didn't know offhand. It wasn't important enough to try to figure out as either way you could do that action between actions/attacks in either case.
All right, so I'd like to make a distinction here between "learn" and "use." Learn refers to simply knowing the rules, and being able to understand them. Use gets into territory of understanding strategy. The new rules probably aren't easier to "use" because they allow for as much (and possibly more) strategy and tactics as the old rules. Different actions will yield different results, and sometimes the same action will yield different results.
Where the new system pulls ahead is that it is easier to learn. This is largely a matter of linguistics. If you tell someone "you have 3 actions and one reaction to spend," and then give them a list of ways they can spend those actions, it is pretty easy to understand even if some items on that list cost multiple actions. "This spell costs 2 actions. I have one action left. Therefore, I can't cast the spell again." It is simple addition. People don't need simple addition explained to them. The fact that there may be variable merit to any given action doesn't make the rules harder to learn, it just means there are tactical implications to suss out. It's the difference between knowing the rules of Poker and knowing how to bluff or when, statistically, you should fold.
Now, imagine trying to explain the current system. "So you get a move and a standard. Or you can combine them into a full round action. As a first level fighter you don't really have full round actions yet. Unless you are two weapon fighting. Or want to Run. Or Withdraw. But we will come back to full round actions. Also, there's swift actions and immediate actions, and even though they are completely different you only get one or the other. But both of them can be used with a full round, or a move and a standard. Also there's this thing called a 5 foot step which doesn't take an action and can be done with any combination of the above BUT NOT IF YOU OTHERWISE MOVE. Now, at level 6 you can make do a full round action to attack more than once, as long as you don't move more than 5 feet... "
The second one is MUCH harder. It requires a much longer explanation and doesn't really lend itself to any sort of intuition or universal principles like addition. And that's just learning the rules. It will still have a learning curve for using it and learning the different strategies one can employ.
Let's try an example. Imagine you are child and your parents let you go to the mall. They give you $30 and a $5 dollar Starbucks gift card. You then need to decide how to spend your money. Different things at the mall will have different costs, but they all pull from the same resource pool. They also have different VALUES. If you buy a video game, it might not be wise to buy two more copies of that game, or the game's special edition. (This is analogous to iterative attack penalties.) But as long as the game costs $10 or less, you absolutely can spend your $30 on 3 copies. You easily understand how much money you have, but it doesn't make you a good shopper. Meanwhile, your gift card only works at Starbucks.
Now, in the PF1 economy, you get dropped off at the mall and instead your parents hand you 8 different credit cards. Each card has different rules for where they will allow you to spend them, and how much you can charge on one card varies based on how much you have charged the others. If you use the Visa, you aren't allowed to use the Mastercard. Also, the Discover card is calculated in yen. There's not even a flat cap on what you can purchase-- there's a magic combination of credit cards that gives you up to $50 of spending but only at certain stores. This is waaaaay harder to learn and internalize, because these rules seem arbitrary. And then you still need to decide what to purchase, but in all these weird increments.
The PF2e action economy only has 2 forms of currency. 3 if you count 3. Having different choices on how to spend that currency doesn't make it as complicated as having 8 different forms of currency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All right, so I'd like to make a distinction here between "learn" and "use."
This what I meant when I said "Maybe easier to pick up the basic idea but I think the actual in use difficulty is similar." I agree that the idea of 3 identical actions per round is an easier concept on its face. I just think that once you look 'under the hood', there are a similar number of moving parts: where the old has "rules [that] seem arbitrary" as to action types, the new has similar "rules [that] seem arbitrary" when identical action are adjudicated differently depending on other actions that already happened in the round.
For instance, an attack action in the old always does the same thing while the strike action to hit numbers shift depending on other strikes used in the turn: this can seem as arbitrary as move and standard actions...
The PF2e action economy only has 2 forms of currency. 3 if you count 3. Having different choices on how to spend that currency doesn't make it as complicated as having 8 different forms of currency.
So in essence, I think we're pretty much on the same page, though I disagree on the numbers: Free Actions and Reactions are there, we know some actions are variable and I can't imagine there isn't some kind of no action actions so at BEST it's 5 vs 8 and at worst 7 vs 8 as the three actions aren't equal in practice. As I said it LOOKS easy on its face with just 3 actions per round, but that's not what we have if we look closer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, first, things that cost one to three actions are not different types of currency, they are different amounts of the same currency. So, that really is a reduction to three currencies, even if there are 5 options.
However, that's really secondary. Even if all it did was simplify terminology that would be a huge benefit to new players getting a handle on the system. And that's a very important point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All right, so I'd like to make a distinction here between "learn" and "use."This what I meant when I said "Maybe easier to pick up the basic idea but I think the actual in use difficulty is similar." I agree that the idea of 3 identical actions per round is an easier concept on its face. I just think that once you look 'under the hood', there are a similar number of moving parts: where the old has "rules [that] seem arbitrary" as to action types, the new has similar "rules [that] seem arbitrary" when identical action are adjudicated differently depending on other actions that already happened in the round.
See, I think you are conflating "actions as a currency" with "mechanics controlling a specific action."
For instance, an attack action in the old always does the same thing while the strike action to hit numbers shift depending on other strikes used in the turn: this can seem as arbitrary as move and standard actions...
Yes, iterative attacks will have a penalty. They did in the old system as well, so there's no trade off here. Also, in the old system, the attack action is itself a confusing term when we have various things which count as attacks but don't count as attack actions. And when it came to full attacks, there were all sorts of things that could shift the numbers. Two Weapon Fighting is one out the box-- doing two weapon fighting or flurry at the beginning of your turn applies a penalty to all your attacks on top of the iteratives -5 penalty. Depending on when you decide to Power Attack, it will effect not only your numbers for all subsequent iteratives but any AoOs you make that round. (To be fair, there may be things like this in PF2 we don't know about. But we know Power Attack specifically is much simpler.)
Basically, if the new system removes some arbitrary complexity but is still going to be as confusing in practice, it needs to add arbitrary complexity that wasn't there already. Everything you've pointed to was already there in some form or another.
Also, I'd like to visit your lists:
Standard Actions, Move Actions, Full Round Actions, Free Actions, Swift Actions, Immediate Actions, No Action and Action Type Varies = 8
Let's start here. First off, I don't agree with all your categories. I don't think "no action" should be a thing, or really "action type varies." Neither of these is an actual category. Also, I think the five foot step and attacks of opportunity deserve to be their own category of actions, given So my list would look like:
Standard, Move, Full Round, Free, Swift, Immediate, Five foot steps, AoOs. = 8
And these 8 interactions have all sorts of ways they interact with each other. Not for mechanics doing specific things, mind you, though they have those too. They have these rules just to be able to be taken at all. You can turn your standard into a move but not your move into a standard.
1 action, 2 action, 3 action, free, reaction, no action, action variable = 7. First of all, let's eliminate no action and action variable-- we did it for the above categories, and frankly it seems arbitrary to list "action varies" when we already have that in the form of distinguishing 1 action vs 2 action. AoOs have become a reaction. Five foot steps have become 1 action. Already, we are down to 5 from 8. And then there's the question of whether you should even distinguish between 1 action vs 2 vs 3 as distinct types of action. I would argue you shouldn't. There's a world of difference between telling me somethings cost $1, $2, or $3 and telling me that something costs $1, 46 cents, 3 pounds, or 5 yen. PF2 really only has 3 currencies (action, reaction, free) that you can spend however you want. PF2 has 8 different currencies and random rules for you spend them.
Having different tasks take different amounts of the same action is not analogous to having completely different types of actions. Nor is having having various things which alter specific things you spend your actions on analogous to having completely different types of actions plus having having various things which alter specific things you spend your actions. Even if I have to add penalties from making multiple attacks in a round, each PF2 attack is still just an action. Once I've done two, I can use my third action for whatever the heck I want. In PF1 I get those same penalties for making multiple attacks in the same turn + various other things which provide bonuses and penalties, and then this alters what sort of actions I can even take. Because I attacked twice, I can 5 foot step but can't take a move action. I can still five foot step if I take 3 attacks, or 4. But as soon as I attack more than once I lose my move... Oh but I still have my swift.
Again, tactically, the new system still seems to have plenty of depth. It may be hard to decide what the best combination of these actions is in a given turn. But you had to figure out the best combination of actions in PF1 AND decipher the archaic different action types.
Well, first, things that cost one to three actions are not different types of currency, they are different amounts of the same currency.
It's hard to say that when one of the actions counted against the old way was Action Type Varies: that category isn't a different kind of currency either.
So, that really is a reduction to three currencies, even if there are 5 options.
However, those 3 currencies don't all have the same weight. Spending one action on a specific ability doesn't always produce the same result: so it's not really 3 currencies.
However, that's really secondary. Even if all it did was simplify terminology that would be a huge benefit to new players getting a handle on the system. And that's a very important point.
I would agree if the three actions were actually interchangeable but not all actions are the same. Secondly, I don't think the basic move, standard and full actions where much of a stumbling block, at least not in my experience: what people got hung up on where the fiddly extras like swift/free/immediate but the system keeps free and reactions so there really isn't a gain there IMO.
Boiling it down, as soon as you make a second action that doesn't mirror the first identical action [like strike] the simplicity goes away.
Captain Morgan: While I appreciate the debate, I think we're going in circles. We both seem to have in out heads how we think of the action systems and I don't think further back and forth is going to move either of out opinions without something new added to the mix. I'll pop back in later to see if anything catches my eye but for now I've said my peace and I'd rather not take up more of the thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the difference between:
1) There are quatloos, waznits, bliknorks, foozles, and barloks. On your turn, you can do a quatloo and a waznit, two waznits, or one bliknork, and either way you can do one foozle too, except you can do a barlok at any time and if you do, you can't do a foozle next turn. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
2) On your turn, you have three foozles. Some things might use more than one foozle and will tell you how many foozles. You can also do a barlok at any time. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
Without looking back at the above text, in #1 can you do a waznit, a foozle, and another waznit on your turn? In #2, can you do four foozles?
Can I just say, I hate all these comments that try to paint the current action economy like some archaic, incomprehensible construct that we've struggled against since it's inception. Not just this one, but every time it seems to come up in conversation concerning the second edition playtest, the first edition action economy is always commented on with derision. I can't speak for everybody, obviously, but my first legitimate tabletop roleplaying experiences were with the pathfinder ruleset and the action economy was one of the most intuitive parts of the game. The way the actions fell into heirarchical structure made it simple to understand what actions were what, and how to distinguish between them. I can't recall ever having to reference the rules after first reading them, and the closest I can say that they've ever been a problem at one of my tables is when one of the players forgets that they took an immediate action, so they don't have a swift action this turn. Even then, it's not like the player doesn't know the rule, we just don't have perfect memories.
I'm not even against the new 3 action rules. I can see how changing to a 3 action turn will remove the near absolute reliance on the full-attack action, which in turn will allow for a more mobile, fluid, and likely engaging play experience. Or how it will allow for there to be more meaningful actions to exist in the game other than the attack action, or casting a spell. I was already sold when they hinted just a few different actions that might be available under this system. But every time I hear a comment from someone at paizo these days concerning action economy, it sounds like an infomercial commentary trying to paint the most mundane tasks as herculean in difficulty. It really makes it feel like I'm getting sold a slap-chop, when really all I wanted was a perfectly serviceable knife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect the new action economy to be of no benefit to my group. I don't think it's going to be better for us (We already know the current action economy just fine) and I expect it to come across as different for the sake of fiffrrent. Our feedback will be accordingly, but we will identify as experienced olayers. And if all they get is "meh" from old hands and new players find it really easy then that seems like an easy win.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Action types in 2E vs. 1E: Is it really easier?
Yes. Yes it is.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just say, I hate all these comments that try to paint the current action economy like some archaic, incomprehensible construct that we've struggled against since it's inception.
That was my take on the simplest but complete representation of both systems, but using nonsense words as replacements for the terms we all know, not a parody of any sort or attempt to mock the 3.0/3.5/PF1 action economy.
Here's the direct translation:
There are quatloos, waznits, bliknorks, foozles, and barloks. On your turn, you can do a quatloo and a waznit, two waznits, or one bliknork, and either way you can do one foozle too, except you can do a barlok at any time and if you do, you can't do a foozle next turn. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
becomes
There are standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, and immediate actions. On your turn, you can do a standard action and a move action, two move actions, or one full-round action, and either way you can do one swift action too, except you can do an immediate action at any time and if you do, you can't do a swift action next turn. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
(I held off on talking about not-an-actions, and "1 full round," probably the most complicated parts of the PF1 action economy on which experienced players to get tripped up but that we don't really have in PF2)
The point of the substitution was that without the terms we've learned over time, it seems pretty complicated, and unfortunately in this case it seems that led it to seem like a parody.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the difference between:
1) There are quatloos, waznits, bliknorks, foozles, and barloks. On your turn, you can do a quatloo and a waznit, two waznits, or one bliknork, and either way you can do one foozle too, except you can do a barlok at any time and if you do, you can't do a foozle next turn. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
2) On your turn, you have three foozles. Some things might use more than one foozle and will tell you how many foozles. You can also do a barlok at any time. Also, there's some things you can do for free.
Without looking back at the above text, in #1 can you do a waznit, a foozle, and another waznit on your turn? In #2, can you do four foozles?
Can I just say, I hate all these comments that try to paint the current action economy like some archaic, incomprehensible construct that we've struggled against since it's inception. Not just this one, but every time it seems to come up in conversation concerning the second edition playtest, the first edition action economy is always commented on with derision. I can't speak for everybody, obviously, but my first legitimate tabletop roleplaying experiences were with the pathfinder ruleset and the action economy was one of the most intuitive parts of the game. The way the actions fell into heirarchical structure made it simple to understand what actions were what, and how to distinguish between them. I can't recall ever having to reference the rules after first reading them, and the closest I can say that they've ever been a problem at one of my tables is when one of the players forgets that they took an immediate action, so they don't have a swift action this turn. Even then, it's not like the player doesn't know the rule, we just don't have perfect memories.
I'm not even against the new 3 action rules. I can see how changing to a 3 action turn will remove the near absolute reliance on the full-attack action, which in turn will allow for a more mobile, fluid, and likely engaging play...
Trying to teach the old system makes me think that it's highly unlikely that it's intuitive to anyone other than hardcore gamers. I can lay it out really simply, and people still get it wrong 13 sessions later, even though I explain it at least once a session.
3 actions and a reaction is likely to be WAAAAAY easier. I'll be testing it by having some complete newbs in my playtest games, though.
Also, it's rather telling that absolutely every iteration off of the d20 system uses a simpler/ more straightforward action system than 3.5/PF1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if we are talking about action types i dont know if it has reduced that much, if we are taking about action "currencies" its reduced quite a bit.
The point is that you still have the types move, attack, spell cast, interact. However you have simplified currencies like standard, move, swift, immidiate, free, etc. down to Action, Reaction, Swift, etc. and from here you can make types that cost a X Currency.
Its streamlined, but you have moved the complexity to another stage of your turn, but maybe something more people are familiar with: "Buying your action, with X currency" instead of "Indentify action type, identify situation, select action, execute action".
Ofcourse its a matter of getting used to it, and veteran players might be a bit resistant due to the "investment bias" of the old system and might forget that new players will find it extremly confusing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just say, I hate all these comments that try to paint the current action economy like some archaic, incomprehensible construct that we've struggled against since it's inception.
I mean, they are archaic and built in a way that expanding on them is impossible unless you make up new rules and exceptions every time. I have to admit that most of my gripes come (I assume) from my programming background. It just looks a lot like inexperienced coding, full of special cases and clauses to make sure it doesn't fall apart, instead of being designed with modularity and future-proofing in mind.
I mean, if everything fit neatly into Standard, Move, Full Round, Swift, Immediate or Free and the interactions between the categories were clearly defined it would be great. But that doesn't happen (something being a Move Action has no bearing in whether or not it's compatible with also doing a 5-foot step, for example) and that's where the problems come up. That's why Withdraw has to exist as a proper Full Round Action instead of being something you as a player would naturally do combining different actions together. That's also why Full Attack Actions have to be a thing instead of, for example, allowing characters to do a number of attacks with a cumulative penalty of -5 as long as they don't fall on a negative attack modifier. That's why unlike what most new people I've known assume at first, Vital Strike can't be used as part of a Charge or other Full Round Actions that include an attack (but someone said the other day in this forum that it can be used as part of Full Attacks?).
It's not that the system is literally unworkable. It actually does work fine most of the time despite reading a lot more like legal text than a game subsystem. But its coded in a way that makes it harder to parse, comprehend and build upon than current systems.
I can't recall ever having to reference the rules after first reading them
Lucky you, to this day I still don't know whether standing up from prone and unsheathing can be done as a single action, whether it can be done but takes your whole turn or whether it can't be done at all; unless I cross-reference rules for unsheathing, being knocked prone and standing up, while under PF2 rules I don't need to cross reference anything, I would just know standing up takes one action (or maybe two, if they want it to be more punishing) and unsheathing would cost another action, and that's it.
when one of the players forgets that they took an immediate action, so they don't have a swift action this turn.
I didn't even remember that swift actions and immediate actions were mutually exclusive until I came into this topic, so there's that.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The path beyond is blockaded by an assortment of felled timber. Removing it from the path for your cart to continue will take you some time. The howling from the forest is getting closer..."
"Damn we need to get going, how long will it take us to clear the timber?"
"7 actions total, split between any of you"
This is why I like this. I can just assign any task that is not determined in the rules an arbitrary number of actions. Does not matter what kind. It is a great tool for describing the abstract.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I really enjoy regarding the new action economy - no more searching for ways to fill each action 'slot' and characters classes that can do so better or worse. I don't like it that you can end up with characters that either have little use for Swift actions or have too many things competing for their Swift action. I'm a big fan of system mastery, but I like how this shifts system mastery to the table, instead of your ability to comb through dozens of books.
One of the biggest complications in the current system is Swift Actions. Actions of which you only get one a turn. It disallows an immediate and other actions can't be traded for it like you can with "standard>move". It is really weird.
Unequivocally, I think this new system is easier to use. It is more modular and flexible, as well as eliminating weird interactions between the actions.
An action is an action and a reaction a reaction, instead of "Standard>Move>Free with Immediate/Swift doing their own thing and some actions not fitting anything."
I used to like the PF1 action system. I understood it pretty well, and my only gripe was that it was difficult to explain concisely to new players without an existing board gaming background. I didn't realize how wonky it really is until I saw it side by side with something so much more intuitive to me (PF2). So while PF1 action economy works, it isn't elegant. I strongly prefer when a system is easy to learn and hard to master. Comparatively, I feel like PF1 was easy to master but hard to learn.
SWSE has an interesting economy of: Standard > Move > Swift, you can trade a Standard action for a Move Action, and you can trade a Standard and/or Move action for a Swift action, so you can take 3 Swift Actions on your turn.
I think PF1 would have been a great deal more intuitive if there was the general rule that you could always trade a longer action for a shorter one like that, even if everything else stayed exactly the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe just saying:
"This spell takes 3 actions to cast and requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components"
would be better than:
"This spell takes a Verbal Action, a Somatic Action, and a Material Action to cast."
Especially since if I have my Spell component pouch, can speak freely, and move my hand freely, I can stop reading at "this spell takes 3 actions to cast".
PF1 uses this format:
Components V, S, M
I guess they will use something similar in PF2 - maybe they will add a number at the beginning, maybe not. Personally I'd fine with either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe just saying:
"This spell takes 3 actions to cast and requires Verbal, Somatic, and Material Components"
would be better than:
"This spell takes a Verbal Action, a Somatic Action, and a Material Action to cast."
Especially since if I have my Spell component pouch, can speak freely, and move my hand freely, I can stop reading at "this spell takes 3 actions to cast".
PF1 uses this format:
Components V, S, MI guess they will use something similar in PF2 - maybe they will add a number at the beginning, maybe not. Personally I'd fine with either.
Or it could JUST be 'Actions: V, S, M'.