| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the issue that "talking" is a free action, but saying the incantations of your spell isn't.
To be fair, this was an issue in PF1e. Okay it wasn't Verbal Components, but instead Power Words. You can monologue for free, but it takes a Standard Action to say the word to activate this item.
Besides immediate reactions and immediate interrupt I never had trouble explaining or grasping the 4e action system. Minor tweaks to PF would bring it in line with that and would thus remove all these big hurdles people seem to have.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the AE a lot more. It is a lot more intuitive than the PF1 economy. Having just inducted a new player into the game I can tell you the current AE is confusing to a new player and I can not tell you how many times weve stopped to go over AoO.
I think 3 actions and a reaction seems far better on the surface.
Also Mark I didnt feel your nonsense work example was a parody, i found it a very neat little demonstration of the difference in complexity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see 2e being simpler than 1e. Its just different.
I might argue 2e's actions are perhaps more coherent, but there are players who are going to get confused with the new rules. I suspect the notion of spending multiple actions on casting spells will be a source of perpetual confusion for some, just like they were perpetually confused by the difference between spells that took a standard action vs a full-round.
Reactions are going to mess with people too. They've grok'd attacks of opportunity, but a big wide world of potentially other ways to "accidentally" provoke some kind of reaction is going to mess with them.
I'm not worried about the folks who take the time to get to know the rules. Its the more casual players at local tables that I think are going to find it confusing.
I don't see 2e being simpler than 1e. Its just different.
I might argue 2e's actions are perhaps more coherent, but there are players who are going to get confused with the new rules. I suspect the notion of spending multiple actions on casting spells will be a source of perpetual confusion for some, just like they were perpetually confused by the difference between spells that took a standard action vs a full-round.
Reactions are going to mess with people too. They've grok'd attacks of opportunity, but a big wide world of potentially other ways to "accidentally" provoke some kind of reaction is going to mess with them.
I'm not worried about the folks who take the time to get to know the rules. Its the more casual players at local tables that I think are going to find it confusing.
I'm currently running a campaign which just switched over to the unchained action economy. I have 3 players who have played in the old system, and 2 that have never played before we made this switch. All sorts of classes are represented; both the old players and the new include at least one full Caster.
No one has had a problem with the new action rules. The casters get that it takes 2 actions to cast their spells or use their hexes or what have you. We haven't even had much issue with corner cases I had to rule on because they fall outside of the patched rules, such as the Unchained Monk's flurry or Spring Attack.
I don't think reactions are going to be a big problem either. You pretty much will be told up front what triggers a creature has if you succeed a knowledge check or whatever, or you won't know and will just have to treat it like it doesn't have a reaction, if ANYTHING can trigger a reaction.
One of the many reasons one of my groups dropped Pathfinder for 5e was the awful action economy. I have 100% confidence that for them, the new system will be better. I'm hoping they'll really like it, because as much as 5E is good, I miss Pathfinder.
I'm currently running a campaign which just switched over to the unchained action economy. I have 3 players who have played in the old system, and 2 that have never played before we made this switch. All sorts of classes are represented; both the old players and the new include at least one full Caster.
No one has had a problem with the new action rules. The casters get that it takes 2 actions to cast their spells or use their hexes or what have you. We haven't even had much issue with corner cases I had to rule on because they fall outside of the patched rules, such as the Unchained Monk's flurry or Spring Attack.
I don't think reactions are going to be a big problem either. You pretty much will be told up front what triggers a creature has if you succeed a knowledge check or whatever, or you won't know and will just have to treat it like it doesn't have a reaction, if ANYTHING can trigger a reaction.
I hope your observations prove true for all.
Can I put a couple of local players into your group to see how they do? I know one that can play about once a month, has trouble with addition, and cannot remember game terms like "standard action", but they're really, really nice.
I'm currently running a campaign which just switched over to the unchained action economy. I have 3 players who have played in the old system, and 2 that have never played before we made this switch. All sorts of classes are represented; both the old players and the new include at least one full Caster.
No one has had a problem with the new action rules. The casters get that it takes 2 actions to cast their spells or use their hexes or what have you. We haven't even had much issue with corner cases I had to rule on because they fall outside of the patched rules, such as the Unchained Monk's flurry or Spring Attack.
I don't think reactions are going to be a big problem either. You pretty much will be told up front what triggers a creature has if you succeed a knowledge check or whatever, or you won't know and will just have to treat it like it doesn't have a reaction, if ANYTHING can trigger a reaction.
I hope your observations prove true for all.
Can I put a couple of local players into your group to see how they do? I know one that can play about once a month, has trouble with addition, and cannot remember game terms like "standard action", but they're really, really nice.
Not sure if that's a serious request, but this is an in person table, and skyping one player in (vs everyone using roll20 or something) works pretty bad in my experience.
Try giving the Unchained action economy a try. It won't make standard addition easier (though PF2 looks like it might) but it does wonders for things like not getting standard actions. There's been a decent amount of thought put into making it work in PF1 even with all the exceptions, and PF2 will be built around it.
Not sure if that's a serious request, but this is an in person table, and skyping one player in (vs everyone using roll20 or something) works pretty bad in my experience.
You're safe, it wasn't a serious request.
|
I like to say that I love the way the new system sounds and have used the new action economy in unchained and think it is a better system. But the one issue I had with the unchained action economy and believe that the new action economy will have is that when the GM has lots of enemies combat can really slow down. I.E one encounter I put my group through with the new system was a vampire who on the 1st round of combat summoned a pack of 8 wolves. The wolves had lots of actions to go through. Each wolf got 3 actions usually move bite bite vs the old system had move bite then just bite ad 5ft movement. Also trips if the bites hit.
So in my estimation the new system while more engaging, fun, and easier to learn (imo) will also be more tactical and more complicated in its execution. (especially at higher levels with more abilities that have different action costs)
Yeah, the decision making itself may be tricky because of tactics, but the rules themselves are pretty simple.
Also Mark I didnt feel your nonsense work example was a parody, i found it a very neat little demonstration of the difference in complexity.
Same here. It's a nice way to demonstrate to folks that are already familiar with a system just how confusing that system can be to an outsider.
Not sure if that's a serious request, but this is an in person table, and skyping one player in (vs everyone using roll20 or something) works pretty bad in my experience.I recently moved away from my usual group, and Skyping actually works pretty well. That's not to say that a VTT wouldn't work better, but Skype at least lets me participate with people I know, otherwise I'd be forced to find something local. (It's an easier sell to my not-exactly-supportive-of-this-hobby wife as well, since I no longer have to leave the house)
I wound up doing the same thing for a long time myself when I moved away. But it is harder to make yourself heard and catch everything happening at the table. Not undoable. I still have a player Skype in every now and then if they can't make it into the city that night.
But I don't think I'd ever try and bring a stranger to the table this way. I'd pretty much only use it for someone I already know where losing them from the game would suck.
Moot point, since it wasn't a serious request, and we are getting pretty off topic. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one thing that could be done with the 2e action economy for the people who aren't the best at keeping track of what they can do in a round is just give them 4 tokens. 3 of one colour for the actions in their regular round and one of a different colour for their reaction.
There they have a visual track of everything. If they cast a one action spell and move then they can see they still have one more act they can use if they wish etc.