20 HP, up to 19 AC, defensive reaction! He's very hard to take down.
Good thing he has "Attack of opportunity" to tank with. By the way, the text for this says "move action", huh...
And +6 attack with any weapon and feat to engage from far away! Valeros is gonna be the king of Lv1, he's a lot more deadly than the other characters except maybe Amiri (which we're not getting a preview for)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure the book itself has a slightly more complete version of the mechanic, but I suspect Cantriped is right. That's certainly how the demo games have played it (the demo games, even very recent ones, also had the Shield at Hardness 9, which is why I think that's likely correct).
I'm not aware of any demo games at 1st level that had a Hardness 9 shield in them, though Logan ran a level 5 adventure that conceivably could have had one.
|
I'm sure the book itself has a slightly more complete version of the mechanic, but I suspect Cantriped is right. That's certainly how the demo games have played it (the demo games, even very recent ones, also had the Shield at Hardness 9, which is why I think that's likely correct).I'm not aware of any demo games at 1st level that had a Hardness 9 shield in them, though Logan ran a level 5 adventure that conceivably could have had one.
Good to know. It sounded like they were going with 9 in at least the first Glass Cannon thing, but that might've changed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know. It sounded like they were going with 9 in at least the first Glass Cannon thing, but that might've changed.I'm sure the book itself has a slightly more complete version of the mechanic, but I suspect Cantriped is right. That's certainly how the demo games have played it (the demo games, even very recent ones, also had the Shield at Hardness 9, which is why I think that's likely correct).I'm not aware of any demo games at 1st level that had a Hardness 9 shield in them, though Logan ran a level 5 adventure that conceivably could have had one.
Yeah, I feel that's different from a demo game, and it had a bunch of things off. Honestly, the Glass Cannon guys are amazing to have been able to pick everything up as quickly as they did on short notice (Jason surprised them with the new game), part of me based on demos is happy to think that's partly because we did a good job in making it accessible. Jason knows how to work an audience really well, and one thing is you don't stop the flow to make corrections and pull out the books, so if that podcast said one thing and anything else we posted said something else, odds are on the other post (doesn't mean it's guaranteed though!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just don't use the icons.
20 HP, up to 19 AC, defensive reaction! He's very hard to take down.
Good thing he has "Attack of opportunity" to tank with. By the way, the text for this says "move action", huh...
In theory. In practice, he's got way too many reaction abilities, and not enough reactions. On the other hand, the shield will last maybe a few rounds of combat, and then he's down to AoOs only.
... I think, anyway. It's unclear if a broken shield can still be used as a shield, since there is a bunch of extraneous text about breaking a broken shield, but that only prevents it from being salvaged, not used...
I hate the icons even more now, looking at reactions and trying to decode if they're free actions or reactions (because both look like tiny empty diamonds at the small font at the top edge, and realizing the very, very obvious:
2 Actions: Sudden Charge or Reaction: Reactive Shield is much more clear, and doesn't use significantly more space. It would still fit on the same line. And either the actions or the feat/ability name can be colored, emphasized or otherwise made to stand out.
I really don't understand 'versatile piercing'/ 'versatile slashing.' Why not simply make the damage type slash/pierce? There isn't a loss of clarity and the former takes up way more space.
The text of 'versatile' also makes it unclear if damage type has to be declared at some point, or if it just happens.
Curiosity: why is the shield bash only +4? Is it going off Dex for some reason?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curiosity: why is the shield bash only +4? Is it going off Dex for some reason?
They've mentioned before, unless you buy a Shield Boss or Shield Spikes a shield bash is at -2. Not a problem for dedicated people, but an issue for random shield bashes by those who didn't invest in acquiring such a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand 'versatile piercing'/ 'versatile slashing.' Why not simply make the damage type slash/pierce? There isn't a loss of clarity and the former takes up way more space.
The text of 'versatile' also makes it unclear if damage type has to be declared at some point, or if it just happens.
This is a notation difference to future-proof weapons against all those silly arguements that plagued the Swashbuckler... I hope. It appears to be equivalent to "Slashing or Piercing", but making it clearer which type it primarially counts as for the purpose of Feats, Runes, etc.
I believe you choose when you make the Strike the type of damage it deals (in order to target weaknesses and such).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
20 HP, up to 19 AC, defensive reaction! He's very hard to take down.
Good thing he has "Attack of opportunity" to tank with. By the way, the text for this says "move action", huh...In theory. In practice, he's got way too many reaction abilities, and not enough reactions. On the other hand, the shield will last maybe a few rounds of combat, and then he's down to AoOs only.
... I think, anyway. It's unclear if a broken shield can still be used as a shield, since there is a bunch of extraneous text about breaking a broken shield, but that only prevents it from being salvaged, not used...
The shield will last most combats just fine. Using the shield for DR is an emergency move until you've got an adamantine or indestructible shield. While you have high health, use the reaction to raise the shield for AC. (And do it in response to an enemy attacking, leaving AoO open for as long as possible in case that's a better move.) Then down in single digits, use the third action to raise the shield, leaving the reaction open to reduce damage. That keep you conscious for an extra round, and hopefully buy some time to finish the enemy off or get a heal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for sharing this!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.
Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shield will last most combats just fine. Using the shield for DR is an emergency move until you've got an adamantine or indestructible shield. While you have high health, use the reaction to raise the shield for AC. (And do it in response to an enemy attacking, leaving AoO open for as long as possible in case that's a better move.) Then down in single digits, use the third action to raise the shield, leaving the reaction open to reduce damage. That keep you conscious for an extra round, and hopefully buy some time to finish the enemy off or get a heal.20 HP, up to 19 AC, defensive reaction! He's very hard to take down.
Good thing he has "Attack of opportunity" to tank with. By the way, the text for this says "move action", huh...In theory. In practice, he's got way too many reaction abilities, and not enough reactions. On the other hand, the shield will last maybe a few rounds of combat, and then he's down to AoOs only.
... I think, anyway. It's unclear if a broken shield can still be used as a shield, since there is a bunch of extraneous text about breaking a broken shield, but that only prevents it from being salvaged, not used...
It's also great to keep from being nickled and dimed to death. We know skeletons do a flat d6 damage per attack, for example. Raising your shield and then using shield block when fighting them (or similarly low damage opponents) makes you basically ignore one attack per turn, and usually at no meaningful cost to your shield.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Quid says, shield use is much more situational than I think people are assuming. In the playtest demo I plaed as Valeros, I was often doing the "Sudden Charge & Raise Shield" or "Double Attack & Raise Shield" as my three actions. Usually I delayed my reaction until near the end of the enemy's actions. Up, tanking 3 mobs? Soak the first two mobs' attacks (usually four swings), getting a feel for their accuracy/damage per hit. The +2 AC from the shield alone neutralized a lot of hits without needing to spend the reaction. When the last engaged enemy starts their turn I'd block the first if it hit, knowing that the second would likely only hit on a natural 20.
In a round where an earlier enemy got a crit, used the shield block then and there. (and received a dent).
Using a shield felt like really needing to understand your opponents capabilities:
a) Does the +2 turn you into a nearly unhittable fortress? Don't use the reaction, raise that shield every turn!
b) Are they trying to use movement to their advantage? Save your reaction for the AoO when it matters
c) Do they almost never hit, but when they hit it hurts? Save the reactive block for when you need it,
etc.
It's also great to keep from being nickled and dimed to death. We know skeletons do a flat d6 damage per attack, for example. Raising your shield and then using shield block when fighting them (or similarly low damage opponents) makes you basically ignore one attack per turn, and usually at no meaningful cost to your shield.
Exactly! You're essentially immune to normal hits by daggers and similar weapons, unless magical or wielded with a +2 or more to damage, and even then a lot of the times they'll just slip across your shield. Of course a tactic would be to have you use your reaction for something else and then try to stab you - that'd work better. For instance if a mob of kobolds with daggers surrounds you, you'll be able to block only 1 attack. If you do an AoO against a fleeing wizard, their rogue henchman might want to exploit your opening by stabbing you, just as well.
All this with a very base-quality mundane shield.
Another example is sudden rushing a zombie, and then, since it's got a low ac, trying to finish it off with a second swing. If you fail it could hit you and you would only be able to raise, not to block.
Honestly I hope even people with reading problems can understand the icons for actions and reactions, and personally, I haven't seen a lot of posts about them, but if problems do arise I think it will be feasible to avoid icons in the actual 2e books, or at least try to use clearer ones?
Another option would be to keep the icons and add numbers and letters (A, 2A, R, 3A). It's less snazzy, but it's certainly worth it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?
Umm, it doesn't? Not to me, anyway. I'm actually a big fan of the icon system. I like how neat it is. I will agree with the free action/reaction similarity complaint. That's a little too unclear of a distinction.
Umm, it doesn't? Not to me, anyway. I'm actually a big fan of the icon system. I like how neat it is. I will agree with the free action/reaction similarity complaint. That's a little too unclear of a distinction.Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?
Free action doesn't have thick borders and has something in the middle... I think you'll get used to it in no time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?
One action looks like two actions. A diamond plus a chevron. If this was the only symbol, I could be okay with it.
Two actions look like three. A diamond plus two chevrons.
Three actions presumably looks like four.
If we're just supposed to be counting the chevrons, then the diamond needs to be removed.
My entire playgroup agrees with me on this.
And the free action symbol I'm okay with, but a number of my playgroup think it looks too filled in to be free.
Regardless, there's enough issue with these icons that even if the icons stay they really need to spell it out as well.
Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?One action looks like two actions. A diamond plus a chevron. If this was the only symbol, I could be okay with it.
Two actions look like three. A diamond plus two chevrons.
Three actions presumably looks like four.
If we're just supposed to be counting the chevrons, then the diamond needs to be removed.
My entire playgroup agrees with me on this.
And the free action symbol I'm okay with, but a number of my playgroup think it looks too filled in to be free.
Regardless, there's enough issue with these icons that even if the icons stay they really need to spell it out as well.
I don’t think they will need to speculate about what issues the icons have. I’m sure that there will be questions in the surveys asking about the presentation and aescetics in general and the action icons specifically. If 90%+ of the player base either likes the icons or is otherwise indifferent, as I suspect, then they probably won’t need to make any changes to the icons at all. That is the great thing about collecting data. They won’t accidentally focus their resources on those things that don’t actually require altering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to Kyra: this pregen is probably fine for an hour-long delve event, but for a more generic pregen, I'd like to see a quick run down of the patron diety's anathema.
I read the one-action icon as a tile (or like a coin), and the two- and three-action icons as stacks of two and three tiles respectively. I do hope that in the PDFs the icons hide a searchable proxy; such as [A], [AA], [AAA], [F], and [R].
It's really easy to count the number of points on the top/bottom of a multiple action icon. Two points is two actions, three points is three actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to Kyra: this pregen is probably fine for an hour-long delve event, but for a more generic pregen, I'd like to see a quick run down of the patron diety's anathema.
The 3rd level playtest pregen I played, had the patron's diety's anathema listed on the second page. Aspects of which came up once, in a slightly useful RP perspective, but non-intrusive into plot progression/other character agency.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me or do the icons for "reaction" and "free action" look way too similar? Contextually it's easy to tell those apart, but at a glance that one looks likely to be a problem for me.
Like Quid says, shield use is much more situational than I think people are assuming. In the playtest demo I plaed as Valeros, I was often doing the "Sudden Charge & Raise Shield" or "Double Attack & Raise Shield" as my three actions. Usually I delayed my reaction until near the end of the enemy's actions. Up, tanking 3 mobs? Soak the first two mobs' attacks (usually four swings), getting a feel for their accuracy/damage per hit. The +2 AC from the shield alone neutralized a lot of hits without needing to spend the reaction. When the last engaged enemy starts their turn I'd block the first if it hit, knowing that the second would likely only hit on a natural 20.
In a round where an earlier enemy got a crit, used the shield block then and there. (and received a dent).
Using a shield felt like really needing to understand your opponents capabilities:
a) Does the +2 turn you into a nearly unhittable fortress? Don't use the reaction, raise that shield every turn!
b) Are they trying to use movement to their advantage? Save your reaction for the AoO when it matters
c) Do they almost never hit, but when they hit it hurts? Save the reactive block for when you need it,
etc.
Does the Raise Shield reaction leave the shield up against all attacks or does it just apply to the attack that triggered it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'll get used to [the icons] in no time.
I don't want to. The icons are not clearer than words and add no value to my RPG experience. As a player I won't have to. As a GM it's going to annoy me every single time I'm required to look at a stat block.
My enthusiasm level has waned considerably with the fighter preview. There's some good (melee basic attacks still exist and are the fighter's bread and butter), there's some bad (icons, jargon like stride) and there's a lot of "meh" (shield stuff, athletics feat).
Given we are getting such a big overhaul of the system and such a dramatic change to how everything works, I was expecting characters to have more exciting things about them. Instead we've gotten an overhauled system that aesthetically looks very different, for what is ultimately a very similar experience.
At this point I either want Paizo to full on lean into 4th ed and make a complete break of 3.5e or stop putting aesthetic elements of 4th ed into PF2e. As it is there are some significant barriers of entry for my group that in no way change or improve PF2e over PF1e.
|
|
Ugh, those action icons. The two-action icon looks like it means 3 actions. Being a Diamond+Chevron for a single action is okay as long as its just the single action symbol. As soon as more chevrons are added on it looks like it takes more actions than it does. Please spell out the number of actions taken as well.Why does it look like the two-action symbol is three actions?One action looks like two actions. A diamond plus a chevron. If this was the only symbol, I could be okay with it.
Two actions look like three. A diamond plus two chevrons.
Three actions presumably looks like four.
If we're just supposed to be counting the chevrons, then the diamond needs to be removed.
So you see a diamond and a chevron. I see a larger diamond with a line through it. Two and three action symbols look more like overlapping diamonds.
Especially from arms length, it is easier to see the symbol as a larger shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Stride is clearer than move as a move action. You know what's even clearer though? "You can move as an action". Removing the classifications of standard, move, swift, interrupt (special kind of swift), free action, 5 ft step (special kind of free action) and full attack can be an improvement by removing jargon and making things easier to understand. But replacing one set of jargon with another set of jargon isn't an improvement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Joy, another thread starting to be taken over by icon preference.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Stride is clearer than move as a move action. You know what's even clearer though? "You can move as an action". Removing the classifications of standard, move, swift, interrupt (special kind of swift), free action, 5 ft step (special kind of free action) and full attack can be an improvement by removing jargon and making things easier to understand. But replacing one set of jargon with another set of jargon isn't an improvement.
Yes, you can move as an action. What about abilities that trigger off movement?
"When you move, you may...""When you spend an action to move, you may..."
"When you move your speed, you may..."
None of those are as clear and distinct as "When you take a Stride action". Using undefined language such as "move" just opens questions about what movements count. Jumping? Levitating? Falling? Bull Rushing? Charging? Using the Stride term leaves no doubt which of those apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Stride is clearer than move as a move action. You know what's even clearer though? "You can move as an action". Removing the classifications of standard, move, swift, interrupt (special kind of swift), free action, 5 ft step (special kind of free action) and full attack can be an improvement by removing jargon and making things easier to understand. But replacing one set of jargon with another set of jargon isn't an improvement.
A 5 ft step is a move, isn't it? As is a bull rush. As is being forcibly moved by a bull rush. All trigger a thing triggered "when you move".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll wait and see if any of these cases do come up. If you are both right it looks like it will be clear as mud. If we have feats largely being distinct and not stacking (which is what I expect will be the case) stride provides no benefit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Stride is clearer than move as a move action. You know what's even clearer though? "You can move as an action". Removing the classifications of standard, move, swift, interrupt (special kind of swift), free action, 5 ft step (special kind of free action) and full attack can be an improvement by removing jargon and making things easier to understand. But replacing one set of jargon with another set of jargon isn't an improvement.A 5 ft step is a move, isn't it? As is a bull rush. As is being forcibly moved by a bull rush. All trigger a thing triggered "when you move".
What's being left out is that of this discussion is that specific actions have the "Move" trait tagging them for this just this kind of trigger (in this case calling it "a move action"). Note that Sudden Charge has the Move trait, so it will clearly trigger Attack of Opportunity. I'm guessing the Step action has a specific exception worded in its rules about not triggering reactions (or somehow doesn't carry the Move trait, which would be the weirder option).
People keep getting hung up on all these "types" of actions without realizing it wasn't just about the number of words. In PF1 the action types enforced a rigid hierarchy of action subtypes that was confusing to figure out what you could do. Trying to move 5', open a door, and then walk through it wasn't possible. This was because 5' steps weren't an action (though you could do them before an action if you weren't otherwise moving that turn), and the move action was opening the door, but even though you have a standard action left you can't use it to move because otherwise you wouldn't have had the 5' step you used at the beginning of your turn. That's weird and confusing and came up as recently as last week for me with players who know the system decently well. They'd just Stride (or Step, honestly it wouldn't matter either way in this particular example), Interact (or whatever the action is actually named, I'll learn it but it mostly doesn't matter for the example because the name/traits only are relevant if it would affect a potential trigger), then another Stride. It's a full turn, but it's just counting three actions.
Really, John's point that "a move action" is an action where you move is exactly what the trait system allows you to formally distinguish in a way that is simple and scalable beyond the obvious. What's an "Emotion" action? I don't know, but apparently the badger animal companion's "Badger Rage" counts. Could there be a bard calming spell that prevents emotion actions? Who knows, but I'd know if it worked on badgers.
Now with more formal action names and traits it should be consistently much more straightforward, even in edge cases like Haste's restrictive extra action. Haste calls out specific actions by name, but you can imagine something like Invisibility saying that an "attack action" ends the spell and then you can see that Sudden Charge (or, more realistically, some less obviously offensive action) has the attack trait, so it definitely ends it. That's cool.
I'm not sure if they should always have trait words be capitalized and/or italicized or something to make it clear that they're talking about a trait. As has been noted, they've specifically chosen to retain the ability to keep "natural" language in the writing, and I understand that objective. I'd lean toward clearly formatting traits through italics or capitalization (kinda like they already do using lowercase italics for spells, so they'd probably have to capitalize it or add bold or something), but it would certainly make the game rules seem more like game rules which clearly bothers some people.
What's being left out is that of this discussion is that specific actions have the "Move" trait tagging them for this just this kind of trigger (in this case calling it "a move action"). Note that Sudden Charge has the Move trait, so it will clearly trigger Attack of Opportunity. I'm guessing the Step action has a specific exception worded in its rules about not triggering reactions (or somehow doesn't carry the Move trait, which would be the weirder option).Sure. Stride is clearer than move as a move action. You know what's even clearer though? "You can move as an action". Removing the classifications of standard, move, swift, interrupt (special kind of swift), free action, 5 ft step (special kind of free action) and full attack can be an improvement by removing jargon and making things easier to understand. But replacing one set of jargon with another set of jargon isn't an improvement.A 5 ft step is a move, isn't it? As is a bull rush. As is being forcibly moved by a bull rush. All trigger a thing triggered "when you move".
An interesting thing that I note is that Stride also specifically is separate from Burrow, Climb, Fly, or Swim. So I suspect that things without the Move trait won't be able to be used in combination with the alternate means of movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's being left out is that of this discussion is that specific actions have the "Move" trait tagging them for this just this kind of trigger (in this case calling it "a move action"). Note that Sudden Charge has the Move trait, so it will clearly trigger Attack of Opportunity. I'm guessing the Step action has a specific exception worded in its rules about not triggering reactions (or somehow doesn't carry the Move trait, which would be the weirder option).
Yeah. I still remain unconvinced that all these keywords on powers are going to make the game enjoyable for my group. At the moment all they're doing is inducing flashbacks to 2008 and not actually helping with any clarity. I'm waiting until we see them with their full effect before saying they're not good for my group's enjoyment of the game.
People keep getting hung up on all these "types" of actions without realizing it wasn't just about the number of words. In PF1 the action types enforced a rigid hierarchy of action subtypes that was confusing to figure out what you could do. Trying to move 5', open a door, and then walk through it wasn't possible. This was because 5' steps weren't an action (though you could do them before an action if you weren't otherwise moving that turn), and the move action was opening the door, but even though you have a standard action left you can't use it to move because otherwise you wouldn't have had the 5' step you used at the beginning of your turn. That's weird and confusing and came up as recently as last week for me with players who know the system decently well.
Not liking what we know of the new system doesn't mean we're saying the old system was better. I'm most definitely not saying that. What I'm saying is the new system isn't better at this time with the current information we have (which would make it equally bad or equally good as the PF1e system).
They'd just Stride (or Step, honestly it wouldn't matter either way in this particular example), Interact (or whatever the action is actually named, I'll learn it but it mostly doesn't matter for the example because the name/traits only are relevant if it would affect a potential trigger), then another Stride. It's a full turn, but it's just counting three actions
Or they could just do the following: Spend an action and move 5 feet. Spend an action to open the door and then finally spend an action to move their base speed again. That to me is a hundred times clearer than "I Step to the door. I Interact with the door to open it. I then Stride through the door."
It's not the mechanics I have an issue with (for this complaint at least). It's the expression of those mechanics. With the current system I'm not seeing improvements over PF1e except you get 3 action instead of 2 and everything that use to be swift is now equal to a move or attack.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or they could just do the following: Spend an action and move 5 feet. Spend an action to open the door and then finally spend an action to move their base speed again. That to me is a hundred times clearer than "I Step to the door. I Interact with the door to open it. I then Stride through the door."
I find the latter much clearer, personally. I might not actually say it, but in writing? It's much more clear and precise in regards to its meaning, which is a great virtue in rules text.
Also, and more importantly than which is clearer to individual people, a factor that will vary widely, is that it makes them almost infinitely clearer mechanically.
Having actual named actions allows for the kind of clarity in mechanical interactions that short circuits the vast majority of weird and confusing rules arguments in regards to things like what type of actions count as movement and the like, as well as saving huge amounts of word count regarding what actions are or can be effected by other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Stride" is way better than "a move action to move".
Like once there are lots of ways to move, you want a term for the "conventional kind, with your legs or leg analogues" and "stride" is as good as any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the latter much clearer, personally.
Some people jive jargon really good and embrace it and internalise it instantly. Other people prefer to avoid jargon as much as possible (I've never seen anyone argue more jargon makes things clearer. But we'll see if the end result is a clearer ruleset that's easier to grasp. Good news is they've dialed the jargon to 11 from everything we've seen).
Having actual named actions allows for the kind of clarity in mechanical interactions that short circuits the vast majority of weird and confusing rules arguments in regards to things like what type of actions count as movement and the like, as well as saving huge amounts of word count regarding what actions are or can be effected by other things.
Does it? We've seen class talents renamed to feats because naming everything the same helps with clarity. We've also removed action types for specific actions because naming everything the same helps with clarity. Except for actions where things like interact action interaction is seen as clear cut while "move" is seen as complicated. I don't get it myself. Hopefully everything just clicks when I see the entire rules.
"Stride" is way better than "a move action to move".
If all we had was stride, then sure. Except it isn't. Stride is only one of many new technical terms players will be forced to learn with the new rules.
Moving from 4th ed to Pathfinder wasn't that hard. Swift action = minor action. Move action = move action. Standard action = Standard action. Immediate actions were a bit funny as were full attacks which basically used up both your standard and move. Moving from PF to AD&D 2nd edition wasn't too difficult either. Nor was moving from 2nd edition to 5th edition (where move actions were removed and replaced with a move budget and minor actions were renamed bonus actions).
Overall the transition between editions has been relatively easy. Now we have emotion actions (is it no longer a free action to cry?) and all sorts of words being thrown around. The transition doesn't look so easy. We will wait and see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Case in point as recently as last year. Starfinder did not appropriately establish language and rules interactions as PF2 seems to be doing. On release there were arguements almost straight away about things like forced movement triggering Attack of Opportunity or not.
1) It's pretty easy to add a rule that forced movement does or does not provoke AoO. 2) I love how you think there isn't going to be equally heated arguments over similar things in PF2e.
PF1 (and 3.x) are games that are incredibly hard to learn because most of it is exception based.
PF2e seems to be going down the route that 4th ed went down when it comes to clarity (in my 4th ed entire group I was the only one who understood the rules 100% and even I would say "I can't be bothered remembering. Just make a decision" for some things). I cannot say I've found 4th ed to be particularly easy to teach to brand new players compared with Pathfinder. We'll see how PF2e fares. But I do expect as someone transferring from one edition to another to struggle. So it would have to be sufficiently easier for new players to justify it. Either the rules are going to be so segregated that nothing interacts (the route I expect Paizo to go) or so complicated any possible ease of use will be lost due to the way the rules are presented. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I cannot say I've found 4th ed to be particularly easy to teach to brand new players compared with Pathfinder. We'll see how PF2e fares. But I do expect as someone transferring from one edition to another to struggle. So it would have to be sufficiently easier for new players to justify it. Either the rules are going to be so segregated that nothing interacts (the route I expect Paizo to go) or so complicated any possible ease of use will be lost due to the way the rules are presented. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I can definitely see there being issues for some people switching to PF2 after years of PF1 rules, but I can get back to you about my group that I'm planning to switch over from 5e the moment the current campaign ends. I this will be the second actual campaign ever most of my players (3-4 out of 5, and we might be getting a 6th who hasn't really played much before) have been in so I think it should be an interesting test for relatively new people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think that switching from PF1 to PF2 is going to be easier than switching from D&D3.5 to PF1 was.
PF2 is less compatible with PF1 so you don't take things for granted the way you did with 3.5->PF1
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
