The discussion for Paizo Blog: All about Actions was closed at 759 comments, but I have a new comment about the three-action system that I am wild to share.
My players were gathered together yesterday for the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game that my wife runs. During a break (the dogs wanted my wife to walk them), I talked about our schedule for the Paizo Playtest, getting final confirmation from the fifth player for the playtest. I have been sending playtest emails to my potential playtesters, illustrating some of the PF2 concepts with the pregenerated characters previewed at ENWorld. (I posted one message to in Pregen previews over at ENWorld! comment #798). My most recent message described a battle with Merisiel and Valeros on one side and Kyra and Seelah on the other.
He was willing to join in, but was worried about the three-actions per turn system. He said it sounded complicated. He also said that healing sounded important in combat (In my battle example, Kyra had cast Heal at range once and Seelah had laid hands on herself once.)
This player had played Pathfinder 1st Edition for two and a half years and GURPS for three months.
Well, a playtest with only players quick to master new rules, such as my wife, would not be representative of the general public.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm unclear as to the point of your post, as it appears to be "someone who hasn't tried it said that the three action system sounds complicated" and that's absolutely not something worth making a new topic about.
The signal to noise ratio is bad enough in here without needing posts about what one random player thought of a system he hasn't actually read.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Evilgm - and while for some 3a+1r sounds complicated I would guess it is simpler then
"One standard and one move action which you can convert to a full round action and a swift action but not if you have used a reaction action between your turns which might or might not be used by the AoO"
I'm unclear as to the point of your post, as it appears to be "someone who hasn't tried it said that the three action system sounds complicated" and that's absolutely not something worth making a new topic about.
The signal to noise ratio is bad enough in here without needing posts about what one random player thought of a system he hasn't actually read.
Okay, if this thread is not worthy of cluttering up the subforum, how do I erase it?
My point was that Paizo tried hard to simplify the turn system. In the article, they said, "Time and time again, we heard new players talk about the complexity of the action system, how it made the game slow down as players looked to eke the most out of their turns. Basically, the previous system was a barrier, and so it should come as no surprise that we are looking at ways that we can simplify it to make the game run more smoothly and intuitively." Yet even a straight-forward three actions per turn can seem daunting to some players.
We frequent forum participants are masters of the rules. We can discuss fine points, such as how multiclassing could lead to overpowered or underpowered characters. In contrast, more players play at a simpler level. I often forget that myself in my fascination with the mathematical details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand how someone with pathfinder background found the 3 action system complicated. I have 2 players who were unwilling to try pathfinder because it was too much willing to give 2nd edition a shot because of simplicity.
Giving someone an entire page worth of info as a cheat sheet to show what they can do each turn, and thats without feats, was crazy. This system brings in new players easily and allows feats to combine multiple actions into a new activity that overall costs less actions allows customization.
Two people posted while I was off at Sunday worship, so I guess this thread is not dead.
I don't understand how someone with pathfinder background found the 3 action system complicated. I have 2 players who were unwilling to try pathfinder because it was too much willing to give 2nd edition a shot because of simplicity.
I have many players who have system mastery and rules savvy, but I have other players who are average at understanding rules. They learn by watching and doing. As far as I can tell, the PF2 3-action system is simpler than the PF2 move-swift-and-standard action. Yet like UltimateDM, I saw new tactical possibilities in the 3-action system.
A 1st-level turn in Pathfinder 1st Edition is often one move and one attack. If the character draws his sword during his move, it is automatic and barely noticed. In PF2, it would be the move, the attack, and a third action to aid defense or use a power or attack again. The player characters get to show off more at 1st level instead of waiting until they take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat or gain an ability performed via a swift action.
I might have gone overboard in demonstrating this new flexibility in my example combat between Merisiel, Valeros, Kyra, and Seelah. Seelah's first turn had been moving, making a shove, and raising her shield. Her second turn was drawing her sword, making a strike, and laying on hands. All the characters were busy. They often did three tasks a turn and I demonstrated a few reactions, too.
Thus, three actions looked complicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My most recent message described a battle with Merisiel and Valeros on one side and Kyra and Seelah on the other.
Maybe it's just me but I'm finding the following exchange kind of hilarious:
K: I back away.V: Sure, but I'm taking an attack of opportunity.
S: Whoah there, hold on a sec. Not if I stab you first.
Also I guess I can see how it sounds complicated to some PF players, though I suspect this system would be easier to explain to at least one of my 5e players than swift, full round, standard, move action etc. (he frequently forgets how to roll for attack, and "You can do three things, some things count as more than one" seems easier than explaining the different types of action)
My most recent message described a battle with Merisiel and Valeros on one side and Kyra and Seelah on the other.Maybe it's just me but I'm finding the following exchange kind of hilarious:
K: I back away.
V: Sure, but I'm taking an attack of opportunity.
S: Whoah there, hold on a sec. Not if I stab you first.Also I guess I can see how it sounds complicated to some PF players, though I suspect this system would be easier to explain to at least one of my 5e players than swift, full round, standard, move action etc. (he frequently forgets how to roll for attack, and "You can do three things, some things count as more than one" seems easier than explaining the different types of action)
It is not just you. The first two happened, but Seelah had used her reaction on a Shield Block, so she could not react with a Retributive Strike. I considered re-arranging the reactions to make the Retributive Strike possible, but a reaction to a reaction was too much for an easy example battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not just you. The first two happened, but Seelah had used her reaction on a Shield Block, so she could not react with a Retributive Strike. I considered re-arranging the reactions to make the Retributive Strike possible, but a reaction to a reaction was too much for an easy example battle.My most recent message described a battle with Merisiel and Valeros on one side and Kyra and Seelah on the other.Maybe it's just me but I'm finding the following exchange kind of hilarious:
K: I back away.
V: Sure, but I'm taking an attack of opportunity.
S: Whoah there, hold on a sec. Not if I stab you first.Also I guess I can see how it sounds complicated to some PF players, though I suspect this system would be easier to explain to at least one of my 5e players than swift, full round, standard, move action etc. (he frequently forgets how to roll for attack, and "You can do three things, some things count as more than one" seems easier than explaining the different types of action)
Now I'm curious if it could end up going full MtG stack style -it has been suggested that fighters and co can get multi reactions, right?
E.g.
K: I back away.
V: Sure, but I'm taking an attack of opportunity.
S: Whoah there, hold on a sec. Not if I stab you first.
V: Haha, not so fast! I'm going to shield block you.