| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm enjoying the 3 action system so far. There are some things though, like shifting grip, that would feel so much better as a minor action, if:
* Minor actions existed
* Minor actions were limited to 1/turn
Does this fit with others' experience playing? Would it improve the "feel" of play?
D.t
Yes it would. It certainly fits better with Paizo's new philosophy of "everything costs an action" than adding bunch of free ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reactions have replaced the swift action with respect to the resources that compete for them.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
eh...I would rather just have it be a free action, than to start going down the pathway of creating an entirely new type of action that doesn't slot into the three actions and a reaction system. Cleaning up actions is one of the best things about PF 2E.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see them tie this to proficiency, and have free actions that can trigger off things.
If you're trained in the weapon- [F] Trigger: you have two hands on a weapon and attempt an interact action
You may release your grip from your weapon to perform the Interact action and re-grip it after.
There could also be one for reloading weapons, and a feat can increase how quickly you can reload with that action.
I wouldn't mind specific Free actions that trigger off given scenarios.
eh...I would rather just have it be a free action, than to start going down the pathway of creating an entirely new type of action that doesn't slot into the three actions and a reaction system. Cleaning up actions is one of the best things about PF 2E.
I agree.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shifting grip should just be a free action, period, instead of trying to tax players actions for every trivial thing. But if it absolutely has to be limited, say that Expert in a weapon lets you shift grip as a free action 1/turn, Master 2/turn and Legend 3/turn. Then let somatic components be performed with quarterstaves and daggers and other objects that can reasonably be used to point / trace spell runes in the air, so the grip shift doesn't come up as much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it shouldn’t be completely free is that without it there is no differentiation between two handed and one handed weapons for people with nothing in their other hand.
For example, why build a scimitar wielding Magus, when you can have a greatsword weilding one with no downside? - just shift your grip for free when you want to cast spells/strike.
The same applies to anyone else who wants to be able to have a hand free and wield a weapon.
There also doesn't seem to be as much of a benefit for using a 2h weapon anymore. You don't get extra bonus damage from Strength now, and unless you have Fighter or other feats that call for a 2h weapon then all you're getting is a bigger damage die (usually with less properties).
EDIT: Besides, they'll probably make magus abilities require a 1h weapon, just like how Rogue Dex to damage does.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it shouldn’t be completely free is that without it there is no differentiation between two handed and one handed weapons for people with nothing in their other hand.
For example, why build a scimitar wielding Magus, when you can have a greatsword weilding one with no downside? - just shift your grip for free when you want to cast spells/strike.
The same applies to anyone else who wants to be able to have a hand free and wield a weapon.
There also doesn't seem to be as much of a benefit for using a 2h weapon anymore. You don't get extra bonus damage from Strength now, and unless you have Fighter or other feats that call for a 2h weapon then all you're getting is a bigger damage die (usually with less properties).
EDIT: Besides, they'll probably make magus abilities require a 1h weapon, just like how Rogue Dex to damage does.
As a counterpoint, I’d say that weapon damage dice are even more important in PF2e. Remember that magic weapons don’t add static modifiers to damage, but more weapon dice.
A +2 Weapon dealing 3d12 damage as opposed to 3d8 is a noticeable difference. And if you want those d10s or d12s when bringing the pain, then you’ve got to use 2 hands. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that "minor" actions are dead. Its one of the strengths of the system.
The shift grip action is more of a balance thing. Making it a minor action would not address the issues Paizo wants the action to address.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm enjoying the 3 action system so far. There are some things though, like shifting grip, that would feel so much better as a minor action, if:
* Minor actions existed
* Minor actions were limited to 1/turnDoes this fit with others' experience playing? Would it improve the "feel" of play?
The question is "Why?"
There's really no reason for this desire of change unless you really just want to not waste an action just to utilize a two-handed weapon. While a fair claim, I'm of the opinion that this is deliberate design because it helps balance the damage potential of two-handed weapons to make them not so much of a meta choice anymore.
In fact, it's why switch-hitting weapons like Bastard Swords are strong choices for this sort of gameplay. You can wield it as a one-handed D8 weapon with a shield, or you can wield it two-handed as a D12 (should be D10 so as not to overshadow the Greatsword) for the added damage potential, with the option to drop grip (making it still usable as a weapon) and draw out a shield for a more defensive approach.
|
Letting us remove one hand from a two-handed weapon was already a move into the right direction (otherwise dropping the weapon and picking it up again would have been better most of the time which is... not great)
Not sure if you should be able to unlock the ability to change grip as part of something else (like as part of finishing spellcasting), if changing grip should be a free action limited to twice per round or something else.
Right now the current build gives the bastards sword a reason to exist for some classes, if it becomes completely free most people will likely go for a greatsword or a reach weapon.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm REALLY against re-inventing the swift action. Whatever complaints people may have against the playtest's goal of "simplifying for new players," the system of "three types of actions" is a very, very good one. If a player understands, "action, reaction, and free action," then that works. Then, the only thing they need to understand is "what actions are free actions and what actions are reactions", because everything else is an action. Everything. Dismounting, mounting, pulling a weapon, standing up, getting out a torch, lighting that torch (even if it's 3 actions or more), opening a door, pulling a lever, splashing acid in a foe's face, etc. So personally, I can live with "free to drop grip, action to add grip."
I'm happy to agree if something is priced as "too many actions" or "wrong type", but I'm really hesitant for "new types of action."
To keep things in the current framework rather than add more complexity, perhaps Paizo coul d"Shift Grasp" as a standard Reaction triggered by making a Strike or Interact with a 2-handed weapon/object you are currently wielding with one hand.
Other possible Reactions could include might include Raising Shield when drawing a shield, or Load when drawing a crossbow or similar weapon.
This gives players more flexibility. I had one player in the playtest who was using a bastard sword and wanted to switch from two-handed to sword-and-board, which is a interesting tactical decision, but it is cumbersome to do so under the current action economy. (free action one action to draw a shield, one to raise shield, leaves only one action to attack; alternately, one action to stow shield, one to shift to two-handed grip, which again only leaves on action to attack).
Conceptually, this may make sense since you are focusing more on your turn to perform more complex "actions" so you aren't as focused on looking for opportunities to use other "reactions."
I don't mind the idea of letting a player "pre-spend" their reaction to shift grip (which would preclude them from making a AoO, or Nimble Dodge, or w/e) but I think this sort of thing should require some investment.
I don't mind the idea of letting a player "pre-spend" their reaction to shift grip (which would preclude them from making a AoO, or Nimble Dodge, or w/e) but I think this sort of thing should require some investment.
Like a Feat you mean?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind the idea of letting a player "pre-spend" their reaction to shift grip (which would preclude them from making a AoO, or Nimble Dodge, or w/e) but I think this sort of thing should require some investment.Like a Feat you mean?
Class Feat, General Feat, or maybe just something that you need expert proficiency to do.
In general I'd like it if proficiency in weapons and armor had additional benefits besides "the number goes up".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is "Why?"
Because people are having experiences like this:
Every session, multiple times, with nearly every player, I've got to remind them that they can't just draw their weapon for free (for example), it's an action. You can't just get extra actions. It would be unfair to the other players who are sticking to three.
I really like that the three-action economy forces players to pay attention to what's in their hands, but I'm finding that I am *constantly* having to crush what people think they can accomplish on their turn. "No, you can't cast a spell and drink a potion - you had a hammer in that hand. You've got to put it away, get the potion out, and THEN drink it. That's like, a ton of extra actions."
I'm not doing a very good job of explaining, but my point is: It's making me feel like a "strict" game master - constantly telling my players "no" in a way that has been frustrating them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like one mistake is that the description of a bunch of the "primitive actions" like Stride, Strike, Drop etc. are in the back of the book, instead of in the introduction.
And I'd like a one-page reference sheet with all the common actions and their costs. "These are the basic moves everyone is using to play this game", and changing grip would be on there somewhere. Instead of being a surprise to people.
---
I would like to see the return of "draw a weapon while you walk", and that could be extended to "put enough hands on a weapon as you walk".
It means you can cast a 1-action spell, walk up to someone and re-grip your greatsword, and strike.
But if you want to use 2-action spells in combat, you should move to a 1H-weapon. I'm okay with that, 2H weapons should have downsides too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in there for a specific reason: namely to balance casting whilst using a 2-h weapon. I guess you're asking for this change because you're trying to optimise a 2-h weapon using caster?
Meanwhile, having created a very simple 3-action system, adding a 'minor action' would just complicate that all over again. Rather like bonus actions in 'the other game' make things unnecessarily complex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in there for a specific reason: namely to balance casting whilst using a 2-h weapon.
If that's the sole purpose of this system, then we can make up a more targeted rule for that. "You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon and cast a spell that uses your hands in the same round unless you get a feat that says you can."
Then we can make basic item interactions free and focus on more interesting stuff in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Complaints I'm seeing on this fall into two categories:
1) Gripping a weapon takes too much of my turn
2) When I want to do 2-3 minor things, it takes almost my entire turn
What if 'retrive an item', 'stow an item', and 'draw a weapon' and similar were merged into a 'Change Item(s) Held' action that would let you put away something, draw a potion in one hand, and a sword in the other, or any other combination of changing what you're holding, as a single action. This solves 2) in most situations.
Maybe 1) should be solved more directly by letting you go from one to two handed grip as a free action. But I like this as a solution to 2).
The whole point of the new system is to remove the difference between the various types of actions. Reintroducing a "minor action" would be contrary to that design goal.
I like 5E Bonus action...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is "Why?"Because people are having experiences like this:
Every session, multiple times, with nearly every player, I've got to remind them that they can't just draw their weapon for free (for example), it's an action. You can't just get extra actions. It would be unfair to the other players who are sticking to three.
I really like that the three-action economy forces players to pay attention to what's in their hands, but I'm finding that I am *constantly* having to crush what people think they can accomplish on their turn. "No, you can't cast a spell and drink a potion - you had a hammer in that hand. You've got to put it away, get the potion out, and THEN drink it. That's like, a ton of extra actions."
I'm not doing a very good job of explaining, but my point is: It's making me feel like a "strict" game master - constantly telling my players "no" in a way that has been frustrating them.
Back in that thread, even people talking about how they could do less with the new system were even getting wrong the costs they could do things for in PF1. (in PF1, pulling a potion from anything except a Handy Haversack or belt pouch is a Full-Round Action by itself. It's even a move to pull from a bandolier or pouch, and standard to drink, and you couldn't cast a spell and drink a potion then, either, because it's a standard to do both.) in PF1, retrieving a potion, drinking, and casting a spell in worst circumstances will take three rounds, in best circumstances two rounds.
Drawing a weapon for free? Drawing a weapon' not free - it's part of a move action, and STILL TAKES A MOVE ACTION IF YOU AREN'T MOVING (that's the part some people forget). People see the DM allowing them to draw a weapon while advancing on the enemy, and assume it's free. You can't stand up, draw a weapon, and move, because standing up isn't a "regular move" as worded on the actions chart.
To me, PF2 is more intuitive to think about how many actions it will take to do something, because once you know the things that are free and reactions, everything else is an action. I would almost want to say if it's any subject a verb, then it's an action, but I wouldn't go that far:
Draw a weapon? Action.
Stand Up? Action.
Open Door? Action.
Pull lever? Action.
Retrieve a potion from a pack? Action.
Retrieve a potion from a pouch? Action.
Retrieve a potion from your trained blink dog's mouth? Awwww....action.
Drink potion? Action.
Cast a spell? One Action per component. (Different debate on talking while chewing gum for later. Still plainly spelled out.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I wonder is if "drawing a weapon" was no longer a one action "tax" at the start of combat, would this put at a comparative disadvantage the monk who would use that action to enter a stance?
Like the monk needs to wait until level 12 until they can save that action.
I do think it could be reasonable to let the Barbarian draw a weapon as part of raging though.
The question is "Why?"Because people are having experiences like this:
Every session, multiple times, with nearly every player, I've got to remind them that they can't just draw their weapon for free (for example), it's an action. You can't just get extra actions. It would be unfair to the other players who are sticking to three.
I really like that the three-action economy forces players to pay attention to what's in their hands, but I'm finding that I am *constantly* having to crush what people think they can accomplish on their turn. "No, you can't cast a spell and drink a potion - you had a hammer in that hand. You've got to put it away, get the potion out, and THEN drink it. That's like, a ton of extra actions."
I'm not doing a very good job of explaining, but my point is: It's making me feel like a "strict" game master - constantly telling my players "no" in a way that has been frustrating them.
That's a strawman, and the GM didn't offer the alternative of "If you drop your weapon, you could do that" as an option.
It's also something that happens when you have players not familiar with the system. If they don't know what does and doesn't take actions, you can't say it's the GM's fault for enforcing the rules as he's supposed to, that's both childish and not in the spirit of the game. Even then, what is and isn't in your hands has always mattered ever since PF1. All that has changed is that the rules are more restrictive in what you can accomplish in a round, and it's taking backlash because people are so used to a more freeform system, which is not a fault of the base system at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.
Now I want to play as that guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.Now I want to play as that guy.
Agreed. I'd play that character all day. ;)
I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.Now I want to play as that guy.
I wouldn't. Playing as a character who can do everything is a one-man army and not really group friendly. I'd have no reason to be in a party, and there would be no challenge to my character presented, which is what the Pathfinder game is all about; overcoming obstacles as a group. Here, it's trivializing storylines as Rambo. "Cool" as a movie, horrible as a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't. Playing as a character who can do everything is a one-man army and not really group friendly. I'd have no reason to be in a party, and there would be no challenge to my character presented, which is what the Pathfinder game is all about; overcoming obstacles as a group. Here, it's trivializing storylines as Rambo. "Cool" as a movie, horrible as a game.I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.Now I want to play as that guy.
LOL There is one thing you glossed over: no one ever said how GOOD he was at doing any of those things. You assumed he succeeded at all those things while I'd be happy if I could try even if I failed at some or all of the tasks.
I didn't gloss over anything. The idea is that the character is able to do all of these things simultaneously, successful or not, and that's broken beyond all belief.
Even if I somehow did, there are several of those things that don't require success or failure. Casting a fireball doesn't require success or failure, only the ability to do so. Same for drinking a potion. Same for doing cartwheels for AC. Literally, the only thing that is hinged on success or failure is swinging a greatsword, and even then the point wasn't that he was hitting with a greatsword, it was that he was swinging it.
I suppose if you absolutely want to play some 8 armed alien mutant thing with godlike reflexes (I'm fairly certain there's some Marvel or DC superhero that emulates these features that I've read about in the past), sorcerous power, martial capability, and a knack for carrying/creating his own consumables, then it might be a fun system.
Last I checked, though, Pathfinder does not use that as a norm for characters, which means it's hardly a Pathfinder standard.
Agreed. I'd play that character all day. ;)I like that the characters cant swing with their 2 handed sword and cast fireball while simultaneously quaffing a potion and running across the battlefield all while doing cartwheels to get a dodge bonus to AC.Now I want to play as that guy.
Isn't this some sort of PF1 DEX Magus? (Which is to say, all Magi).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to know...is what those folks commenting on the switch hand/draw sword "action tax" want to do with that extra action with their free hand?
I can only assume it is to do something like get in a spell, heal or other type of attack. But I could be completely missing something obvious.
While it is possible a better subset of rules could be created, the inherent purpose is to prevent attacking and casting in the same turn breaking the action economy.
A solition that I see...is you have to make the basic strike action take two actions.
And casting a spell take two actions.
Drink a potion, use an item, open a door, drag the unconscious wizard to safety, give a high five to a deserving friend, etc. etc.
Drink a potion, use an item, open a door, drag the unconscious wizard to safety, give a high five to a deserving friend, etc. etc.What I would like to know...is what those folks commenting on the switch hand/draw sword "action tax" want to do with that extra action with their free hand?
I can only assume it is to do something like get in a spell, heal or other type of attack. But I could be completely missing something obvious.
While it is possible a better subset of rules could be created, the inherent purpose is to prevent attacking and casting in the same turn breaking the action economy.
A solition that I see...is you have to make the basic strike action take two actions.
And casting a spell take two actions.
None of these things have nothing to do with regripping taking an action, because those are actions that are being taken before regripping a weapon, since you need a free hand anyway to do those actions, and dropping grip from a weapon is free to do. In short, these are strawman problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of these things have nothing to do with regripping taking an action, because those are actions that are being taken before regripping a weapon, since you need a free hand anyway to do those actions, and dropping grip from a weapon is free to do. In short, these are strawman problems.Drink a potion, use an item, open a door, drag the unconscious wizard to safety, give a high five to a deserving friend, etc. etc.What I would like to know...is what those folks commenting on the switch hand/draw sword "action tax" want to do with that extra action with their free hand?
I can only assume it is to do something like get in a spell, heal or other type of attack. But I could be completely missing something obvious.
While it is possible a better subset of rules could be created, the inherent purpose is to prevent attacking and casting in the same turn breaking the action economy.
A solition that I see...is you have to make the basic strike action take two actions.
And casting a spell take two actions.
What a bizarre response.
You will still need to spend that action to actually rejoin the fight. You are still paying the "action tax". I am not even saying that I am against the "action tax" per se. I am just saying that there are plenty of things people might want to do with their free hand besides casting spells.
Still a deliberate design choice that makes selecting two handed weapons no longer a no-brainer (because the shields are confusing, easy to lose, and not a great choice of item).
Comparatively speaking, I could just be wielding a Bastard Sword two handed, and even if I drop grip, I can still swing away for D8s, which isn't bad damage if I'm then deciding to use a shield, or drink a potion, or some other form of swinging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of these things have nothing to do with regripping taking an action, because those are actions that are being taken before regripping a weapon, since you need a free hand anyway to do those actions, and dropping grip from a weapon is free to do. In short, these are strawman problems.Drink a potion, use an item, open a door, drag the unconscious wizard to safety, give a high five to a deserving friend, etc. etc.What I would like to know...is what those folks commenting on the switch hand/draw sword "action tax" want to do with that extra action with their free hand?
I can only assume it is to do something like get in a spell, heal or other type of attack. But I could be completely missing something obvious.
While it is possible a better subset of rules could be created, the inherent purpose is to prevent attacking and casting in the same turn breaking the action economy.
A solition that I see...is you have to make the basic strike action take two actions.
And casting a spell take two actions.
What a bizarre response.
You will still need to spend that action to actually rejoin the fight. You are still paying the "action tax". I am not even saying that I am against the "action tax" per se. I am just saying that there are plenty of things people might want to do with their free hand besides casting spells.
While I'm thinking of it, if I had a longsword and shield out, and I wanted to do those actions, wouldn't I similarly have to sheathe or drop one of those, to do one of those actions, and then spend an action to redraw or pick up either item? Comparatively speaking, it's not much different than with a two-handed weapon. It's actually more intrusive, truth be told. So why is it that the Two-Handed Weapons need a special rule again?